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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

There are 11 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-18. The motions will be grouped for debate as follows: Group No. 1 will include Motions Nos. 1 to 6; Group No. 2 will include Motions Nos. 7 to 11.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

Motions in Amendment

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved:

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

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

moved:

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved:

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Madam Speaker, I thank my seconder, the member for Sudbury, for reinforcing our opposition to this bill and helping us to move these amendments. I also want to recognize and extend my gratitude to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for doing her part to try to correct what we believe is an extremely flawed and even, may I say, dangerous piece of legislation.

I will begin my remarks by saying that I believe the entire process and the federal government's treatment of this bill has been a sham and a travesty from the word go. We are of the view that the fast-tracking of this bill does a disservice and an injustice to the very prairie farm producers whose livelihoods would be dramatically affected and impacted by this bill.

The public should know, if they are not already aware, that the extreme fast-tracking of this bill resulted in only two committee hearings of four hours each where not a single farmer was heard. There was no consultation, no co-operation, no accommodation of the reasonable concerns that have been brought forward by producers, farm organizations and people in the rural areas who would be affected by the loss of their shortline railways, the producer cars, and all the thousands of things that are impacted by abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board. None of them have been given voice and none of them have had the opportunity to be heard in the context of this debate.

I would caution the government that, when it does this habitually, this chronic, habitual abuse of parliamentary procedure, it threatens to undermine the very integrity of our parliamentary democracy. I have been here 14 years and I have never seen anything like it in my life. The government has lowered the bar and I am concerned that it is doing irreversible damage to the integrity of our parliamentary institutions.

I would remind the government that good governance is a fundamental prerequisite for prosperity. The government thinks that its ideas have primacy over all other Canadians' ideas, that no other voices need to be heard as it implements its agenda. It has a legitimate right to put forward legislation but it does not have a right to undermine, sabotage, diminish and erode the fragile construct that is the Canadian Parliament.

That is the frustration that we have on the opposition benches. The Conservatives represent a majority in the House of Commons but they do not represent a majority of Canadians. How can they be so arrogant as to assume that the other 60% of Canadians who did not vote for them and who maybe do not support their agenda do not have a right to be heard?

No one has a monopoly on good ideas. Canada in itself is a fragile construct. The Parliament of Canada is a manifestation of that co-operation that keeps this fragile federation together. The government is chipping away and eroding, and I honestly do not even think it realizes the damage it is doing.

I will move to the motions that we have put forward today seeking to ameliorate and mitigate some of the impact of this bill. I will say from the beginning that I am sick and tired of the cutesy names that the government is inventing for all of its pieces of legislation. This bill is not about marketing freedom. It is about the freedom to sell grain for less.

With every one of its bills, the government makes up some editorialized comment and tries to put it off as the actual name of the bill. The real name of this bill is an act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board, but I believe it is an act to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board. Step by step, incrementally, the government is on this ideological crusade to abolish what we believe is a great Canadian institution, and one of those manifestations of a unique Canadian co-operation that is acting in the best interests of the producer instead of in the best interests of the big agrifood giants that will be the beneficiaries of this huge transfer of wealth.

The one thing we know about this bill is that it would take hundreds of millions of dollars out of the pockets of prairie farmers and put it into the pockets of the shareholders of the big agricorp and agrifood conglomerate giants that have been salivating over this market share ever since the Wheat Board was first created.

It is no surprise that Brian Mulroney is on the board of directors of Archer Daniels Midland, one of the big three that will gobble up this market share. He billed $650,000 worth of billings in the last two years alone as a member of the board of directors. People do not get that kind of money just for attending board meetings. They get that kind of money for using their influence to push the government into something that is not in the best interests of farmers. It is in the best interests of a very special privileged few, and that is the Cargills, Viterra and the other agrifood giants.

An example of how the Conservatives are trampling on the democratic rights of prairie farmers and denying them the right to vote is that, by virtue of this bill, they will fire all 15 members of the board of directors, 10 of whom were elected by prairie farmers, and replace them with a board of four members appointed by the government. It is a $6 billion a year corporation, one of the largest and most successful grain marketing companies in the world, and the Conservatives will appoint four of their stooges. I presume they have picked them out already. They are probably some failed Conservative candidates or some bagmen who did yeoman's due service to the political party of their choice--

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While I am sure that some will appreciate the theatrics of the hon. member's speech, referring to Canadians, who he does not even know, as “stooges”, I find most offensive and he should apologize for that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I thank the member for his comment. I have not heard a personal attack directed to a specific person. It perhaps is not a very nice comment but I would not consider it unparliamentary in the context here that it is being raised.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the first amendment that you read out today, seconded by my colleague from Sudbury, would delete clause 2, which proposes to reduce the board of directors from 15 down to 5, which would include a chairperson and a president. We think it is ridiculous. It is an appalling notion and we seek the support of all members of Parliament. If they have any kind of a commitment to good corporate governance, surely they would agree that the duly elected board members, elected by prairies farmers in the 10 districts, would be the better stewards of the Canadian Wheat Board in whatever manifestation is left after the bill undermines and guts it.

Clause 3, the second amendment we have put forward, is in a similar vein. It would delete clause 3 because it is undemocratic to change this. It would leave no direct input and say from prairie farmers into the operations of what remains as the shell of the Canadian Wheat Board.

I appreciate my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands participating in this debate today and moving meaningful, reasoned amendments. We encourage the Conservatives to at least entertain the fact that these are coming from a representative group that is larger than the group that they claim to represent. There are 60% of Canadians represented by the opposition members here. They did not vote for the Conservative Party. For the Conservatives to claim that the May 2, 2011, election gave them a mandate to run roughshod over democratic process and parliamentary procedure by fast-tracking the bill and denying the right of legitimate voices to be heard is, in and of itself, a travesty.

There is a reason that corrupt nations are poor. We should take a moment and reflect on some of the consequences of allowing our institutions to be eroded. I recently read a book by a former Liberal member of Parliament, Roy Cullen, called The Poverty of Corrupt Nations. It is hard to say which came first, if they are poor because they are corrupt or if they are corrupt because they are poor, but the two are inexorably linked. The Conservatives are taking us down a road where we are undermining not only our democratic institutions but the integrity of our Canadian democracy.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I did enjoy the member's remarks because I believe they are right on the money. He said in his earlier remarks that the government is threatening, with this action, the integrity of parliamentary institutions. The government has not threatened. It has hurt the integrity of this parliamentary institution because it went with a steamroller over section 47.1 of the current act and taken away farmers' right to vote in a legitimate plebiscite as it suggests in the act. The government has not only taken away farmers' votes, by the way it has handled committee as the member very well explained, but it has taken away farmers' voices.

Now we are finding out that the government, through executive order, and it has come out in the Gazette, is not only taking away farmers' votes and voices but it is now picking farmers' pockets by using their money in the contingency fund to offer a cushion for the new board. What does the member have to say about that?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Malpeque for his long-standing advocacy to stand up for the Canadian Wheat Board. It is time for all friends of the Canadian Wheat Board to stand up and make their views known because with a majority in the House of Commons and a majority in the Senate, it is going to fall to civil society to put some constraints on the government, from the absolute power it seems to be revelling in as we speak.

However, I agree with my colleague that it is offensive to the sensibilities of any person who calls himself or herself a democrat to observe what is taking place here, in denying farmers the direction and control over their own institution, and the pot of money now that the government seems to be grabbing and clawing back.

This institution was set up as essentially a big co-op, a co-operative to act in the best interests of prairie producers, to protect itself from the historic gouging of the robber barons, the rail barons and the great grain barons—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. There are many members standing up, so I would like to give the opportunity for a couple of other questions.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask this member a question. I did notice he talked about robber barons and I know he is doing the movember thing. I have to tell him that his moustache looks quite the part as far as robber barons go. I do like the member. When we have the opportunity to speak, it is quite interesting.

However, I know he spends a lot of time on Salt Spring Island and I know there are not a lot of wheat farmers there. I know there are not a lot of wheat farmers in downtown Winnipeg. I do know there are a lot of wheat farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and across the country who are represented by Conservatives. Most rural ridings that actually do grow wheat and actually have constituents in them that are farmers are represented by Conservatives. I know that and most people in Canada know that.

A survey was done of the younger generation of farmers. Because they are the future, 76% of that younger generation said they wanted something other than a monopoly. I want the member to answer this question. Why are the younger farmers saying, “Let's have something other than a monopoly”? Yet, the NDP and the Liberals are saying, “No, we want to violate what young farmers want”. How does the member respond to that?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise a point that I meant to get to. I have heard from hundreds of prairie farmers from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, many of whom said that they voted for the Conservative Party, but they did so with the knowledge that they were promised they would have a vote before anything happened to their Canadian Wheat Board.

Whether they voted for the Conservatives because of the gun registry or any number of other virtues and merits that were offered them by the Conservatives, they thought they were going to get to vote on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. The government lied to prairie farmers to their face. We have it on record. We have the minister on record stating clearly that farmers would get to vote, that he believes in democracy. The Conservatives ignored all that and they are steamrolling this bill.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that it is unparliamentary in this place to accuse anyone, any individual, or any party of lying. That is what the member just did. I demand he withdraw that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. What the member for Winnipeg Centre said is in fact true. The minister did, and I can find the quote if we have to find it, promise farmers a vote. He said that he believes in democracy.

Then, when it comes to introducing this bill, he is claiming that the vote was the election. That is not what he told farmers. I met with quite a number of young farmers in this town yesterday. They believed the minister. What the member for Winnipeg Centre is saying is the truth. The minister lied to those farmers.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

On the same point of order, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

I am coming very close to offer a decision, unless there is a new point to bring forward.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, clearly, that is unparliamentary. The member knows better than that. Also, he represents absolutely zero western farmers because he is from P.E.I. I do not even know why he is trying to represent farmers. I do not know why the other member from Winnipeg is trying to represent farmers. Neither of them represent farmers.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

On the same point of order? Is there a new fact being brought forward by the hon. member for Nickel Belt?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Yes, Madam Speaker. I want to inform the House that as hon. members we were elected to represent all Canadians, not just a fraction of Canadians. For the government side to accuse our member of lying when, Wednesday, these same members accused us of being traitors is highly hypocritical.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

On the same point of order? Is there a new fact being raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to build on that point, if I could. There is one member of Parliament in Atlantic Canada who does not have a fishing wharf in his riding, and the government made him the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. How can he represent fishermen with no fishermen in downtown Fredericton?

To say that members in this House who do not have wheat farmers cannot speak on behalf of wheat farmers is asinine. I would like to add that to the point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

On the points of order that have been raised by various members, I thank them for their comments because it is well-known that any language that causes disorder in the House is unparliamentary.

I would ask all members of Parliament to moderate their language. Usually, when language is used, where an attack is made against one person, one minister, it is definitely considered unparliamentary. I would certainly ask that members who have made a personal attack on one minister to withdraw it.

However, I am going to, at this moment, ask all members to remember that this is a strong debate where there are equally strong differences in opinion and to be respectful in their criticisms of the actions of both government and the opposition. I will leave it at that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for seconding my amendments. I am also proud to have seconded his.

As we begin this discussion over the next 10 minutes of my portion of the debate, I want to concentrate on what our amendments are actually about and then address the larger issue of why I personally, as the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands where we actually do have some wheat farmers, very small levels of crops at this point, but there are people in Saanich—Gulf Islands--

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

How many under the Wheat Board?

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

I am sorry, I am unable to answer the hon. minister across the way as I explain our amendments.

We have put forward amendments to Bill C-18 that deal very specifically with changes to the sections of the bill that relate to the election of the board of directors.

It has been part of the Wheat Board ever since it was created in 1935 that the members of the Wheat Board's board of directors were primarily elected by farmers. It has been a 15 member board of directors, 10 board members elected by farmers, who themselves then are represented in a single desk marketing system, which is of course to the benefit of farmers, and that is why they were electing their board of directors.

The amendments we are putting forward at report stage of Bill C-18 are to revert control over the board of directors to the Canadian Wheat Board in whatever new position it is able to exert itself after passage of this legislation in order to ensure that it has representation elected by farmers.

The bill, as currently drafted, would eliminate board members elected by farmers and move to a five person board, all appointed through the governor in council, and of course the governor in council is essentially the cabinet, so it would remove the democratically elected portion of the board of directors, and that is a very serious matter.

I would love to take the temperature down on this matter this morning in the House. It is not an issue which is often debated in the House where it is somehow freedom versus oppression, or that there is this dreadful oppression from the Wheat Board and that all farmers wish to be freed from these shackles, from this terrible yoke.

The wheat and barley farmers in this country are clearly divided on the pros and cons of the Wheat Board in 2011. Clearly, we need to think about modernizing. Initially, the Wheat Board was created before 1935, which is the date we usually choose because that is when it came out in statute federally. Going back to the 1920s, farmers first formed co-operatives. They had every reason to be concerned. When my hon. friend from Winnipeg Centre referred to the robber barons, he was referring to those of the early part of the 20th century. Farmers had every reason to be concerned about whether they could they get a fair price.

When farmers were put in a circumstance of being at the mercy of large corporate buyers, what would that mean? Farmers were competing against other. Each one would lower their price to get the sale with the big conglomerate, and in that situation it was a buyer's market. It could pick off the farmers. Farmers could go bankrupt if they kept reducing their prices to get the deal. That is why co-operatives were formed. That is why the Wheat Board was formed in 1935 to ensure that, with single desk marketing, the Wheat Board would buy and guarantee the farmers a liveable price for the wheat and barley they grew.

It is not easy being a farmer in this country. Goodness only knows that the average farmer in this country is unable to make a living on the farm. Most of the income, increasingly, has to be made off the farm, and that applies not just to grain farmers, of course, but to farmers of fruit, vegetables and livestock.

Being a farmer in this country is difficult. We need a food strategy. We need to support our farmers. We need to support locally grown food. In this context, eliminating the Wheat Board is highly controversial.

We have large conglomerates today, and my hon. friend referred to one of them, Viterra, and there is Cargill. They are in a good position if farmers do go back to what happened in the early 1900s, competing against each other to get a price from a big buyer. That is why there is so much concern from farmers who want to keep the Wheat Board, that they will be exposed to the vagaries of a marketplace in which competition means undercutting each other.

The heart of the co-operative movement was to support each other so that through collaborative efforts, whether in the fisheries, grain farming or in milk and dairy products, farmers could get a fair and livable wage out of a very competitive marketplace. Therefore, it is not without its controversy.

The one vote that the Wheat Board undertook showed 62% of farmers wanted to keep it. That means a not insubstantial number of farmers want to do away with it. In fact, if the percentages are right, there are more farmers who want to do away with the Wheat Board than citizens who voted for the governing party in the last election. That is not a small group of people, so the farmers are divided on this.

This bill would have been better contemplated with respect to how to modernize the Wheat Board rather than how to destroy the single desk and expose the farmers who are so very concerned, as well as those who think the change would do them well.

No one really knows how this will go.

I did want to express concern because in the category of what we do not know are the costs. In terms of costs, we know that the Canadian Wheat Board has determined that an auditor will be brought in. The auditor winning the contract has been reported to be receiving between half a million and a million dollars to figure out employee severance costs, pension costs and the potential legal costs for breaking long-term contracts.

The analysis was carried out by the reputable accounting firm, KPMG. It concluded that the costs of eliminating the Wheat Board will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This cost of course will be paid by the taxpayers, but in whose interest is this really? Some critics have pointed out that essentially paying hundreds of millions of dollars should be seen as a disguised subsidy to the Cargills and the Viterras because they will be the beneficiaries of this change.

It is clearly not an easy issue. I have talked to many members on the government benches who have told me that some of their farmers are terrified of getting rid of the Wheat Board. It is generally reported that the younger farmers are more prepared to innovate and figure out how to do without it.

There is no question that the Wheat Board could do a much better job helping farmers who are growing organic grain, but doing a better job should have been the goal. Getting rid of single desk marketing is a radical and dramatic change from what farmers in barley and wheat have known for years. The division, and the fact that the majority of the wheat farmers who have expressed themselves on this issue want to keep the Wheat Board, should have injected some caution into how this legislation will move forward. It is the absence of caution that is so deeply concerning to the members on the opposition side of the House. We need to protect the interests of Canadian wheat and barley farmers.

I know that members on the government benches honestly believe that they are acting in the interests of their constituents who farm wheat and barley. We on the opposition benches honestly believe that there are huge risks in moving so dramatically.

It is interesting that the Conservative members use the word “conservative” to describe themselves. They are really very radical. They are making radical changes to our criminal justice system, to prairie farming, and across the board, particularly in immigration. I do not think they like the term that they are the radical party, but that is much more the essence and substance of the changes we are seeing.

Therefore, in putting forward these amendments we are asking for one dose of caution: please allow these amendments to go through. Allow the farmers in the country to continue to elect members of the Canadian Wheat Board to represent their interests. With board members elected democratically by farmers, we could continue to allow all voices in the agriculture community to be heard. We could try to find the mechanisms that protect the farmers, after Bill C-18 passes, from the worst aspects of a competitive cutthroat market dominated by a handful of multinational corporations.

We must find a way to ensure that prairie farmers make a living wage and that they are not exposed to the kinds of practices that gave rise to the need for the Canadian Wheat Board in the first place.

I urge members opposite to consider these few amendments and to allow them to go through.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You and I had a little chat about words I used in a previous debate where I did use pretty strong language against the minister.

I will quote what the minister said in Minnedosa, Manitoba on March 15:

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

That is what the minister said.

I will withdraw my remarks, but I leave it up to others to judge those comments, because he did not allow a vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member. Having withdrawn the comments. I consider the matter closed.

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 appreciated the member opposite's comments. She seems to be a little more rational than some of the other folks on the other side who have been bringing forward points that need to be considered here.

I am very glad to have folks from across Canada talk about these issues that affect western Canadian farmers, but I am not sure that she understands how much the communication issues have changed, the information issues have changed and the transportation issues have changed in western Canada since 1935. She seems to think that we still need a system that holds farmers in place and that they should know their place.

Does she understand the reality of how things have changed on the farms? Farmers are probably more often aware of information than even the grain companies themselves. Does she not think that is a good reason to give them their freedom to market their own grain and make their own business decisions?

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

Madam Speaker, as leader of the Green Party I have 305 candidates across the country and they represent the same areas that all the members in this House represent. The agricultural critic on the Green Party shadow cabinet, Kate Storey, and her husband are wheat farmers in Manitoba. They have informed me about what it is like for them to try to make a living as organic wheat farmers. They made that transition themselves.

I certainly am aware of how much has changed since 1935, but I believe that farmers should have the right to choose for themselves whether it is time to get rid of the Wheat Board and the single desk. In this instance, I think the government should have paid attention to the way the legislation was drafted and ensured that any decisions about getting rid of the single desk were based on a vote by the farmers. That is the freedom I think farmers want to have.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to bring a personal perspective to this debate. My grandfather, Vincent Varyu, who passed away in 1981, came to this country in 1926 from Hungary. He came pursuant to an immigration plan that encouraged farmers, particularly from Europe, to come to Canada. He landed in Halifax, took a train to the edge of Saskatchewan, walked 26 miles with his brother and came to a quarter section of land on the border of Saskatchewan and Alberta, near Dewberry, Alberta. The deal was that he would get that land if it was cleared within two years. He and his brother cleared that land by hand, got title to it and farmed it from 1926 until he retired in 1960.

My grandfather was a proud Conservative all of his life, but he was an absolute, avid and committed proponent of the Canadian Wheat Board. The reason, as he explained to me, was the protection it gave farmers. He said as a farmer he saw the protection that this board gave.

It is one thing to say that the Conservatives represent the rural ridings in western Canada, but again, those farmers may have voted Conservative on the understanding that they would have a vote on any attempt to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board, which the Conservatives campaigned on. Did the Conservatives, during the campaign, tell the farmers that they would abolish the Canadian Wheat Board without a vote? Because that may have changed the perspective and opinions of those farmers. Many, like my grandfather, supported the Conservatives but did not want the Canadian Wheat Board to go.

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

Madam Speaker, I hear from farmers on this issue because we have spoken out on it. I hear from farmers who want to keep the Wheat Board and I hear from farmers who do not. I hear from farmers who voted Conservative and believed they would have a vote in a plebiscite before the Wheat Board would be dismantled as a single desk system.

We also know that farmers desperately need better rail transit and better transportation routes. We need to think holistically about what farmers need. I do not believe they need Bill C-18.

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

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back to speak to the bill again.

I would like to inform the House and Canadians that farmers will have a choice. The opposition wants to give them a choice and we want to as well. They will have a choice between a voluntary wheat board, which the government is supporting, and their own decisions about marketing their own grain.

That is a good balance. That is the balance that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands should be supporting. If the opposition were reasonable on this, it would support that as well.

I want to point out that the Conservative Party will not be supporting any of the amendments that have been moved by the opposition today. Unfortunately, as they did at committee, we believe opposition members are playing games with the future of the grain industry in western Canada, trying to delay this legislation and trying to create instability in western Canada.

I note that the member for Winnipeg Centre was complaining about committee and the times that were given to it. The reality is that he left early on two of the three nights and the third night we finished early because it was agreed that we had heard the witnesses and so could move on. It is interesting that he would complain about the committee process when he did not engage in a good part of it.

These amendments have been made to scuttle any--

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I apologize for interrupting my hon. colleague's speech, but it is a parliamentary rule in the House not to comment on the absence of someone in the House. I wonder if that rule also applies to committee, because my hon. colleague just pointed out that someone was absent from committee. I may be mistaken, but I would like to raise that point and get your ruling, Madam Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member. It is not permitted to mention the presence or the absence of members.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I hope I am not taking any time here, but I would not comment on the member's absence in the House. That is not what I was doing. I was talking about committee. I believe we are able to do that, but I stand to be corrected.

This argument probably will get stranger than even this morning when the Liberals speak. They have come up with some tinfoil hat conspiracy about the contingency fund, which is a very strange argument. The reality is the board asked us to increase the contingency fund.

The second reality is that the fund now needs to be protected from the present board of directors. It has already spent somewhere between $60 million and $100 million on ships that it did not tell farmers it was buying. It appears it is spending several million dollars on an advertising campaign in eastern Canada for which I and other western Canadian farmers have to pay. Certainly anything to do with a contingency fund with regard to the government's action would be to protect that for farmers, for taxpayers and for the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.

At committee, unlike the opposition, the Conservative Party, led by the member for Prince Albert, put forward two constructive amendments which were passed. We believe the House of Commons committee has done its job and we are very happy to be here this morning to support marketing freedom for western Canadian farmers.

I want to talk one more time about my experiences with this system. It is a bit frustrating to only have 10 minutes because I do not know if I can do a good job on this in that time.

I have lived on a farm my whole life. In my teenage years I started farming. We had to deal with the Wheat Board. In the early 1990s, we had a crop that froze in the fields. When we came to market it, the board said that it was not willing to market that grain because it did not find it to be good quality.

We were able to go to the United States to find a buyer for it. At that time, if one had the permission of the board, one could export. However, when we went to export it, the grain company came back and said that it would not take our grain because it already had a supply of grain. It turned out that it had made a deal with the Wheat Board, at the time the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, for our grain. Therefore, we received about 65¢ a bushel less for it than we had arranged with the U.S. grain company. We did get to follow the trucks from our own local grain elevator to the U.S. grain elevator to get that 65¢ less a bushel for each bushel of grain that was hauled from there.

That is really when attitudes in our part of the world began to coalesce and people realize they can do a better job of marketing than the Canadian Wheat Board.

The board lives off farmers. The board does not make its own money. Any money that it makes and any money that it spends is farmers' income. As the expenses at the board have increased over the years, farmers have become more and more concerned about how their money has been spent.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said that this was not an issue of freedom versus oppression. However, for many farmers it is because they feel the board has bullied them for decades, and it has not stopped.

We can probably witness the bizarre scene, where apparently the board of directors now spends farmers' money to hand out muffins and CWB leaflets at Union Station in downtown Toronto to try to appeal to some folks in Toronto. It has been taking out full-page ads in eastern Ontario papers, on TV and on radio. I get to pay for that. It is a very strange situation. It is probably one more clear illustration as to why western Canadian farmers need freedom. If these folks want to spend money like this, they should spend their own money, not our money.

I grow my own wheat and pay the expenses when I grow it. Farmers harvest their own grain and store it. However, when it comes to selling it, we are not allowed to do that. I want to explain to Canadians what we need to do just to sell our own product.

We have to go to the Canadian Wheat Board and ask if it will sell our grain. It comes back and offers us a contract that we sign. Then the board tells me what percentage of that contract it will take. Typically it is 60% to 70% of the grain, but sometimes it is 100%. The board tells me that it will take that grain over the next 12 months, so I have to wait. It also tells me that it will pay me for part of it when I deliver and the rest will be paid in up to 18 months later.

I do not know if members have run a business, but it is impossible for people to make a living that way. Again, one of the opposition members mentioned that farmers have to go off-farm for income. This is one of the reasons why they have to do that. They do not even get paid for much of their own product until 18 months later.

There is a thing called a buy-back. I can go to the board and say that I would like to buy my own grain back, even though it is still sitting in my granary. The board will tell me what price I have to pay for my grain so I can try to make an arrangement for somebody else to sell it.

From personal experience, we have gone to them with a proposal. We had some durum a few years. The Wheat Board was only taking 60% of the durum. We found a buyer in the United States and the board had nothing to do with it. We went to the board and said that we wanted a buy back and it said that we would not get it at any price. It was contracting that percentage and we could not buy it back. That 40% of our product, our inventory, would sit in our bin until the Wheat Board was ready to take it and ready to say that we could sell it.

That is why western Canadian farmers know they need change and freedom. This is the freedom we want to bring for them. The freedom the Liberals and the NDP want for them is to keep them chained so they are dependent on other people and cannot make their own decisions. We are not prepared to go along with that.

There are a couple of illustrations of things that have worked in western Canadian where people have had freedom.

Let me talk a bit about canola. It is a fairly recent development in western Canada. It now brings in almost $5.6 billion to western Canada and is our largest value crop. One of the primary reasons for that is because farmers can go out and market their own grain. It has become the flagship product of our agricultural industry. I do not think we ever expected that. We have always been told that we are the heart of the grain world. Now another crop has passed grain in its value in western Canada.

Flax is a smaller crop and another Canadian success story. It is used in a whole host of products, from animal food to environmentally friendly flooring and those kinds of things. We are now one of the largest suppliers of flax in the world, producing almost half of the world's supply.

Mustard is grown in my area. It is another crop that has expanded in acres because farmers get out there and market their own crops.

I do not know if I need to talk about pulses and lentils, peas, lentils, chickpeas and what has happened with them over the last few years. There has been a multi-billion pulse and special crops industry that has developed in western Canada, primarily because people can grow it and they can market their own production.

The production of the eight major pulse and special crops have increased from a million tonnes in the early 1990s to 5.6 million tonnes in 2009, and that is at a time when grain has gone backward. When the acreage for grain has been diminishing each year, these other several crops have been increasing.

This is one of the reasons why we need freedom in western Canada, so we can free up the grain industry so it can begin to grow again. We have already heard there are at least two companies that want to build plants and begin processing in western Canada as soon as these changes are made.

I had to laugh when I heard the opposition say that it did not want processing plants in western Canada because that would mean they would pay less for their product. I have never heard such a strange argument in my life. If we really wanted to save money, I guess we should shut down every bit of processing and manufacturing in the country. That is just ridiculous.

We look forward to the $500 million per year of extra revenue that this will generate in western Canada. Freedom cannot come too soon for farmers. They need the stability from this legislation. We need the legislation passed as quickly as possible so they can begin planning for next year, so we can begin to see our grain production grow once again in western Canada and have western Canada remain the heart of agriculture around the world.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, much of the parliamentary secretary's speech is based on the same misinformation and propaganda that the Conservatives have been circulating across western Canada, taxpayer-funded misinformation and propaganda, while at the same time imposing a gag order on the directors of the Wheat Board so they cannot defend themselves and correct some of this misinformation.

One of those elements is this myth, this free market flight of fancy, that as soon as the government eliminates the Canadian Wheat Board, value-added mills will pop up out of the ground like mushrooms. In actual fact, for the last 10 years milling capacity has increased 50% under the current regime. Four new facilities have begun. The reason there is one hanging in the wings right now is because it is pretty sure it will be able to buy their grain for less, which means less money in the pockets of the prairie producer. The misinformation is reckless and irresponsible.

The $500 million figure that he used is the estimate from KPMG as to what it will cost to wrap up the Canadian Wheat Board. Will the parliamentary secretary verify its studies affirm that it will cost the government $500 million to realize this ideological—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, once again we hear that overheated rhetoric for which the member opposite is so famous. There is a word we believe in that starts with the letter “f” and that is the word “freedom”.

I do not think he was listening. The $500 million are $500 million every year that western Canadian farmers will gain from finally being able to market their own grain, do their own production and conduct their own business.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I have a short question for the parliamentary secretary and I would like a direct and honest answer.

He said in the beginning of his speech that farmers would be offered choice between the Canadian Wheat Board and other companies in the open market. What he did not say was that there was no longer the choice of single desk selling, and that is the key point. It is not about the Wheat Board, it is about the issue of single desk selling.

Will farmers have a choice between single desk selling and the open market, yes or no?

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

Madam Speaker, the problem with the member opposite is he does not know that we cannot give people freedom and imprison them at the same time. We certainly will bring them freedom and we will give them the choice to deal with a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board or to market their own grain.

I should point out that when farmers wanted freedom, his party locked farmers up in jail. I do not think Liberals will even admit this, but one of the farmers was put in jail with a convicted murderer and stripped searched 58 times because of the ideological bent those folks had toward keeping farmers imprisoned.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want talk about choice in my constituency since the member from P.E.I. brought it up. My constituents who grow wheat do not have a choice. They have to sell to the Wheat Board. The farmers in northern British Columbia have to sell to the Wheat Board. Wheat farmers in the riding of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands are in luck because they can sell it to whomever they want. If there are wheat farmers in the riding of the member from P.E.I., they can sell to whomever they want.

What do the constituents of the parliamentary secretary have to say? My constituents are clearly saying they want choice. They want freedom. In this case, all the constituents of the members who support the Wheat Board monopoly have a choice.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague makes a great point. He has done great work on this issue.

As I pointed out earlier, for canola, flax, peas and specialty crops, we all have choice. Those markets are growing and expanding every day. What we really need is for this legislation to pass as quickly as possible because western Canadian wheat farmers need stability and they need to begin planning for next year. The opposition cannot be allowed to destabilize the farmers throughout the next growing season. We need the legislation passed immediately.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to these amendments.

Thus far, in this discussion at report stage, the government has, in its way, tried to smear the board in the eyes of the public. I would think Canadians would expect that the minister and his parliamentary secretary, who both took an oath of office to uphold their responsibilities, would think ill of that.

One could Imagine what would happen if we had the Minister of Health trying to destroy the health system in this country, or if we had the Minister of State for Science and Technology trying to do away with science and technology.

What we have, in this case, are two ministers who are doing the direct opposite and doing everything within their power to smear the Canadian Wheat Board. It is for that reason that I want to put a couple of things on the record so that the public understands just what we are talking about here.

What is the Canadian Wheat Board? The Canadian Wheat Board has been working for wheat and barley farmers for over 75 years. It ensures that all wheat and barley farmers get the best possible price for their crops. The Canadian Wheat Board is paid for and run by the farmers it benefits. The Canadian Wheat Board sells grain all around the world. It arranges for its transportation from thousands of farms to customers in some 70 countries. The critical component for the Canadian Wheat Board to be able to do its job is single desk selling. That is the essence of the board.

How does the Board help farmers? The Canadian Wheat Board's annual revenues are $5 billion to $8 billion, all of which are returned to farmers, less operating costs, as profit. The cost of that operation is 7¢ per bushel. It is unbelievably efficient. Those returns going back to farmers are not taken off as shares for some private grain company. The benefits actually go back to the primary producers.

Studies by leading agriculture economists, using the Canadian Wheat Board data, concluded that the Wheat Board earned prairie farmers hundreds of millions of dollars a year more than they would have achieved on the open market. In fact, it was around $500 million.

The Canadian Wheat Board manages a supply chain that extends from the farm gate to the end-use customer. It has an envied international reputation for consistent quality and supply, superior service and technical support. However, without the authority of single desk, it will be almost impossible for the Wheat Board to do its job.

The parliamentary secretary went on at length talking about the fact that farmers would still have a board. However, they would have a board without teeth and without the authority to do its job. He said that the farmers would have a choice, that they could go to the board or to the open market. However, when I asked him about whether the farmers would have the choice between single desk and the open market, the parliamentary secretary failed to answer. He claimed that they would have their board. However, this new board would not be like the old board. It would be a board in name only. It would not have single desk selling.

In fact, this would be a government takeover with, as somebody said earlier, five stooges appointed by the minister. It would really be the minister's wheat board. The government is expropriating the Wheat Board, which is run, controlled and was built by farmers in Canada, taking it over and running it as its own agency. I will go through a little bit of that because that becomes clear with Bill C-18.

Bill C-18 begins by eliminating the 10 elected board members and replacing them with 5 ministerial appointed directors. Just who will those hand-picked directors be? According to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's own officials, they will answer to the minister, not to the farmers.

I will quote what the assistant deputy minister said to the committee. He said, ”It”, meaning the legislation, “enables the minister to provide direction to the board in the manner in which it operates”. It could not be more clear. There is nothing vague there. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, sitting in Ottawa, will now tell the board of directors what to do, how to do it and when.

We need to keep in mind that that is the minister who has never visited the Wheat Board, other than for 15 minutes, and has never walked into its war room to see how it operates. He has never walked into its transportation room to see how it collects all that grain, 900 miles from tidewater position, thousands of farmers spread over the Prairies, all different types and qualities of wheat and barley, and get that into a transportation system, delivered to a country elevator on a shortline maybe, down the main line and unloaded into the hole of a ship on time so there is no demurrage paid.

The minister has never visited the Wheat Board to understand that. All he is going on is an ideology. He has attacked the board. He has not allowed farmers, under this legislation, to even have a voice at hearings where they could have say.

There is not a single word in this legislation about farmer direction, farmer control or farmers having the right to choose the board of directors they want to run and manage this so-called voluntary Canadian wheat board. In fact, as I said, it is the minister's board.

What is interesting, as well, is that, while the minister picks his own directors, the minister has made sure there is nothing in the legislation concerning conflict of interest. What is to prevent those Conservative appointees from using their time as the minister's hand-picked directors to feather their own nests? Absolutely nothing. That comes from the legal counsel to the agriculture committee when he testified at the committee.

The elimination of an elected board of directors and replacing it with hand-picked appointees is based on what kind of model? I asked that question to Agriculture Canada officials. I asked, “Is there any marketing institution or marketing agency in this country based on this model?”. The answer from officials was, “We will get back to you.” The answer, quite simply, is that there is not a model like this.

Given that the effect of the government's illegitimate action to destroy a $5.8 billion institution, one would assume that there is evidence the government can produce to justify itself. The government has stated that the destruction of the Wheat Board will ensure predictability for western grain farmers. Really? What a fallacy.

I will look at just one issue, access for farmers in moving their grain. On page 6 of the working group report, it states:

...there are questions about whether all of the current market participants, particularly the smaller players...will have effective, competitive access to the entire grain logistics chain from farm to vessel. Similar issues were raised with...respect to short lines and access to producer cars....

Given that fact, the minister announced on November 8 that he would be setting up a logistics working group to examine these issues. Just where is the predictability? Clearly, right now there is not any.

The Government of Canada is putting at risk the farmers who deliver that grain to the tune of $5 billion to $8 billion a year. I can tell members who gains. Who is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food working for? I think he is working for U.S. farmers. The U.S. has challenged the system 14 times stating that it was an unfair trader and we won every time. In fact, Senator Kent Conrad had a report prepared for him that stated that if the Canadian Wheat Board single desk authority were eliminated, the United States may become more competitive in offshore markets as the advantages enjoyed by the Wheat Board disappear.

So, who is the minister working for? However, the worst is that now the minister has, by executive order, put his hands in farmers' pockets to pickpocket them. He is taking the contingency fund of up to $200 million, which is farmers' money, the money they earned from the sale of their grain, to provide a cushion for this proposed new board of his hand-picked directors.

It is unbelievable that this could happen without farmers even having a vote or a say through hearings on how this could or should not be done.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have always found rather peculiar about the position of our friends in the Liberal Party on the question of the Canadian Wheat Board is that they believe that only western Canadian farmers should be compelled to sell their property to the government but not Ontario farmers, not Quebec grain farmers, and not Atlantic Canadian grain farmers.

I wonder if the member really believes in compelling farmers to sell their property to the government on pain of imprisonment because farmers have been put in prison. The Liberals are against increased prison sentences for violent criminals, but apparently they are for a system that imprisons grain farmers for selling their own property.

If they think it is so great, why do they not propose an amendment to make it a national wheat board and compel Atlantic, Quebec and Ontario farmers to sell their wheat to the government?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing about Liberals. We believe laws should be abided by and we do not pick and choose which laws should be abided by. If a law was broken, it was broken. The Conservatives claim to support supply management, but if five or ten producers decide to ship milk outside of the supply management system, are they going to allow that to happen? A system has to work with rules and regulations.

I will say this to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. I will stack up my time on western farmers against him on farms any day of the week because I have been on farm after farm in western Canada, so allow farmers a vote, for Pete's sake.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote here from an email I received. It quotes the minister who said:

There wouldn't be any attempt to impose dual marketing on the CWB unless a majority of producers voted for it.

The minister went on to say:

Until farmers make that change, I'm not prepared to work arbitrarily. They [farmers] are absolutely right to believe in democracy. I do, too.

Could the member comment on that, please?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we had quite a little discussion on that same quote earlier this morning where strong language was used in this House. In fact, I had to apologize to the Speaker.

However, these are the facts. If the minister made the statement in Minnedosa on March 27, as the member just quoted, and he did not hold a vote, it is up to Canadians to judge. It is on the record what I said earlier.

The minister obviously was not being truthful. He said he would provide farmers a vote. He said he believed in democracy, but he did not provide a vote. In fact, as the Wheat Board itself said, the Conservatives steamrolled over section 47.1 of the act.

However, the parliamentary secretary went on at great length to talk about what the Wheat Board is doing in terms of its advertising. It is living by its oath of office, but I have here a document which is paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, which is clear misinformation and a smear campaign by the Minister of Agriculture against the Wheat Board. That is wrong.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to get on the record at this time that, in fact, there was a plebiscite conducted by the Canadian Wheat Board because the Minister of Agriculture was negligent in not meeting what many would argue was a legal, definitely a moral, obligation to conduct a plebiscite to see what the farmers really wanted. The plebiscite that was conducted clearly indicated that a vast majority of the prairie grain farmers wanted to retain the Canadian Wheat Board.

Could the member provide further comment on that issue?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the plebiscite that was conducted by an independent agency by the Wheat Board, because the government would not do it, indicated that 62% of farmers believed in single desk selling of wheat, 51% in terms of barley. Single desk is what makes the system operate. That is what farmers want. There were young farmers in Ottawa this week demanding that this happen.

Earlier the parliamentary secretary mentioned that the Wheat Board had been around a long time, and that technology had changed, and yes it has. However, the Wheat Board is needed more than it ever was in the past. The prairie wheat pools are gone. Many short lines have been abandoned. The Wheat Board is there to protect producer cars and short line railways, and the consolidation in the grain industry is just about unbelievable. The Wheat Board is the only power—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, the time has expired for this particular round.

Resuming debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is rising on a point of order.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago in question period I said in this House, in reply to a member's question, that there was no plan to change the colour scheme on any of the airbus aircraft that the government possesses. I would like to be perfectly clear that there has been no decision in that regard and to ensure that the record reflects that additional clarification.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention. I am sure that the House appreciates the clarification.

The member for Malpeque is rising on the same point?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to figure out what the parliamentary secretary is saying. Is there a plan or is there not a plan to paint the Prime Minister's aircraft in the colours that the Prime Minister wants, at great cost? Is there or is there not?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have heard the parliamentary secretary's clarification to an earlier part of debate today. Other points on this I am sure are really just a matter of debate. We are not going to redo question period.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak in the House today as part of a debate that, in my opinion, is critical to the future of western Canadian farmers.

The legislation that we are discussing today has been a long time coming. It gives western Canadian durum and barley farmers a right they have called for and richly deserve, and that is the right to choose how best to market the grain they grow.

As the House reviews this legislation, it is important to keep in mind why Canada has a reputation for the quality of our wheat, durum and barley. The answer is quite straightforward and it has nothing to do with the Canadian Wheat Board. Our grains are second to none because the farmers who produce them are committed to quality.

Organizations like the Canadian International Grains Institute and the Canadian Grain Commission play a big role in ensuring the quality of our world class grain handling system. CIGI and the CGC have always operated independently from the CWB and will continue to do so.

We encourage the Canadian Wheat Board to work with us in order to ensure a smooth transition toward marketing freedom in the best interest of the industry. We hope that the Wheat Board will continue to work with the many other stakeholders, such as brokers, buyers, sellers, inland terminals, export elevators, and the ports, not to mention the very large marketing network.

However, regardless of whether the Canadian Wheat Board participates, as we move toward marketing freedom, our government will continue to make every effort to ensure that everything is clear and certain for farmers and for the entire value chain during the transition period.

Our government is aware that the town of Churchill, which depends on the Canadian Wheat Board's grain shipments, may be affected by the industry's transition to an open market.

Our government understands the importance of the port of Churchill as a valuable asset, and has demonstrated its support and commitment to the north.

As part of the ongoing commitment to farmers and the importance of the port as the Prairies-Arctic gateway to the world, our government will provide an economic incentive of up to $5 million per year over the five year transition period to support shipments of grain, including oilseeds, pulses and special crops through the port.

The government will also provide support through funding of up to $4.1 million over three years to sustain infrastructure improvements and maintenance of the port during the transition period.

In addition, the deadline will be extended to 2015 for projects to be funded through an agreement with the Churchill Gateway Development Corporation. We are looking at a number of initiatives to continue to diversify the economy of Churchill.

We are also working with stakeholders across the agriculture industry, as well as other industries, to explore development opportunities for the port. We recognize that this major change brings with it not only many benefits, but also some challenges, and we do not shy away from these challenges. We share Canadians' concerns about job loss, the port of Churchill, and our short line railways and producer cars.

Mike Ogborn, managing director of OmniTRAX, the company which owns the Churchill port facility and the Hudson Bay Railway Company, told The Western Producer on July 14 that OmniTRAX is optimistic about the future of Churchill's port and railway. OmniTRAX understands how the change to an open market may be a challenge. But more significantly, the company sees it as an opportunity for economic diversity and for growth.

Our government is confident that Canadian grain companies will continue to use the port as long as it remains a competitive method of transporting their grain. Our government is also committed to improving rail service for agriculture shippers through the rail service review.

Further, the right to producer cars is protected in the Canada Grain Act. Currently, the CWB 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 arrangements with grain companies or the voluntary CWB to market their grain. 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.

While we see some job losses for Manitoba initially, the future looks very bright. We can expect more processors to start up new businesses in that province, which is my home province, and across western Canada.

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 and pasta plants. Just over the border from Manitoba in North Dakota many new pasta plants have sprung up and created jobs that should have been created in the Prairies. This, along with increased trade, has the potential to create many jobs.

Our government is confident that farmers will make marketing choices based on what is best for their own businesses. We want to put the farmers back in the driver's seat so that they can continue to drive our economy. We think an open, competitive grain market has room for a viable, voluntary pooling option. We are ready to work with the Canadian Wheat Board to chart the way forward.

Marketing freedom was a cornerstone of our election platform from day one and was included in last spring's Speech from the Throne. Grain farmers in western Canada want the same marketing freedom and the same opportunities as other farmers in Canada and the rest of the world. With this freedom, grain farmers will be able to sell their products based on what is best for their own businesses.

I am proud that we are keeping our long-standing promise to give western Canadian grain farmers the freedom to market their own grain.

I urge hon. members to give this bill some serious thought and to keep in mind that its timely enactment will help give farmers the certainty they need to plan for next year. What is more, it will give our clients here in Canada and in the rest of world the assurance that they can still count on the regular supply of high-quality Canadian wheat and barley.

I welcome any questions from my colleagues.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and I would also like to congratulate her on her work on the Standing Committee on Finance.

With regard to the debates, cutting the time allocated for debate and, consequently, allowing less time for speeches is an attack on democracy. There has been another attack on democracy in this matter. The Conservatives promised to listen to farmers and to hold a plebiscite. Can the hon. member tell us why the government is not interested in listening to farmers and holding a vote on the future of the board?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. It is truly a pleasure to work with him on the Standing Committee on Finance, and I appreciate his question. I would like to make it clear that farmers across Canada have been discussing this bill for years. We consulted western farmers many times about this matter. We even stated in our election platform that we would move forward on this issue. For that reason, most seats in the Conservative caucus are held by representatives of regions where farmers live. That is why we were elected by farmers. They were expecting us to introduce this bill to promote freedom for western farmers and farmers in other parts of the world and Canada.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint Boniface took a lot of liberty with her comments on the Canadian Grain Commission and CIGI.

The fact is the Canadian Wheat Board is very much intertwined with the Canadian Grain Commission in the work they do. In fact, and I spent 10 days taking its course in the city of Winnipeg, the Canadian Wheat Board started CIGI.

Will the member not just admit that both those institutions, with the destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk selling, will be in jeopardy if the bill moves ahead?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with regards to destruction, it was most destructive that the Liberal Party did not put forward these measures when it was in power for 13 years. It is most destructive that a member who resides in Atlantic Canada, whose farmers have freedom of choice to market their grain in any way they desire, would stand here and destroy the hopes and dreams of farmers in western Canada, who have been waiting and begging for this. The member takes this moment to somehow change all the questions that he puts to the House to make it appear as if he is actually concerned about western farmers. I call bull on that.

When we talk about freedom and fairness, we cannot trust the Liberals to put forward any freedom or fairness for our western farmers.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, coming from the province of Manitoba, I have not yet been able to figure out why members from Quebec, Ontario and Atlantic Canada are making these strident comments in respect to the defence of the Wheat Board, which only impacts farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and a small part of British Columbia. They do not want to see the same system imposed on their farmers. Why is that? Is it for the economic advantage of their farmers to the detriment of the farmers in my riding?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his hard work in this place. I reiterate what the minister just stated.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism stood just moments ago and asked the member for Malpeque why he was not willing, if he really believed in this policy, to put forward a national Wheat Board that would make Atlantic farmers in his home community succumb to this arbitrary and restrictive pooling and selling of wheat through only the Wheat Board.

The member for Malpeque knows very well that if he were to do that, he probably would not be re-elected. That is what almost happened when he did not support the gun registry abolition that he had promised to do way back when he was first in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their excellent speeches, and I want to join them in defending the interests of farmers in western Canada.

After all the discussion we have heard so far on Bill C-18, I am sad to see that the government is undermining the principle of democracy by not honouring its commitments. The government was clear: it would not attempt to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board without first consulting its members.

To respect the democratic process, we must ensure that members of the Canadian Wheat Board have the right to decide their own destiny through a referendum. Excessive political interference has no place in a democratic country like Canada. Unfortunately, I am no longer surprised to see that every day, the Conservative government uses misinformation to get what it wants. In fact, in its own press release on the bill to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board, the government said that it had consulted with stakeholders from across the value chain before making a decision. Does this mean that farmers, including all those who want to keep the board, are not part of the value chain for their own products, since they were not consulted?

If western farmers are part of this value chain, why did the government not listen to the majority that spoke out during the plebiscite? Why is it turning a deaf ear? I am sure that western farmers will be shocked to hear that this government has excluded them altogether from the value chain for the products they have produced by the sweat of their brow and that it does not want to hear their opinion.

Also in the news release, the government explains that, and I quote:

[it] has listened to individual farmers who just want the chance to succeed by being able to sell their wheat, durum and barley at the time and to the buyer of their choice.

But what about those who want to sell their wheat, durum and barley through the Wheat Board desk? Were they also heard, or were they deliberately kept out of the discussions because their wishes were at odds with the government's intentions? The government is ignoring these people and, meanwhile, is outrageously continuing to impose its ideology, erode democracy and misinform the public.

I would also like to use my time to discuss the idea of majority, which has already been widely discussed in relation to this bill. I want to make sure that the hon. members across the way understand the concept.

Indeed, they appear to have a good grasp of the concept here in the House, ever since May 2, but the meaning of respecting the principle of a majority seems to become a little fuzzy when it comes time to talk about the issues they want to tackle. To set the record straight, I think we need to take a closer look at the numbers together: 22,764 wheat farmers voted to maintain the board as is, compared to 14,059 farmers who voted to end the monopoly. That works out to a majority of 62% against 38%.

People who respect a majority decision respect the principles of democracy, an example that this government could learn from. In an open letter, the Conservative government, in the person of the Minister of Agriculture, explained that the vote in last May's federal election gave the necessary legitimacy to advocates of change. Can someone explain to me how a federal election can legitimately interfere politically in an organization that is managed, controlled and funded entirely by western farmers, one that is not a crown corporation? Since when do election results legitimize and govern any unilateral actions the government wants to take without any consultation or impact studies and without listening to the people, even though we live in a democracy?

Is it because they have a majority? Oh, yes; they respect that majority scrupulously. It is the same old story: another double standard.

In addition to this so-called legitimacy, the other point that should be mentioned here is the lawfulness of the act itself.

The laws currently in effect require Ottawa to consult the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board before amending the act that created the board. The potential dismantling of the board without prior consultation is a direct violation of this act.

I am very sorry to see that we have before us a government that legitimizes its actions, which are not based on any valid foundation or democratic principle.

In the speech he gave several weeks ago now, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board even went so far as to say that it was time to put an end to the tyranny of the Canadian Wheat Board.

On this side of the House—the NDP side—we maintain that, instead, it is time to put an end to the tyranny of the government, which went so far as to outrageously cut off the necessary debate on this bill, as it has been constantly doing since the beginning of this session of Parliament.

I am the member for the riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. The members opposite may be wondering why a member from Quebec would stand up for the interests of people who are so far from her riding. To that, I say that one would have to be pretty gullible not to understand that the mechanisms of the world economy are felt from one end of the country to the other and throughout the world.

Any bad economic decisions that are made for western Canadian agriculture will affect the entire country. The negotiating power lost with the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board will weaken the position of western farmers on the world market.

This weak negotiating power to sell our Canadian wheat at the best possible price on the market will eliminate the smallest producers to the benefit of the large multinational grain companies. Less negotiating power for the sale of Canadian wheat means our wheat will be sold at a lower price. Selling at a lower price means less income for our families and farmers. This vulnerability will be felt throughout Canada, not just in the west.

Canada's economic health is an issue we must deal with together so that all Canadian households get what they deserve—a prosperous future.

In conclusion, the NDP is demanding no less of the government than respect for the democratic process so that western farmers can have an independent say when it comes to their own future and their own destiny.

The NDP will proudly stand up for farming families in western Canada and will listen to what they have to say, demanding nothing short of abandoning Bill C-18, which does not address the needs of the public and which is completely out of touch with Canada's current economic reality.

And closer to home, the Quebec families I represent today will unanimously support the families in western Canada in their fight to protect their income, their retirement and, ultimately, Canada's economy.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that during this debate a couple of ministers have tried to sway the discussion away from the democratic principle that is at stake, and that is why farmers were not given the right to a vote, which was legislated. What is at stake, as I asked the parliamentary secretary earlier, is whether there is a choice between single desk and the open market under the new Wheat Board, and we know there is not. The single desk no longer exists.

The province of Quebec has two single desk marketing agencies, the maple syrup board and beef, I believe. What does she think would happen in Quebec if government, without a say and without proper hearings, took the right away to have the single desk, without people being given a voice?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

We firmly believe that in unity, there is strength. That is a principle of economics 101. As soon as a bill like this is introduced, it becomes dangerous. If the framework is dismantled, small producers lose the ability to work together to get a better price. The same thing will happen to maple syrup and eggs with the supply management bill. In the end, families and small farmers in the west will pay the price. And in Quebec, our farmers will soon pay the price.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. She just spoke about the fact that producers have a right to organize and said that in unity, there is strength. Will the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board not deal a blow to small producers, who benefited from a single desk? Does the member think that small producers will benefit from the government's decision?

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

Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that the small producers will suffer the most from this bill when it comes into force. Companies like Cargill will benefit from the legislation.

Earlier, the hon. member spoke about improving infrastructure—ports and railways. Why not do this for other existing infrastructure that is in dire need?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech that my colleague just gave on the Canadian Wheat Board, especially the parts about democracy and the impact on Quebec.

I represent a riding where the land is nearly 80% agricultural and where all of the farmers stand together. Currently, 38,000 western Canadian farmers voted to keep the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk—that represents 62% of those who use it—yet the government has still decided to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

Does my colleague feel this decision is democratic? Could she delve a bit deeper and make some additional comments on this subject?

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

Mr. Speaker, to use a term that is floating around a lot right now, I want to say that there are many people who are outraged. The people involved in the occupy movements in Toronto, Montreal and Wall Street are all outraged. And there are members here who are outraged at this obvious mockery of democracy. A law exists and the government is not above the law. It must consult with farmers; that is the law. Once the law changes, if it is no longer obliged to consult farmers, then it will not have to do so. But right now, it must comply with the current law and it must consult them.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this historic legislation which is opening such an exciting time for farmers in my home province of Manitoba and right across western Canada.

Contrary to what the members opposite think or say, our government was elected on a platform to deliver marketing freedom to farmers, and we are following through on that with this legislation.

As other members have already said, this bill will end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly over the sales of wheat, durum and barley in western Canada. It will give wheat and barley farmers across western Canada the same rights that farmers in Ontario and the rest of Canada enjoy.

It is interesting how members on this side of the House present this debate versus how members opposite present the debate. All the members opposite ever talk about is process. I am not going to comment on the process that they are criticizing. What we focus on is results, good policy creating good results for western Canadian farmers and rural communities.

Policy is very important. The focus of this government on good policy that will generate real and tangible results is the right thing to do.

The removal of the monopoly will allow farmers to sell their grains directly to a processor, whether it be a pasta manufacturer or a flour mill, or any other venture that adds value at the farm gate. That not only grows businesses for the farmers, it creates new jobs for the rural economy.

I am being approached with increasing frequency by constituents who have terrific value-added ideas for what they can implement after the Wheat Board monopoly has been changed. In fact, just last week during the break week, two young entrepreneurs approached me with a very exciting plan to build a microbrewery in my constituency. I can hear applause from all across the chamber, and I can understand why.

These young constituents are the kind of creative entrepreneurs that Manitoba, western Canada and all of Canada need. Two young men with a great idea want to make a difference for their communities. They specifically pointed out to me that the removal of the CWB monopoly is the trigger that is going to make their enterprise work. They are very excited.

We in rural western Canada simply cannot continue to export jobs south of the border to places like North Dakota. An open wheat market will bring jobs back to the west and to cities like Winnipeg. This legislation will reduce costly red tape and inefficiencies, leaving farmers more time to drive our economy.

We saw a perfect example when a previous Conservative agriculture minister removed oats from the Wheat Board monopoly. Almost instantaneously Can-Oat Milling, a company in Portage La Prairie, sprang up. It is in the constituency of my good friend, the member for Portage—Lisgar.

The Can-Oat plant in Portage La Prairie employs 125 people. These are well-paying jobs in a rural community. What is really neat about Can-Oat as a company is that it has become the largest industrial processor of oats in North America. That is what happens when the creative power of entrepreneurs is unleashed.

I listened with great interest to the member for Malpeque's speech. I can refute every single thing he said with one word: canola.

What happened with canola after some very important research was done to create a crop that the marketplace really hungered for is that the production of canola on the free market and marketed through free market principles absolutely exploded. I think it has eclipsed wheat as the Cinderella crop in western Canada. Not only that, it is a very high-value crop that is marketed through the “evil grain companies” that members opposite are so quick to denigrate. Farmers are growing canola in droves, and the price right now is very high.

In addition, 30% of the canola that is produced in western Canada is processed in western Canada and represents 1,000 full-time jobs. There are more canola plants going up all the time.

Once the changes are made, there will be added demand from farmers for strong marketers, business analysts and other specialists in the grain trade. Even the promise of an open market is encouraging the value-added investments that I am so excited about in western Canada.

In September the Prime Minister was in Regina to celebrate the launch of the first commercially significant pasta plant for Canadian durum in the west. Members on that side talk process; we deliver results. That is the difference. This facility will create an estimated 60 new full-time jobs and 150 construction jobs.

Again, as a member who represents a rural, agricultural, western Canadian constituency, I have lived there long enough to see the population decline in many prairie rural communities. If the Wheat Board was that good, why did that occur?

I am convinced that policies that promote the export of raw product from an area really are not that good for small communities. Processing what we grow at home is what will help grow our rural economy.

Western Canadian processing plants are expanding for all crops, except for wheat. Now with wheat and barley, we will see this expansion and the pasta plant in Regina is just a beginning.

A very important concern for Manitoba MPs in particular and many Saskatchewan MPs too is the port of Churchill. Under this change there will be a period of adjustment for the port of Churchill, as it admittedly relies heavily on CWB grains. However, it is no secret that Canada's north is the cornerstone of our agenda. We understand the importance of the port of Churchill as a valuable asset, and it will remain the Prairies' Arctic gateway to the world.

Jim Carr, president and CEO of the Business Council of Manitoba agrees with us. He said that the business council sees Churchill as more than a port for grain, but as the Arctic gateway.

When our new bill is passed, the port of Churchill will remain an important shipping option. It is no secret that our government has already provided significant support to the port over the years, and we will continue to support it for use by businesses across the Prairies.

I have met with the Hudson Bay Route Association. Many of the municipalities in my constituency belong, and they see some tremendous opportunities.

As part of our ongoing commitment to farmers and the importance of the port as a shipping option, our government is making significant investments to ease this transition and help the port continue to be a viable northern shipping gateway.

We will provide an economic incentive of up to $5 million per year over the five year transition period. Our government will also provide support through funding of up to $4.1 million over three years to sustain infrastructure improvements and maintenance of the port during this transition period.

In addition, projects with the Churchill Gateway Development Corporation will be given more time to finish, with an extension of two years, or until 2015.

These significant investments are complementary to our other strategic investments, such as Transport Canada earmarking more than $13 million to implement upgrades to the Churchill airport. This is in addition to operating the Churchill airport and subsidizing VIA Rail service.

Since 2007 the government has also committed $20 million for rail line improvements, $4 million for port improvements and $1 million for marketing and development of the port.

I will finish with a quote from Mike Spence, the mayor of Churchill, who said:

I'm the type of person who is always optimistic. I'm looking in a positive direction, hoping that we'll be able to secure more grain and the port will diversify.... I think we can do that.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask a government member a question, because this is an important one that we often forget to ask. It has to do with something that all Canadians have a right to know: the cost of dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board. Many numbers have been tossed around, but I think a government member like him should be able to tell us exactly how much it will cost. Canadians have a right to know that information in order to decide if they agree with the government's position.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, those of us on this side of the House certainly agree that nothing comes for free, but, having said that, the benefits of dismantling the board and allowing farmers marketing freedom will greatly outweigh any costs that may occur.

Transitions for many people and change for many organizations is difficult, but if the Wheat Board is as good as it says it is, a voluntary board where farmers will have marketing choice to either use the board or use the open market will allow the market to sort that particular decision out. Overall, there will be a net benefit to western Canada with this change.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette missed the point when he talked about canola. I figured he would stand there and thank previous Liberal governments for the public research that canola came out of. It is just too bad that the current government cut that.

I have been in the member's riding many times in a previous life as a farm leader and I know there are many farmers in that community. However, how can a backbench member of the government allow the minister, who is putting together his private fiefdom, and we need to keep in mind that this is a government-run agency, to put his hands in farmers' pockets and take $200 million out of the contingency fund to cushion that government-run agency in the future? How can he allow the minister to pickpocket farmers in his region whose share of grain sales put that money in the contingency fund in the first place? How can he allow that to happen? Why does he not stand up and be counted?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House, especially those of us representing rural agricultural constituencies, will take a backseat to no one in defending our communities.

In terms of canola, I, too, am a strong supporter of public research and very much agree with the member that the canola story is nothing but good news, regardless of who happened to be in power at the time.

Regarding the CWB contingency fund, it has always been separate from the pool accounts. Mr. Oberg, the current chair of the CWB, has already wasted millions of farmers' money on his personal political agenda. It is truly unclear what liabilities he will leave behind with his scorched earth policy. We took this prudent measure to protect the future of western Canadian farmers and Canadian taxpayers.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member caught my attention when he mentioned the magic words “artisanal brewery” earlier in his comments. I want to return to that because it is a subject that is close to my heart and, based on experience, is close to the hearts of one or two other members in the House as well.

The creation of a differentiated value-added product that comes from an agricultural base, like microbrewed or artisanal beer, is fundamentally based on a differentiated original product, a high value product that is not mass produced or commodified. That is true whether it is grapes for wine, we all understand that, apples for cider, rice for sake, and it is equally true when it is grain for beer.

I am guessing that the member believes that the opening of a freer market will allow for a greater differentiation of that original product, adding money into the pockets of farmers and also allowing for the greater participation of people like craft brewers. I would be interested in his comments on that.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is exactly correct. Specialization and selling it to niche markets and doing things that no one else is doing is the way to success for a small business.

I have been privy to some commercial secrets from some constituents of mine, so I cannot talk too specifically, but we have a market now that is searching for authenticity. Therefore, prairie homegrown grains, making a niche, outstanding micro-products that can only be purchased in one or two spots will be very attractive in this new marketplace.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand proudly with our farmers and my party in opposition to this very bad bill that would dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

In recent weeks, we have seen the powerful symbol of farmers with tape on their mouths to symbolize that the Conservative government is not listening to them. However, we, in this party, along with others, have heard our farmers. Here in Ottawa and across the prairies, farmers are rising to say no to this. It is time to stop this Conservative steamroller that is bent on doing the bidding of the agribusiness giant corporations.

Western farmers are being taken for granted. As my hon. colleagues from Churchill and Winnipeg have said, the recent CWB plebiscite indicated that a majority of farmers are opposed to the Conservative plan. The Conservative arrogance of not supporting those farmers is an indication of the way in which the government is failing to listen to western voices.

Sadly, we see the Conservative arrogance on too many files here in Ottawa and across the country.

I saw the Conservative arrogance when I was in Washington this week. Incredibly, the Conservatives were expressing their outrage that elected members of Parliament in a democratic country were there to tell Americans that there were better alternatives for our economy and the environment than the Keystone project.

I would like to add that, since I was in Washington, I have received numerous emails from Americans thanking us for bringing the Canadian voice, the real Canadian voice, to Washington.

We see the Conservatives' arrogance and hypocrisy in defending provincial rights until provinces tell them that they are wrong about their law and order bills or wrong in destroying the data of the long gun registry.

I would like to use my time here today to speak to what this bill would do to farmers and what would be a fair position to take for our farmers. As an Ontario MP, I will also talk about how illogical it is to use what happened with the wheat farmers in Ontario and what might happen now to the prairie farmers without the CWB.

Bill C-18 proposes to dismantle the farmer controlled and funded Canadian Wheat Board by eliminating the single desk marketing of wheat and barley in Canada. Just like the provinces, when the farmers disagree with the government, they are given no choice whatsoever with respect to their decision on the CWB.

The Conservatives claim that this would benefit farmers by opening the market for them and giving them choice. This flies in the face of all the evidence we have now, with the depressed economy and market debt left behind. Left alone, it would wreak havoc on our farmers. The bill is reckless. It would spell economic hardship for prairie farmers during these tough economic times.

It is beyond me why any government representing Canadians would side with the interests of large American grain companies and assist in eroding prices and eroding market security for our own farmers.

The farmers in western Canada are much like the farmers in my own riding of Nickel Belt. They do not expect or want a free ride. They work very hard. They want to be in their fields farming, with a market that is fair to all and not to only a few. They have a right to expect fairness from the Canadian government.

Canadian farmers want to be heard. They have the right to be listened to.

In a time of economic instability, the federal government is jeopardizing $5 billion in exports and forcing grain farmers into an open market without the Wheat Board's protection.

Bill Gehl, a Saskatchewan farmer and chairperson of the non-partisan farm group, the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance, has said, “local food advocates should be concerned about the end of the Canadian Wheat Board”.

Gehl went on to explain:

Today Canadians can be confident that the grain in all the bread, pasta, and most of the beer they consume is still grown by Canadian farmers. However, if [the Prime Minister] succeeds in killing our Wheat Board, private corporations will then control our basic food stocks and will simply buy the cheapest grain they can from any source.

As an Ontario MP, I want to comment on the argument made by some Conservatives that the Ontario experience with removing the single desk can be applied to western farmers. This is truly illogical. It is comparing apples to oranges. We need to be clear: Ontario wheat farmers ended their single desk through a farmer-led democratic process.

Ontario wheat farmers produce wheat that is used for pastries, cookies and cakes and has a ready market available locally. They produce less than one-tenth of the volume of wheat that prairie farmers produce. Ontario wheat farmers sell about 90% of their product within Canada or to northern U.S.A. They have low transportation distances and costs. Worst of all, Ontario wheat farmers now pay grain companies more to handle their crops.

On the other hand, prairie wheat farmers voted in favour of keeping the CWB and face having it taken away against their will. Prairie wheat farmers produce hard red spring wheat used for bread and durum used for pasta, which does not have an extensive local market.

A crucial difference in terms of understanding the impact of this bad bill is that the prairie wheat farmers produce 80% of Canada's wheat. They also must pay freight costs to transport grain long distances to inland terminals and to ports. Prairie wheat farmers rely on the CWB to ensure fair market access for all, including users of producer cars.

Our position is clear: the NDP believes that any decision on the future of the board should be made by farmers for farmers. Grain farmers have expressed their opinion: a majority of them want to keep this single desk system. The bill should be withdrawn. Before any changes are made to the board, the government must study the impact of dismantling it and examine the effect this will have on Canadian grain farmers. Otherwise, it is gambling with the prairie economy and the income of western farmers.

Allen Orberg, a farmer and chair of the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, said that this government does not have a plan, has done no analysis and did not even consult farmers. He also said that the government's approach is based solely on its blind commitment to free markets. Yet here it is, about to dismantle, in just a few months, a marketing system that has been working very well for 75 years.

The facts are clear: the CWB mitigates a risk for farmers. It helps determine when and if they will get paid on time, whether they are selling their grain to the right buyer on the right day and how to get their grain to the buyer, which is a significant issue given the vastness of the prairies.

Farmers pay for the operations of the CWB from their revenue. The CWB is not a government agency or a crown corporation. It is not funded by taxpayers.

There is the example of Australia to know what is in store for our farmers when the single desk is eradicated. This is alarming to say the least. When the Australian wheat board had its single desk power, Australian wheat commanded premiums of over $99 a tonne over American wheat. However, by December 2008, it had dropped to a discount of $27 per tonne below U.S. wheat. In three short years, 40,000 wheat farmers in Australia, which had 12% of the world's wheat production worth about $5 billion, went from running their own grain marketing system and selling virtually all of their wheat on their own behalf to being mere customers of Cargill.

I recognize this bill for what it is: Conservative ideology and politics trumping what is best for our farmers and best for Canada. The CWB is currently controlled, operated and funded by farmers for farmers and the government is meddling where it is not wanted. This bill must be defeated.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Nickel Belt on a very informed and thoughtful speech.

We are talking about the Canada Wheat Board and the merits of keeping it. We have heard passionate arguments on both sides of the House, but the key question for me comes down to what the farmers of western Canada want. We know that the legislation requires that a plebiscite be held for those farmers to tell us what they want.

I have two questions. First, why will the government not honour that legislation and allow farmers to have a vote so we will know once and for all what the farmers of western Canada want, instead of hearing people say what they want?

Second, did the Conservatives, during the last election campaign, tell the farmers of western Canada that they would get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board without a vote?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, farmers have already indicated through their own plebiscite that they want to keep the Canadian Wheat Board, but the government does not want to bring it to a vote because it would lose that vote. I just told the member why the government does not want to bring it to a vote. It does not want to bring the issue to a vote because surely it will lose the vote and then lose face with the farmers in western Canada.

Just a while ago the member for Saint Boniface said that MPs from Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia should not be defending these farmers because we do not represent them, but the last time I was in Saint Boniface I noticed that there are no farmers there. We were elected to represent all Canadians.

The Conservative government should bring this to a vote so farmers can have their say.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member's answer was right on the money. The government will not allow a vote for the simple reason it knows it would lose the vote. It is that simple. The government has really violated every democratic principle in order to not allow that vote. It brought in a law to basically break the law, get around the law.

What is important to Canadians is, are we not really witnessing a government using its majority in the pathological belief that it can impose freedom by suppressing democracy? The Conservatives talk about freedom but they have taken away the freedom to have a vote on a farmer's specific institution.

Is the government really imposing freedom by suppressing democracy, and not really getting to freedom at all?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first comment on the government's majority. We all know that 39% of Canadians who voted, voted for the government. That is not the majority of Canadians.

To answer the other part of the member's question I would like to quote from an email that I received from the acting executive minister of the United Church:

[T]here wouldn't be any attempt to impose dual marketing on the CWB unless a majority of producers voted for it. According to the CWB, [the minister said,] “Until farmers make that change, I'm not prepared to work arbitrarily.... They [farmers] are absolutely right to believe in democracy. I do, too”.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot stop laughing down at this end because of some of the comments that are being made by the opposition.

We had a vote on May 2 on this.

Believe it or not, I represent the oil sands but there are a huge number of farms in my area. Seventy to eighty per cent of those people vote and seventy to eighty per cent vote for the Conservative Party. They have clearly indicated to me that they do not want people in Ontario, Quebec, southern British Columbia and P.E.I. telling them where to sell their grain because those people get to decide where they want to sell their grain. They feel prejudiced. In Alberta, 27 out of 28 seats are held by Conservatives and they won by 70% to 80%.

I am going to ask the member for Nickel Belt how he would feel if the roles were reversed. If his constituents were told where they could sell their nickel and all of the rest of the producers in Canada could sell wherever they wanted, how would his constituents feel about that?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member mentioned the election on May 2. I would like to remind him again that the Conservatives were elected by 39% of the Canadians who voted. That is a long way from a majority.

I would like to quote from an email that I received from a farmer in Saskatchewan, of all places. This is from Dianne and Ken: “We are cereal and pulse growers operating 1,800 acres in southwest Saskatchewan. We have been permit holders for 43 years and have been certified organic for 19 years. We support the Canadian Wheat Board single desk selling of Canadian grains for the following reasons”.

I am sorry I cannot give the member the reasons. My time appears to be up.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts as reported with amendments from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to participate in this debate today on a very important piece of legislation that our government believes will position Canadian farmers well with their businesses to capture the marketing opportunities that are open to them.

Western grain farmers want the same marketing freedom and the same opportunities as other farmers in Canada and around the world. Western Canadian grain farmers have what it takes to succeed in an open market. They have shown this very clearly in recent years with the tremendous growth of the canola and pulse industries. The government wants to give wheat and barley farmers in Western Canada the same freedom to market their products as farmers in the rest of Canada because we know this will create new opportunities for them and put more money in their pockets.

The marketing freedom for grain farmers act will give western Canadian wheat and barley farmers the freedom to market their grain as they choose. It will open up a world of possibilities for them, unlocking the economic potential of the prairie grain sector by removing the requirement that they market wheat and barley for the Canadian Wheat Board.

Many farmers have said that the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board has prevented them from getting the best prices for their grain. Jason Ranger, a farmer from Saskatchewan, said that one of the big issues with the Wheat Board is that there is a huge lack of transparency and they cannot see the price that it is selling their wheat. When passed, this legislation will allow western Canadian wheat and barley farmers the freedom to make decisions based on what is best for their business.

On November 9 four picketers were outside my riding office in Saskatoon protesting Bill C-18. James Findlay, an 88-year-old gentleman who lives in my riding, dropped by my office and let me know that he had approached those picketers. He told them that he was a World War II veteran that fought for Canada and fought for freedom. Mr. Findlay asked the picketers what they had done for Canada. He said he was not saying that because he thought he was better than that generation, he was just securing the liberties for which his generation fought. The poorly timed protest to prevent freedom for western Canadian wheat farmers was not lost on this veteran.

I would like to take a few moments to outline some of the key features and timelines with respect to the transition once the bill becomes law and the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly no longer operates as a monopoly. Once Parliament passes the act, western Canadian wheat and barley producers will be able to forward contract wheat and barley sales for delivery after August 1, 2012. As well, grain companies, end users and the Canadian Wheat Board will all be able to offer farmers contracts for delivery after August 1, 2012, and western Canadian producers will be able to sell future contracts for wheat and barley with delivery dates after August 1, 2012.

I am pleased to say that the Winnipeg exchange has announced its plans to offer new Canadian wheat and durum contracts if the legislation is passed. After that date of August 1, 2012, western Canadian farmers will be able to deliver wheat and barley to any domestic or export buyer. Export licences will no longer be required. At the same time, a new voluntary check-off will be put in place to support research and market development and it will be collected at the point of sale.

The new wheat board will have the ability to buy wheat and barley and pooling arrangements, but other details such as terms of delivery and requirements for prior contracting will be communicated by the wheat board as it develops its plan for operating voluntarily. The 2011 and 2012 pool accounts will be closed in the usual way and final payments should be issued by the end of 2012.

Farmers and members in the grain value chain have also expressed concern about the ongoing availability of producer cars as well as the overall grain handling and transportation system in a marketing freedom environment. I would like to address this issue.

The government is in agreement with recommendations made by the working group on marketing freedom. Through this group the government heard from more than 50 organizations and received 20 written submissions from representatives from all aspects of the grain value chain.

The working group recommended that the reform of Canada's grain marketing approach must be aligned with and supported by the modernization of the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission, as well as timely implementation of the government's response to the rail freight service review. That makes sense.

The working group also recommended that the government give market forces every opportunity to work, which we are very pleased to do.

Contractual arrangements between terminal operators and non-terminal companies have worked successfully for other crops. We expect that facility owners will actively seek arrangements for additional grain volume and profitability.

To address anti-competitive behaviour, the government is considering a range of options, including working with the value chain to monitor any anti-competitive behaviour or systematic issues should they arise. The grain value chain will also continue to have access to long-standing tools, including the Competition Act and the Competition Bureau.

The marketing freedom for grain farmers act will not cause a change to the current state of access to producer cars.

The right to producer cars is set out in the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission allocates these cars to producers. We will continue to protect this access.

It is important to point out that most producers have used producer cars but only if the returns are higher than if they were to deliver directly to a primary elevator. Currently, only about 4% of western Canadian grain shipments are shipped by producer cars.

Short line railways and inland terminals will continue to play an important role in getting western Canadian wheat and barley to both domestic and international markets.

Members of the House will be interested to know that when the government's response to the rail freight service review is fully implemented, it will give producer car shippers the ability to establish service agreements with the railways, promoting more predictable and efficient service.

As we announced in March 2011, the government is implementing its response to the rail freight service review with a view to improving the performance of the entire rail supply chain.

We will initiate a quick facilitation process with shippers, railways and other stakeholders to negotiate a template service agreement and streamlined commercial dispute resolution process. We have recently appointed a facilitator to lead this important work.

As well, we will table a bill to give shippers the right to a service agreement to support the commercial measures.

Our government will also establish a commodity supply chain table to address logistical concerns and develop performance metrics to improve competitiveness. We will do this by involving supply chain partners that ship commodities by rail.

In collaboration with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Transport Canada will lead an indepth analysis of the grain supply chain to focus on issues that affect that sector and help identify potential solutions.

We have announced a crop logistics supply chain. This will be a forum for the agricultural value chain to consider the performance of the supply chain for all crops and to exchange views and information on issues arising from the transition to marketing freedom.

We will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to ensure an orderly transition to a system that will allow western Canadian wheat and barley growers to market their wheat in the way they think is best.

Sylvain Charlebois said, “The end of the monopoly will benefit the Western agricultural economy as a whole”. Our government agrees. The end of the monopoly will benefit the western agricultural economy as a whole.

Our government is committed to delivering on our longtime promise to give western Canadian grain farmers the marketing freedom they deserve.

Last week a gentleman by the name of William Cooper attended a formal agriculture committee hearing held in my riding of Blackstrap. The topic was “How young farmers cope”. Witnesses had to be under 40 years of age. The observation that William Cooper made was, “Every witness under 40 year noted that 'They would not include CWB grains in their 2010 rotations because there was no way to manage risk'. They were talking over $200.00 per acre input costs at seeding time and had to have contracts on a portion of their acres, which they could achieve by seeding canola, oats, peas, or feed grains contracted with Pound-Maker feedlot or ethanol plant. Their bankers understand contracts but they do not understand the CWB pool return outlook”.

The other interesting item was that the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly discourages value-added investments. Stats Canada reported--

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order. The hon. minister of state's time has lapsed. Perhaps she will be able to add remarks during questions and comments. Questions and comments.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech on this very difficult subject.

The minister of state did talk a lot about the transportation system. Working on the transportation committee in the past and talking with the various producers in western Canada, it became clear that size matters with the railways, that the opportunities to move grain, or other agricultural products, effectively and efficiently in western Canada are linked directly to volume. The opportunities for small producers have turned out to be not so good

The minister of state talked about all the wonderful things that the government is going to try to do to improve the rail service agreements. How can she guarantee success in this regard for those small farmers who are going to be on their own?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, that was addressed in my speech, about the producer cars and such.

If the member's concern is about the farmers selling their grain, like ours is, there are many farmers who will find their markets. One of the areas that I was starting to talk about was the value-added investments.

For the first time in western Canada, a pasta plant—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Could I have some quiet while the minister of state is speaking. I would ask members to please take their conversations outside to the lobby, if they wish to continue them.

The hon. Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his concern. I did address the rail, as I said.

The concerns of farmers being able to sell their grain and getting their price will all work well when there are value-added investments, such as the one that was just announced in Regina, all private money building a pasta plant.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, the minister in her remarks spoke a bit about value-added processing.

I wonder if she could explain to the House what several value-added processors or proposed processors mean when they say that they must negotiate grain prices directly with farmers rather than through the Canadian Wheat Board, because they, the processors, need to get lower grain input costs in order for their operations to be profitable?

What exactly do they mean by the importance of negotiating directly with producers to get a lower price for grain? That is good from the processors' point of view, not so good from the farmers' point of view.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I spoke about that.

Pound-Maker was one of the companies. I know that member knows who Pound-Maker is. That is one that will be taking advantage of the cheaper grain. I would assume it is going to be better for the farmers because they do not have to pay for the freight to go all the way to the ports now. The farmers will be able to deal directly with the processor.

I know that farmers in my area will be paying $1,400 to $2,000 in freight rates to get their product to port. Sometimes those costs escalate and also are rejected.

It is a very important part of the whole marketing freedom process. Farmers will be able to sell directly and negotiate their price, not be price takers as they have been under the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers will have that freedom. They will get their dollars.

I am surprised that that member would ask this question because he is from Saskatchewan. He knows, more than anything in the world, what it means to Saskatchewan farmers. Of course, he must not represent farmers when he is in this particular Chamber.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, today and the few days that we have spent talking about Bill C-18, I believe will be remembered as the days where the Conservative government stood up for big agri and against the wishes of so many farmers across western Canada. These farmers have asked for the most fundamental of actions: the right to vote. In fact, it is not only farmers who have asked for it, it is in section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Many government members come from a part of the country where so many people depend on agriculture, have been part of building the Canadian Wheat Board and have benefited from the work of the Canadian Wheat Board. Why is the government refusing to listen, in many cases, to its own constituents?

Is it because a plebiscite that came out at the end of the summer indicated that 62% of western grain growers actually wanted the Canadian Wheat Board to exist? Is it because the Conservatives are afraid of opposition from people on the ground? Is that why they rammed through legislation, not just here in the House, but also through the technical committee?

Why is the government so afraid to listen to the voices of the people across western Canada? Why is it is so afraid to listen to its own constituents, some of whom have spent days on Parliament Hill asking the government to take some time, to see the analysis and to be heard on the insecurities they have about something as fundamental as their livelihood?

When asked about the analysis, researchers indicated that it was not there, that there was no plan. Many of the people I represent in Churchill are extremely unsure about their job security. They talk about having to leave and uproot their families. They know that as the last shipment of grain goes through, their livelihoods are immediately at risk. They have not seen a plan. Officials at all government levels have indicated a similar position and people are left in chaos and with a great deal of uncertainty as they go forward.

The same is applicable to farmers across Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. So many have contacted not just members on our side of the House, the NDP, but members on the other side of the House as well. Many were told by their own members of Parliament that they were too busy to meet with them and many did not get their calls and letters answered.

At the most fundamental level, those members of Parliament were sent here to represent the interests of their constituents. However, today, in voting to finish debate so quickly on Bill C-18, the theme has been to stand against farmers, to stand against the recognition that we need to hear from the very people who are most affected by the legislation. People have said that there is no hurry and they want to take the time.

We have heard the minister talk about goals and deadlines. Whose goals and deadlines are these? They echo the messages from Cargill and Viterra, the largest argribusiness corporations here in Canada and around the world. Those are the deadlines that the government is working on. It is not listening to the voices of farmers and western Canadians.

There are so many questions that must be asked as the government rams through this legislation.

I asked a question in committee and I will ask it again today. What about the contingency fund that is made up of money from farmers? We have heard that the government will take this money and hand it to the institution it is creating, instead of giving it back to the very farmers to whom it belongs. Yet more questions , but no answers. Will the money go as severance or will it go toward the parcelling off that would inevitably take place by large agribusiness corporations?

There are so many questions, but the lack of answers indicate that farmers are not being heard. The money that they have invested year after year will not be given back to them.

What does this legislation mean to so much of what the agricultural economy involves in western Canada, to the Port of Churchill, through which so many tonnes of Canadian wheat has gone around the world; to short line rail that is not just critical for the movement of grain, but also the connection that communities need across rural western Canada; the future of inland terminals and the kind of infrastructure that dots the prairie landscape;and the future of so much infrastructure that is not just about livelihood, but is essentially about livelihood, but it is also about the future of rural families and rural communities across western Canada?

The government, in acting the way it has on Bill C-18, in its vigour to dismantle an institution that has shaped the economy and the social landscape of prairie Canada, in showing such contempt for the important institution of the Wheat Board, it is showing contempt for western Canadians and their voices.

At what point will much of Canada also realize that this is about all of us. We are seeing this increasingly happen as the government moves time allocation on issue after issue to which it feels many Canadians are opposed.

As Canadians across the country see the kind of contempt that the government has shown to the collective work that farmers have done through the Wheat Board, they know that tomorrow this might also mean other marketing boards, that the day after that it might also be the future of our public broadcaster, the CBC, and that the day after that it might also be the future of an institution that is so critical to us, medicare.

Why does the government not believe that Canadians ought to come together to make the kind of decisions that matter to us in terms of our livelihood, the future of our families and the future of our communities? What do the Conservatives have against listening to the very people they claim to represent, western Canadians? Why do they not allow time in this debate? Why do they not allow a vote for western farmers? Why do they not allow for the proper research to take place as to what would happen once the Wheat Board is dismantled?

Why do the Conservatives not answer the questions as to how our fate will be so similar to that of Australia where month after month the livelihood of farmers has suffered as a result of the loss of the Australian wheat board, and where their once proud brand has taken a beating because it is now no longer an Australian brand, but belongs to Cargill and other global corporations that have a piece of the pie?

Is that where the government wants to take our country, to give the hard work of farmers, that important question of who produces our food, that has allowed it to be the best wheat in the world and to throw it away and hand it over to corporations such as Cargill that will not be reinvesting in our communities the way farmers who have been involved in running the Wheat Board have, that will not be investing in the Port of Churchill and that will not be investing in short line rail and the kind of infrastructure that our rural communities need?

Even in our urban centres we know that losing the Wheat Board means real loss, for example in Winnipeg and the loss of jobs that will occur there once the Wheat Board is lost.

There are so many questions that remain unanswered but there is one conclusion. The Conservative Government of Canada, which claims to speak for western Canadians, has, today, failed them. We need a government in this country that represents all regions of Canada.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague and absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

She asked why we were not listening to farmers. We are absolutely listening to farmers. We are not throwing farmers in jail anymore the way that previous governments have because they took their grain, their product, and tried to get the best value they possibly could for it.

In recent years, since that incident took place, farmers have been speaking with their seed drills every spring. They seed a crop for which they get world price. That world price is paid for Canola, mainly on the prairies, which has now outstripped wheat as the number one commodity of choice. Why? It is because they are getting world price for it. Why? It is because it is outside the Wheat Board's mandate.

The study, on which we heard testimony in committee, and my hon. colleague was there and heard it, too, showed that farmers today are subsidizing the Wheat Board and the single desk by somewhere between $400 million to $600 million a year.

My hon. colleague asked why we as government are moving this along. It is because farmers need that freedom of choice.

How can my hon. colleague stand in her place and advocate for farmers when she really does not have many farmers in her riding, not like the rest of the prairies. She should respect what happened on May 2, which is--

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to give the hon. member time to respond and many other members want to ask questions.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, given the discussions we have had at committee, I would ask the member and his colleagues why they are so afraid to give farmers the chance to vote. Fundamentally, why will the government not follow legislation and allow western Canadian producers to have a say in the future of the institution that they built? It is a simple question. Not only is there a failure to answer, but instead we see the ramming through of legislation in an unprecedented manner. The altering of the prairie economy fundamentally tied in history to agriculture, is being changed in a matter of weeks without proper research and without listening to the voices of western Canadian farmers, some of whom the member represents, as do I. I also represent the people of Churchill.

As a proud western Canadian, I want to see a government that will actually listen to the voices--

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks of the member for Churchill. Between the member for Churchill and the member for Yellowhead, it is the member for Yellowhead who is absolutely wrong.

One of the key points the member raised is that there are so many questions that remain unanswered. There are a lot of unanswered questions. I have here the remarks from the Australian wheat board which was somewhat similar to Canada's at one point in time but is now gone. Jock Munro, a farmer, said:

We estimate we have lost $4 billion as growers since the wheat industry was deregulated three years ago.

The loser is definitely the Australian wheat grower, and the winners are the huge companies that control the logistics chain and are end users themselves.

Why has the government not abided by the vote? Why has it not held hearings? Why have we not investigated the Australian situation, which was similar to ours, before we go down this road that could be an absolute disaster for western farmers?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Malpeque for once again raising the example of the Australian wheat board, which the government has failed to look at in terms of where the fate lies for western Canadian growers as the Wheat Board is dismantled and as big agribusiness takes over. Farmers lose out. Farmers' families lose out. Rural communities lose out. Many communities the Conservatives claim to represent will see a negative impact as a result.

To add insult to injury, the Conservatives will not even do the due diligence of allowing farmers to have a say in the future of an institution that they created, not even the decency to allow farmers' voices to be heard.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to support people within my constituency, people who are affected by things. It is not often we can say that we have somebody directly affected by something that is talked about by opposition members who really do not represent the people they pretend to represent. We recently heard a member from the Liberal Party, who has no effect whatsoever on his riding because he is from Prince Edward Island. It is unfair to put onuses on one part of the country and have the other part of the country not required to follow that law, as is the case in this instance.

However, I want to talk about the future, my future, my children's future and Canada's future, which is so important. I do not want to talk the past, as the previous speaker did.

Our government's top priority is clearly the economy. We have one of the best performing economies in the world. The agriculture industry plays a very vital role in that. We recognize that on this side of the House. That is why we want to, and need to, give farmers freedom, freedom to decide what to grow and freedom to decide to whom to sell it. That is what we are doing with this legislation.

We believe all Canadian farmers should be able to position their businesses to capture the marketing opportunities that are available to them. This is clearly available to almost all types of businesses in our country, whether it be a fast food restaurant or some type of service. Canadians can decide who to sell to and from whom to buy the product. That is not the case in this instance.

This debate is so often cast as a generational issue, with the older farmers wanting the security of the Wheat Board and the younger farmers eager to harness new technology and go it alone. While there is definitely some element of that, there are just as many farmers at retirement age who see the open market for wheat and barley as a new door of opportunity, an opportunity that was not given to their fathers. This will keep the next generation on the farm.

As most Canadians know, farms are closing their doors because they cannot be competitive on the international stage. This bill, this opportunity to give marketing freedom, is the opportunity that farmers have wanted in western Canada for decades.

According to the 2011 CWB producers' survey, “76 per cent of the younger generation of farmers surveyed want something other than the status quo, a monopoly”. That is from the Winnipeg Free Press, dated July 29.

It is clear that young farmers want the opportunities that were denied to their fathers. I have heard across my constituency, because I actually represent farmers who are affected by this legislation, that they want marketing freedom. These young, business-orientated entrepreneurs are the future of agriculture. That is why I want to talk about the future. Young farmers are ambitious, they successfully market their other crops across the world and they want this chance today. They need new solutions, not old rhetoric from the opposition and not restrictions, not the status quo. They want new opportunities.

There is no doubt that agriculture faces a major succession challenge over the coming decade, and I have heard it clearly. I have heard from farmers that they have to decide whether they can afford the gas to go to church on Sunday rather than pay their hydro bill. On the campaign trail in northern Alberta, they clearly indicated to me that they wanted choice, that they wanted marketing freedom.

According to the last agricultural census, the average age of farmers in Canada is 52. I come from a community where the average age is 29. We do not have a lot of seniors in Fort McMurray. If the average age is 52, then we have a large dilemma coming, especially because Canadian farmers feed the world. More than 40% of those farmers surveyed are over 54, while less than 10% are under 35. Those are astonishing statistics. Clearly, our government is taking action because we see the future and the future is not what is current.

Despite all of these challenges, however, Canada must capitalize on the entrepreneurial spirit of these young farmers. They are entering the sector with their innovative ideas and their new ways of doing business, and they have clearly shown this. Our government is absolutely committed to helping these young people take over the farm.

Opposition members ask us why we are limiting debate. It is because we have been talking the same language for decades on this side of the House. Clearly, our young farmers want choices. They want to have the opportunity that other farmers have, whether it be in Ontario, southern British Columbia or P.E.I. They want the choices that are given to other Canadians across our country. They have been denied those choices for many years.

The Minister of Agriculture said, “handing over the farm must not be seen as a form of child abuse”. That sounds pretty draconian, but the truth is many of us in the west, many of the farmers in the west especially, feel this has been the situation. We cannot tolerate that on this side of the House.

As a farmer from Manitoba recently wrote to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, “Our twenty-two year old son is more encouraged than ever to be part of agriculture, thanks to the actions and the proposed legislation of [this] government”.

No matter what age, western grain farmers want the same marketing freedom and opportunities as other farmers in Canada and around the world. Clearly, if our farmers have those opportunities, they will not just compete, they will succeed. They will do better than their competition because we have a competitive advantage in our country, not just in our vast farmland but also in the people who run those farms, the younger people, the next generation of farmers. They want to be able to position their businesses to capture the marketing opportunities that are open to them. Our government, our Prime Minister and our minister will clearly make sure that happens.

One key way we are opening doors for our young people is through this legislation. It is interesting that in a university class of future farmers in Saskatchewan not just 60% but almost all of those young farmers favoured moving away from the single desk to give them choice. Choice is opportunity and they want that opportunity. Why not? Young farmers do not need single desks; they need many options, just like other entrepreneurs have.

This bill, which I am so proud of and which was one of the pillars that I ran on in my very first election in 2004, will give them that opportunity. Marketing freedom will allow grain growers to market based on what is best for their own businesses and help them make that decision.

Brian Otto, the president of the Western Barley Growers Association, said:

With a commercial market place, young farmers will have the tools to manage their risk and create wealth, for themselves and for their communities. We will finally have an environment that will attract young people back to the farm.

I hear some talk from a member from P.E.I. on the other side who has constituents who are not affected by this legislation. Clearly, he is not listening to what my farmers tell me and those farmers represented across this caucus.

We have already seen some encouraging signs, not just signs from this government. We have seen an overview by Agriculture and Agri-food Canada which indicates a younger generation of farmers is on the horizon and that younger generation sees clearly the actions of this government and are very pleased.

The overview reports that close to 8% of farmers are young farmer enterprises and they actually perform better than other farmers in Canada. That is amazing, but it is a good hope for the future. These are managed solely by farmers between the ages of 18 and 39. They tend to be well-distributed across farm types, size and province and because they have more opportunities, they are likely to have higher profit margins to share with their families, a higher share of on-farm family income and higher gross farm revenues. Young farmers are our future in more ways than one.

As well, a survey by Farm Credit Canada found that young producers, age 40 and under, felt their farm or business was better off today compared to five years ago. Over 80% were optimistic about the future success of their farm or business over the next five years.

Creating a successful farming operation is more than just the Wheat Board and more than just control mechanisms by outdated opposition members. It is clearly about planning, expanding, diversifying and meeting the needs of a community in the world today for the future of tomorrow.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House before, my grandfather farmed for 36 years on the border of Alberta and Saskatchewan. He was a lifelong Conservative, and a proud one, but he also was a lifelong supporter of the Wheat Board.

One of the prime differences between the two sides of the House is over the question of whether farmers support the government's action. The government has pointed to the results of the May 2 election as somehow being a mandate given to it to dispense with the Wheat Board. There are farmers like my grandfather who may vote Conservative for certain reasons, but want like heck to keep the Wheat Board.

There is an easy way to resolve this. If the government thinks it has the support of the farmers of the country, it should put it to a vote by the farmers of western Canada. I will respect the result of that vote in the House. We will know one way or the other.

This is a simple question. Will the government let the farmers decide? If you are so confident that you have the support of the farmers of this country, put your money where your mouth is, let them vote and let us will live by the result. That is what you do in a democracy, is it not?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members to direct their comments and questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there was a vote. It is called a majority. The majority of Canadians said that they wanted us to decide what would happen with farmers and the Canadian Wheat Board. I will not interfere in the business of the member's constituents and I would prefer he did not interfere in the business of my constituents.

Do members know how many phone calls and letters I have received in the last six months asking to keep the Wheat Board? Zero. I represent 30% of the geographic area of Alberta and I have received zero letters and phone calls. Maybe they will start because people will hear me today, but I doubt it. This is clearly before the people. They want the Canadian Wheat Board to offer choices and we will offer that freedom from the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca loves to attack members who are not from the Wheat Board area, but I have spent many years in the Wheat Board area and I hear from wheat growers every day.

The key point is this. He said that other Canadians were not under the Canadian Wheat Board. However, with other marketing institutions, whether it is in Quebec, the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board, whatever it may be, those people were given a vote on their marketing institutions. Canadian Wheat Board producers have in legislation, under section 47.1, the right to that vote and the government has denied them that right.

Why will it not allow a vote of western producers? Is it because it knows it will lose and it wants to steamroll over them, just like a dictatorship? Is that what is wrong, that it does not want to admit in the House—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We are getting short on time and the hon. member needs time to respond.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member wants to believe he is right. I know that because he is a good member and he has been around here for a long time. I do not want to decide on where growers in P.E.I. sell their products, whether it be potatoes or wheat. He referred to an Ontario wheat board. Farmers have a choice as to whether to join that wheat board. That is exactly what we will offer to farmers in western Canada. We will offer them the choice of a strong Canadian Wheat Board or other strong options.

We are interested in one thing. We are interested in what is best for them as they tell us. They have told me clearly. That was one of the top 10 priorities I ran on and they told me it was a priority.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 4 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 5 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 6 stands deferred.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 7 to 11 in Group No. 2 to the House.

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

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-18, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 7 with the following:

“9. (1) The board consists of fifteen directors,”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-18, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 42 on page 7 with the following:

“(2) All the directors are elected by the producers in accordance with the regulations. The directors must designate, also in accordance with those regulations, a president from among themselves.”

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on Motion No. 7.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 7 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 8.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 8 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 9.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 9 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 10.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 10 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 11.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 11 stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #64

Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results on the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, 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, the Liberal members will be voting yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc will vote yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party supports our own amendments. We vote yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #65

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 3.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the result of the vote on the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP votes yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals vote yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc will vote yes.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #66

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 4.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the result of the vote on the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will be voting yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois vote yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #67

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 4 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 5.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the vote on the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, NDP members are voting yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members are voting yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are voting in favour of this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #68

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 5 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 6.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the vote on the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is voting yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals are voting yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc is voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am voting yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #69

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 6 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 7.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the result of the vote on the previous motion to the current one, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, NDP members are voting yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members are voting yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc votes yes.

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

I am voting yes, Mr. Speaker.

(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #70

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 7 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 8.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, NDP members are voting yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members are voting yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #71

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 8 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 9.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, 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 are voting yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members are voting yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party is voting in favour of the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #72

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 9 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 10.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is voting in favour of the motion.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members are voting yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #73

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 10 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 11.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, NDP members are voting yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members are voting yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #74

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 11 defeated.

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

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #75

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

It being 6:54 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.