Evidence of meeting #20 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Okay. I'd still like to speak to the motion.
Mr. Easter, you mentioned being democratic, this kind of thing. What I find very undemocratic and bordering on communistic is the fact that the farmers in my province of Ontario have an option, and farmers in your riding, Mr. Steckle, and to the south and in the real wheat-producing areas of the province tell me, we have an option and we like that option. What I'm saying is undemocratic is this: why in the heck shouldn't somebody out west, in whatever province, have the same right?
That's what this is about. It's not about ending the Wheat Board; that's just political rhetoric. He knows it, I know it, and everybody knows it. So I will not be supporting the motion from that aspect.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
I don't want to argue with Mr. Miller, and I understand his position; it's a legitimate view. But I think what we're debating is the motion and not the board. If we stray from what's in front of the committee today—it's not debating whether or not there should be a wheat marketing board—we won't get done in two hours.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
My only comment is that my concern is about the time constraint here. I think next week is going to be difficult to bring in...especially if we want to see some of the provincial ministers before us. I'd like to see all the prairie provinces have their ministers at the table to present their positions, not just two out of the three areas. For that matter, even part of northern B.C. is within the Wheat Board mandate, and we should be bringing forward that minister as well.
So there is a huge issue there, and I think the timeframe is going to be detrimental to the overall debate. I'd like to see flexibility so that if it requires bringing in some of these witnesses down the road, we have the ability to handle it. This motion doesn't give us that flexibility.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'd like to make the point that we've spent quite a bit of time on this. We've had a meeting already, we spent two hours in the House yesterday, we have another hour of debate scheduled in the next two weeks on this, and we have other meetings on this issue as well.
Next week is busy with the CN and grain movement. That's an important thing in my part of the world; the grain is not moving the way it should. We were going to talk about some other issues in Quebec--the pork issues, and so on--later. All of that stuff is being set aside. The CGC review is not going to be done in one meeting. Now that we're going into November with these things, the schedule is already off.
I think we should defeat the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
To that point, when I read the motion that says “undertake an emergency review”, that doesn't necessarily mean we use and actually book committee time; it could mean extra meetings.
Mr. Atamanenko.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
We feel this is a crisis at this point. I've talked to more people. I had a meeting with CFA, and they're coming out with a statement tomorrow. There are all sorts of far-reaching implications from a decision on the Wheat Board. We feel there's a crisis in agriculture and we want it addressed this coming week. That's the point behind the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
This motion supplants the calendar we had and moves everything off. You're okay with that?
That's the point Mr. Anderson was making. We're okay with changing the calendar now because we had accepted that earlier.
Ken.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
For the record, I would like to say I also feel this is a matter of urgency. If you talk about the top agricultural agribusiness or agrifood issue in the nation today, what is happening with the Wheat Board and the process is the number one issue and warrants our shifting everything back so we can deal with it appropriately. That's to the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
October 19th, 2006 / 11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
As I said, Mr. Chair, when we put forward the motion originally, we had come together with great reluctance as three opposition parties to put this motion, but we see a government bulldozing ahead with this so-called task force--tainted task force--that has people on it from one side of the issue. If anybody has looked at the Canadian Wheat Board website, they will see the board's response to the task force. Read that and you can see the concerns we were raising in the House yesterday about the seriousness of moving ahead with this so-called marketing choice and, in the process, from our point of view, not abiding by the law of the land in terms of having a vote by primary producers. With great reluctance, we set aside the regular business of the committee.
However, you will know the minister has given the task force 30 days to come up with recommendations. This committee doesn't know what the task force is about, and farmers don't know, other than that it does away with single-desk selling. It's extremely important we have that task force in on an urgent basis. This has been bulldozed ahead by a government that seems not to want to listen. You heard the Prime Minister yesterday.
The last points are very strongly in favour.
The last point I would make is that I know a second motion, which is on a very urgent matter in Quebec, will be coming forward from Mr. Bellavance as well. With this motion the way it is, by agreement we could set aside an hour next week to deal with André's point, because it is an urgent matter in that area as well. But the urgency of doing this next week on the Canadian Wheat Board can't be understated.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
I could speak at some length to Larry's comments about the Ontario Wheat Board. There are different circumstances in Ontario. Most of the wheat that is exported goes to the Wheat Board. Much of the wheat in Ontario is used domestically. We don't have the wheat situation they have in the west. We don't depend on exporting wheat; the western wheat is a different situation.
I'm getting an average of 12--and for a while there were 14--letters, handwritten for the most part, not copied, from farmers from your provinces in the west asking us to do whatever it takes to find resolution. They want some answers--these are farmers, and I don't know these people. I've kept every one of them, so you can see them if you want. Some of them are from your ridings. I want you to know we're getting pressure in Ontario from the people out west.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Just to Mr. Steckle's point, if he looks at the top of the page, he'll see they're all coming from one fax number. So I think you can consider that to be an organized propaganda campaign, which we hear about.
The second thing I want to address to Mr. Easter is that no law has been broken here, absolutely no law at all. So he should quit saying that. I'll just leave it at that.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
I think we are getting just a little bit ahead of ourselves. We know the task force has been told to report back to the minister by the end of the month. I think we're jumping the gun here and we're not going to get all the information we need. We should wait until the task force reports before we call them before the committee. I think that would be prudent.
You have to remember that there are two sides to this debate. Even people who are in the Wheat Board area, who have their permit books in the Wheat Board, are on both sides of this issue. It's just not one-sided. Within our ridings, we have these debates happening in western Canada now. I know most of the members sitting on the other side of the table don't understand that, but we have an ongoing heated debate on this issue, and it's passionate on both sides. We have to be respectful of the debate that's taking place on both sides of the issue.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
I disagree with James. I think this is one of the biggest areas of interaction we're having, where the biggest change could be positive or could be negative. That whole debate has to happen, and I think we have to be part of it. We certainly have to hear it. It's important that we inform ourselves.
For me to say that I think there should be a Wheat Board or a single desk or there shouldn't be, or those things--I'm not prepared to go that far, but I want to inform myself about it. I want to see how farmers are going to interact with government on making that decision. Is it going to be individual? Is it going to be collective? I want to make my recommendation after a full study on where I think it should be. It has ramifications throughout the agricultural industry.
There is a great fear in supply management that they're going to be next, because the same argument can be made by any producer. Any producer could make that argument, that they should have their choice in how they market and, if they can be more effective on their own, that they not be controlled. That argument could be made. Everybody is watching how we deal with this, how the government deals with it and how Parliament deals with it. I think it would be irresponsible for us not to take action and not to inform ourselves fully.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
We've dedicated half an hour to this, gentlemen. We're at that point now and we have one more motion yet to go--a notice of motion and Mr. Bellavance's motion. Is there any more discussion?