Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The motion is pretty self-explanatory. The preamble pretty well covers it, but I'll read the motion:
1. That the Minister of Agriculture & Agri-food immediately rescind the questions released on January 22, 2007 upon which barley producers in western Canada are expected to vote on their future relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board and
2. Immediately implement the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture & Agri-food, by placing before wheat and barley producers of western Canada who have a relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board, the questions contained within that report.
And then that the motion be reported to the House. The motion has become necessary for several reasons. Key among them is the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has almost shown absolute contempt for this committee in terms of its recommendations, and certainly for Parliament by not respecting the will of Parliament in terms of the questions that were replaced and voted on in Parliament as questions for a vote. The minister has clearly shown a lot of disrespect for farmers, who had proposed the questions in the first place that we passed in Parliament.
Our hope is that if we table another report giving direction, maybe the minister will reconsider.
The question the minister asked is seriously flawed, and I outline that in the preamble, but just to be clear, in terms of the dual marketing aspect of the question the minister asked, on October 25 the minister appointed a task force, which released it's report, which we now have before us, called “Marketing Choice--The Way Forward”, and at page 10 of that report it says:
“Marketing Choice” is a better term to describe the new environment than “dual marketing”. The latter term implies to some that the existing marketing approach (a CWB with monopoly powers) could co-exist with an open market approach. This is not possible.
That is the end of the quote. It is impossible, yet that question was asked.
I just want to turn to this one last point, Mr. Chair. I had asked the Library of Parliament to give me some notes on plebiscites and votes. They really turned to Patrick Boyer's book, Lawmaking by the People: Referendums and Plebiscites in Canada. He's a former MP. The Library of Parliament says that for a plebiscite to accurately reflect the public's opinion, the wording of the plebiscite question should be clear. To quote Boyer:
The courts, as well as common sense, dictate that any question submitted to electors be stated in the clearest possible terms if voters are to respond intelligently and the legislative body concerned is to understand their wishes. The question in a plebiscite should be clear, simple, and direct, explained an Alberta court early in this century, and should not refer to considerations which might influence the voters or contain uncertainties, probabilities, and possibilities which might tend to confuse them.
He goes on to say:
Ambiguity in wording which gives rise to more than one interpretation of the question (and subsequently of the result), defeats the purpose of the vote, unless it is intentionally so worded.
Mr. Chair, I don't think there is any question about the questions the minister raised. They are raised to confuse the voter. They're not clear. There is no clarity to them, so it defeats the purpose of the vote in the first place.
So for those reasons, I believe we should support this motion, and hopefully the minister will reconsider and ask a clear question.
He's already delayed the vote by a week. He said he was embarrassed for doing that, but he delayed the vote, in my opinion, to try to joggle the voters' lists a little more.
For those reasons, I put forward the motion, Mr. Chair.
