Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Easter's obsession with this is turning into silliness, because this motion doesn't even make a lot of sense. I'd like to take a bit of time to look at it and explain to some of the folks why we need to oppose this motion.
First, it's basically a waste of time because the ballots have already gone out and they're being returned. I assume Mr. Easter wants to take this to the House and try to get his three hours of debate. It's going to be over an issue that's already passed.
But with respect to the way the motion is written, we need to go over it and talk a bit about what is actually there. He talks about the three questions, which are very clear: the Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk; I'd like the option of marketing my barley to the board or to others; or the board shouldn't be marketing barley. It's not complicated. Those questions are the ones the Wheat Board has used on its survey for years. That's what they used to gauge their support.
This idea that somehow these questions are too complicated for western Canadian producers is an insult to those people. I think probably some of the people who are saying that should apologize, because farmers are smart enough to understand these questions. They're clear, simple, direct, uncomplicated, and very straightforward.
The second of the three questions says that a dual-market option is a viable alternative. Please go down to the next paragraph, where Mr. Easter talks about page 10 in the report. If the members want to turn to page 10, they can see what that paragraph really says about marketing choice.
I'm going to read it out in its entirety, and I'm going to make an amendment that rather than his partial quote, we include this, so that people can be clear as to what's really in this section.
Section 2.0 is entitled, “what marketing choice means”, and reads:
Marketing Choice means that wheat and barley farmers will be able to sell wheat and barley to any domestic or foreign buyer of their choice, including a transformed Canadian Wheat Board (CWB II). “Marketing Choice” is a better term to describe the new environment than “dual marketing”.
You notice they're not saying that dual marketing can't exist.
The latter term implies to some that the existing marketing approach (a CWB with monopoly powers) could co-exist with an open market approach.
By definition, that's possible. If you think about it, you can't have the two things existing at the same time. So clearly:
Marketing choice implies an open market in which CWB II, as an entity operating in that open market, will be a vigorous participant through which producers could voluntarily choose to market their grain.