Evidence of meeting #70 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.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
Well, it's not a point of order. We'll get to the real numbers at some point, but let's carry on.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Actually, I can get to them right now because I have them right here. I'll just go right through them: 37.5% voted that the Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk; 48.4% would like an option to market barley to the Wheat Board or any other buyer. There's nothing Mr. Easter can do to argue with that number.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Easter just brought up a point that I know isn't true, but I would like to ask at this point that he show us where the government has--
Conservative
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
You've asked for this. It's not a point of order. We're not going to deal with it right now. We're going to deal with the....
Mr. Anderson has the floor. I'm going back to Mr. Anderson.
Conservative
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
We have various interpretations of numbers. We're not going to get into that.
Mr. Anderson.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to wrap up here fairly quickly. I'm going to maybe put my name back on the speakers' list, because it's obvious that some of the other folks want to get up to speak here.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
Through the chair, Mr. Miller, please. Let's get back to order.
Mr. Anderson.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Maybe I can deal with the grumbling, Mr. Chair, just by reading out the results: 37.5% want the Canadian Wheat Board to retain the single desk; 48.4% said they would like an option to market their barley either to the Wheat Board or somebody else--that doesn't say the Wheat Board's gone or anything like that, in spite of what Mr. Easter wants to make out of it--and 14% said they don't think the Wheat Board should have a role in the marketing of barley.
Those are the results. However you add them up, 48.4% said they want the option of marketing their barley to the Wheat Board or outside the Wheat Board, so that's where we're at with that. Obviously, as you've seen in the last couple of minutes, people want to interpret those numbers differently, but those are what the numbers are.
So that's a bit of a discussion about the letter and the contents of it, and just a bit of a rebuttal specifically on the letter. Actually, I'd like to probably come back a little later to talk about what the government has done over the past year in order to bring the barley plebiscite to the conclusion it has, but I'm certainly willing to turn it over to somebody else.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As you are well aware, I'm not a regular member on this committee, but I do enjoy being asked to participate, especially in this debate about the future of farmers, because it is so important to farmers.
I'm certainly questioning the debate of this motion today. I think everyone in this room and everyone in this House knows that the NDP doesn't represent farmers, and I'm a little surprised that now we have a de facto new party, the NFU, which was not elected by anybody to represent them in the House of Commons.
Yet we're debating today what is basically a conspiracy theory on behalf of an unregistered lobby group--and thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Anderson. Why don't we take some other group? Why don't we take what the barley growers have been asking for, for 30 years, and put that forward as policy? Why didn't we take some of what the wheat growers have been asking for, for 36 years, who represent far more individuals, far more farmers, than the NFU has ever represented, despite the fact that their membership certainly climbed through their Wheat Board lobby on this issue in the last few months? I throw that out as a rhetorical question. If this committee is going to jeopardize its credibility...and I would argue it has great credibility.
This committee has done some good studies. It's done some good work. It's got some farmers on it, which is great, who represent farmers across this country. For this committee to jeopardize its credibility by saying that the National Farmers Union should dictate to a House of Commons standing committee on agriculture how to think, I find that very troubling.
Mr. Atamanenko talks about the democratic system. This is about as far from the democratic system as you get if this committee accepts NFU as a policy-maker for this government, or a policy-maker for this committee to even discuss. Once again, I'm appalled that we're even taking time.
I can't help but go back to the fact that farmers have been asking us, as members of Parliament, to come up with a new program. We've all admitted that the CAIS program is not working great. We have an opportunity to discuss it, and I can't quite believe that this motion was defeated to talk about something that's history, something that's been done. It was democratically voted on and won by 62%. Let's move on. Farmers have made their decision. Let's get on with it. Let's not belabour that. Let's develop a new agricultural policy framework, if that's what we're going to call it, that's going to help farmers. We have a first step in freedom of marketing for Canadian farmers in the Wheat Board district since the 1930s. And for Mr. Atamanenko to suggest that this was hastily put together....
I might share a little bit of my history going back to when Wayne Easter and I were presidents of two of the farm groups in Canada. Wayne was president of the NFU. I was president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers. That was one of the reasons why the Western Canadian Wheat Growers was founded, to provide a voice for western farmers, within the Wheat Board jurisdiction, to actually be able to improve their bottom lines.
The first initiative was to actually recognize that there is a difference in the protein contents of wheat, and farmers should be compensated for that. This was one of the things the Wheat Board fought for and won. It only took 20 years, if I recall.
We were also fighting for years to try to get the freedom to actually make that one final decision on our farm. We make every other decision as a farmer, but that one decision, which, by the way, has the largest impact on our bottom line, that final decision was taken away from us.
In actuality our wheat was confiscated the day it left the seed drill and was put in the ground. If I grew bread wheat, that was all I could do with it. If I grew malting barley, all I could do with it was to let the marketing agency that called itself the Canadian Wheat Board market it for me.
Their mandate was to market it, but they failed to do that in many years because they decided it wasn't enough money for a farmer. They decided arbitrarily that they were just going to hold on to this. Their mandate was to market it, not to make a marketing decision of whether or not it was enough money for my farm. Many farms ended up having to go deeper into debt to be able to pay their input costs because the Canadian Wheat Board had forgotten to market their grain or decided it wasn't a high enough price at that time.
Mr. Atamanenko commented about the NFU representing the majority of farmers. That's certainly not an accurate statement. The numbers show that. I think we can quite easily argue that most farmers aren't represented by the National Farmers Union. The 62% that was the outcome of the vote I think clarifies the position that they do not represent the majority of farmers.
On publicity of the voters' list, and I'm just going through some of the comments Mr. Atamanenko made, I don't know how we would publicize it any more.
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
I have just read Mr. Atamanenko's motion again. It suggests asking Ms. Fraser to audit the expenses. Is that really so dangerous? I do not understand Mr. Menzies' point of view.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
That's not a point of order, Mr. Gaudet. There will come a time when you will be able to speak, and you can make that point then.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, I am talking about the motion at the moment. He is talking about everything but the motion.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
We're entering into a debate, and we're not going to do that today. We're going to finish with Mr. Menzies, and then we'll come back another time and then you can make your point.
Mr. Easter.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
To your point, Mr. Chair, I know the other vice-chair isn't here and you have to leave, but is there not a way that somebody else could chair the committee and we could continue on to the proper adjournment time at 5:30? I have no problem if Charlie, Larry, Barry, or anybody else chairs the meeting. The call to the committee went out from 3:30 to 5:30. Why can't we do it?
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
I indicated at the outset of the meeting that I have to leave at 4:15. The current vice-chair, who would succeed me as chair in my absence, is not here. This meeting has the prerogative of choosing another chair. I believe that is correct. If this group wishes to continue after 4:15, at your pleasure, by all means.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Why I raise the point of order now, Mr. Chair, is that we would need to do it now before you adjourn the meeting. Could I make a motion?
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
He doesn't have the floor for one thing, so he can't make a motion.
Liberal
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
The parliamentary secretary is not going to allow me to make a motion so that the meeting can continue, so really, instead of filibustering, he's just cancelling the meeting.