Debates of March 2nd, 2007

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member ranting and raving about the questions. I want to read out the three questions that western Canadian producers have been asking. I know our farmers are smart enough to understand them but I will take some time so the member can understand them. The first question is:

The Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets.

I think the member can understand that. The second question is:

I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.

I think that is pretty clear, even to the member for Malpeque. The third question is:

The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in marketing barley.

Farmers in western Canada have the choice between those three questions.

I could maybe understand why the member opposite would be confused given some of the things that he has pulled off here today. He was making up comments about the Minister of Agriculture right out of the blue. Our House leader challenged him on them but he would not back down.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I quoted directly from the statement of the Minister of Agriculture. I should not be accused--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Malpeque is rising on a point of debate, not a point of order. There will be plenty of time at question period later on to make those points. Meanwhile, I would like to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary and, as much as possible, without interruption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Macleod who is very competent in this area. I know farmers will want to hear from him.

I want to read what the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food actually said yesterday. He stated:

Mr. Speaker, I heard about the real voice for change group. They met the other day. I think there were about 30 of them who got together. It was a completely non-partisan event. David Orchard introduced the Leader of the Opposition and it just went on from there.

That is all he said. The member for Malpeque need only check Hansard. The member accused the minister of saying that he refused to meet with them and that is just not true. I think farmers are getting used to that member making things up.

This issue is obviously an obsession with him. Those of us on the agriculture committee have been trying since last October to deal with other important issues in agriculture, such as our business risk management planning, the APF issues that are going on and farm income support issues, but the member has consistently insisted that we come back to one issue. He is completely obsessed with it. We can see that by the motion that was put forward today.

If members take the time to read the motion, they will see that the minister the other day referred to him through his tinfoil hat. Members will see that it makes absolutely no sense for this motion to be in place right now because the barley plebiscite is underway. Thousands of ballots have already been sent back and farmers are responding to the plebiscite questions. If we have thousands of ballots back, it is probably evidence that the farmers actually do understand the questions.

Just as the ballots are coming back, the member comes forward with a motion that says we should call back all those ballots and replace them with something else. The motion does not make sense.

I hear the member referring to things like collectivism. It is a clear sign that he does not understand western Canadian agriculture in any way, shape or fashion. He laid out a lot of rhetoric today. He talked about there being more choice under the Wheat Board than there would be without it. He knows that is just ridiculous, that it is foolishness.

The CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board appeared before the agriculture committee yesterday and, as he gets paid to do, defended the Canadian Wheat Board. He rolled out the rhetoric that western Canadian farmers have heard forever, which is that the Wheat Board is doing a good job, that it gets premiums wherever it goes and that farmers should trust it. One of the reasons western Canadian farmers actually do not trust the Wheat Board is that for years they have asked for information but the Wheat Board has not been required to provide it. The farmers have said that they are smart enough and they want the information to sort it out for themselves.

This government has moved to bring the Canadian Wheat Board under the Access to Information Act so that western Canadian farmers will finally be able to find out what has been going on at the board, how their money is being spent on things like communications, advertising, promotion and what polling companies are being hired.

We know the former prime minister's campaign chair for the national campaign was hired by the Canadian Wheat Board in the past to do polling. That was a good gig for him, especially after the failure that the Liberals have shown in the elections.

The member says that if we open the board up there will be a problem with the grain companies having influence in the market. I do not think he realizes that the grain companies already sell over half the grain that is marketed in western Canada. There is a whole list of companies that are called accredited exporters. They market half the grain for the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers do not need to be scared of a situation where they are dealing with grain companies. They deal with them in lots of other areas with other crops as well.

Yesterday in the agriculture committee, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound raised a very important point. The member said that Ontario premiums were at a discount to the western Canadian premiums but one needs only to look at what is happening in the market. In the agriculture committee yesterday, we talked about the fact that Ontario wheat was going into the United States and that the Ontario market was backfilling its market from western Canada.

If we were to think about that in any kind of economic terms, we would think that Ontario wheat was going into the higher priced market and the lower priced wheat was coming in to fill the gap that is left by the wheat that has gone out. We should take a closer look at what is going on and what advantage western Canadian farmers are getting from this system.

At the CFA reception last night, I spoke to a western Canadian dairy farmer who is very well respected in western Canada. He has been involved in the industry for a long time and has been successful at it. He found it to be quite a joke that people were trying to tie supply management to the Canadian Wheat Board. I asked him if he knew why they were trying to do that and he said yes, that it was a political thing. He was willing to acknowledge that the two systems were not even comparable. He got a bit of a kick out of the fact that the opposition was trying to tie these two things together.

I believe it is a sign of the opposition's desperation that it is far more willing to put its political ideology ahead of farmers' interests. We see that continuously.

I was disappointed today to hear the member's descent into personal attacks. I think he realizes that since his arguments are not sufficient he needs to resort to personal attacks. I guess I am getting used to that.

One of the points I should make is that there is no gag order on the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. The member should be in western Canada to see the number of letters to the editors that three or four of the directors of the Wheat Board have written. One would almost think there was an organized campaign for them to get their message out into the papers. The Canadian Wheat Board was told not to continue to be involved politically in this and to get out and market grain. Yesterday, the CEO told us that they have been doing that. I think everyone in western Canada is comforted by the thought that the Wheat Board is trying to market grain rather than trying to influence things politically.

One of the other things we found out yesterday that was very interesting came from some events that happened a couple of months ago. When Mr. Arason, the new CEO was appointed, several directors on the board were indirectly attacking him by saying that his salary was higher than the salary of the previous CEO. We found out yesterday that the compensation Mr. Arason is receiving is definitely not higher than what the previous CEO was getting.

I am really concerned about the fact that those directors knew that what they were saying was not accurate. Farmers are calling me and saying that if the directors were lying about that kind of thing, they wonder what other things they have been misleading them on. There are a lot of questions in western Canada about what some of these directors are doing in their representation on the board. Farmers would like some answers to that as well.

We believe that western Canadian farmers need to have the freedom to choose how they market their grain through a strong, viable and voluntary Canadian Wheat Board.

Last fall, a task force on implementing marketing choice for wheat and barley had this to say about choice:

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. To achieve this, the existing CWB will need to transform itself over a transition period into CWB II. For this ‘choice’ to occur, CWB II needs to have a high probability of success in an environment where it will have to compete for business. One of our focuses has been on creating the environment for a high probability of commercial success for CWB II.

In closing I just want to say that it is the board of directors that has the opportunity to set the future direction for the Canadian Wheat Board in a voluntary system. There are some things they could do that would allow them to maintain their position in the industry and to move ahead and give farmers choice. I look forward to some of the options that they may come up with in the near future.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that there is no personal attack by me on the member. I am talking about his responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board

Yesterday, the CEO said:

Making inaccurate statements about sales values and our relationship with specific customers is damaging to our business....

As I said earlier, he talked about the factual inaccuracies by members of Parliament in that member's party. Standard & Poor's has lowered the credit rating of the Canadian Wheat Board and it named the government 11 times as the reason for its lowering.

I would just ask the member opposite, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, whether he agrees with the following statement by the Wheat Board on the ballot. It reads:

The option asking farmers if they would prefer to sell their barley to any buyer, including the CWB, creates an unrealistic expectation that the CWB can continue to offer the same value to farmers without its single desk.

Does he agree or disagree with that statement on the agency's responsibility--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time and that I had actually come more prepared, because yesterday I read a statement into the record at the agriculture committee about how in the 1920s there was a movement among farmers to form voluntary pools. They were able to set up the wheat pools.

The wheat pools survived very successfully through the 1920s. They actually commanded over 50% of the market at one point. So we have historical documentation, if we can call it that, about the ability of voluntary pooling systems to operate in Canada, and we expect that the Wheat Board, given its position right now as one of the biggest players in Canada, would be able to participate and successfully operate in an environment like that.

Again, I just want to point out the three questions the member mentioned. I will read them out one more time so he can understand that they are not complicated at all.

First: “The Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets”. That is pretty straightforward.

Second: “I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer”. That is very clear.

Third: “The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in the marketing of barley”. I know that my farmers are smart enough to figure out that question.

If farmers are really interested in finding out what went on at the committee, I think they should look at the Wheat Board site and read the La Liberté article on Algerian grain sales, from December 2006. They will begin to see why we had concerns.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Specifically, through the very report in which my colleague from Malpeque has moved concurrence today, the 11th report, which we are debating, I will try to stay exactly on topic.

My question is for the parliamentary secretary. In the event that we do vote concurrence in this report, which is what I expect when the debate concludes following the two week break, the parliamentary secretary and his party will lose the vote on the debate taking place on this report. I expect that the majority of members of Parliament will vote concurrence in this report. If the parliamentary secretary has any respect whatsoever for Parliament, will he honour items one and two of the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which call upon the government to rescind the questions released January 22 to barley producers, and implement the sixth report of the standing committee and the questions therein?

Will he honour the will of Parliament and do that? Or does he have disrespect for Parliament in the way that he is disrespecting prairie producers?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course I have absolutely no disrespect for Parliament. I respect it. It is a great honour and privilege to be here. I also have respect for my farmers. I respect their ability to make decisions. For that reason, I am one of the people who believes they have the ability to make those decisions and should have the choice to make them.

We look forward to the opportunity of giving producers those options, the same options, as my colleague mentioned, that farmers have across the rest of this country.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, please do not let the way I am introduced precede the fact that I am a farmer.

I farmed for 30 years before I came to the House. I need to preface my remarks by reminding the members of the House that I am a farmer. I have lived under this board's jurisdiction. I am one of the farmers from western Canada. If I farmed in any other place in Canada, if I was a beef producer, a pork producer or a dairy farmer, I would not be faced with having my wheat and barley for human consumption confiscated from the moment that it is put in the ground. That is no exaggeration.

As a farmer, I make all the decisions. I make the decisions as to what I am going to grow, how I am going to raise it, what the fertility program is for it, and how I shall harvest it, but while I am growing it and harvesting it I know full well that I have no choice, no choice whatsoever, in how it is sold, where it goes, or what I am going to get for it.

As my farm grew over the years and grew to produce less and less volume of wheat and barley for human consumption, that was replaced with non-board grains, as we refer to them in western Canada: peas, lentils, chickpeas and feed barley. Those crops took the place of wheat and barley for human consumption simply because I had no control over the price and no control over when it was sold.

For many years I waited 18 months to see the returns from my wheat and barley. For example, one year we had a great crop of hard red spring number one, the best wheat in the world. Probably 40% of that wheat sat in my bin all winter. I had the opportunity, if I could have sold it into the United States in Shelby, Montana, of getting $1.35 more a bushel than what the Wheat Board was offering in its pool return outlook, but the board did not even sell it. The board did not even offer the wheat that I could have sold in Shelby, Montana for $1.35 more a bushel than I was offered, for more money in my pocket, money not received because it was not sold. I missed that opportunity because I had a monopoly, a monopoly forcing me to deal with someone who did not have the obligation to move that wheat.

That was my obligation, my requirement under the law, or else I would have been dragged away in leg irons like those who felt the wrath of the former finance minister of the previous Liberal government when he was agriculture minister. Those farmers tried to receive more money for their wheat, but they were dragged off in leg irons and thrown in jail. I chose not to break the law. I chose to come here to try to help make that change. For western farmers, it is only fair.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture and I share a common passion for this injustice. Why should we not have the same choice as every other industry in this country?

I put the argument forward that we have a strong and vibrant auto industry in this country. What if that auto industry had come to the government and had said that it would like to set up an auto industry in Canada and the government of that day had said to Ford, Chrysler, General Motors or whoever to go ahead and manufacture those cars and trucks, but they could only sell them to one buyer?

That is what the Canadian Wheat Board is. It is not a single desk seller. It is a single desk buyer. When it goes out on the international stage, there are many other sellers of wheat, so the single desk seller argument holds no water with me.

To go back to the auto industry, we would not have had an auto industry if we had told automakers that we would provide a monopoly buyer of their products and that we would tell them whether or not we were going to take their products, when we would take their products, and what they were going to get paid for their products.

This is a plain and simple argument. It is a choice that is not allowed the farmers in the Wheat Board district.

It is a very sad day when we see members on the opposite side of the House arguing against freedom. That is all it is. The hon. member for Malpeque has made this an emotional and sad debate. I would argue that he has never dealt with this issue the way that my hon. colleague and I have. We represent an awful lot of people who deal with the same issue.

I never have suggested that we should take away the option of the Canadian Wheat Board. We believe very firmly in the farmers who want to use the selling opportunities that the Canadian Wheat Board may bring to them having that choice, and we wish them the best, but we also wish that we had the same choice to market our wheat and barley for human consumption that we do for our other crops that we grow.

Let us look at the organics industry. That was raised in committee yesterday. I have many friends who are organic farmers. They have been frustrated over the years. They have taken the initiative to find a niche market, and a very sustainable niche market, but they had to buy back their grain from the Canadian Wheat Board, which never had any intention of selling it. The word “buyback” should never have been in this equation. They paid the Canadian Wheat Board to market their grain and they knew it was never going to market their grain because the Canadian Wheat Board had the monopoly over wheat and barley for human consumption. It does not make sense.

But then there was an epiphany. The Canadian Wheat Board decided to market organic grains this year. All it managed to do was go to the markets these industrious organic farmers had already set up and say, “We are going to undercut what you used to get”. The intermediary is reducing their margins. It is absolutely unbelievable that this could happen in a democracy.

The hon. member for Malpeque talks about marketing power. I reference the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board is simply a buyer, not a seller. We would like to argue that we grow the best wheat in the world. I will argue that until the day I die, but I know factually that there are a lot of other countries that will say the same thing.

However, the Canadian Wheat Board is using the argument that it is the board, the monopoly Canadian Wheat Board, that returns all these wonderful profits to farmers in western Canada. No. It is the farmers, and do not let any member of the House take that away. I have heard hon. members say that it is the power of the Canadian Wheat Board that provides returns to Canadian farmers in western Canada.

Let us look at the options that have been provided by pulling oats out of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is an absolute success. Canola is another one. Those are the crops that are sustaining farmers in western Canada. They are the reasons that we are actually able to sustain profitability on our farms, because we are able to grow and market our grains. I can market my grains at any time of the day or night. I can lock in a futures price on all of my other grains. I can hedge for next year, locking in a profitable price if I see it, but not on my Wheat Board grains. I have no idea whether the board is going to market my grain for me or whether my bins will be full and I will have to go back to the bank to borrow more money. My choice should be to market the grain.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, another parliamentary secretary who spent his whole speech attacking the Canadian Wheat Board and not dealing with why his party has shown contempt for this House in not living up to the motion on the sixth report of the agriculture committee that was passed by a majority of this House.

My question relates to the ballot itself, which is biased and misleading. The Canadian Wheat Board, in a statement released the same day as the ballot, said:

The option asking farmers if they would prefer to sell their barley to any buyer, including the CWB, creates an unrealistic expectation that the CWB can continue to offer the same value to farmers without its single desk.

It is clearly saying that the middle option on the ballot cannot be done. In fact, the minister's own task force said it is not possible.

What is the member's response to that question? Why does he not have a ballot that has clarity?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I take offence to that question. There is no reason that the hon. member should suggest that farmers in the west are not bright enough to understand those three simple questions. I think that most of my constituents would find it quite offensive. They are three simple statements . I will read them one more time. Perhaps I should read them very slowly so the hon. member for Malpeque can actually understand them.

The Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets.

That is option number one.

I [as a farmer] would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.

That is option number two. That is great.

The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in the marketing of barley.

That is option number three.

Some farmers will choose option three because of the years of frustration. The leg iron marks on their ankles perhaps would be enough of a reason for them to vote for option number three. The most important point is they are clear, concise questions that I think any farmer would be completely able to understand.

I should tell members I have actually filled out my ballot and returned it. It did not take me long. The language was quite clear. I am not sure why the hon. member for Malpeque cannot understand clear choice language.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it would appear that Canadian farmers need a clarity act the way all Canadians needed a clarity act when it came to obfuscation and deliberate manipulation of questions around the last referendum because this three part option is anything but clear.

When the leader of our party and I met with the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board, at that time they predicted, “I bet you ten to one they will come up with a three part system that is based on the premise that a voluntary wheat board is viable”.

It is not viable. A dual desk, voluntary wheat board is doomed before it starts. Those guys know it. It is disingenuous to even imply that that is a viable option for farmers to vote for.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would actually like to reread the three options, but I will not, out of due respect. I believe they have been read often enough that all hon. members can understand.

I do need to address the suggestion that the Canadian Wheat Board cannot function without monopoly powers. I am going back to my hon. colleague's comments that 60% of the grain in western Canada is actually marketed by the private trade, the Canadian Wheat Board simply facilitates the paperwork. There are grain companies in western Canada that own no assets. They market grain. They do not even own a port terminal. The model is built. It can be done.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, only time for a direct question.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member very quickly. The member often yells out across the floor, “They broke the law. They broke the law”.

I would ask my hon. colleague if maybe that member has not heard of civil disobedience in times past where individuals had to oppose an unjust law. I believe that morally this is an unjust law where people go off in shackles--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Macleod. There is only time for a direct answer.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely that is correct. As I commented earlier, one individual farmer who chose to move his grain across the U.S. border simply to get more money did end up in leg irons. It is unfortunate that that would ever happen.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin where the previous speaker left off in the questions and comments portion. He was demanding I suppose that we concede his point, that a voluntary dual marketing system is in fact viable. I was raised on the Prairies. I grew up within a stone's throw of the Canadian Wheat Board. I now represent the offices of the Wheat Board.

I ask my colleague to look back a bit in history if he believes that a voluntary wheat board is viable. He should not take my word for it, but John Morriss, the editor of the Farmers' Independent Weekly, asks us to recall the voluntary central selling agency run by the pools in the 1920s, and then the voluntary Canadian wheat board which began in 1935. Both had spectacular bankruptcies; in fact, they were probably the two biggest business failures in Canadian history at that time. The voluntary Canadian wheat board at that time lost $62 million in 1938-39 which was an enormous sum of money at that time. It seems like a frivolous amount of money today, but it is not. It was devastating to the prairie economy, especially in the 1930s.

The reason that dual market will not work is obvious to many of us who have considered this. I respectfully ask my colleague to entertain this as a legitimate argument at least. If the open market is higher than the initial payment, then the board gets few deliveries because people would go to the open market. If the initial payment was higher than the open market, it would get all the deliveries, but it would have to sell them at a loss. Is that not a predictable consequence of a voluntary dual market?

It seems obvious to me, but by the same token, perhaps the only honest thing we can say about this whole debate is that my colleague has strongly held views and I have strongly held views and in that situation, we have a solution for that kind of impasse. It is called free and open exchange of debate and a free and democratic vote. That would decide things. That should be the way we deal with a legitimate disagreement between two factions, two rival views on the Canadian Prairies.

What is wrong with having a free exchange of information? That would be great, except the government intervened and put a gag order on one side. Imagine going into the next federal election if one party was statutorily prohibited from exchanging its points of view with the Canadian public. People would rise up in the streets and say it was a violation of basic democratic principles.

It is even worse because the advocates of smashing the Wheat Board are using public funds to mail out--I will not say misinformation; I will say their point of view--to mail out 10 percenters and bombard the voting area with their point of view. At the same time the Canadian Wheat Board is being gagged from communicating with its members with its point of view, even though its is not public money, it is private money. That is an interference that should never be tolerated.

If the Canadian public understood how significant that was, they would be outraged. That is the first problem. To have a free exchange of ideas and then a democratic vote, and then we both stipulate ourselves to live by the decision, may the best man win as it were, or woman, or person, seems fair.

The Conservatives have interfered with the free communication of ideas and the free debate by gagging one side of this legitimate argument and debate. Then for the vote they have also, we argue, interfered with the right to a free and open vote by first of all, rigging the question by making it one which is so vague. They will argue that it is very clear, but the three part vote option is not a clear question. As my colleague from Ottawa Centre said, we need a clarity act to determine perhaps what is a fair question.

Really we need to know whether people support the single desk monopoly sales system or whether they want to see it eradicated. Those are the only two choices farmers have, because leading authorities, far more scholarly than I on this subject, have determined the dual market idea is chimera. It is not based in fact. It cannot work for the very reasons that I outlined.

I could not put it any more clearly than John Morriss who said simply that if the open market is higher than the initial payment, the board would get few deliveries. All the farmers would sell their product on the open market. If the initial payment happened to be higher than the open market, the board would get all the deliveries, but they would have to sell them at a loss and they would be bankrupt within a year or two.

That is how it is going to happen. I am not predicting that is how it is going to happen. I am asking us to look back to what actually happened when there was a voluntary Canadian wheat board. We have to acknowledge history or we are doomed to repeat it.

We watched the first agricultural casualty on the Prairies that I represent. It was the prairie wheat pools when they corporatized hoping to surf on the private American market, just like the free traders here hope to surf on it. Instead, they surfed on losses and they put the Canadian Wheat Board on a predictable timeline.

Then the free trade agreement happened. Guess what? The ink was not even dry on the free trade agreement before the Americans began to challenge the Canadian Wheat Board. Since then the Americans have grieved the Canadian Wheat Board 11 separate times claiming unfair competition and unfair subsidies, and 11 separate times they lost and we won. We have a right to market our grain and it does not constitute a violation of the FTA or NAFTA.

This is an example of the Conservatives doing the bidding of the Americans. The Americans are still bound and determined to undermine this advantage that we have, the methodology by which we choose to market our grain. In unity there is strength and in unity we can compete on the biggest open international marketplaces. Divided we cannot. We will be gobbled up. We will be insignificant.

Is it fair for the minority of free traders within the Canadian Wheat Board to deny the monopoly advantage to the majority of the member producers in the Canadian Wheat Board? That is happening here. The Conservative Party is representing a minority of farmers, and the Conservatives know it is a minority, otherwise they would put a fair question before them and we would get a meaningful result. The Conservative Party is putting at jeopardy the monopoly advantage.

There is one study that came up at committee. In fact, it constitutes a part of the sixth report which we are calling upon the government to recognize. It is a price comparison done by western Canada's top farm economists which found that prairie producers benefit by $10 to $13 per tonne, or about $300 million annually, from having the Wheat Board monopoly. That remains the standard bearer among studies. Some find the advantage significantly higher; some find it marginally lower. The generally accepted study has this finding.

We would lose that advantage as soon as we start chipping away at unified single desk bargaining. I had the honour of sitting at that single desk when I visited the Canadian Wheat Board. There is such a desk. There is a single desk that the senior trader uses. We should recognize the dedication and commitment of the good people at the Canadian Wheat Board and the job they do in trying to get the very best prices for our prairie producers. They are dedicated, committed, earnest and smart. We attract the best and the brightest and they are on our side.

Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland have some very bright traders too, but they are on the other side. They are trying to get the best advantage for their employer. The guys at the Wheat Board work for the Canadian producer. It is a team that is second to none around the world and well respected. All of that is up for grabs. It will be jeopardized and lost.

Do the Conservatives even care? Can they look past their ideology for a moment to even consider that it is not just the monopoly that they are dealing with? This will change forever marketing and grain handling, the grain delivery system, perhaps the grading system, producer cars, risk management. All of these elements and components are up in the air too.

The port of Churchill is of critical importance to Manitoba. Do not think for a moment that the grain will be delivered.

Could I be down to one minute already, Mr. Speaker? That seems impossible.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

You actually have 10 minutes left, but of those 10 minutes there are only two for this afternoon.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I see, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say in the strongest possible terms that I condemn the Conservative government. I condemn the Prime Minister. I condemn the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who I consider to be an ideological zealot. I condemn the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board for ignoring the democratic rights of farmers to have a free voice and an election that affects their livelihood. I condemn the way they have placed a gag order and rigged this election.

It should not even be recognized by any international standard. There should be observers sent here from Zaire or some other third world banana republic to observe this election because third world countries conduct their elections in a more fair way than the Conservative government is by foisting this on the Canadian Wheat Board.

We will not stand for it. As the member of Parliament who represents the headquarters of the Canadian Wheat Board in downtown Winnipeg, I serve notice that we will not tolerate this interference. The western Canadian residents and citizens will rise up in opposition to this infringement by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who we call Il Duce because Mussolini has nothing on this guy in terms of trampling the civil rights of ordinary producers.

It was the left that smashed the fascists in Franco Spain in 1937. It is going to be the left that is going to smash fascism in this horrific example today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting, at which time there will be eight minutes left for debate for the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre and, of course, 10 minutes for questions and comments.

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 from January 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells and Canadians recognize and are very proud of our country's responsibility to provide refuge and protection to those in need. In the past year alone, we have welcomed 32,000 refugees.

Recently, the minister was at an event in London to announce that Canada will be accepting an additional 2,000 Karen refugees. This is further to the 800 we announced last summer.

It is no secret that Canada is a world leader when it comes to providing refuge and protection to those in need. Just a few months ago, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees praised our current refugee determination system as being one of the fairest and most generous in the world.

In addition, the Canadian Council for Refugees has noted the high quality of the decision making process of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The reason for the high praise from the Canadian Council for Refugees and UNHCR is because Canada provides protection to those who need it.

Canada has been welcoming tens of thousands of refugees each year. The Government of Canada has ensured that the first level decision makers and the decisions they make are fair, compassionate and competent. As well, if the fair minded, first level decision makers determine that a claimant is not a refugee, the current system offers several avenues both to revisit the decision and to apply to stay in Canada.

The proposed legislation, Bill C-280, revisits Parliament's decision in 2001 to delegate to cabinet the timing for implementing a refugee appeal division. To reiterate, RAD would be a paper based review of the refugee determination record. It may confirm the initial decision, set it aside, or refer the case back to the refugee protection division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

It will not streamline existing processes in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act since it would be a de facto right of appeal. Failed claimants would still be able to apply for judicial review at the federal court.

The implementation of the RAD would be cumbersome and a very delicate task that would involve $2 million in startup costs alone, in addition to systems costs.

Despite the fact that this Conservative government has just added $307 million in new funding for settlement services, it will be the provincial and territorial governments which will bear much of the responsibility for the welfare of refugee claimants while they await the determination of their claim and the hearing of their appeals.

Of the estimated annual $32 million that it will cost to implement, approximately $12.1 million will be the cost to the federal treasury. The provinces would be expected to carry approximately $21 million annually to fund social services and legal aid for another level of legal process.

Ordinarily, the federal government would engage in consultations with the provinces and territories before it acts to impact their treasuries to the tune of $20 million-plus. Imagine the howls of protest from the opposition, especially the Bloc, if the situation were different and the government implemented these sections unilaterally without talking to Quebec or the other provinces first. It is not surprising that the Bloc and the NDP, two parties not used to making decisions in government, are errant in this responsibility.

It should also be noted that in order to implement the RAD, the IRB itself has said that the skill set of members of the RAD would need to be different from other IRB members. The IRB stated that the selection would have to reflect the tasks of an appellate decision-maker, require a stronger legal and analytical capacity, and some prior adjudicative experience. The IRB further stated that the only workable way to implement this would be to have a date of implementation 10 months to one year after royal assent, so that there would be a full complement of members, training and a case tracking system.

Many reasons were taken into consideration when Parliament decided to delegate the decision to implement RAD to cabinet. Rather than calling for its immediate implementation, these considerations included: the existing backlog at the Refugee and Immigration Board; the practical and administrative matters involved in setting up a new tribunal such as the appeal division, opening its offices, hiring staff, finding qualified decision makers and developing procedural rules; the need to provide the appeal division with appropriate budgetary allocations; and the opportunity to assess the success of the system that was created by the IRPA and all the measures and protections it provides without a refugee appeal division.

For instance, if an individual's claim for refugee status is denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board, he or she has the right to apply for a leave or a type of permission to request a judicial review from the Federal Court. When leave is granted, the court will proceed with the judicial review.

Historically speaking, 76% of negative cases from the IRB apply for leave and only 15% get the authorization to proceed by the Federal Court of Canada. This speaks to the high quality of the first level decisions at the IRB.

It is important to note that in fact the Federal Court considers both errors in law and errors in fact when reviewing IRB decisions. Should the Federal Court uphold the IRB decision, claimants can exercise their right to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment. This process addresses situations where there is new evidence or a change in circumstances.

The Government of Canada has an obligation under international law not to expel or return any individuals to a country where they may face a risk of torture or ill-treatment. This obligation is taken very seriously. In fulfilling these obligations, we assess claims made by refugee applicants who would, if removed from Canada, face a substantial risk of torture or ill-treatment. The risk assessment must be completed before the individual may be returned to his or her country.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides another avenue, allowing refugee claimants to apply for permanent residence in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The purpose of humanitarian and compassionate discretion is to allow flexibility to approve deserving cases not anticipated in the legislation.

In 2006, more than 8,900 people were accepted under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Many of them were failed refugee claimants. This discretionary tool is intended to uphold Canada's humanitarian tradition.

Many claimants are in the system for many months and even years as they exercise their rights to apply for a review. When approved, often newcomers land in Canada two or three years later. Rejected cases are not ready for removal before two to three years.

Ordinarily, claimants remain in Canada while the review is conducted and have access to a range of benefits in all provinces, including education, and medical and hospital services through interim health funding and welfare systems. The requirements and benefits may vary from one province to another, but they are applied evenly to all residents of that jurisdiction.

While we are all proud of our generous and fair system, we also expect it to work efficiently as well as effectively. In fact, it was the former Liberal critic, the member for Laval—Les Îles, who stated that the current process allows delays by failed claimants ad infinitum and does not want to see RAD implemented without tinkering with other parts of the system.

We must consider whether creating yet more processes will enhance what is already regarded as one of the best and most generous refugee determination systems in the world. Furthermore, we must question whether there is an actual legitimate reason to implement the RAD at this time.

These questions must be asked within the context of the recognition that Canada's current refugee determination system meets all legal requirements, provides adequate protection to all those who need it, and provides a number of opportunities for decisions to be reviewed.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will note that the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells is on the citizenship and immigration committee. She and I had the occasion to tour the country in 2005, when we did a cross-Canada tour on citizenship and immigration matters.

I have been on the citizenship and immigration committee since 1998. I have been parliamentary secretary, chair of the committee and vice-chair of the committee. I have always tried very hard to take a non-partisan role because I believe that immigrants and refugees are the lifeblood of this country. The issue should be one where all the parties should work together and we should keep partisanship out of it as much as possible.

I have disagreed with my ministers at various times. In fact, I resigned as parliamentary secretary to the minister of citizenship and immigration in 2000 because I disagreed with her profoundly on the Citizenship Act.

I mentioned that we travelled the country. We travelled the country in 2003 as well. At the time, the member for Calgary—Nose Hill, who was the critic for the Alliance Party, had intimate knowledge of citizenship and immigration matters. When the Liberals lost the last election and the Conservatives formed the government, I hoped, along with the other critics, that she, being the most knowledgeable person on that side of the House on these issues, would be appointed as minister because the department faced many challenges. That did not happen.

We have had two ministers in less than year who have appointed to the position with no previous experience at all in terms of immigration and citizenship matters, which is not doing what is best for the country.

As I mentioned before, I try to take very a non-partisan approach. I very much appreciated the critic for the New Democratic Party and his perseverance on issues of human rights and civil liberties. I will say the same thing for the member from the Bloc who has been the critic on it.

Overall, probably the least partisan committee in Parliament was in the last Parliament. We put partisanship aside and worked on numerous reports that we hoped would be implemented. When the new government came in, that did not happen. We instead have too much partisanship in the committee, and I think it is to the detriment of Canadians.

The whole issue of the refugee determination system was set up under the Brian Mulroney Conservatives on the ruling of the Singh decision of the Supreme Court. Initially we used to have two board members who used to hear refugee cases. If one board member concurred with the applicant, just one out of two, then refugee status was granted.

In 2001 new legislation was put in place, the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The two member board became a one member board. What was supposed to happen was the refugee appeal division was to be put in place, but that did not happen. I fought with my government to try to make that happen, which was the position of the opposition parties as well.

We are in the situation now that we have a one member board. If that person makes a mistake, the applicant is really out of luck.

I will use an example of one case that caused me a great deal of problem. It led me into a major confrontation with my minister at the time, to whom I was parliamentary secretary.

This situation involved a young woman who was living in the former state of Yugoslavia, Vojvodina. She had applied for refugee status. She was a reporter. She realized she could no longer read and report on the propaganda and lies of the regime at that time. When she came under threat, she fled for her life and came to Canada. She had the misfortune of going through a refugee hearing that consisted of only one panel member. She did not have very good legal advice and agreed to be heard by a panel of one board member.

What troubles me about the decision he wrote, when he turned her down for refugee status, was he did not believe there was a collusion among the media, the police and the government. That was his decision and his reasoning for turning down her refugee status.

We are talking about the former state of Yugoslavia. Milosevic was taken up before The Hague on war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was running a dictatorship. There was a member on the Refugee Board who did not understand that. He turned down her application and she very easily could have been sent back to her death. In fact, the thing I find very ironic is this. When she was to be sent back in October 1998, she would have arrived in Belgrade in the former Yugoslavia just two hours before NATO was to begin bombing.

Clearly that process did not work well. It shows the shortcomings of the system. The shortcoming was that qualified members were not being appointed. The other shortcoming was that the risk assessment and the humanitarian and compassionate grounds did not work.

I have mentioned that many of the appointments were partisan. That is exactly what they were. I invite members to read the chapter on the former prime minister in On the Take: Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Conservative Years. That is an important point of reference for people to read. I think it will show how corrupt the whole system of appointments was. Wives, girlfriends, friends and people, who knew very little about the system, were appointed.

Something else has happened in the last week which has caused me even greater concern. In 2004 the Liberal government did something that was very good. The previous government stopped political appointments to the system, which was a very positive step. It was done under the leadership of Jean-Guy Fleury, the chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Unfortunately, Mr. Fleury tendered his resignation because he could not agree with the government's new policy where the minister, once again, would be involved in appointing members to the Refugee Board.

The Refugee Board deals with life and death matters, as I outlined before. Many people, who are wrongfully turned away, end up going back to torture or to their death. As members of Parliament, no decision making is more difficult than trying to deal with failed refugee claimants. When they are wrongfully turned down, their hope of finding refuge in our country is greatly diminished.

This is probably the most important assault on the Refugee Board that we have had. To turn back the clock, where once again politicians will be making appointments to the Refugee Board, is totally wrong.

Mr. Fleury is recognized country-wide, by all the groups that deal with refugee matters, for his outstanding leadership. I can only say that the road we are going down is terrible.

We will be having hearings at the citizenship and immigration committee on the issue of political interference in the Refugee Board and what happened to Mr. Fleury. Witnesses will be called before the committee. I can only ask members of Parliament and people watching to focus attention on this issue. If no attention is paid to it, people will be sent to countries where they will be subjected to torture, imprisonment and very well could well lose their lives. Canada is not about that.

As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to make some issues non-partisan, and this is one of them. We have to stand behind RAD, pass it and make our refugee determination system independent of political interference.