Debates of March 2nd, 2007

Fisheries and Oceans

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between all parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for two travel motions today.

The first motion is in relation to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I move:

That, in relation to its study on the Canadian Seal Harvest, twelve (12) members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to the Magdalen Islands, Quebec, in March/April 2007, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

(Motion agreed to)

Veterans Affairs

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, the second motion is with respect to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I move:

That, five (5) members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to Vimy, France to attend the 90th anniversary of the Vimy Ridge Memorial Commemoration, from April 5 to 10, 2007, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

(Motion agreed to)

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food presented on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 be concurred in.

It is with great concern that I rise to speak to the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food which recommended the following: one, that the Minister of Agriculture and 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 two, immediately implement the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food by placing before wheat and barley producers of western Canada on their relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board the questions contained within that report.

I agree with this report tabled in the House, however, my concern arises from the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and this dictatorial, non-responsive government have shown not only contempt for farmers who posed the questions that are in that sixth report, but also contempt for the House which passed by a majority vote the sixth report, the questions recommended by the farm community for a vote on single desk marketing through the Canadian Wheat Board.

I guess we really should not be surprised. There has been an absolutely relentless campaign fostered out of the Prime Minister's office against the Canadian Wheat Board, because the Canadian Wheat Board system of marketing in empowering producers, against the multinational grain trade and against the grain trader, in empowering producers is against the Prime Minister's ideology. He does not believe in that kind of marketing and so he is absolutely driven by any means, even by any undemocratic means, to establish a process to undermine that marketing power through the Wheat Board.

The end result of this process, if the Prime Minister gets his way, will be the loss of marketing power for western Canadian farmers through the Canadian Wheat Board, marketing power that has maximized returns to producers.

The Wheat Board, in its report to the minister's stacked task force, said that the net benefit to Canadian farmers as a result of single desk selling ranges between $530 million to $655 million annually. Members opposite say, “Oh, well, we will have a voluntary Wheat Board”. Farmers know, even though they are being propagandized otherwise, that it is really the single desk authority of the Wheat Board that makes it possible for them to maximize returns back to Canadian producers annually of $530 million to $655 million. It is as a result of having the Wheat Board in place.

It is interesting, because there has been some debate that if the Wheat Board is changed as a result of the manipulations by the government and its undemocratic procedure in doing that, can another government bring it back? It is difficult to do, because one of the key conditions of bringing the Canadian Wheat Board single desk selling back would be that we would have to compensate the multinational grain trade for future lost profits. That in itself should tell us why the Canadian Wheat Board having single desk power within Canada is important to retain, because the difficulty in getting it back will be that we will have to compensate grain corporations around the world for their future lost profits.

The bottom line is that we would be taking current day profits out of farmers' pockets and transferring them to the international grain trade. That is what the government on the other side of the House wants to do. It is absolutely crazy.

The Canadian Wheat Board does give market power to farmers, but the government fails to listen and continues to ignore facts.

The minister yesterday responded to a question from the member for British Columbia Southern Interior about why he would not meet with a group called Real Voice for Choice. He kind of made a humourous joke of it by saying he really did not want to meet with the “real voice for change” group and misrepresented what was really said. That is what he said in the House. It is on the record. Instead of calling the group by its real name, Real Voice for Choice, the minister tried to make a mockery of it by calling it “real voice for change”. This group--

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

All six of them.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The member says there were six of them. The group claims it represents 70% of the farmers in western Canada. The minister would not meet with this group. It is a non-partisan group. There are Conservatives, Liberals and even NDP supporters in that group, and it represents a good cross-section of farmers.

I will put on the record some of the comments members of the group wanted to raise with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who would not meet with them. Their principles are, reading from their paper, that the future of the Canadian Wheat Board and single desk powers should be decided by farmers themselves. That is not what is happening. What we have is a biased, manipulated and divisive question. What we have is a manipulated voters list. What we have is a ballot that is marked and can be traced. Farmers are clearly not being given the opportunity to decide on a question with clarity.

They go on to say that farmers must be allowed to vote in a fair vote on wheat and barley, a clear question with an appropriate voters list.

They say that they would have loved to present to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who does not want to hear from the other side that supports the board, what the single desk benefits to farmers are and that market power is the key issue. Farmers marketing all together through their one organization, the Canadian Wheat Board, gives them market power. The single desk gives more marketing clout to farmers.

Price and cost risk management through pooling of sales proceeds and cost of sales, that the Wheat Board manages, is better for farmers as is farm marketing flexibility with the Canadian Wheat Board. In other words, there is a range of wheat and barley pricing options available for farmers that offer more choice.

It is kind of ironic. The Prime Minister, who basically uses his ministers as props to do his bidding, talks about choice and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food talks about marketing choice, but the reality is if the farm community were to go that way, and no doubt the government will try to bully it into it or engineer it by other means, if that were to happen, the reality is, sadly, that there would be less choice for farmers. Then it would be to which grain company do they sell to. There would be an open market. They would not have the pricing options that are now in place through the Canadian Wheat Board.

They go on in the paper to say that effective market development linked directly to sales efforts by the Wheat Board gives them credibility in the international market. In other words, they service the marketplace and it gives credibility in terms of Canadian quality, reliability of supply, and other countries know they can count on that quality of supply. They talk further about the advocacy for farmers on marketing issues through the Wheat Board, which is a very important point.

Dealing specifically with the barley issue, they say that single desk marketing of barley alone earns farmers $60 million in extra revenue per year. The federal government wants to take away farmers' single desk selling for barley marketing and we know that.

There is concern about the medium and long term agenda of the federal government toward the single desk of wheat, that is for sure. There is concern over the government process during the plebiscite, and I will speak more on that in a moment.

They go on to say that no farmer single desks means reduced farmer marketing power and look at the concentration that is in the grain industry. Why would we give up something that gives producers marketing power?

I could go on with their paper, but the bottom line is they are saying that the government process appears to be exclusive, with only a few farmers who support the government who have been consulted. The minister and the government have been determined to move to a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board from the beginning. Farmers' opinions are not important.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises from the comments just made by this hon. member in which he alleged something to a colleague of mine, a minister, from question period yesterday which clearly the minister did not say. I want to give the member the offer to retract his statement and correct the record as soon as possible.

Clearly, at page 7503 of yesterday's Hansard, in response to a question from the NDP that the member referenced, the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said:

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.

At no place, Mr. Speaker, you will notice, did he say that he refused to meet with this group. That was the allegation the member made. He should check his facts and ensure that he is always truthful in this chamber when he makes those types of allegations against other members.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, the member actually makes my point. I said that the minister referred to “real voice for change” when he really knows it is Real Voice for Choice. The group felt it had an agreement on a meeting in his office and--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. It appears that this is more a point of debate than a point of order. The points have been made.

I recognize the hon. member for Malpeque to continue.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual, in terms of the government's position toward the Canadian Wheat Board as it tries to undermine it. We have seen every undemocratic principle possible and just on the previous argument, the facts are that the government does not want to meet with people who may oppose its position.

Let us turn to some of the misinformation that the government is in fact pursuing. Yesterday at committee, we saw a spectacle that I never thought I would see at a committee meeting. The CEO from the Canadian Wheat Board, appointed by the government after it fired the previous CEO because he disagreed with the government's position but had the full confidence of the elected board, sat before the committee and the parliamentary secretary, who also has some responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board, sat beside that gentlemen, and both provided different information. Both cannot be right in terms of this issue. Here is what the CEO said:

However, when factual inaccuracies about the CWB's performance find their way into a public forum, I believe it is my right and my duty to correct that information.

Let me just stop there for a moment. Why is he saying “however”? It is because he is doing this with a little bit of fear. The reason is because the previous CEO, who had the full confidence of the board, was fired because he disagreed with the government. He was doing what the board of directors asked him to do, a farmer-elected board of directors, and that was to establish the facts on what the single desk does. He was fired and that is why this gentleman had some fear. He went on to say:

One example of such an inaccuracy relates to the CWB's business relationship with Algeria and I understand that is the reason I was called here before you today.

A number of parties, including Members of Parliament, have recently stated publicly and in printed material that the CWB has been underselling the market for durum wheat. This information is not factual--

That non-factual information is in fact coming from members of the government's side. In fact, that non-factual information is coming from the parliamentary secretary. In fact, I will read a quote from the Rutherford Show: “Just like in the papers the other day, the Algerian Minister, over in their state buying enterprise, was saying, “Well, we love dealing with Canada and we get a real good deal”.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Cypress Hills is rising on a point of order?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am actually not sure if this is a point of order or a question of privilege. I believe the member opposite just called me a liar and I take great exception to that. I would ask him to withdraw the comments and to apologize if he could possibly be good enough to do that.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I must admit that I did not hear the hon. member say that. I will review the blues, unless the hon. member wishes to--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, when you review the blues, you will see that I did not accuse the member of being a liar. What I said was there was not-factual information. That is what the CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board said.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

We are into points of debate at this point. There are two and a half minutes left in debate.

The hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in any event, the statement on The Rutherford Show came from the minister. The CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board said clearly that the Canadian Wheat Board had achieved premiums over our competitors in the Algerian marketplace. Members opposite are using information to try to discredit the Wheat Board, and that is wrong, especially when one is the parliamentary secretary who has some responsibilities for the Canadian Wheat Board.

However, since I am running out of time, let me review quickly the process that we have seen from the government in terms of moving toward the vote.

First, we are in major discussions on the Wheat Board. The people who really know the facts are the farmer directors who are elected to the Wheat Board. What has happened? Gag orders have been placed on those boards of directors. The board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board have lost their freedom of speech.

At the same time, as I just said a moment ago, members of the governing party are using their privileges through ten percenters in the House to continue to perpetuate misinformation about the Canadian Wheat Board. That misinformation was cleared up yesterday by the CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Conservatives appointed the CEO, and either the CEO is right or he is wrong. If he is wrong, then they have an obligation to fire him because he is saying different stuff than they are saying. On the other hand, if they are wrong, they should apologize to Canadian farmers.

We have seen a manipulation of the list of voters. We have directors fired and the appointment of people who ideologically oppose and hate the Wheat Board. We have seen the firing of the former CEO, who had the full confidence of the board. We have fraudulent and biased questions and now a marked ballot. I never thought I would see the likes of this in a democracy called Canada.

It may be from their point of view, it is only farmers and their marketing institution that gives them power, but those are the reasons why we need to support the report. What we have out there is an ideological campaign. We have a Prime Minister who is doing nothing less than trying to bully farmers into accepting his ideology. That is wrong. It should be a clear question—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a farmer and as a member of Parliament, I have followed this issue very closely and I have been involved in it. It is so ironic to hear the hon. member across the way talk about inaccuracies and whatnot. I have sat in on the discussions and I cannot believe some of the comments from over there.

The hon. member over there, when he was actively dairy farming, sold his milk the same way a farmer in Quebec, in Ontario and in Alberta did. As a beef farmer, I sell and market my beef the same as a beef farmer in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Quebec. However, as a wheat or barley producer in Ontario, I can also sell my product like that. It is the same in Quebec, the east coast and parts of British Columbia. However, in the west, where I have a lot of friends, relatives and colleague, farmers do not have the freedom of choice that I have.

How in the world, as somebody who professes to stick up for the agricultural community and for farmers, say that this is fair to the wheat and barley producers and other producers in western Canada? Why can they not have the same option as the rest of us do in the rest of Canada?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it has been the privilege of my life to work for the farm community, having travelled the farm community for some 22 years as a farm leader.

What is needed in the farming industry is power in the marketplace for farmers. The Canadian supply management system gives us that. The Canadian Wheat Board gives western farmers that.

In response to a question of his yesterday to the CEO of Wheat Board, he went on with this issue of “Oh, well, it is only in the west”. The fact is the west grain industry is all together different than the Ontario industry. Farmers in Ontario have a domestic market. Farmers in the west are up against the international grain trade. Do members not realize we export most of those grains and the Canadian Wheat Board is one of the largest sellers in the world. It is up against Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and others? Because of its clout through marketing power and through the single desk, it is able to compete head on with those folks.

The CEO yesterday said, “The Canadian Wheat Board sells into the Ontario marketplace at a premium to what Ontario producers get”.

The members talk about spot prices, but they misrepresent the issue. The Ontario Wheat Board returns more money to primary producers as a result of the single desk.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Malpeque on making this motion in the House. Hon. members know that the Bloc Québécois supported the motion in committee. Of course, we will do the same now that the motion is before this House.

I would like to tell the member that as recently as yesterday—because the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is meeting here at present—I met again with a number of farmers from western Canada, who are very concerned about what is happening to the Canadian Wheat Board.

We know that the Conservatives decided long ago, even when they were the Canadian Alliance, that the Canadian Wheat Board as we know it today was finished and that the single desk model was not for them. This is an ideology that the Prime Minister obviously shares, because when he was in the Canadian Alliance, he himself made a motion in 2002.

The last election campaign showed us that the Conservative Party had taken up where the Alliance left off. The government set up a task force and only hired or offered positions to opponents of the Canadian Wheat Board. There was the famous ministerial order to muzzle the people at the Wheat Board and prevent them from defending themselves. There was Bill C-300 and, finally, the dismissal of Mr. Measner, the former CEO.

I would like to ask the member what he thinks of the following statement, which comes from a press release issued by the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec and refers to the federal government's stubborn determination to weaken the collective tool that is the Canadian Wheat Board. This is what the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec said: “Is this stubborn determination...not consistent with certain statements by the government spokesperson...who, just before Christmas, questioned the future of collective marketing and supply management in Canada?” This is referring to the statements made by the Minister of International Trade.

Does the hon. member believe that people in western and eastern Canada should be concerned about what the government is doing?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the minister, the Prime Minister, who is ideologically driven and who believes everything from his podium and his teleprompter, is bringing Republican standards to Canada. We see that in his judiciary process. With the Prime Minister's approach, nowhere else do we see the tactics as bad as we do with the Canadian Wheat Board. The member reviewed some of those points, gag orders, loss of freedom of speech, manipulation of the list of voters, a faulty question, et cetera.

The member is from the province of Quebec. The bottom line is the government is going to great lengths to let on it is in support of supply management these days, but there is a principle at stake here. Farmers want to make a collective choice to market through a single desk. If we allow choice outside that system, we undermine the system. The same principle applies to supply management. If the Prime Minister is going to apply the principle of allowing some farmers to market outside the system of single desk in the west, then the same thing is going to happen with supply management. Big producers that may want to market outside the system will start a campaign for choice too, and away will go the supply management system, which has been a pillar of the Canadian farm economy.

We are seeing a move toward destroying two pillars in terms of farmers. First is the orderly marketing for the Canadian Wheat Board. Second is the supply management through supply—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I put on a puppet show to try to illustrate an issue in which I was interested. I did not know the government was trying to put on its own puppet show at the agriculture committee down the hall, which in actual fact seems to have backfired on it. From all accounts, the CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board was not willing to be a puppet for the government. He stood on his own two feet, just like the previous CEO did, and spoke his mind and accurately represented the views of the democratically elected board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board, instead of parroting and being pushed around and bullied by the government.

I am proud of the fact that the current CEO has clearly planted his feet and will stick to his ground to accurately reflect the wishes of producers and the democratically elected board of directors. This is a setback in the ideological crusade on the part of the Conservative government to undermine and to sabotage this great Canadian institution.

I serve notice today that those members are in for the fight of their lives if they think they can destroy this great Canadian institution without push back from the Canadian people. The Conservatives have tried everything from pure jackboot fascism to doing away with the democratic right to vote. It was the left that smashed—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Malpeque has one minute to respond.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member's words. I said previously in the House that what we were seeing from the government opposite was a Stalinist approach to this issue. The word sabotage is also correct because the government is trying to confuse the rest of Canadians by claiming it is having a plebiscite or a ballot. However, the ballot in terms of its whole structure is faulty.

The House passed the Clarity Act. The Clarity Act puts a series of questions that could be accepted by the federal government with respect to a referendum on the future of the country. Why should farmers be treated the way they are? The vote is not clear. It is confusing and misleading. The Prime Minister is trying to—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board.