House of Commons Hansard #130 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I wonder, as a Canadian listening to the member for Vegreville—Wainwright earlier, if I have the right to speak. I spent years in western Canada on this very issue and others.

My question is for the member for Crowfoot. It is interesting that for 20 whole minutes, he avoided speaking on the report before us to have a clear and honest question to put before producers. The report was passed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on what the question should be. The minister, showing contempt for the House, avoided those questions in his barley consultation, but which he says is really plebiscite results.

The question we should be debating tonight is that the House implement the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food by placing before wheat and barley producers of western Canada, who have a relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board, the questions contained within that sixth report.

The reason for that is the barley plebiscite results announced today by the minister are about as fraudulent and farcical as it gets. I cannot understand why those members in the governing party are not hanging their heads in shame. After gag orders on the board, firing directors, firing the CEO, practically calling the new CEO a liar, when he tabled the figures on the Algerian markets, manipulating the voters list and propagandizing the public with taxpayer money, on the real option they still could not win the vote.

The vote results of 62%, about which the member talked, is adding two of the questions together. The Wheat Board has said that the middle option is not a viable option and what it really means is the open market. On the plebiscite, what did the Conservatives get for their open market position? They only had 13.8%. That is the reality of where this thing will go.

It will be the open market at the end of the day. There will be no single desk selling through the Wheat Board when choice is implemented as the minister wants. Worse yet, the minister claims he is going ahead with 13.8% for his position and he is going to implement regulations rather than debating the issue in the House as it should be debated.

Why will the member not support an honest and clear question for western producers, as the sixth report of the committee has suggested and as the House has passed previously?

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, yes, I absolutely believe the member has every right to come to this place and debate an issue. This has been an issue that the member has been involved with for a long time, but that does not make him right. That does not make the individual correct in his assessment of this.

He is questioning the questions that were asked. He asks why they could not have been made a little clearer. In all the calls to my constituents and all the rehashed NFU letters that kept coming through to my constituency, 90% of them from Saskatchewan, very few talked about the questions that were being asked. The majority of farmers thanked me for the opportunity to decide which best would represent what they would like to see for the Wheat Board.

The member reminds me of Chicken Little, who runs around saying, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling”. The member does not believe in the Canadian Wheat Board. He said that if it were opened up, it would collapse and fall apart, that there would be no Canadian Wheat Board. I encourage him to have more confidence in its directors, to have more confidence in the ones that are in control of the board.

Competition in a free market society is good. Competition makes one better. Competition gives us the ability to improve on the way we do business.

I want to read into the record the three questions that were put on the ballot. Farmers were asked to select one of the following three options on the ballot.

The first option was:

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

If I wanted to see the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board, and I do not, I would have posed a much different question. I would have said, “Considering the fact that a large majority of farmers do not like the Canadian Wheat Board, should they retain the monopoly that it has had for far too long?” A question could be drawn up that would be remarkable, but this question asked whether it should retain the single desk. It does not talk about a monopoly for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption. It spells out clearly where the grain is sold: through the Canadian Wheat Board.

The second option was:

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

That is choice.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Which is impossible.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

The minister shouts across the chamber and says it is impossible. If choice is given, the Wheat Board will collapse and fall. I fear what the question would have been if the member had designed the question.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Thank you for recognizing the minister.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

The member, not the minister. We had that once and we do not want to go back to that.

Option two was, “I would like the option to market my barley”, and the majority chose that.

The third option was:

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

I do not know if the member for Malpeque was around when oats were taken away from the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not know if he is aware that canola is not marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board. It appears he is aware, but it did not collapse. It did not fall apart.

The offices of the members from Winnipeg are still in Winnipeg and people still have jobs, but oats is no longer on the board. I encourage the folks from Toronto, Prince Edward Island and all across the country who are so concerned that those jobs will be there tomorrow. Those jobs will be there. Canadian farmers have the ability now to say, yes, to the Wheat Board or to someone else.

I would encourage the member not to be so opposed to freedom for our farmers. They should be given the ability to make those decisions themselves. Some members in the House believe in big government. They believe that government should be and do everything for everyone. The member for Malpeque thinks that government should make the decisions for farmers. I disagree.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

Souris—Moose Mountain Saskatchewan

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque talked about a gag order being placed when he knows, in fact, that there was no gag order. Nobody was prevented from speaking and saying what they wanted to say. He is making something what it was not.

It was interesting to note that the member, along with other members of his party, voted against a private member's bill that would have allowed a producer to sell his product outside of the Canadian Wheat Board to a processing plant without having to pay any extra money or exchange or fees. He was opposed to that, yet the farmers in his own constituency could do the very same thing. What is the logic behind that, except philosophical blinders. He does not care about logic. He does not care about what is good or bad. He just does not want to allow that to happen.

Imagine a person who owns a piece of ground, can produce a product, but he cannot sell it unless he sells it to someone the government tells him he has to sell it to without--

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Order, please. The rule is when the Speaker gets up, you are finished. The clock has run out.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Churchill. I look forward to listening to her speech.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak to the issue regarding the Canadian Wheat Board, as it has a great impact on my riding of Churchill. The people in my riding and, in particular, the community leaders, the mayors of towns and cities and the first nations chiefs in northern Manitoba have followed the debate very closely because of the detrimental impact it will have on the riding if the current Conservative government is successful in its attempt to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board and dismantle the single desk marketing system. As all the reports and studies have indicated, it would actually dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

With respect to the plebiscite, many of the members opposite have indicated that members on this side of the House are undermining the capacity of farmers to make decisions about their own lives. Those statements are indicative of an attitude that those members may have. When I look at the plebiscite results I am startled by the spin that has been on those results. I would say that if there was something inept here, it might be people's ability to read numbers.

Members opposite continue to state that 62.2% of the respondents favour dismantling the single desk marketing, but that truly is not what was shown in the results. Some 13.8% responded very clearly that the Canadian Wheat Board should have no role in marketing barley. Also, 37.8% voted in favour of retaining single desk marketing. That is almost three times the number who indicated there should be no role in the marketing of barley by the Canadian Wheat Board.

It was the 48.4% in the second question on which there has been debate about using that number when talking about trying to eliminate single desk marketing to show that people are in favour of that. In fact the question was vague and because of the nature of the question, it might be just as easily interpreted that 86.2% of the respondents are against the dismantling of single desk marketing in terms of barley.

When we are talking about issues that affect farmers' lives, we should not be trying to spin the numbers in favour of what very clearly is the Conservative government's agenda.

Again, I would like to have it on the record that indeed 13.8% said that there should be no role in marketing barley by the Canadian Wheat Board and 37.8% said that the Canadian Wheat Board should retain a single desk. We are talking about nearly three times the number in a clear answer on that plebiscite.

There are some things I would like to talk about in terms of this whole agenda of the Conservative government to dismantle single desk marketing. I have met with farmers. I have been very involved in this issue because it will have a detrimental impact on my riding.

I have been, as almost every member of Parliament has been, inundated with letters from farmers throughout the Prairies. Many of them were very vocal in their concern about the way the government has gone about destroying the single desk marketing of the Canadian Wheat Board.

One of the letters which I remember most clearly and has played most prominently in my memory was from a farmer from Saskatchewan. He said that he felt that democracy was at stake. Here was a government that was claiming to have a very strong commitment to help the people of Afghanistan, to bring democracy to Afghanistan, yet here in our own country in dealing with the people in their ridings the government has not abided by the principle of democracy.

What has happened? Since the government took control there has been a very distinct pattern in the events. It started very early in terms of the new government. The Conservative government was very vocal about the fact that it did not believe in the single desk marketing of the Canadian Wheat Board.

On July 27 the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food held a meeting. That was the first indication the government was not going to abide by a democratic process in terms of its agenda. In that meeting the government of Alberta was allowed to participate, but Saskatchewan and Manitoba were not.

Manitoba did indeed hold its own plebiscite because Manitoba farmers had been very clear in indicating their great fear around this agenda. In that plebiscite an overwhelming majority of the farmers said that they did not want to eliminate single desk marketing.

The Canadian Wheat Board was excluded from that meeting. On September 19, 2006 a task force was appointed. The task force by way of a ministerial appointment had nobody who could defend or who was pro-single desk marketing for the Wheat Board. In fact it has often been referred to as a stacked task force in favour of the government's agenda. On September 5 the election of five directors was announced and on October 17 and the government removed 16,000 farmers from the electoral list. In October by way of an order in council the government issued a gag order to the Canadian Wheat Board which was then unable to advocate on behalf of its single desk feature.

There are numerous other things, for example the firing of a pro-Wheat Board director. In December we saw the firing of Adrian Measner, the president and CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board. In January 2007 we started to really see the implications of this. Standard & Poor's announced that it had lowered the Canadian Wheat Board's long term issuer credit rating to AA+ from AAA. It also publicly said that the government's policies may cause the rating to fall even further.

This has had a detrimental impact. We have heard from farmers. We have met with farmers. It has been clearly articulated that the process has not been the will of the farmers. Our plebiscite results clearly indicate that as well.

When the members opposite use language to undermine the credibility of the farmers, it is quite startling. As my colleague mentioned, it is hard to understand how it is that people would not hang their heads in shame, because this protest has not been in accordance with the act. The members have not been upfront with their constituents. In fact, we have heard from people all through the Prairies that they have been very disappointed in the government's process.

The member opposite was talking about Alberta. In fact, even in Alberta, while 15.2% of the respondents said the Canadian Wheat Board should have no role in marketing barley, 21.4% in Alberta said we should retain the single desk. What does this all mean?

I know people will ask why the member for Churchill is getting up to speak about this issue. As we have talked about many times and as has been indicated to us in many cities, the reason is that it is the single desk marketing feature of the Canadian Wheat Board that has enabled it to succeed. It has worked on behalf of farmers, but it also has worked on behalf of Canadians outside the regions where we have the farmers.

My region is one of those regions that is very dependent on the business of the Canadian Wheat Board. In the riding of Churchill, in fact, there are 1,300 kilometres of rail lines from the town of The Pas to the port of Churchill. We refer to it as the Bay line. We have numerous towns, a city and the port of Churchill through that region of the Bay line, which rely heavily on the Canadian Wheat Board. Approximately 85% of shipments along the Bay line and through the port of Churchill are from the Canadian Wheat Board.

At one point when I spoke on this issue, a member from across the floor came over to me and asked me if I had farmers in my riding and asked how it is that I think this could be at all connected. I would like to be very clear in stating that the northern Manitoba leaders have united and have made public statements to save the railway and the port of Churchill. They believe that is wholly dependent on the success of the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would like to quote these leaders of the northern round table of northern Manitoba. We had representation from the Northern Association of Community Councils, the town of The Pas, the town of Churchill, the city of Thompson, the city of Flin Flon, Gillam, and Wabowden, and the Grand Chief of the Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin, which represents 33 first nations, many of which are along the Bay line. They have stated:

The Mayors and Chiefs are unanimous in their belief that this issue is more than a grain story. All communities from The Pas to Churchill rely, in some cases completely, on the train. There are few to no roads linking these communities and the only access they have to the rest of the province is the Hudson Bay Railway. [Hudson Bay Railway] officials have indicated that if there is no longer a [Canadian Wheat Board] then it will have no alternative but to close its operation of the railway as well as the Port of Churchill.

Essentially what I am saying is that this issue around the success of the Canadian Wheat Board, as the northern round table said, is not just a grain story. This is a Canadian story.

One of the members opposite talked about competition, saying that fierce competition is the way of the world, but the way of Canada is about supporting regions and supporting farmers, supporting the small family farms that rely upon a system which ensures that when times are tough they are protected. The Canadian Wheat Board supports the Bay line and the port of Churchill by utilizing its business. None of the big multinational companies utilize the Bay line or the port of Churchill. It has not been that fiercely competitive mindset that has supported these different regions of the Prairies and northern Manitoba.

I will finish by saying that this issue is a particular priority for the region right now. As I said, the mayors and the chiefs have been very strong in terms of working together and making sure their voices are heard. They have utilized their voices in support of the farmers, who actually have, in resounding numbers, supported the single desk marketing of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

Souris—Moose Mountain Saskatchewan

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member. She said the result of the plebiscite is not the will of the farmers. As I read it, the question is actually quite clear. The middle question is: “I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer”.

It seems rather obvious that farmers have expressed their will in the broadest form, saying they want to have the freedom to market their product. It is a product grown on their own land, a product they have produced. Why would the member have anything against a farmer being able to have options?

We know that a private member's bill was presented in the House to allow a farmer to sell produce grown on his own land through a processing firm without having to go through the Canadian Wheat Board, and without having to pay the costs, exchanges and application fees, to sell it direct to a customer he can see. Somehow that member and other members of the Liberal Party voted against that. They voted to prevent a farmer from being able to sell his own product, which he produces by the sweat of his brow on his own land, to a customer he can see. They want to prevent that. What would be the logic of that?

Finally, the Leader of the Opposition says it does not matter what farmers might say in a plebiscite, he is going to revert to the old system whereby farmers cannot sell to anyone but one party, and a party that will deal with customers they cannot see.

What is the logic of not accepting a plebiscite whereby the Canadian Wheat Board is preserved and farmers can sell to the Wheat Board if they want to but also can sell their produce somewhere else? It is obvious that 13.8% do not want to have anything at all to do with the Wheat Board and that 48.4% say they want to have the option to sell their produce. When we add those two together, in my mind that is 62% and a bit who want to have the option to sell their own product without the interference of big brother, the government.

What does the member have against that kind of freedom? Why would she want to bind up a farmer from having that ability?

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raised a number of statements and questions. I am going to start with his statement that our leader, the leader of the official opposition, has said that it does not matter what farmers say, that he is going to reinstate the single desk marketing system no matter what.

I have to say unequivocally that I disagree with that statement. Our leader has said that he will respect the will of farmers, but he has also been very clear in terms of a fair, transparent and democratic process, which is also part and parcel of this discussion today.

I would like to go on to his next question regarding the plebiscite results. People can go to the website and check out the numbers. They are right there in black and white.

In fact, if we put those numbers together, as the member has indicated, the government's spin number, again, was 62.2%. I would have to say that if we look at the questions and look at the results, there is a preference between the single desk, which we all know means the Canadian Wheat Board, and an option to market to the Canadian Wheat Board. If we combine those two numbers, we actually come up with 86.2%. In fact, even in Alberta we come up with 84.8%.

That is what we are finding, but the member adds up his numbers his way, meaning 62.2%. As I said, that second question also says that farmers prefer the option of marketing to the Canadian Wheat Board. It was not a clear question. We do have the Canadian Wheat Board. That is clearly stated there. If we look at it from that perspective, we can clearly see that 86.2% of farmers voted in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board. I think that has answered the member's question.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Before I recognize the hon. member for Malpeque, I would like to say that there are five minutes left and in those five minutes I would like to recognize two members, so it will be two questions and two answers. I ask members to watch the Speaker, because you are likely to be interrupted at one point.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to be interrupted.

From the member's response to the question from the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, it is obvious that the member for Churchill thinks the plebiscite question was a farce, and obviously I would agree.

The member is from Churchill. There has been quite an effort by the Government of Canada to spin the concerns of the people in Churchill as if the business that is going to Churchill from the Canadian Wheat Board is done in such a way as to almost subsidize transportation in Churchill. I would like the member's response to this, because that allegation is absolutely not true.

The fact of the matter is that the Canadian Wheat Board is selling through Churchill, which is not owned by any of the grain companies, and it is selling through Churchill because it can get premium prices and less transportation by selling that way. The fact of the matter is that if the grain is sold by a grain company, that company is going to market its grain only through its own elevator system, so it can take profits at that level as well.

Therefore, I would ask the member for Churchill a question. Would she would agree with me that what the Conservative Party of Canada is trying to allow here, by getting rid of single desk under the Wheat Board and giving the grain companies and multinationals more advantage, will really do damage to Churchill in terms of her people and will also at the same time take money out of the pockets of western farmers?

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Churchill should know that the hon. member for Malpeque took two minutes to ask his question. She has one minute to reply.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Liberal

Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to restate that the multinational companies this agenda seems to be in favour of supporting are not utilizing the port of Churchill and have not utilized the Bay line. In fact, Hudson Bay railroad officials have just indicated in an announcement if there is no longer a Canadian Wheat Board they will have no alternative but to close the Bay line operation as well as the port of Churchill. This will have a dire impact and will be detrimental to the region.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, this member and all the other Liberal members who have spoken today have led us to believe that farmers who voted in the plebiscite were too stupid to understand question number two.

They have said clearly that question number two, which was, “I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer” was simply not possible. Yet, 48% of all farmers who voted chose that option. The Liberals have said that they believe those farmers simply did not understand that that option was possible, to operate under a system that included the Canadian Wheat Board or marketing of some other option.

I would like to ask the member opposite, does she honestly believe that farmers who voted in this plebiscite were simply too stupid to understand the second option?

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:20 p.m.

Liberal

Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked and appalled by the member's language and attitude. I find it offensive that he would refer to farmers in that way.

In fact, I think it was that member who mentioned the word scaremongering. That is mongering of some sort. I am not sure what kind of mongering it is, but it is very unfair.

I made no such allusion and I do not think anybody on this side did because we have great respect for the voice of farmers. In fact, it has been respect of the system and the process of the act that should be of primary importance here. When we look again at these results in black and white--

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:20 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to be here before a full House tonight and hope I get a resounding applause after my speech, especially from this side. I can think of nothing better to do this evening than to come here and talk about the Canadian Wheat Board.

This past weekend I spent some time in Saskatchewan and while there I had a chance to speak with some people in the farming community. One major concern they have is what would happen to grain transportation if the Wheat Board loses its single desk. Currently, the Wheat Board books about half of the CN and CP Rail cars and gets the best price for farmers. It takes care of all producer car shippers on behalf of farmers.

When the farmers deliver board authorized grain to the elevator, they receive the initial CWB announced prices immediately. Without the Wheat Board the major grain companies would be in control, not the farmers. A restructured Canadian Wheat Board would have to own its own elevator and port facilities to be able to compete with the Cargills and the other multinationals.

If we look at food security, if we look at the future of a small farm, we see that it is the future of agriculture in Canada that is at stake here with this debate. The Wheat Board for example would not have the capital to buy elevators or build new facilities according to the report by Murray Fulton. Clearly, a Wheat Board without single desk powers would mean that farmers would be left at the mercy of the large multinational grain companies and the railways. This is the theme that threads itself through this debate.

In addition to this policy, if the Wheat Board is not able to market and coordinate movement of grain, this places another burden on farmers. As independent inland terminals fall by the wayside, farmers will wind up spending more time on the road hauling grain over longer distances. As we move into the future, it is important for the government to realize that it needs to play a role in ensuring efficient, affordable rail transportation in our country. This means preserving secondary railway lines and helping small independent grain terminals and cooperatives to survive. This helps to strengthen our rural communities.

Another concern expressed to me this past weekend by a young farmer is that of the problems of an open market. If we look at pulse crops, currently roughly 15% of producers are able to hit that top one-third of the market; 60% of farmers get under 50% of the market. There is constant negotiation and this takes up valuable time as the market goes up and down. According to this farmer, he would have liked to have pulse crops included in the Wheat Board's single desk where prices are pooled and premiums are extracted.

Another farmer mentioned that his son spends a great deal of time on the phone trying to negotiate prices for non-board crops. According to him, most farmers prefer to deal with the Wheat Board which negotiates premium prices on their behalf and currently Canadian farmers grow quality wheat. With the loss of single desk, one farmer mentioned to me that there would be a shift to lower quality wheat with high yields. This would however put our farmers in direct competition with American soft wheat resulting in what? In lower prices.

Another interesting point I learned is that the majority of cattle ranchers are in favour of the Wheat Board due to favourable prices for feed barley. So we see that it is not just a question that concerns someone producing barley or wheat. It concerns agriculture and by concerning agriculture, it concerns the future of our country and our food security.

As we begin to analyze the benefits of a Canadian Wheat Board single desk, we begin to see why a vast majority of farmers want to retain the Wheat Board as it currently is. I would like to re-emphasize again and again that there either is an open market or there is not an open market. A restructured Wheat Board without single desk and without assets will not survive. Let us not forget that in Manitoba, where there was a clear cut question, 61.8% of farmers voted to retain the single desk for barley while 69.5% of farmers said yes to single desk for wheat.

That brings us now to the plebiscite. Today we had the results of the barley plebiscite and once again we have this debate about whether the questions were legitimate or not. I would like to submit that the questions were misleading. It was another step in what I call a step by step destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board as we know it today.

The three questions were repeated on a number of occasions as if to somehow give legitimacy to the questions on the plebiscite. I would like to submit that question number two really was not valid. If we look at the way the questions were worded, we would see that the first and third questions were in the third person, whereas the second one began with “I would like”, which was obviously researched. Questions are not asked in this manner without having done some research into how people might answer.

Question number two gives hope. It gives hope to farmers that somehow they can survive, sell to an open market, and still retain the Wheat Board. This is a false hope because that is not the case according to the research. It is not the case according to the sham task force that said either it is an open market or it is not an open market. That is the key.

Opponents of the Wheat Board are constantly talking about freedom of choice and the idea that each farmer should be able to decide how he or she wishes to market grain. On the surface, this appears logical. However, if placed in the context of grain production in western Canada, this idea starts to lose its validity.

In other words, the debate is this. Should a small minority have the right to destroy the future of the majority? For example, should a farmer who lives close to the border with all the latest technology and may in the short term obtain good prices in the U.S. market be allowed to destroy a system that works well for most farmers, like the folks I talked to last weekend in Saskatchewan and especially those who do not live close to the American border?

In fact, one of the main things that separates us from our U.S. friends is the notion of the collective good in Canada. In our history we have made decisions that are based on what is the right of the majority, whether it be medicare, publicly funded universities or in this case the Canadian Wheat Board.

Having said that, it is important to note that our Canadian way of life is indeed under attack from market forces with the support of the so-called new government. I believe that if we were to step back and observe how the universe is unfolding, we would see a very disturbing pattern.

The Canadian Wheat Board is just one player in a vast international market. There is enormous pressure from U.S.-based multinational corporations and the WTO for Canada to keep dismantling its social welfare system. Multinational corporations would love to open private hospitals in Canada and have access to billion-dollar profits. And it is no secret that the United States has tried several times to get the WTO to pressure Canada to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk. They have not yet succeeded. Now our new government is doing it for them. We would like to know who is giving our Prime Minister his orders. Certainly not the Canadian people.

Is dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board a sacrifice? Is the government doing it to show the WTO that we are complying with their demands even though, for now, we are not changing anything about supply management? Let us be clear: supply management will be the next to go after our Canadian Wheat Board.

On March 22 the WTO issued a statement that Canada should dismantle significant trade barriers it uses to protect wheat, dairy and other agricultural producers. The WTO is not happy with government support for Canadian agriculture. We, therefore, as a nation must resist this pressure.

In this debate we often overlook the ramification of decisions made in our communities and in the long term. Our federal government should be doing everything that is humanly possible to ensure the survival of our rural communities and family farms. Handing over grain marketing to large multinationals does not do this.

What about the port of Churchill? As one Manitoba farmer wrote to my colleague from Winnipeg North: “In the much discussed future of the Canadian Wheat Board, there has been very little mention of the implications for the future of the port of Churchill. The bulk of freight shipped on the Hudson Bay Railway to Churchill is grain by the CWB. I trust that as a Manitoba MP, you are considering how the loss of that traffic would affect the province's economy. It is virtually impossible to think that the major grain companies, with terminals at Thunder Bay and the west coast, would ship grain through Churchill. A quick look at the map shows the relative distances from points in Manitoba to ocean ports. Churchill is much closer than Vancouver, Prince Rupert or Baie Comeau”.

Those are the words of a farmer from Manitoba.

There is probably no need to repeat all the steps the current Minister of Agriculture has taken as he continues to drive nails into the coffin of the Canadian Wheat Board. These issues have been raised by farmers, by groups that represent them, by parliamentarians here in the House and by the press. Unfortunately, a lot of the government backbenchers have not raised the issue, except for one courageous member of Parliament from Manitoba.

Suffice it to say that over the past few months there has been a systematic attempt undertaken by the Prime Minister and his Minister of Agriculture to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.

The questions could have been handled differently, in a truly democratic fashion.

Instead of striking a sham task force, the minister could have worked with the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors and all farm organizations of all persuasions to look at the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. There really has not been an in depth socio-economic study undertaken by the government to deal with the long term losses of the single desk. In spite of the fact that there are over 200 policy analysts in the Department of Agriculture itself, we have no idea what the long term ramifications will be. We play off one study against another study and we look at short term gain. But, then, is that not what politics is all about? We look at short term gain for the election. I think it is wrong. It is not morally right.

This should have been a priority. Instead, we are changing the future of agriculture in Canada because of an ideology that states that the market must dictate all decisions and that has convinced some farmers the short term gains are worth it. I guess, ultimately, history will be the judge of policies that are made today and I fear that it will not be favourable for Canada, the Canada as we have come to know it.

The governing party's spokesman, the current parliamentary secretary for agriculture, has made a lot of statements against the Canadian Wheat Board not only this year but in years past.

For example, on May 2, 2003 he blamed the Wheat Board for American trade actions. In fact, the Wheat Board has consistently been found to be a fair trader and it has won every legal case mounted against it by the Americans, who want to destroy the power of the single desk.

On June 14, 2002 he claimed that the Wheat Board is a bad deal economically for farmers, but several independent and peer reviewed studies prove that the Wheat Board marketing actually earns a premium for farmers, unlike the non-peer reviewed, non-independent and sometimes discredited studies the government likes to quote from.

The disturbing fact is that if there is even a small grain of truth in their statements, that should trigger a study, it should trigger an economic analysis so that we look at things in the long range and not at what is going to happen today or tomorrow.

During the debate on March 2 we heard irresponsible allegations that farmers do not trust the Wheat Board and that for years they have asked for information but the Wheat Board has not been required to provide it. In fact, farmers do have access to information through the directors they democratically elect and in whom they have placed their trust to use the marketing information, to act on behalf of their best interests and in such a way as to not give away sensitive information to their competitors. Again, the parliamentary secretary was making wild accusations without foundation.

The government is running its campaign against the Wheat Board because it feels it has only one choice to whom it must sell. The truth is that the Wheat Board is the agent through which western grain is sold on behalf of farmers to over 70 countries worldwide. Some small choice.

If the Wheat Board is competing against Cargill and ADM, it will no longer be in the Wheat Board's best interest to do market development as it does now. These competitors will be the ones to capture the values that, with farmers' money, the Wheat Board has created.

Returning to the plebiscite, if barley goes on an open market and there is a choice, we know when there is an open market if prices are high, farmers will choose to deal directly and if prices are low they will go to the Wheat Board, but just having been given that option means that the clout the Wheat Board has to gain the markets internationally will be lost as we continue to go along that path.

In the real world of economics, competition among sellers does not drive prices up. Competition among sellers drives prices down. When a number of sellers have the exact same product to sell, it is only common sense that the lowest bidder will make the sale.

Multinationals have a mandate to produce profits for their shareholders. The Wheat Board has a legitimate mandate to act in farmers' best interests and return all the profit minus expenses to them. That is the difference.

If the Wheat Board fails to do right by farmers, the farmers have the democratic means at their disposal to dismantle the Wheat Board. Farmers know that and many of them chose question two because they were told by the government that the Wheat Board could stay and continue in its present form. In fact studies have shown that it will not. There either will be a Wheat Board or there will not be a Wheat Board.

If the minister and the government were doing the right thing, they would not have taken the approach they have taken. They would not have to hijack the Wheat Board's communications and printed material to reflect the Conservative Party's election promise. They would not have to put a gag order on the Wheat Board and then proceed to promote their own agenda using government sources. They would not have to remove appointed directors and a respected CEO and replace them with cronies whose main qualifications are that they support the government but not what is in the best interests of farmers. They would not have to make last minute changes to the Canadian Wheat Board election voters list to try to get an edge and then make the outrageous claim that the Wheat Board supports this change, even though consultation never occurred.

I was sitting at a farmer's breakfast table last weekend. He asked, “What will we do? My neighbour has four different ballots and now they are phoning to see whose ballot he would like to have counted”. It is confusion. Something is not right. Something did not quite work.

If what the government was doing were right, it would not have used the slippery statistics such as it has in overstating the changes in Canadian oat acreage after it was removed from CWB jurisdiction in 1989. Oat prices dropped from Wheat Board prices of $140.90 a tonne in June of that year to $67.02 on the new private market by September. By February 1991 oats had dropped to $51.34 a tonne. This disaster played out right across the Prairies. It was seven years after a radical decline in oat acreage and other international factors before prices recovered to something like what the Wheat Board has got for farmers.

Today the value of oats is only $185.12, not much different from the 1989 CWB prices, but freight rates are up by 432% since that time and largely, the export dollars are going to private trade and not to farmers. That is not much to crow about for the government when it comes to oats.

With the CWB pushing barley sales, our European and Australian competitors will take many of our export customers, just as they did with oats. Europeans are still subsidized and the Aussies do not have to deliver their grain over the Rocky Mountains so their delivery costs are lower.

Why does the government ignore, for example, the lessons of the BSE crisis? It taught us the hard way that when two or three big companies are controlling the market and farmers have no choice but to deal with them on their own, it is farmers who get hurt.

If the Wheat Board is allowed to continue on its current path, for sure no farmers will get hurt. However, if the government ultimately succeeds in its efforts to strip the single desk from farmers, many will surely be destroyed as the law of the jungle takes hold.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, there are so many questions and so little time. The issue that was brought up by all of the speakers from the opposition parties is that the second option presented in the plebiscite should not count. That option reads like this:

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

All the opposition members today have somehow judged that the option just would not work. Almost 50% of farmers who voted selected that option. What those members are saying is that the 50% of farmers who voted just do not know what the heck they are talking about. That is what they are saying, that the farmers chose an option that is not realistic.

I disagree. Fifty per cent of farmers who voted, or more, clearly disagree. Sixty-two per cent of farmers supported choice in marketing, the option to either market through the Wheat Board, which will remain, or to some other market as they choose. That is what they chose clearly in this plebiscite.

I do not know why all the opposition members are saying that the second option somehow is not realistic. I would like the member to explain that.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, the implication is that farmers do not understand question two. I think what is happening here is that the way the question is worded and the spin that has been given to this whole plebiscite is that the Canadian Wheat Board will continue to be strong and viable if we have an open market.

That is the message that has been given to farmers, that what is wrong with having question two, if they can have a strong Wheat Board and sell on the open market and if the market is bad they can go to the Wheat Board, that they would have that choice. The fact remains, and studies point to the fact that once we let it go, and even the Wheat Board directors stated recently that barley marketing through the Wheat Board will cease to be a viable option if we open it up to the open market.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:45 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, clearly the member for Vegreville—Wainwright tries to make an issue by trying to blame us for how the government misled producers and propagandized them in terms of trying to have them believe that option two is really an option at all. No other Canadian would accept a three choice question on a serious issue. We either have it or we do not. It is as simple as that.

The member for British Columbia Southern Interior is a hard-working member of the standing committee and he heard the debate at the committee. He supported the sixth report.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has shown not only contempt for the committee, but contempt for the House in terms of not asking appropriate questions with clarity. I would ask the member for British Columbia Southern Interior if he feels the same way as I do, that really it is an affront to democracy. A standing committee had hearings. We heard witnesses. We passed a report. We presented it in this House. That report carried in this House and the minister disregarded that report and the direction of the House.

Does the member believe as I do that the Prime Minister and all of the Conservative government have shown contempt for the House and contempt for western farmers in the way they have proposed this misleading question?

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:45 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, we work very closely on committee with all members. On this issue, it seems that we have a united front with the three opposition parties, and we are trying to bring this question forward. I agree with his statement.

With this whole debate, the answer is there before the question is asked. In other words, the point of the current Minister of Agriculture is that there should be this open market and let us find the best way to do this. Consequently, all these actions have taken place and we have contempt for what the standing committee has voted.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:45 p.m.

Souris—Moose Mountain Saskatchewan

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, the member would seem to indicate that it is an either/or option. We either have a Wheat Board or we do not have a Wheat Board. The fact is we are talking about a small component, the barley aspect of it. We can have a Wheat Board and we can give farmers a choice.

I am back to my point that the question itself, which says:

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

It is not hard to understand and it gives the farmer an opportunity to have an opinion on whether he can sell outside the board or not.

It seems to me that if the board cannot survive under that option, something would be wrong. When I was in business, I would have to give the best price to my customer. I knew who my customer was and I made sure he was satisfied so he would use me.

Why does the member think that we cannot have a Wheat Board that allows the farmer to sell his barley in or outside of the Wheat Board to get the best price? Should he not be able to compete with the rest of the market and give the farmer the best price?

Agriculture and Agri-FoodCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:45 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, if we were dealing with a number of small businesses in a competitive environment, then I would say, yes, the question is logical and it makes sense. However, we are dealing on the world stage and the world stage is basically playing out this way. There are a number of strong grain multinationals supported by other governments that want to have control over our grain industry.

If we allow the farmer the choice of selling either on the open market or to the Wheat Board, which is what the member has stated, then the power of the Wheat Board itself is eroded on the international level. This means that, as in the case of oats, the prices could very well drop, maybe not today but tomorrow. We do not have anybody speaking on behalf of or trying to get those lucrative markets. It is as simple as that.