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.