Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here today and it is especially great to hear the member opposite actually giving credibility to the CWB II, suggested by the task force, and seeing it as a possibility. I do not ever remember him doing that before. I am excited to hear that and to see that he has moved along.
I was disappointed once again, though, to hear him toward the end of his speech defending the big grain companies against the farmers, the producers. Our producers are waiting with great expectation for August 1. Some of them have even asked for the date to be moved up so they can take advantage of the market ahead of that time. It is good to see farmers willing to move ahead, and this government certainly wants to move ahead with them.
The Liberal leader told us months ago that he was going to ask a question per day in the House on the Canadian Wheat Board. I cannot remember the last time the opposition asked a question on the Canadian Wheat Board, and I can tell members one thing, that is not leadership.
The hon. member is attempting to discredit a valid and fair vote, all the while impugning the reputation of a reputable accounting firm. The question that he asked in March had to do with the barley vote.
The questions that were asked in that barley vote could not have been more clear. Barley producers were asked, first, if the Wheat Board should retain its single desk for marketing barley, second, if they wanted to have a choice of who they sold to, and third, if the Wheat Board should get out of marketing barley entirely.
The hon. member said that he wanted Canadians to know that the ballots were numbered and traceable. What he did not say in his question was that the private company conducting the vote had said that the numbered ballots were used only to verify voter eligibility and that separate processes for the verification of the declarations and the tabulation of the ballots were established.
The member also stated that some producers were called to see which of their ballots they wanted counted. He neglected, as he often does, to mention an important fact, which is that the vote administrator had said that the inquiries were to verify the eligibility of farming entities and to confirm with the producer that the farming entity had not inadvertently submitted more declarations than it was eligible for. The administrator, KPMG, declared categorically that in no instance was a producer asked any questions about voting preference.
Finally, the member said in his question that there were no scrutineers from opposing camps. That is not true. Just so Canadians know the truth, I want to let the record show that the counting of ballots was performed in the presence of three senior municipal election officials from the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, who acted as scrutineers.
These scrutineers observed the opening of the sealed secrecy envelopes, the sorting of the ballots, the adjudication of all spoiled ballots, and the counting of the ballots. Each of the scrutineers confirmed in writing that they witnessed the entire ballot count and that they were satisfied that the process was conducted in an independent and objective manner.
Therefore, the question on the ballot was clear and the voting process was independent and objective.
We know that some people do not like how barley producers voted, and the member for Malpeque is one of those people. While they may object to the process of the vote, the real issue is the results. Those show clearly that farmers want to have the freedom to choose how to market their barley.
The government respects what producers have said. Over 60% of producers want to decide how to market their own product. Their decision in favour of marketing choice is clear and the government intends to give them that opportunity in this coming crop year.
I know that farmers are excited about this. We look forward to working with them in those opportunities and choices that they will be making.
