Wayne Easter

[Canadian Wheat Board, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the tainted barley vote results are clear on one point. Only 13.8% support the minister's efforts to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board and move barley to the open market.

Dual marketing is not possible and the minister knows it. The task force told him so and the farmer elected Wheat Board stated it is not a viable option.

Does the minister really believe a 13% result is enough to take marketing power away from western grain producers and transfer farmers' money to the international grain trade?

Just why does the Prime Minister support American multinationals over Canadian farmers?

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

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?

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

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?

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

Thank you for recognizing the minister.

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

Which is impossible.

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

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?

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could ask you first, do I as a Canadian from Prince Edward Island have the right to speak on this issue? By listening to—

[Canadian Wheat Board, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that is some spin. The minister knows, if he is being honest, that the proposal he put forward today, based on his false choice and fraudulent vote, is the open market for barley, nothing more, nothing less: the open market.

In fact, let us examine the numbers: 86.2% want the Wheat Board and only 13.8% want the open market. That open market is what the minister is trying to drive down their throats. Why will the minister not accept defeat and listen when farmers have clearly told him they do not want the open market?

[Canadian Wheat Board, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will allow farmers to have a voice, which that party has not done.

Let us review the process. Gag orders were placed on farmer-elected board members. Appointed board members were fired. The CEO was fired for standing up for producers. Now we have numbered and traceable ballots. Finally, the minister called a plebiscite but it has a fraudulent question.

Now there is evidence of multiple ballots and calls to voters from the returning officer, KPMG itself. Does the Prime Minister think this is a credible process?

[Canadian Wheat Board, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will soon have the tainted results of his discredited plebiscite with barley producers.

KPMG is now counting the numbered ballots. However, KPMG has called some producers to see which of their ballots they want counted. Canadians should know that in this vote the ballots were numbered and traceable, there was no voters list and there were no scrutineers from opposing camps.

Will the minister explain what happens to those voters that KPMG cannot reach? Or is that just the side that favours the government approach and is it the more votes the merrier?