__________________________________________________________________________________________
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 060
Thursday, October 5, 2006
Canadian Wheat Board
Mr.
Speaker, the government has clearly stated its intention to cut out the
Wheat Board's legs from under it. It has appointed a minister who
opposes the mandate of the Wheat Board and has done everything in his
power to systematically destroy this Canadian institution, with sham
round tables, closed door meetings and whisper campaigns.
I have a simple question for the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Will he allow, as the law states, the 85,000 farmers who use the Wheat
Board a vote on its future, yes or no?
Mr.
Speaker, what we have done is taken steps to follow through on our
campaign promise. Campaign promises are something the Liberals are not
used to. We said we were moving to marketing choice. We said we would
appoint a task force to give us some of the details on the marketing
choice.
However,
I always find it a little passing strange when my critic from the NDP
or my critic from the Liberals, who do not have to live under the Wheat
Board, tell the rest of Canada how they have to market their products.
Mr.
Speaker, that reminds us of the shameful softwood lumber agreement. I
asked a very simple question. Does he intend to allow the 85,000
farmers who use the Wheat Board a democratic vote?
There should be no more talk about choice. The only choice is whether the government will follow the law or break the law, extend the rights of farmers or deny them, support democracy or suffocate it. Which is it? Will farmers get a say, yes or no?
Mr.
Speaker, so far we have appointed a task force. That task force is to
report to me in about three or four weeks. It is going to give some of
the details about what a corporate structure of a voluntary wheat board
might look like.
We
are determined to have a strong, voluntary wheat board and a marketing
choice. That is all we have done. There have been no other proposals on
the table. There has been discussion. Right now there is nothing to
even have a plebiscite about.
* * *
__________________________________________________________________________________________39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 064
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime
Minister. It is about farmers and their families. It is about
democracy. It is about the rule of law.
In
1998 Parliament voted to give control of the Wheat Board to farmers.
They have a right to vote on changes to their board. The Prime
Minister
is ignoring the law and their rights by trying to destroy the Wheat
Board without a proper, open and democratic vote among all producers.
Will the Prime
Minister reverse his anti-democratic actions and permit a fair vote
among producers on the future of our Canadian Wheat Board?
Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is that we are or
are going to do something and it is going to violate the law. Nothing
could be further from the truth. What we in this party are going to do
is defend the rights of western Canadian farmers, something which that
party has never stood for in its entire history.
Mr. Speaker, as one Conservative member of the
House learned today, the Prime
Minister just cannot cope with anyone who disagrees with him,
constructively or not, and that includes Canadian farmers.
Will the Prime
Minister
stop the gag orders on anyone in the Wheat Board who disagrees with
him? Will he stop trying to cook the voters list? Will he allow farmers
who do not share his ideology to vote? Will the Prime
Minister
uphold the rule of law, uphold democracy, and put this issue to a fair
vote among all producers and not just those who agree with him?
Mr.
Speaker, years ago the Liberal Party took away from western Canadian
farmers the right to market their own wheat. Then a leader of the
Liberal Party came along, having monopolized that privilege, and said
“Why should we sell your wheat for you?” We in this party are going to
make sure that our farmers are never subject to that kind of arbitrary
behaviour by a future Liberal government.
[Translation]
That
is all well and good, Mr. Speaker, but this government has shown that
it does not care about farmers and their preferences.
In
the west, our farmers chose the Canadian Wheat Board. In Quebec and
across the country, they chose the supply management system. The Prime
Minister, however, chose to impose his ideology at the expense of
our farmers' well-being.
Why does the Prime
Minister insist on attacking the choices of our farming
communities?
Mr.
Speaker, this government defends the decision of farmers who chose
supply management. We defended this decision here and internationally.
[English]
Western
Canadian wheat farmers do not have supply management. They are looking
for options. This government will always respect their choices and make
sure the choices are available to our farmers.
* * *
Mr. Speaker, earlier in the House the Prime
Minister, as is his way, attempted to confuse Canadians on what the
Canadian Wheat Board Act is about.
The
act empowers farmers as opposed to them being at the mercy of the grain
trade. Farmers under that act have rights and one of those rights is,
by vote, to determine their marketing institution's powers.
Will the Prime
Minister do the right thing, obey the law and give them a vote on
single desk selling?
Mr.
Speaker, the government will do what farmers have always wanted, which
is to have a range of marketing choices, including the Wheat Board.
We
are never going to be afraid to consult western farmers. The last time
we did it, like so many times when we have done it, they did not return
a single Liberal MP, and they never will.
* * *
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 066
Friday, October 20, 2006
Canadian Wheat Board
Mr.
Speaker, the shift in the Canadian Wheat Board election process is
becoming more confusing to the farmers, but that is not all.
Legitimately nominated director candidates may no longer be eligible
because those who nominated them are ineligible to vote. In other
words, perfectly legitimate candidates could be unfairly disqualified.
Will
the minister give his word today that any candidate nominated since the
election process began will be eligible for election, regardless of the
minister having changed the rules halfway through the election process,
yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, hysteria
and hyperbole seem to be part of the NDP's way of dealing with this
issue. In the House the other day the leader of the NDP brought up this
issue in a way that I am sure he knew was not accurate.
The minister has said that we will deliver balance to the producers who have delivered grain over the last two years. Any other person who has an interest in grain can file a statutory declaration and they then can vote in these elections and participate in them.
* * *
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 067
Monday, October 23, 2006
Canadian Wheat Board
On October 17 the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food
said that he suggested to the Canadian Wheat Board that the board
review the voters list and he claimed that the board agreed with him.
There was no suggestion; the minister instructed and the board had no
option but to comply. As a result 16,000 producers have been
disenfranchised of their democratic right, most due to lost crop.
Will
the government stop at nothing to destroy the board? Will the minister
come clean today, table his instructions and apologize for misleading
the House?
Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member opposite has got me dead to rights. I did ask
the Wheat Board to make sure that people who were actually voting in
the director elections should actually be producers of grain products.
I
am sorry but it seems to me that when we have people who are voting on
the future of the Wheat Board, on the directors list, they should be
people who are actually producing. If the member thinks they should
just be people out of the Winnipeg phone book, he should say so.
Canadian Wheat Board
Canadian Wheat Board
Mr.
Speaker, last week in the other place, in response to a series of
questions from a series of senators, the Leader of the Government in
the Senate held open the possibility that there would indeed be a
democratic plebiscite among farmers having to do with the future of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
I wonder if the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food
could today formally confirm, and emphatically so, that if the Canadian
Wheat Board is to be changed, farmers will have the democratic right to
vote on it in advance.
Mr.
Speaker, we have put together a task force to frame what kind of a
Wheat Board we could have and of a strong, independent, voluntary Wheat
Board in a marketing choice world. That task force should report to me
hopefully later this week or next week at the latest. When that task
force comes back, we will look at the suggestions that it makes and
take whatever steps are necessary following that task force report.
* * *
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 069
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to free speech, it
turns out that the Prime
Minister seems to have a double standard: free speech for people he
agrees with and gag orders for people that he does not agree with.
The
best example is the Wheat Board. So far the government has changed the
rules half way through on the election, imposed a gag order and
arbitrarily struck thousands of farmers off the voters list.
Will the Prime
Minister stop bullying Canadian farmers and commit to the House
that there will be a free and fair vote on the Canadian Wheat Board?
Mr.
Speaker, in the upcoming Wheat Board elections, which I think is what
the member is referring to, the recommendation I made to the Canadian
Wheat Board was exactly consistent with what the Wheat Board's own
election panel recommended one year ago in November. It said that
actual producers should vote for the directors, not just someone who
had a permit book.
We
continue to listen to Canadian farmers. They have the right to vote in
this upcoming directors election, and we are giving them that right.
Mr. Speaker, the government is taking away the rights of farmers who
leave their fields fallow, who run other crops, who hold their wheat
for the next year to get a better price, who have bad rain, who have
bad drought. That is what it is doing to the farmers across the
country. Killing the Wheat Board will produce serious financial loss
for everyday grain producers.
Thank
goodness, Gary Doer's government is standing up and is going to hold a
referendum. Thank goodness the Government of Saskatchewan is going to
take the federal government to court, if need be, to get it to do the
right thing.
My question is for the Prime Minister.
Will there be a free and fair vote for farmers on the Wheat Board, yes
or no?
Mr.
Speaker, this party and this government will never be afraid of the
voices of western farmers. That is why we represent virtually every
rural seat in western Canada.
I
know the leader of the NDP and ourselves disagree on marketing choice
for western Canadian farmers. However, I think what we hopefully do
agree on is, whether people are for or against the Wheat Board or want
the Wheat Board the same or changed, that they have a right to know
what the Wheat Board is doing.
We
put the Wheat Board under access to information in the accountability
act. The unelected Liberal Senate took it out. That is a disgrace. The
Wheat Board should be subject to access to information.
Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, the minority Conservative
government is showing blatant contempt toward farmers.
Earlier this month the Prime
Minister,
whose disdain for the Canadian Wheat Board is legendary, slapped the
Wheat Board with a gag order, preventing it from advocating for its
single desk selling. When he was president of the National Citizens
Coalition, the Prime Minister said, “gag laws are unconstitutional and
unenforceable”.
Is the Prime
Minister not doing today what he found so distasteful not that long
ago?
Mr.
Speaker, of course there is no such thing. The directors of the Wheat
Board are speaking out, as they should and as they are allowed to.
Farmers across the country are talking to me and to others about what
they think the future of the Wheat Board should look like.
However, that is not the real question. The big question today is why
the unelected Senate voted to remove the right of farmers to access
information and to access the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not know which
is worse, the fact that the Liberals do not think farmers should know
what is going on or the fact that farmers lost their right to know by
an unelected Senate.
Mr.
Speaker, I know it is hard to believe but the government is showing
even more contempt for farmers. Western producers have been demanding a
plebiscite. The Canadian Wheat Board clearly states that a vote should
be held. Both Manitoba and Saskatchewan have indicated that they would
hold a vote if the federal government fails to fulfill its
responsibilities.
When will the government do the democratic
and lawful thing and put the question to a vote by farmers?
Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is presupposing that he knows what is in the
task force report, which should be delivered shortly. When that task
force report is tabled with me I will make it public. It will aid in
the discussion and in the debate that is already taking place on the
Prairies. However, again, that is not the issue.
The
issue is this. Why do the Liberals not want western Canadian farmers to
know what is going on at the Wheat Board? Why did the unelected Senate
take the right of farmers to know away? What is wrong? What are they
afraid of?
* * *
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 070
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime
Minister
said that the government had put the Wheat Board under access to
information. Actually, the government was advised by its legal counsel
not to include the Canadian Wheat Board because it was not a government
agency and the government did not.
Access to information was squeezed in by
the NDP member for Winnipeg
Centre during his convenient love affair with the Conservatives.
Is
it the intent of the government to include all grain companies, such as
Cargill and Agricore, under access to information or does the Prime
Minister just want to give multinationals an advantage over the
farm owned farmers marketing institution?
Mr.
Speaker, the government is not involved in a financial way with
Cargill. We do not force farmers to deal with Cargill if they do not
want to.
Since
there is a monopoly situation on the Prairies and only western Canadian
producers need to deal with the Canadian Wheat Board and since there is
government money involved, farmers should have access to information
and access to the Wheat Board so they can find out where their money is
being spent.
* * *
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 072
Monday, October 30, 2006
Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Agriculture has indicated that his stacked task force has tabled
a report with him on the Canadian Wheat Board.
Will
the minister at least confirm to the House that whatever
recommendations are considered will not happen unless and until the
farmers have a vote on a clear question as related to that report?
Mr.
Speaker, Canada's new government is committed to marketing choice for
farmers and we are also committed to a strong voluntary Wheat Board,
something that farmers want and something that this side of the House
is very determined to make happen.
I
was very pleased that I could make the task force report public today.
I am sure farmers and other industry experts, perhaps even the member
for Malpeque, will find something interesting in there. I look forward
to contributions as we examine that report.
* * *
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 073
Canadian Wheat Board
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 074
Agriculture
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 075
* * *
Statements by Members
Agriculture
Mr.
Speaker, what is happening to our Canada? The future of our country is
slowly being decided behind closed doors in secret meetings, with no
public input and no reporting to the press.
The
security and prosperity partnership of North America was launched in
2005 to fast track the deep integration of Canada, Mexico and the U.S.
Secret meetings have been held as lately as September this year.
The
emerging pattern is disturbing. We have bowed to U.S. pressure to sign
a bad softwood lumber deal. Our troops are now in a U.S. led search and
kill mission in Afghanistan and the Conservative government is doing
something the Americans have been trying to do for a long time: to
dismantle our farmer run Canadian Wheat Board.
The
future of agriculture and our rural way of life is being dictated by
big government without a vote by farmers. In essence, a very blatant
attempt is being made to transform Canadian society. We must not let
this happen.
* * *
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 073
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Canadian Wheat Board
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Conservatives finally revealed their agenda to
hurt farm families and to kill jobs on the Prairies.
The Wheat Board belongs to the farmers,
yet the hand-picked panel of the Prime
Minister
came out with a recommendation that the CEO and the board should be
dismissed without even a vote by the farmers who own the Wheat Board.
Now
we have Saskatchewan joining with Manitoba, and rightly, in calling for
the voice of farmers to be heard through a fair vote on the question of
the future of the Wheat Board. Even the Conservatives in Manitoba go
along with this idea.
Why will the government not stop force-feeding its ideology to farmers
here in Canada and give the farmers a fair vote on the future of the
Wheat Board?
Mr.
Speaker, as the leader of the NDP is aware, the Conservative Party of
Canada supports marketing choice for western Canadian farmers. That is
one of the reasons why we won virtually every rural seat in western
Canada in the last federal election campaign.
As
I have said repeatedly, this government never fears to consult with
western farmers. We look forward to hearing their views.
Mr. Speaker, it is that kind of arrogance that
is going to turn people off. We will see what happens in the next
election.
The Prime
Minister says he wants to consult with farmers and then takes a
third of them off the voters list of the Wheat Board.
The fact is that it is going to kill jobs if the government kills the
Wheat Board. It is not just going to hurt the farmers. It will take
jobs away from communities. The mayor of Churchill pointed out that if
he loses the port of Churchill, it is going to cost jobs. There will be
all kinds of dependent jobs lost as well.
Despite
the cackling from the peanut gallery over there, whose members have no
interest in listening to farmers, my question is this. They wanted in
and I guess they wanted farmers in the unemployment line. Will we get a
fair vote or not for farmers--
Mr.
Speaker, of course the government has consistently campaigned on and
promised a marketing choice for western Canadian grain farmers. We
continue to ask for western Canadian grain farmers what all farmers in
the rest of Canada have, which is an option to market their products as
they see fit.
We
see a strong, viable Canadian Wheat Board. The task force report that I
tabled yesterday charts a path forward. We welcome debate on that task
force report. It does, for the first time, block out how that might
happen. We of course look forward to farmers' input on that task force
report. We are always interested in what they have to say.
* * *
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 074
Wednesday, November 1, 2006
Agriculture
Mr.
Speaker, the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles du
Québec
said he is very worried about the attitude of the government, which,
along with the Europeans and the Americans, is questioning the very
existence of the Canadian Wheat Board. He said he is dismayed that
farmers are having their collective marketing tools taken away from
them.
Will the
minister admit that this attack on the Canadian Wheat Board leaves the
door wide open to another similar attack on supply management?
Mr.
Speaker, what we are doing, of course, is moving ahead with our
campaign promise to a allow marketing choice for western Canadian
farmers who want to have a chance to market their own products in a
marketing choice world. That was a campaign promise, as was our support
for the supply management system. We supported it during the campaign;
we supported it at Geneva and international conferences. It receives
the full support of this government.
Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to read the
latest editorial in La Terre de chez nous to get some idea of
our concerns in Quebec.
The
Canadian Wheat Board and supply management are based on the same
principle. They are both collective marketing strategies.
I would like the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food
to explain to me how he can say he does not question supply management,
while he does question the existence of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr.
Speaker, what we will be asking western Canadian farmers in this
plebiscite is whether they want the same freedom of choice that Quebec
farmers have to market their grain. It is no different. We are not
going to ask them to do something we would not ask of or is not already
available for farmers in Quebec. It will be a clear question on barley.
We think farmers want to have that question put to them. There was
certainly a demand by the opposition. We will have a plebiscite on
that. I hope that farmers will decide to move forward on marketing
choice on barley.
We
said during the election that we would give them choice. We said that
we would move on behalf of them. We are moving on behalf of farm
families in Canada.
* * *
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 075
Thursday, November 2, 2006
Canadian Wheat Board
Mr.
Speaker, the minister's discredited task force has failed by every
measure, except that it will give the corporate U.S. grain sector what
it wants: more economic power at our farmers' expense. Look at the
report. There is not a single reference to gains for farmers,
absolutely none.
How
can the minister defend an action that has its strongest support in the
U.S.? Popping champagne in U.S. boardrooms, heartbreak for Canadian
farm families. Does the Prime
Minister just not care about Canadian farmers?
Mr.
Speaker, we campaigned during the last election campaign on behalf of
farmers who wanted marketing choice. They wanted a strong, independent,
voluntary Canadian Wheat Board in a marketing choice world.
After
we had this task force report, it delivered a very good report on how
that transition might take place. Its first recommendation was to move
on barley. We are going to have a plebiscite on barley in the new year.
Mr.
Speaker, the only farmers the minister is listening to live in North
Dakota, Kansas and Nebraska. In giving the United States its way, the
minister's undemocratic acts are getting worse. Now he is initiating a
Stalinist purge, firing a pro-board director and inserting an
anti-Wheat Board activist.
How
can he expect such a director to act in good faith with a view to the
best interests of the corporation and farmers, or is he just attempting
to destroy the board from the inside?
Mr.
Speaker, I guess the real issue is, after days and days the member
would not wait for the task force report, but it came and it delivered
the goods. For days the member opposite said, “Please, please, give us
a plebiscite for the farmers of western Canada”.
We
are not only going to represent the farmers from coast to coast, we are
going to have a plebiscite which that member asked for. Why does he not
get on board and listen to the farmers for a change?
* * *
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 075
Thursday, November 9, 2006
Canadian Wheat Board
Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, every time the minister makes a Wheat Board decision, he steps in what prairie folk politely call a cow pie.
The minister has denied wheat farmers the right to vote on the board's future. He set up a sham task force with the sole goal of dismantling the single desk.
Does the minister want to wipe some of that meadow muffin off his shoes and announce today that he will hold a fair vote on the future of the Wheat Board and that wheat farmers will also have a vote?
Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, what we anticipate is a very strong voluntary Wheat Board in a marketing choice world. We are taking steps to ensure that happens. We will consult with farmers, as we have been doing all along.
In fact, we will be having a plebiscite in the new year. We are going to be talking about barley at that time. We are going to have a very broad voter base and obviously, a very clear and fair question.
I encourage all farmers to participate in that vote.
Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, not only does the government want to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board, but the Conservatives have also abandoned Quebec's grain farmers. For years they have fought unassisted against American dumping.
In the spring, the Canada Border Services Agency concluded that the losses caused by dumping warranted a penalty against corn imported from the United States.
Why does the government not appeal to the WTO? Why has the government abandoned Quebec farmers?
Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, foreign producers did take this issue to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, using an argument that American producers were dumping corn improperly. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal did not support that point of view. There are rumours out there that corn producers may want to go this route again.
More properly, what we are doing is designing programming that will help farmers directly. We are working on things like biofuels and biomass enterprises and investment to ensure that farmers have more options and better prices. Thankfully, the price of corn is coming up. It is at a 10-year high.
* * *
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) :
Mr. Speaker, the President and CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board, Adrian Measner, has been fired by the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Measner was democratically chosen by the elected board of directors. He has performed in an excellent manner on behalf of this organization.
In an emergency teleconference Friday, the Wheat Board directors passed a motion calling on the minister to reconsider.
Will the minister agree today to listen to the CWB board of directors and reconsider this foolish decision?
* * *
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing of course is moving toward marketing choice in an orderly and transparent way.
I would again ask the Wheat Board, as I have done repeatedly, to concentrate on what their mandate is, which is to market grain on behalf of western Canadian farmers.
We are going to have a plebiscite in the new year. Every time they get away from their core role and their core duty, which is to market grain on behalf of farmers, they are losing the support of farmers.
They should get at the job at hand. There is lots of wheat to sell. Let us get at it and leave the other issues for politicians.
* * *
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) :
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has demonstrated a blatant contempt: July, the minister's hand-picked Wheat Board opponents to plot strategy; September, a sham task force is charged with dismantling single desk; October, outright interference with the director elections; now in December, loyalty to single desk is a firing offence.
This is getting out of hand. He must reinstate the president and CEO. He must stop acting like a dictator. When will the minister learn the Wheat Board works just fine without him and reverse all the negative decisions made to date?
* * *
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, what we have done is campaigned in the last federal election on marketing choice for farmers. We are moving toward that in a transparent and open way. We have a planned staged transition so we can move toward marketing choice.
The first step of that will take place in a barley plebiscite in January and February. I urge all farmers who are actual producers to get involved in that plebiscite. I look forward to having their input. We are consistently moving in a way that we campaigned on and we look forward again to working with western Canadian farmers.