Debates of March 28th, 2007

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had to take advantage of the opportunity to speak to this issue. I have heard several speakers today during the debate. In fact, I have followed and been a part of this discussion for 40 years. So little has changed in that time and that is a problem. It simply is not acceptable.

Finally our government made a commitment to give farmers a say on the issue, particularly on barley marketing. We asked the farmers three questions. We gave three options to farmers in the plebiscite. The first option, and I will read it again:

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

For that option, 37.8% of farmers chose it.

The second option:

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

For that, 48.4% of farmers chose it.

The third option:

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

For that option, 14% of farmers chose it.

The results are that 62% chose to operate other than through the monopoly provided by the Canadian Wheat Board. The choice was clear.

Our government now will move ahead, changing the regulations as necessary. We hope in time for the new crop year, August 1, we will be able to put in place this freedom of choice in marketing barley for Canadian farmers within the Wheat Board area. Farmers outside of the three prairie provinces and the Wheat Board portion of B.C., which is a small portion, have had a choice for the past several years. It is only people in that restricted Wheat Board area who have been fettered by a monopoly, unfairly so, and we are now changing that.

I want to talk about that monopoly. How was it put in place? It was put in place originally in 1918. For what reason? To get cheap grain for the war effort. After the war, what happened? It is interesting to read the words of the MPs who were in the House at that time. They made a decision, and it was clear to them, that it was not appropriate to restrict the marketing of farmers with a monopoly other than for the war effort. They removed the monopoly.

Therefore, the Wheat Board operated between 1918 and 1942 as a voluntary board, which is exactly option two that we offered in the plebiscite. Farmers had a choice. They could market through the board or any other way they chose. That was the choice from 1918 to 1942.

Then what happened? The monopoly was put in place in 1941 or 1942, again, for what reason? So the government could get cheap grain from farmers below market value for the war effort. Farmers did not like that. They lost a lot of money. The government promised it would pay them back later and get rid of the monopoly after the war. It did not do that. After the second world war, the monopoly was not removed, and that is the only reason we have had the monopoly of the Wheat Board since then.

The monopoly was put in place, not to give farmers a better price for their grain, but to buy at below market value for the war effort. That is the way the monopoly has worked. That is the reality of what has happened.

I am here to say that our government has finally removed that monopoly, at least for barley as we promised to do, and farmers have quite enthusiastically supported us. In Alberta, almost 80% of farmers supported removing that monopoly.

I am delighted by that. It is progress. Wheat is an issue for another day. Our government has always said and made it clear, that we wanted to give farmers the option to either market through the Wheat Board, keep that in place, or to market any other way they saw fit.

I am a farmer. I have about 2,000 acres of grain land. I do not farm any more, but I rent it out on a crop share so I still sell grain. I am delighted that I, as a farmer, finally have this choice.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House are deemed put and the recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, April 18, 2007, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these proceedings arise from a question I asked the minister responsible for the Status of Women last December, when the Conservatives announced that they were slashing the budget of Status of Women Canada by $5 million and forcing the closure of 12 of the 16 regional offices across Canada, as well as the layoff of nearly half of the department's staff.

The primary purpose of Status of Women Canada is to help women acquire the necessary skills to participate fully in the social, economic, cultural and political life of Canada and ensure that politicians and policy-makers are informed of key issues affecting women.

In a society where women continue to be marginalized within key political, social and legal institutions, and I point out that less than one in five members of Parliament are women, it is essential to promote the realization of women's human rights such as equality before the law, the right to an adequate standard of living, life and security and the same access to economic opportunities as men, in other words, equality. By equality, I mean real equality, not some abstract concept of law.

Since the announcement of the budget cuts, however, the Conservative government has flip-flopped on a number of issues. It is now adopting a familiar pattern of slashing and burning programs brought in by the former Liberal government and then suddenly reconstituting them and restoring funding when public opinion polls tell the Prime Minister that he has made another gaffe. This shows a visionless Prime Minister trying to slither with slimy gimmicks against women who constitute 52% of the population.

I know the response from the government will glorify the $5 million that was suddenly found in last week's budget, after the minister responsible for the Status of Women suffered the embarrassment of having her offices occupied by protesters on International Women's Day.

Let us take a closer look at what the Conservatives are actually doing. According to chapter 3 of the federal budget:

This funding will enhance the activities of a refocused Women’s Program, and create a new Women’s Partnerships Fund to foster joint undertakings in areas of common interest with other federal departments and other levels of government.

If that sounds like gobbledygook to members, I think most Canadians would agree. Yet what is not mentioned in the budget is that the Conservatives have changed the terms and conditions of the women's program under the Status of Women, which essentially wipes out research funding and disallows advocacy activities. How can Status of Women Canada promote equality when it is prevented from researching issues or advocating policy changes to politicians and policy-makers?

Let us talk about equality. The Conservatives have deliberately changed the mandate of the department and explicitly removed the word “equality” as a goal of the department simply because the minister responsible does not think equality matters any more. I would like to know, and, indeed, all Canadians would like to know, if the Conservative government no longer believes that equality is something that we as a country should strive toward.

I ask the question because it lies at the heart of the Conservative agenda. Does the government or the parliamentary secretary agree with the minister that the goal of gender equality is no longer relevant in Canadian society?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to respond to the member for Don Valley East. I am, in fact, a little surprised that she would want to talk about the Status of Women in light of her government's failure to adequately address funding issues at the agency.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women delivered what no previous minister in the same portfolio could, more money for women. Last year, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women asked the minister for a response to a report on funding for women's organizations. That report, “Increasing Funding to Equality-Seeking Organizations”, called on the government to increase funding by 25%.

The previous government had over a decade to affect change in the Status of Women agency and it did nothing. Canada's new government is taking a new approach. We will not be satisfied with the status quo approach taken by the Liberals. We recognize that not all women experience equality. We see how the lives of women, children and families can be improved.

It was this government that took action. It was Canada's new government that listened to women and listened to Canadian families.

Earlier this month, to mark International Women's Day, the minister announced an increase of $5 million to the women's program at Status of Women. That announcement increased the budget of the program by 42%. In fact, Canada's new government added an additional $5 million to Status of Women in this year's budget for a total of $10 million. That is $10 million of new money that will directly benefit women in their communities.

This government's overall record on helping women, children and families has been second to none. In a little over a year we have introduced the universal child care benefit to help women and their families in their homes. We implemented hospital wait time guarantees for prenatal aboriginal women. We expanded eligibility for compassionate caregivers, most of whom are women. This government introduced pension splitting for senior citizens, targeted tax cuts like the GST, the textbook credit, and a credit for families with children involved in physical activities.

We introduced real change, real ideas, and real policies that are making a difference in the lives of Canadian women.

The member for Don Valley East stood in the House and said that the National Association of Canadians of Origins in India depends on federal funding to do its important work. She asked if the minister would guarantee that this organization's funding would not be cut. The minister's office has checked into this, and according to officials at Status of Women Canada there has been no application from this organization this year.

The member also mentioned the National Association of Women and the Law. I am sure that if the hon. member would like more information on these two organizations, the minister's office would be more than happy to investigate.

In the meantime, I would implore the member to actually look at the facts, read the budget, and recognize that this government is working to improve the lives of women, children and their families. We are not just talking about it.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary did not answer a simple question which was: Does the government believe in equality? That shows it does not.

The budget is a bunch of gimmicks.

The Status of Women was established by the Liberal government, not by the neo-cons. The neo-cons can take as much credit as they want, but 52% of voters know that they are being conned.

According to chapter three of the Conservative budget, funding will be steered toward real action in key areas such as the economic status of women and combating violence against women and girls.

It is a fact that long guns are the most common type of firearm used in spousal homicides. Over 71% of spousal homicides involved rifles and shotguns. In spite of this shocking statistic, the Conservatives introduced legislation that would remove seven million long guns from the firearm registry. This is how they protect women.

Does the parliamentary secretary sincerely believe that removing rifles and shotguns from the gun registry will somehow protect women and girls from the threat--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's party has been mismanaging public funds for years. While the Liberals chose to spend taxpayers' dollars on administration and bureaucracy, we are delivering even more programming dollars to women in their communities.

An independent evaluation showed that it cost 31¢ to deliver $1 under the women's program. That is unacceptable. By streamlining the agency and putting application forms online, we were able to redirect $5 million to the women's program. The reality is that we all do not live in major urban centres and this government recognizes that. By putting the application form on the website, we reach women in rural and northern communities.

On this side of the House, unlike the Liberals, we do not separate the women off and we do not hold all boys policy weekends. All ministers and all Conservative caucus members will continue to work together to help Canadian women and their families.

We have taken women's issues very seriously. Protecting women in violent--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Laval--Les Îles.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period on February 20, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the following question:

Mr. Speaker, it costs $45 a day for a government member to rent a car. However, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration preferred to spend $6,200 for a limousine with a uniformed driver.

When will the minister stop her excessive spending of taxpayers' money? And above all, when will she restore the $20 million she slashed from our immigration system?

In his answer, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform completely ignored my question.

The government's mantra has always been to slash and burn to the detriment of Canadians on fixed incomes and to the detriment of seniors.

Often, it is to the detriment of new arrivals whose credentials are not recognized in Canada. As a result, they cannot begin their lives in our country because this government reneged on its promise to allocate $18 million in the 2007 budget to look after foreign credential recognition.

Although this government would like us to think that it is helping seniors, that is not the case. Let us not forget that it was the Conservatives who tried to de-index old age pensions.

The government refuses to listen to information from Canada's own census data which shows that about 115,000 people living in Canada who thought they were Canadians, it turns out that they may not be after all. For example, we are talking about the children of military personnel born abroad.

When demographer, Barry Edmondston, a sociologist at the University of Victoria, appeared before the standing committee he said that the problem touches more than a few dozen Canadians, although the minister would have us believe it is only a mere 450 people. According to Edmondston, there may even be about 85,000 people in other countries who may not know they have lost their Canadian citizenship.

Instead of taking a holistic and proactive approach to resolving these issues and preventing any future problems or occurrences, the minister has said that she prefers to deal with cases on an individual basis. Unfortunately, a reactionary approach will not resolve this issue.

Instead of putting the money back in the budget to review the legislation and overhaul the act, the minister insists that her department must apply the law as it is written and will not envisage a revision of the legislation.

During her recent testimony at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the minister said:

Overhauling the Act is a major, major effort and quite frankly, it's more than we could take on to help these people at this point in time.

This is just not acceptable. Today, I am asking the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration—who I see is absent—to start by implementing a communications strategy with ads and public service announcements in print and electronic media to inform Canadians that they could lose their citizenship. The strategy should include a major campaign about the toll-free information line so that more people can get the information. This telephone communications strategy must be made available to people both in Canada and abroad.

Once again, I am asking the minister, who is not here tonight, to put the $20 million back into her budget to update the Citizenship Act and take proactive measures to find—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. The member for Laval—Les Îles has a lot of experience in this House and knows that she is not allowed to mention the absence or presence of members in the House.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, the member annoys me when she speaks about Conservatives not being accountable because Canadians are satisfied with our new government and they understand that Conservatives are accountable and are getting the job done, something that the member and her party did not do in the last 13 years.

As troubling as Canadians found the Liberal scandal and culture of entitlement while in government, they are finding the Liberals' current desperation and aimlessness as opposition downright disturbing. It is bad enough that Liberals could not get governing down after 13 years of trying. Now we are seeing that they cannot get opposition down either.

Canadians can see that the Liberals are the only ones who did not see anything wrong with ad scam. Canadians see that the Liberals are trying to hold us to a higher standard of rules and yet they could not pass those same rules and policies that they are expecting us to do. They had that file as well.

Canadians are not impressed with the Liberals' oppose everything at all cost approach. They see that the Liberals have lost touch with the public that they wish to serve. The Liberals want so badly to get back to power as quickly as possible that they will do just about anything.

The member asked about the $20 million cut from the immigration system. Canadians know there was no cut. They know that their government added funding for immigration where their old government did not. They know that we cut in half the right of permanent residence fee that the Liberals created. They know that after the old government froze money for immigrants for a decade, their new government added $307 million in funding for immigrant language training and literacy, programs that help newcomers settle in communities across the country, find doctors, register their kids for school and adapt to their new home.

That is right, there were no cuts to immigration and Canadians know that. They know that their new government is appreciative and it is funding immigration, not like the old government. For 13 years the Liberals did nothing for immigrants other than many empty promises.

Now in opposition, the Liberals are still opposed to new money for immigrants. They voted against every new measure that we made. Immigrants and all Canadians are noticing and they are noticing that the Liberal opposition is opposing a lot of measures that make a difference in their lives. They see that the Liberals are opposed to $2.4 billion in benefits going directly to families who can put money toward their choice in child care. The Liberals voted against it and their leader says that he will take it away from families if he gets power.

Canadians see that the member and her Liberal opposition voted against students. Canadians value education. They welcome our 40% increase in post-secondary education transfer, new graduate scholarships and $500 million for labour market training. Only the Liberals are opposed to that.

Canadians see that the member for Laval and the Liberals are opposed to helping low income Canadians. We created a working income tax benefit that will help 1.2 million Canadians. The member voted against it. The member and her Liberals are trying to take that away. I am not sure if it is in the provinces or the social programs they deliver that the member and the Liberals are against, but she has opposed $39 billion in social transfers over the next seven years. Old habits die hard, I suppose.

Her Liberals cut social transfers for health care, education, child care, seniors and other social spending by $25 billion--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Laval—Les Îles.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised by the answer from the parliamentary secretary because I was not aware that she was parliamentary secretary for citizenship and immigration.

However, the insults I heard were totally irrelevant. They were just partisan attacks.

I would like to say that the government has now been governing for 18 months. It seems to me that 18 months is plenty of time for a government to show its colour and to tell Canadians what it intends to do for them.

The Conservatives have shown what they are doing. The member's speech was full of platitudes. I will reply by saying that the former Liberal government announced a $500 million plan to reduce the processing backlog, as well as the creation of the new, in Canada economic stream to allow applicants with experience in Canada's labour market or educational institutions to remain in Canada. I know all about it--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the next election, the Liberals will have a lot to answer for as opposition. They are so desperate to get back into power they completely lost sight of what is important to Canadians. They are really out of touch.

They voted against $45 million to improve physical access to people with disabilities and a record high $5.6 billion for child care and early learning. They voted against $307 million to improve the lives of immigrants and to help them adapt to life in Canada. They voted against $500 million in labour market training for unemployed Canadians not eligible for EI.

They voted against the $30 billion over seven years in social transfers to Quebec and other provinces. They voted against the $10 million to combat elder abuse. They voted against tax cuts to help low income Canadians. They voted against the almost $2 billion in funding for affordable housing and homelessness. They voted against improved access to student loans and graduate scholarships. They voted against money for seniors and the disabled. They voted--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I interrupt the member but the time is up. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 9:17 p.m.)