Raymond Simard

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

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that farmers are intelligent enough to make their own decisions and that has been our premise from day one.

I have itemized at least seven major flaws in the democratic process.

We all know that the second question concerning marketing choice, which the member just mentioned and which is what they have been pushing, does not exist. It is actually a fallacy. Every expert has told us that if we take away the monopoly structure of the Wheat Board, we lose the whole strength of the Wheat Board. By posing the second question, it actually misleads people.

The Wheat Board Act asks one precise and clear question: Why have these three questions and have them all convoluted? In fact, when we look at the end result, only 13.8% of farmers decided that they do not want the Wheat Board as a marketing tool and 86.2% indicated that they want it. I believe that is a very clear indication that farmers have made their decision on this, and it is not the one the hon. member is talking about.

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

Not at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre, it is a pleasure and an obligation for me to speak on behalf of the Wheat Board this evening. I have spoken on it at every opportunity and, like my colleague, I do not come from an agricultural background but I can speak intelligently to this topic. I do not think we need to come from the industry to speak on a actual topic.

The Wheat Board is a very important institution to Manitobans and all western Canadians and I think the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is finding that out in a very harsh way. It seems that his only objective, after receiving his mandate letter, was to dismantle the Wheat Board. It seems to me that if there is anything else the Minister of Agriculture has done over the last 14 or 16 months, it is very difficult to identify it. However, that is his objective and that is what he wants to do but he is having one heck of a time.

My colleague from the Conservative Party said, “Respect the decision”. If there has been anything about this whole process, it has been how disrespectful the whole process has been from day one. Starting from the question period today, I think it is very typical of what has been going on here.

In question period today, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food answered a question put to him by my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre by saying that he could finally respond to a critic he could respect. I thought that was pretty telling of what farmers and producers have been putting up with over the last little while.

The critic for agriculture, the hon. member for Malpeque, has visited western Canada on quite a few occasions and I have had an opportunity to go across the rural areas with him. If anything, he is very well respected across the country. One does not need to be from Manitoba or western Canada to have people's ear. In my opinion, he is probably more knowledgeable on the file than the actual minister and he has the ear of people from all parties.

When we talk about respecting decisions, it seems to me that this whole process has been flawed from day one. The lack of respect started from day one. Basically from the time the minister got his mandate letter, things were happening. For instance, the minister held one-sided meetings in Saskatchewan only with people who agreed with him, people who did not necessarily want to keep the Wheat Board and who wanted to do away with the Wheat Board. I thought that was pretty sad. Saskatchewan and Manitoba were literally asked to sit in the corner while Alberta was sitting at the table. This is totally unacceptable.

Tampering with the voters list: 16,000 producers taken off the electoral list. If that kind of thing had happened prior to a vote in any democratic country in the world, it would have been seen as totally unusual. This is Canada, after all. This is not a fascist, third world country. This is absolutely unacceptable.

The next thing is that a gag order was used to prevent the Wheat Board from defending its position. It seems to me that if we want to put up a good fight and we want to express our opinion on something, we need to allow the Wheat Board to also express its position on certain things. I think all of us in this House have indicated that we would respect the producers' decision on the Wheat Board, but at least we should have an even playing field during the process. That certainly has not happened.

There were the firings of Ross Keith and subsequently Adrian Measner, the president and CEO of the Wheat Board. Mr. Measner's reputation world wide is absolutely impeccable. We still hear that it was one heck of a loss for Canada. The Wheat Board has lost a good person and one of the most knowledgeable people in an industry, in a corporation or in a Wheat Board that was the biggest seller of wheat in the world. It seems to me that it was a huge error that people always tried to dismantle Wheat Board from within.

Standard & Poor's dropped the Wheat Board's credit rating from triple A to double A-plus. If we read the report, I believe it was 11 times where Standard & Poor's actually identified the reason for this drop in credit rating and it actually identified it as interference by the current government. It is very clear that once again we are trying to undermine the Wheat Board from within. Now all of a sudden one of the major institutions in Canada is paying for that with a reduced credit rating.

The next thing we hear is that the minister will be announcing the split between the wheat and barley plebiscites. They are two different things. When it comes to barley, a lot of it is actually sold within Canada. I think we all agree that the bulk of it is sold for feed within Canada and, therefore, the Wheat Board is not necessarily as important as it would be, for instance, on the whole wheat thing.

The plebiscite has three questions but not clear concise questions that we were supposed to have as mandated by the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Again, it is a very convoluted plebiscite. People are not sure exactly what is going on. People had three different questions to vote on and, after all that, we found out that the ballots were numbered.

It was one unusual thing after another in a democracy. The ballots were numbered, which means that the government can basically trace the vote back to the producer. Let us think about that for a second. In most countries that would be illegal. As a matter of fact, KPMG, which was the firm responsible, actually called producers back and asked them which one of their votes they wanted applied which way. Therefore, it was traceable.

We could add another thing. Some producers received more than one ballot. I know a producer in Manitoba who received four ballots. Is that not interesting?

When we look at the process, it was absolutely flawed from day one, and I am not making this up. This is factual. I am telling the House right now that the way I am saying this process happened is actual fact.

Today we received the results of the actual plebiscite on barley. It is very interesting that the Minister of Agriculture held a big press conference this morning and said that when we add up the people who wanted an option of the private sector and perhaps the Wheat Board and people who did not want it, the percentage adds up to 62%. He said that we have a majority and it is a strong majority.

If that logic holds, it seems to me that if we take just the opposite, if we take the people who wanted to retain the single desk and people who wanted an option, although we know that is absolutely fraudulent because the option was not a possibility according to every expert that we spoke to and also according to the group that was put together by the minister, but if we put those two numbers together we are looking at 86.2%. If the logic holds for one it must hold for the other.

What is left is that actually 13.8% of the people would like to no longer have a Wheat Board at all. Those are the numbers we are actually working with.

I would just like to comment in French, because it is important.

In my opinion, when barley and wheat were split up, that was also dishonest. In my opinion, that should not have been done. There are two main markets: the first is barley for malt production, the second is feed barley. In Canada, a great deal more barley is sold on the feed barley market. I feel that giving farmers the option of selling barley to the private sector or to the Canada Wheat Board was a false option. In fact, it did not exist. I am extremely disappointed with what happened throughout this entire process.

Colleagues on the other side of the House speak of respect. I insist on stating that for the entire process, at every step of the way, there was a lack of respect. In my opinion, we should set the whole process aside and ask producers a very clear, concise question and start all over again.

[Government Appointments, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Ontario Provincial Police are currently investigating allegations against registered lobbyist and Conservative campaign chair John Reynolds in relation to irregularities in the 2006 civic election in Ottawa?

[Interim Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the bill is presented in its usual form.

(Clause 2)

[Supplementary Estimates (B) 2006-07, March 22nd, 2007]

(Clause 2)

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board if the bill is in its usual form?

[Drug Awareness, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, T.J. Wiebe would have been 25 years old yesterday. On January 5, 2003, T.J. was brutally murdered just outside Winnipeg, one day before he was scheduled to enter a drug rehabilitation program.

His parents, Floyd and Karen Wiebe, have created the T.J. Wiebe drug awareness fund to provide financial assistance to students participating in programs that promote drug abuse awareness through peer education.

These programs educate young people about the various drugs and their true effects. They help change the attitude that makes it seem cool to use drugs. They help young people feel confident to say no to drug use and to address the social norms that make it seem that it is okay to use drugs.

I have had the privilege of working with the Wiebe family on justice issues and I have developed a great respect and admiration for them. The Wiebe family has turned a horrific tragedy into a positive mission to help other young people who may be in danger of suffering a similar fate.

I encourage all Manitobans to support the T.J.'s Gift Gala evening on May 16, 2007 to raise funds for this worthy cause.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question, but I understand my hon. colleague's frustration. People in western Canada are still talking about the CF-18. That is quite obvious. Once again, that was a politically motivated decision. It was very dangerous. We have seen the results. Western Canadians have felt alienated, if I can use that word, since that time.

However, at the same time, it is important for us not to mix up the two. Politically motivated decisions to move certain contracts specifically into certain areas are absolutely not allowable. That is an absolute no-no. At the same time, to have a policy where we allow industrial regional benefits is a different thing. It is very important for us to make sure there is a fair distribution of the work across the country. That is exactly what this Conservative government has not done.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my response to that question is that every expert I have spoken with seems to have very clearly indicated that the C-17 we have purchased will not be utilized to its fullest. A lot of them are saying that probably three out of the four will be parked on the tarmac most of the time. That is absolutely what I have been hearing in Winnipeg. I have spoken with some of our military experts there.

From all indications, people are telling us that we would have been better off leasing these planes. For some reason, the Conservatives have a problem with that. If it makes fiscal sense, it seems to me that we should have considered that option. If the military is moving troops once every month or once every three months and is paying a certain amount of money, maybe we should have considered leasing these planes instead of making this $3.7 billion purchase, with a huge underutilization of this asset for Canada.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak on this important motion from the Bloc Québécois. The aerospace industry is something that I have always been very keen on and I actually have been the representative in Manitoba who represents those interests I think the best.

First, along with my colleagues in this party and with probably every Quebec colleague from all parties, we are all very proud of the aerospace industry in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. I do not think there is one of us here in this Parliament who has not travelled to Asia or other parts of the world and heard about the success stories of Bombardier, for instance, and Bristol Aerospace or Standard Aero. We have been very proud of those enterprises. I would also like to say that specifically for Manitoba I will be speaking on those in particular, but I am also very proud of that industry and we will talk about its importance for the Manitoba economy.

I am also very proud of the previous government's investment in this industry and of the support we provided this industry. This is not a coincidence. I am sure that this support has played an enormous role in making our aerospace industry the fourth largest in the world.

Before I speak on the aerospace industry in Manitoba, I would like to express my frustration over the whole C-17 purchase and how the government basically sold out Canadians on this deal. It is important for Canadians to realize exactly what happened behind the scenes.

That party always talk about being the party of accountability, but I do not think this is what Canadians are seeing. They are seeing exactly the opposite: the Minister of Industry flying to Washington and making side deals with the Bush administration. If we are going to talk about transparency, this kind of thing just cannot happen. The results of those dealings in Washington certainly were not to the benefit of the Canadian taxpayer.

For instance, the Conservatives did not ensure that the Canadian industry received the equivalent of 100% value of purchase and maintenance, which has become a standard in the world. My understanding is that the purchase price of these planes will be approximately $1.8 billion. The maintenance contract, over a 20 year period, is somewhere around $1.6 billion. But in fact, the return we are getting is $1.1 billion. It should be $3.7 million or $3.8 million. It is extremely frustrating that again for the sake of expediency we are leaving a lot of money on the table in the U.S., a lot of money that could benefit our Canadian industries.

Conservatives also neglected a small thing called our sovereignty, which is very frustrating. Canadians who come from certain countries will not be able to work on some of these contracts here in Canada. As has been said quite often in the House, one of my colleagues, who can be a member of Parliament, would not be allowed to work on one of these contracts because of the contract the government signed with Boeing. It is absolutely unconscionable.

The Conservative government also purchased the strategic airlift planes against the better judgment of General Hillier, who was asking for tactical airlift. I guess the government thought it knew better. All these decisions the Conservatives are making one after the other, against all common sense, have certainly hurt the Canadian taxpayer.

After the Conservatives ignored General Hillier, they moved on and manipulated the requirements of the procurement process. Basically it ended up being a sole sourcing of the planes. Anyone who knows anything about the bidding process will tell us that sole sourcing does not lead to better prices. It would normally lead to higher costs. I think everyone in the House would agree with that. All of this is from a party that has bragged about its tough accountability law and how procurement would be a lot more competitive in the future. It is actually laughable.

The Conservative government also announced its military spending without having a defence capability plan and without the input of Parliament. When we are spending $3.7 billion, when we are making that kind of investment, it would seem to me that Parliament should have input on this kind of decision.

Probably the most hideous thing the Conservatives have done is to not guarantee the regional economic spinoffs. Governments have a responsibility to set industrial policy and not to leave this to foreign private sector firms. As noted by some of my colleagues and by some people in the industry whom I have talked to, other countries are certainly looking after their companies. They have policies in place to protect and support their industries. Canada should be absolutely no different on that basis. Other countries also ensure there is a fair balance of work in their countries.

Everything the government does is politically motivated. The Conservatives are not concerned about the well-being of Canadians. They are concerned about how to get these planes here as soon as possible because they promised that in their election campaign. That is not governing.

I would like to speak briefly about Manitoba. We have heard a lot about the Quebec aerospace industry, but I would like to tell everyone that Manitoba has a very substantial aerospace industry, one that I am very proud of. I know that our Quebec colleagues from all parties are proud of their industry, but I have worked very closely with these people and Manitoba has the third largest cluster of aerospace firms in Canada. I have had the pleasure of working with representatives of these firms. They are very innovative and very practical. They are progressive people. Their industry has become indispensable to our province's economy.

This is a growing industry in Manitoba. We do not want it to stop growing. We want it to thrive. For it to do that, we need to be able to obtain our fair share of the contracts. I think that is what everybody is saying here. Let us ensure that the procurement contracts are distributed fairly. Let us not allow Boeing or a foreign company to make those decisions for us.

I want to tell the House about four companies that are world class players in the industry and that have changed the landscape of Manitoba in terms of technology. They have really added to our economy.

The first is Standard Aero. For people who do not know about this company, it is the world's largest independent small turbine engine repair and overhaul company. It is a huge company. I have visited the plant on several occasions. Its facility is one of the most modern in the world. The Winnipeg plant people have actually helped other people design their plants because of the phenomenal job that was done in Winnipeg. It is based in Winnipeg and also operates facilities in the U.S., Europe and Asia.

Bristol Aerospace is the largest of the Magellan Aerospace Corporation group of companies and is the only western Canadian company manufacturing space systems. Magellan actually has a satellite right now that apparently was supposed to die a couple years ago and is still going strong. The company is hoping it will last another couple of years. It is working on second and third generation satellites. I believe the company is the only one to do that in western Canada. We are very proud of those accomplishments.

Again, the company always talks to us about the importance of supporting its industry and making sure we are there.When it is competing against other countries like Germany or France for the satellite business, for instance, as those countries protect their industry, it is important for us to be there for our industry as well.

Boeing Canada has one of the most modern facilities in the country and provides parts for the new Boeing Dreamliner 787, plus the 777 and 747. It also is an amazing plant. Again, we are very proud of Boeing. These people have been second to none in terms of partnerships with the province, with the private sector and with our educational facilities.

Boeing also has the largest composite manufacturing facility in Canada. For those who know anything about composites, they will know that composites are the future in the airline industry. The materials are lighter and stronger, which obviously will lead to certain fuel efficiencies. What Boeing Canada is doing in Winnipeg is very important .

Air Canada Technical Services is huge in Winnipeg and employs a large number of people who provide maintenance not only to its own airline but also to many other airlines that fly their planes into Winnipeg under contract to Air Canada. Again, we are very proud of this firm.

These are the big players in Manitoba, but it is also very important to note that there are 20 regional and national firms in Winnipeg. They are a fair size and they and are growing. There are also some amazing training centres in Portage la Prairie. We funded that a couple of years ago. I think this is the largest in Canada, once again doing an amazing job.

The whole aerospace industry in our province is just blossoming. We cannot abandon it. We have to be behind it.

One of those smaller firms is Cormer Group Industries. It is important to note this, because a lot of these smaller firms have a hard time competing for these huge contracts. When we are talking about a $3.7 billion contract, in a lot of cases governments do not want to break it down to contracts of $5 million or $10 million. Cormer now can handle contracts of $100 million to $200 million. It is absolutely amazing.

We are very proud of our industry. I will wrap up by saying that it provides an amazing boost to our economy in terms of education and training. Ninety per cent of the people employed in that industry are trained in Winnipeg. I am very proud of the industry there.

I think the government has been very lax in not supporting this industry. This was a bad deal. I think that for once everyone here is in agreement. The government has made a very bad move in purchasing these planes.