Raymond Simard

[Canadian Wheat Board, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government's threat to fire Adrian Measner can only be seen as a Conservative ideological vendetta toward the Canadian Wheat Board and its chief executive officer for doing his job. Farmer elected directors of the board are rallying behind Mr. Measner, holding an emergency meeting and passing a resolution calling on the government to keep him on as CEO.

Canadian producers need power in the marketplace and that is exactly what the Wheat Board provides.

When will the government stop crushing all dissenting opinions and let farmers decide the future of the Wheat Board?

[Community Access Program, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that if you do not fit the Prime Minister's definition of a voter, he could not care less about you.

Take, for example, the community access program, which is very popular across the country. This program makes modern means of communication accessible to Canadians, particularly those living in rural areas.

The government has already disappointed Canadians with mean-spirited cuts to research and literacy. Will it once again attack thousands of Canadians by cutting the community access program?

[Research and Development, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government has to do more than consult. The previous Liberal government took pride in being Canada's leader in innovation, information and learning. We made investments every year to expand research at our colleges and universities like Western and Fanshawe, and improve access to learning for all Canadians. However, that has all stopped now thanks to the government.

Why did the government kick the research community in the stomach by letting the Canada Foundation for Innovation starve to death?

[The Economy, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are laughing right in the faces of Canadians. The Liberal government always set aside $3 billion to reduce the debt. There is nothing new in yesterday's proposal. Yet, the minister claims that the debt will be eliminated 140 years earlier. This proposal cannot be achieved without the help of the provinces, as the minister well knows.

What will happen if a finance minister finds himself facing a $6 billion deficit, as Mike Harris did in Ontario?

[The Economy, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, deception, unfairness and off-loading are three words to describe yesterday's economic update. For one thing, the statement offers grandiose plans without intending to back any of it. Worse, it takes billions away from low and middle income Canadians.

Possibly the most blatant deception in this document is the alleged elimination of the debt by 2021. In fact, under the Conservatives' plan the federal debt will not be paid off by 2021, but in 160 years.

Why is the government tying its debt reduction targets to its greenhouse gas emission plans?

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

On barley.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize because earlier on, when I was speaking to this, I was speaking mostly from Manitoba. I know you are from Saskatchewan. If you were not neutral, if you could speak on this, I am sure you would probably support everything I have said, but obviously you cannot do that.

One of the things my hon. colleague has mentioned is that the dual system will provide options and choice to farmers. Every expert, who has spoken on this lately, has indicated very clearly that if the current Wheat Board loses its monopoly and leverage to sell on the world stage, it will disappear. Could my colleague expand on that?

Second, why would the Conservatives not ask farmers the question? Why not put it to them? What is so wrong with the democratic process of asking them the question? Let them decide on their futures.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for people from eastern Canada to discuss this issue as well. This is not just a western Canada issue. Obviously, people in western Canada are affected the most by it, but I have had some people from Quebec calling me because they are concerned about supply management.

The Wheat Board has been doing extremely well. The latest reports indicate that farmers have really benefited from the Wheat Board. It is absolutely impossible for the government to manufacture a crisis on this. Every report seems to tell us that farmers are doing better with the Wheat Board than without it. Obviously, the government will not be able to manufacture a crisis in this case.

I appreciate the question because it is important. I do not think members on this side of the House should be muzzling other members who are interested in knowing what is going on in western Canada with the Wheat Board.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In a way, he is quite right. I have always wondered how the Quebec Conservatives, who are usually a little more to the left, could be part of a party like the one we see today. I sit on the committee with my dear colleague and I find that he is a very reasonable person. I am surprised that he can fall in with a right-leaning party as we see him doing today.

We are not talking about a progressive conservative party, we are talking about something totally different. We are talking about a party that sets aside democracy at every opportunity. If we are truly convinced that an open market is the solution, why not ask the producers? That is what surprises me. If the people on that side of the House are so convinced that the market will work, then quite simply let us ask farmers the question—we will be prepared to live with the answer.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Churchill has been in the House debating this question as well. She has indicated very clearly the impact that Churchill will face.

The mayor of Churchill, Mr. Spence, has also come out publicly indicating that it would devastate the town and there is absolutely no doubt about it. It is not only the town, but also all these small towns along the railway line would be affected by this decision.

As members may know, people feel that the port of Churchill, in the next five or 10 years, may play a much greater role in moving wheat and barley across the world. There is no doubt that this will obviously have a devastating impact on the town of Churchill, the port of Churchill, and also all the small communities along the way to the north.