Can the government provide an estimate of the impact on net farm income of energy cost increases that may result from the Kyoto Protocol implementation measures?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.
Question No. 27 November 20th, 2002
Can the government provide an estimate of the impact on net farm income of energy cost increases that may result from the Kyoto Protocol implementation measures?
Question No. 21 November 18th, 2002
What do you know about it?
Petitions November 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the member for Halifax West has responded to 119 petitions, of which I am sure most of them also belong to this category. The same applies to the member for Burnaby--Douglas.
The petition I am presenting today on behalf of my constituents also deals with the subject of child pornography, an issue that is resonating in Canadian society today. It is very important that we as Canadians protect our children. My constituents wish to add their voices by way of petition to suggest that all materials that promote or glorify pedophilia involving children should be outlawed. I present this petition and would again like to have a response from the member.
National Agriculture Industry Relief Coordination Act November 18th, 2002
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-304, an act to ensure coordination in the delivery of programs by governments in the case of agricultural losses or disasters.
Mr. Speaker, the bill is a pet of mine. With what we have seen in the agricultural community recently with respect to all of the natural disasters, it is extremely important that we strike this committee and that this committee be allowed to put forward recommendations with a natural disaster program that comes forward with agriculture where in fact we do have consistency between all provinces and all producers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Access to Information Act November 18th, 2002
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-302, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (crown corporations and Canadian Wheat Board).
Mr. Speaker, the bill is to have transparency and accountability in the Canadian Wheat Board. We would like it to be subject to the Access to Information Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Highway Program November 18th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, on August 14 the Prime Minister announced the cost shared Trans-Canada Highway twinning program in the province of New Brunswick at a cost of about $400 million. The country needs a national highway program and yet since this announcement the Minister of Transport has been exceedingly quiet.
The Minister of Transport should extend this program to other parts of the country. Will he commit today to continue the remaining twinning requirement in the province of Manitoba?
Supply November 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I do not have the numbers for the year ending for 1993, but I will get them. I do believe that some of this debt certainly has been incurred since 1993 and I will find out just how much that is. In fact it is a guarantee from the government. It is $7 billion that has to be accounted for as a liability when and if the Canadian Wheat Board no longer exists. I do thank the minister for giving me that answer. I will find out the amount from 1993.
Supply November 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, fortunately we do live in a democracy. I believe very strongly that producers want to have a say in how they market their own goods. We as a party are saying to give producers an honest, open question so that they themselves can give their own say as to how they want to market. Yes, if it is 51% to 49%, in a democracy 51% in fact does make for a winning team and a winning vote.
Supply November 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get my full 20 minutes with only 10 minutes left, but if possible I would like to split what little time I have with my colleague from Dauphin--Swan River who has been sitting here patiently, as have I. Therefore I am going to take as little time as possible.
It was said earlier by the leader of the official opposition that perhaps we should pander to the producers and maybe we can get more votes in those areas. I simply would like to say that this is not an issue about votes. This is an issue about principle. It is an issue about the opportunity to have choice and to do what one wants to do. As a producer and a farmer in my area, I represent those producers and farmers. Some agree with the Canadian Wheat Board and some disagree. There is no unanimity. As the minister responsible said, if we put farmers in a room there would be a number of different positions taken with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board.
However, I firmly believe that the reason we are wearing these poppies today is that people fought to give us the opportunity to have choice in our own lives. That choice in producers' lives is to have the opportunity to market.
I am going to talk about a couple of issues. First, members talked about the value added. The fact of the matter is that there is value added processing on the Prairies. Unfortunately, it is value added processing in those commodities that are totally off board. In my area we have a substantial number of canola crushers. The reason we have canola crushers is that canola is a non-board commodity. Industry has access to those commodities and industry has set those plants in my area because it makes sense and it is profitable. That is not there for wheat and the durum plants and the pasta plants. The member for Selkirk--Interlake talked about the oat processing plant, CanOat. CanOat uses a non-board commodity. That plant was built there because that industry has access to a commodity it needs to continue its operations. Therefore, value added has happened on the Prairies, and it happens to be with, unfortunately, the non-board grains.
Let me say this about non-board grains. I take a lot of pride in saying that oats were originally a board grain. Oats were taken outside of the board by a gentleman for whom I have an awful lot of respect, a gentleman who was the minister of agriculture in this House, a gentleman by the name of Charlie Mayer. He took oats out of the board because he felt it was the best thing to do.
Members of the House must recognize that the Canadian Wheat Board was brought in as an institution in 1919. In 1935 it was officially enacted through legislation. It was voluntary then. In 1943 it was made mandatory. The reason I mention those dates is that 1919, 1935 and 1943 were a long time ago. A lot of things have changed in our country and in this world since 1919. Charlie Mayer recognized that and moved oats out of the board because he knew that producers could then market their own commodity without the help of the board. In fact it has been a huge success.
That same minister of agriculture, Charlie Mayer, was just about there with barley. He took it out of the board, but as was mentioned earlier unfortunately he did not have the opportunity of taking it to the full degree and having it totally taken out of the board. Unfortunately it was put back in the board when another government came into play. The reason I mention this is that some of my producers would fight to the death to maintain the Canadian Wheat Board, while others would do the opposite, but a decision must be made by those same producers on which way they want to market.
Those producers are not silly people. They are business people. Farming today is a business. It is not something one does as a hobby. Those same producers now grow commodities that they can market themselves. They are growing non-board commodities because they can market better and make more money. What is happening right now is that the yield of wheat is dropping dramatically, not just because of a drought but because producers do not want to grow something they have to sell to a board when they do not want to.
What will happen? Eventually there will not be any wheat. As soon as the producers can get a crop that can go into rotation and they can do away with wheat, the Canadian Wheat Board will no longer be a factor in this whole equation because it is not going to exist.
I want to now turn my time over to my colleague from Dauphin--Swan River who will carry on with this debate.
Supply November 6th, 2002
Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board would like to hear this question. I have a couple of questions and not so much about barley. Oats was a commodity that was part of the Canadian Wheat Board and it was taken away from the Canadian Wheat Board. It was put into a dual marketing system. The minister has said that change is not simple, that it is very difficult to give up a single marketing system for a dual marketing system.
Could he tell me why oats was taken away and put into an open market system? Not only was production increased by farm producers but it was easy to remove from the single-desk marketing system and put into the dual marketing system.
I also looked at the financials. The credit risk in the Canadian Wheat Board for the Canadian government is $7 billion. Is this the reason why the government is so reluctant to let go of the Canadian Wheat Board?