Alex Atamanenko

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question and her participation in the debate. Our food and economic sovereignty is being threatened now more than ever before. By whom? By huge transnational, multinational corporations. Obviously, dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board would be a good thing for them. It is to their advantage to not have such strong competition from the Canadian Wheat Board, which represents Canadian wheat growers and exporters.

I think it is clear that we will see more transnational corporations coming to this country and more blackmail. Or they will simply say: this is the price, you can agree to it or go elsewhere. All of these so-called free trade agreements—really just pressure from multinationals—threaten our sovereignty, particularly our food sovereignty. The policy here is to open more markets to free trade. That adds nothing to our ability to grow and produce food for ourselves. Yes, I believe it threatens our sovereignty.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his tireless efforts on behalf of farmers in this country. It has been a pleasure to work with him over the last few years on the agriculture committee. I look forward to a continuing collaboration with him and others in his party on these important issues.

It is an interesting coincidence that announcement was made now that this legislation is coming in. There have been more value-added benefits taking place in western Canada than south of the border. There is more milling taking place in western Canada than south of border. The value-added chain is being supported.

Obviously the Alliance Grain Traders would invest money there because it intends on making money. It begs the question though why it would do that during an economic downturn and not two years ago when the economic situation was better. The fact of the matter is it was unaware that the Wheat Board would be dismantled.

By dismantling the Wheat Board, the price of wheat would go down and companies would build milling plants because they would not have to pay premium prices. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the arguments that the price is different across the board than it is for farmers. However, that is in the current market. Will the market remain static? What would happen if we tried to sell our wheat across the border when the market was saturated? If we consider the buy America policy of the U.S., it would be ludicrous to think that our farmers could tap into that market on a volume basis.

Any money made by the Wheat Board goes back to farmers. It does not make economic sense to do what the Conservatives are attempting to do.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be in this full House once again speaking on this topic. I wish to say that it gives me pleasure, but it does not give me pleasure.

It is tragic to see that it has come to this. Ever since my election in 2006, I have a witnessed a systematic smear campaign by the Conservative government to discredit the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a campaign based on ideology and not market sense or democratic principles.

We have seen gag orders put in place prohibiting the CWB from outlining its position, the firing of the former CEO for speaking out in support of the CWB single desk, and most recently, a flagrant violation of democracy by not respecting the recent plebiscite where farmers voted to keep the CWB as it is.

In Minnedosa, Manitoba, during the last election campaign, the minister was quoted as saying that his party respects the vote of farmers who support the single desk. He suggested there would not be any attempt to dismantle CWB unless a majority of producers voted for it. I quote:

Until farmers make this change, I am not prepared to work arbitrarily. They are absolutely right to believe in democracy. I do, too.

Two days ago a number of us stood in this House to denounce the flagrant violation of democratic principles by the President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. It is tragic and somehow ironic that these same Conservative MPs who spoke out for democratic rights in Ukraine are now ignoring their own minister's comments made in Minnedosa.

We have heard in the House almost daily how the last election was somehow a mandate to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board. Let us not forget there are many issues that people look at prior to casting their ballot. We know, for example, although I do not agree with it, that the gun registry was decisive in swinging votes in western Canada. It is important to remember, however, that farmers only represent 2% of the population spread over 57 western ridings.

If a federal election were called today with the only issue being the dismantling of the Wheat Board, Canadians, including the farming community, would ensure that this so-called mandate would not win. It is because the Conservatives have won a majority in this House they are moving forward with their ill-guided plan to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

As stated by Bill Gehl of the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance:

...claiming the Conservative Party has a mandate from farmers to change the Canadian Wheat Board is ridiculous and I think most urban voters agree that farmers should decide this issue, not Ottawa.

We often hear the government draw a parallel between Ontario farmers and western Canadian grain producers. The two situations are completely different. Anyone who attempts to say they are the same is simply ignoring the facts.

Ontario farmers decided for themselves on changes to their marketing system and not the federal government which made the decision. They chose the open market. Quebec farmers, on the other hand, have chosen to market their wheat collectively.

The other point is the impact on Canada and on prairie farmers from changes to the CWB is much greater than the impact of changes to the Ontario system. Most of Ontario's wheat, about 90%, is sold within Canada or in the northern U.S.A. Most of the prairie wheat, roughly 68%, is exported.

A number of western farmers believe that more U.S. markets would somehow magically open up to them as a result of the loss of the single desk. However, they forget that the U.S. agriculture industry is extremely protectionist. We have seen that in the past. This is especially true now under their buy American philosophy. It is therefore very unlikely that the U.S. would take additional Canadian wheat unless the price of the wheat was reduced to the point that it could replace their domestically grown wheat, allowing the U.S.A. to export even more.

The fact is the Canadian Wheat Board currently seeks high-end markets for high-quality milling wheat and durum in over 70 countries, and does not have to pursue markets by reducing its prices. I might add that this obviously gives a premium to Canadian farmers.

The other important point to mention when comparing Ontario and western Canada is the fact that transportation is a less important factor in Ontario. Most Ontario farmers can get their crop to market for $15 a tonne in freight costs due to the close proximity of flour mills and Great Lakes terminals. On the Prairies, the volume produced along with the distance between farms, country elevators, inland terminals, domestic markets and ports make transportation costs significant.

The Canadian Wheat Board is a strong advocate for fair transportation rates and provides a countervailing force to the railway's power. It is very probable that railway costs will increase for farmers once the CWB is gone.

Let us not make the mistake of deluding ourselves that the Wheat Board will survive in a dual market system. Currently it provides stability and certainty for farmers in what I would say are volatile world markets. Once it no longer has a mandate, farmers will be free to choose when and if they wish to deal through the Wheat Board. This will tend to bring prices down because the Wheat Board will have lost its authority among its trading partners. Let us not forget that a powerful organization with a monopoly can dictate prices in the world and obtain the highest premium for our farmers. Farmers will eventually end up on the losing end.

In regard to the movement of grain in western Canada, without the Wheat Board's ability to organize deliveries, it is likely that farmers close to inland terminals and those with large trucking capacity will plug the system at harvest time. The strongest will survive while others will be left behind. In other words, it will be the survival of the fittest.

What will be the consequences of eliminating the single-desk system? First, we will see decreased revenues for farmers. Now, the Canadian Wheat Board obtains lucrative premiums for farmers in the Prairies, which means that the Canadian Wheat Board takes a highly strategic approach to where and when it sells during the year. The result is that, every year, the board enables farmers to earn several million dollars more than they would in a free market. But we are headed towards the free market now.

The Canadian Wheat Board does not have any capital assets. Once it is dismantled, it will need to acquire a considerable amount of capital assets if it wants even the slightest chance of surviving in a free market. Who will pay for that? Plus, there will be very high costs associated with dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board.

Current activities will have to cease. All of the related costs will have to be paid so that no potential new entity ends up with that burden. Since the government is the one that chose to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board and not the farmers, the farmers should not end up on the hook for these expenses.

And then there is the city of Winnipeg. The Canadian Wheat Board employs over 400 people at its headquarters and helps maintain over 2,000 jobs, for a total of over $66 million in labour income in Winnipeg. At the provincial level, the Canadian Wheat Board's contribution to gross production is estimated at $320 million, which represents over 3,000 jobs and labour income of over $140 million. What will happen to the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba, to the people who are working now and are part of this system? Will they lose their jobs? Will they be able to find another job somewhere else? What we see here is uncertainty.

What we are seeing here is what I would call “economic madness”. A successful organization or a farmer-run corporation that puts money into the pockets of farmers and contributes millions of dollars to the economy of our nation is being dismantled to satisfy the demand of a small number of farmers who think they will be able to survive in a ruthless world market.

In all probability some will survive, but what about the rest? What will happen to the majority who have relied on the stability and protection of the Wheat Board in difficult economic times?

The debate is ongoing and history will be the judge.

I have before me a letter written to the Prime Minister, dated May 6, shortly after the election, by Mr. John Manley, CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, which is an extremely powerful business lobby group representing 150 of the most powerful corporations in our country.

I will quote from page 3 of the letter, which states:

As a demonstration of Canada’s strong commitment to trade liberalization, we endorse your plan to reform the marketing practices of the Canadian Wheat Board.

[...]

Consistent with that, we believe the time is right to phase out the national supply management systems for eggs, dairy products and poultry, which penalize consumers and have seriously damaged our country’s reputation as a champion of open markets--

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives is directing our Prime Minister to get rid of the Wheat Board and supply management.

People laugh at this and say that there is no way that could be happening because they are supporting supply management. The question we must ask ourselves is not if but when will the Conservatives be phasing out supply management now that they have successfully destroyed the Canadian Wheat Board.

I ask my colleagues on the other side to answer that question. I submit it will be in the not too distant future. There is tremendous pressure from the WTO, our trading partners and the European Union for Canada to decrease or eliminate its tariffs on supply management commodities.

Our country is currently negotiating, although in secret, a free trade agreement with the European Union, the CETA. Last night, at a presentation hosted by the Council of Canadians and CUPE, we were told in no uncertain terms by an expert from France who has been studying the situation in Europe that in addition to pushing for unlimited access to service contracts at the provincial and municipal levels, and I am sure that includes Prince Albert and the surrounding communities, Europe is demanding access to our natural resources. Obviously agriculture is on the table.

What would stop our negotiators from increasing the tariff-free quota from the current 7.5% to 10% and decreasing the over-quota tariffs to satisfy European demands?

Technically, we would still have supply management. However, we have been told by the dairy producers that should that happen each Canadian dairy farmer stands to lose approximately $70,000.

This is a scary situation given the fact that the government's mantra has been and continues to be to open up as many markets as possible without evaluating the potential negative effect on our own producers. It would dismantle and do away with the single desk of the Wheat Board without evaluating potential economic consequences. It would sign an agreement with Europe without evaluating the impact that would have on our municipalities, on obtaining pharmaceuticals, on our water rights and on our agricultural producers.

Today we have witnessed a move by the Conservatives to limit debate on this very important issue.

In today's press release, the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance states:

Even more ominous are rumours the Harper administration intends to avoid Agriculture Committee hearings and fast track this bill through the unusual use of a Legislative Committee hearing process.

It goes on to state:

This is inappropriate because it will restrict Parliament’s right to examine this Legislation and to hear from those most affected: the farmers of western Canada....

People around the world know it is simply wrong for a government to remove hard-won democratic rights from its citizens. Cancelling democracy for western Canadian farmers to end our Wheat Board is a bullying tactic of the worst sort. We are asking for the help of all Canadians to oppose this attack on farmers and the democratic process--

In a letter to the minister, the chair of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board communicated that the Wheat Board had put considerable effort into analyzing what a redefined Canadian Wheat Board would require for any prospect of success. The conclusion it reached was that no alternative could be identified that comes anywhere close to offering farmers the benefits provided by the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk system.

Therefore, if there is no analysis and we are unsure of what the future holds, it begs the question as to why this is happening and why it has not been put to a democratic vote.

There we have it. The government has not performed an economic analysis. It has shown a flagrant disregard for democracy. As well, it is dictating its ideological agenda after having received only 40% of the vote in the last election.

Mention has been made that members on this side of the House are basing their arguments on ideology. Our arguments are based on practical considerations, such as potential economic impacts, impacts to the communities and the City of Winnipeg, impacts on the short line railway systems, and impacts on the port of Churchill. None of these has been identified in any economic analysis that I have seen unless they are hidden in an office somewhere.

This is a sad state for democracy. What is happening here makes absolutely no sense. Surely the minister could get together with the members of the board of directors of the Wheat Board, most of whom are elected and most of whom support the status quo, to attempt to work out some kind of system that is not based on ideology.

The Canadian Wheat Board serves farmers in western Canada to market their wheat, durum and barley. Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the organization has an official mandate to bring in the highest possible receipts for farmers from the sale of grain, by effectively profiting from being a single-desk seller.

The Canadian Wheat Board sells farmers' grain in 70 countries. It hands over all of the profits from the sale to farmers, between $4 billion and $7 billion a year.

If we look at the proposed scenario, there are tremendous costs involved in this process of dismantling, changing and modifying the Wheat Board. Who will pay the hundreds of millions of dollars required to transform the organization presently in place? The Wheat Board was financed by farmers and has given profits back to farmers. Will the taxpayer pay for its transformation? Will farmers see increased costs? Will donations be forthcoming from some benevolent society to ensure that no money is lost? These are questions we must ask ourselves.

As I said earlier, history will be the judge of this very sad day in Parliament.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 19th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, last night some of us were here in a debate trying to support democracy in Ukraine. It seems ironic that we are now witnessing the erosion of democracy in our own country.

I have before me a communiqué from the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance, a non-partisan group, in support of the Canadian Wheat Board. It stated:

At a widely quoted election forum in Minnedosa, Manitoba, [the minister] said his party “respects the vote” of farmers who support the single desk and suggested there would not be any attempt to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board unless a majority of producers vote for it.

He went on to say:

—until farmers make that change, I’m not prepared to work arbitrarily. They are absolutely right to believe in democracy. I do, too.

This was during the election. We get the spin that somehow, because many people voted for the Conservatives on the Prairies, this is the mandate. What about the fact that farmers are only 2% of the population spread over 57 western ridings? Claiming the Conservative Party has a mandate from farmers to change the Wheat Board is ridiculous. Most urban voters agree that farmers should decide this issue.

Would my colleague please comment on this?

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, that is a very good question.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress has some suggestions which the hon. member has probably read.

Apart from the suggestions, we need to maintain our ties. We need to maintain parliamentary exchanges. We need to have this conversation. It is very difficult to change a regime from the outside, but we need to morally support those who would like to make that change from the inside. I think that is our role.

Should we come out strong against policies? The concern is that we cannot say that Ukraine will be isolated until it cleans up its act. It is a difficult situation.

I will not read them, but there are a number of suggestions from the congress. We could look at them and work with our Ukrainian Canadian friends to come up with a strategy that would continue to involve communication.

My colleague mentioned young people. It is an excellent idea to include many young people in this communication so that they could see there is hope. Then when they enter politics, it will not be about getting involved in corruption and seeing who could be the most corrupt to come out with the best.

There is a future. We must have hope. We are all here because we believe there is hope.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his question. Two years ago, a Ukrainian student worked for my office. He came from Ukraine and we stayed in contact. He is now in the United States.

This is important. Why? People, especially young people, in Ukraine are discouraged. They do not want to be part of the political process. Why not? Because becoming a member of parliament takes millions and millions of dollars. Bribes have to be paid. There is widespread corruption. As a result, the youth are not interested in politics. If more young people came to Canada to learn how things worked, they could take our values back home with them and try to rebuild their country.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I am sure the member knows that we have a monument in Canada for victims of totalitarian communism. We know that the Ukrainians as a people suffered under a forced famine where goods and food were taken from them and sent to Europe to the Germans. We have seen documentation. My family suffered. That was a horrendous time in history. Millions of people died at the hands of the Soviet regime. Even prior to the Soviet regime, my father grew up in the Vinnytsia area of Ukraine. My grandfather was a middle-class farmer. Secondary schooling was in Russian. The language that my father mastered, although he spoke Ukrainian as a child, was Russian. He became a military officer in the czarist army. There was that pressure even then.

As my colleague mentioned, finally Ukraine had a chance to break out of the yoke of repression. We need to support this movement regardless of our origins so Ukraine can peacefully transition into a free and democratic state. I implore all of us to offer our support in any way we can.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. As a Canadian citizen of Ukrainian and Russian origin, like many Ukrainians here in Canada, I have family there. We have very close relationships with friends and family and it affects us because we are in contact with them. As I said earlier, what is happening there is a bit discouraging. The power is now in the hands of a president who does not represent all of Ukraine but, rather just the eastern region, which is under the influence of Russia. We see it in the country's parliament. Members who come from that region cannot even speak Ukrainian. They give their speeches in Russian. We are monitoring the situation very closely and should continue to do so. We should support Ukraine's citizens so that one day they will be able to have the same rights that we enjoy here in Canada.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, just as many Canadians, and, I would suspect, everyone in the House, I am deeply concerned about the politically motivated persecution of Ukrainian opposition members, including the former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko.

We heard about hope in the Orange Revolution of 2004, as was mentioned here a number of times, by Yulia Tymoshenko and Viktor Yushchenko, who were here. We heard the message of hope and I, being partly of Ukrainian descent, was very happy and pleased that finally Ukraine was having a chance to step into the community of world nations as a true and equal partner.

Then, in 2010, the last presidential election was narrowly won by Viktor Yanukovych.

I was in Ukraine very briefly this summer. I spoke to family members and others and there seems to be a sense of discouragement in the country, especially with the taking of power by Yanukovych.

In doing some research, I found an article in The Guardian that illustrates what is going on. What is going on is that a level of corruption has permeated that society for many years. The journalist stated:

Back in 2004, Yanukovych had been caught, embarrassingly, trying to fix the last presidential poll.

The hon. member spoke about his experience being there during the election.

The journalist went on to say that just before the 2010 election he had dinner with some aides to Yanukovych who tried to convince him that Yanukovych was a democrat and a passionate European who believed that Ukraine's geopolitical destiny lay with the European Union, et cetera. He further stated:

Eighteen months later things look rather different. The decision by a Kiev court today to jail Tymoshenko for seven years for abuse of office over a controversial 2009 gas deal with Russia is an unambiguous signal. It says that Yanukovych does not really care what the EU thinks about him. It also confirms that Yanukovych's critics have been saying for some time that under his leadership the country is sliding towards Russian-style “managed democracy” and autocratic rule.

The article went on to state:

Since taking power, Yanukovych has rapidly reversed the fragile democratic gains of the Orange Revolution.

We must remember that it was fragile, it was new.

He has put a squeeze on the country's independent media, with TV now in the hands of a bunch of pro-regime oligarchs. Nosy opposition journalists — such as the investigative reporter Vasyl Klymentyev — have disappeared. In parliament, Yanukovych's Party of the Regions has, using dubious means, achieved a majority. And politically motivated prosecutions have been brought against Tymoshenko and other senior members of her bloc....

There are rumours that following her conviction Yanukovych, having proved his point, will look for some kind of deal. One version is that the charges against her will be “decriminalised”; another that she will be released on payment of a large fine...

But what is clear is that the case was designed to nobble Tymoshenko and to cripple the pro-western, anti-Yanukovych forces she represents.

She is now unable to participate in Ukraine's next two elections: parliamentary ones in 2012, and the next presidential election in 2015. That, presumably, was the idea. Thousands of her supporters took to the streets of Kiev today, protesting noisily against Yanukovych's heavy-handed tactics, reminiscent of Ukraine's backroom politics a decade ago.

The trial bears comparison with that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Russian oligarch who fell out with Vladimir Putin.

We are seeing a pattern.

In some of the research I found, it appears that there is a desire among opposition parties to decriminalize parts of the criminal code that allowed this conviction of ex-prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko. However, there is no agreement by them as to how this should be done. The leader, Ivan Kirilenko of the Batkivshchyna Party, wants the bill to be re-examined at second reading. If this were to happen, President Yanukovych could then tell European politicians in Brussels that the question of opposition prosecution has been resolved. We need to remember that he is going to Brussels soon and he would like to put on a good face.

Nikolai Martynenko, leader of the NU-NS party, supports Kirilenko and demands that the bill be examined. However, the majority, which is the Party of Regions, and its leader, Alexander Efremov, did not come out with a definite position. In fact he said it would set a precedent, so he is using political spin. Remember that this is Yanukovych's party. This is obviously very disturbing.

A website for an organization called the Eastern Partnership Community is an analytical portal where ideas about what is happening are debated. A journalist by the name of Valery Kalnysh who is chief of the political desk at the Ukrainian edition of the daily Kommersant alludes to the fact that she may be guilty, but he says he doubts whether it was necessary to put her on trial and drag her through the courts for such a slip-up, if in fact, there was one.

He says that the case is clear. He says that the current government is not interested in showing that Ukraine is a state of law, and that Yanukovych is not sending the message that the hand of justice will reach every criminal regardless of how highly they are placed. His conclusion is that the Tymoshenko case is a show trial against the opposition. He also says he could mention about 30 people from Tymoshenko's circle who are in custody now, or have the prosecutor's office breathing down their necks. Meanwhile, there is only one similar case under way concerning a politician from the Party of Regions, which is the majority.

It appears as we look within at what is happening that this is a pattern not just affecting the former prime minister, but an attempt to silence the opposition especially coming up to the next election.

Yulia Mostova, chief editor of the weekly Dzerkalo Tyzhnya, says that the Tymoshenko case is the manifestation of a Ukrainian national tradition, the idea that every ruling class has followed this principle of persecuting the opposition since 1991. She says the attack on Yulia Tymoshenko is nothing new, that everyone who follows Ukrainian politics has been expecting it. It does not come as a surprise to those who have been watching this closely, including journalists. She also says that the scale of the actions which have been brought against the former head of government is disproportionate to the offences committed, in her opinion.

What should we do? A number of us have received recommendations from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. It proposes a strategy for our government. Any action by the Government of Canada must not result in the isolation of Ukraine. We cannot do that. In regard to the trade agreement, we should make it very clear that we would not support an agreement if the human rights of a former prime minister are violated. However, we should not isolate the country.

We should refocus CIDA's strategy. According to the congress, it should focus on supporting Ukrainian NGOs that establish and strengthen political and civic organizations, safeguard elections and promote citizen participation, openness and accountability in government.

Also we should be calling for support for independent media. A number of members have outlined the persecution of the media and that reporters have disappeared. It reminds me of a book I read by a Russian journalist just before she was killed in Moscow for exposing the Putin government and all it was up to.

We have a role to play as parliamentarians and as the Government of Canada to support our Prime Minister in calling for swift action on this case. Other than that, we should not isolate Ukraine. We have to work with our brothers and sisters in Ukraine to finally bring a democratic government to their country.