Alex Atamanenko

[Committees of the House, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all on the same page. I was in committee when we voted on the motion. It was passed, and as I mentioned earlier on, but unfortunately the government's side voted against it. Yet we know some members from the government's side feel passionately about this.

I believe it should involve a comprehensive solution, but the government should take a lead on this. It should bring all the players together so we finally get a solution to this and we do not push it back for more discussions, getting back together in September, having these folks appear again before committee, then writing another letter and having another press conference and another debate.

Let us show some teeth, some political will and let us solve this problem once and for all.

[Committees of the House, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support and for taking the initiative in this. I know he feels very passionately about this and is doing his very best.

When I quoted from the press release, it was not a criticism, and I wanted to get back to him on this. I wanted to show that people from across the political spectrum cared about this issue, especially those members of Parliament whose ridings contained tobacco farming.

I believe we need to get all stakeholders involved. The motion does not say that. However, the motion has given us a chance to debate the issue once again and to bring it forward. The key is that we are not letting this go. Soon we will have a recess. Hopefully, as a result of this discussion, the government will start providing some direction.

It is not only up to the federal government. However, and I will repeat this, it is up to our senior government to provide direction, show some leadership and make some tough decisions. If industry says that it does not want to get involved, it is up to our government to tell it, in no uncertain terms, that it has a role in this, as do other governments, and to take the lead.

I ask the government to work together with all of us, to take the lead and ensure that we finally get a solution to this crisis.

[Committees of the House, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and saddened that nothing has been done on this issue to date. Tobacco farmers have been in crisis for a long time, at least since I have been on the job as critic for agriculture.

We have talked about this in committee and there have been meetings, yet there does not seem to be the political will to solve this problem. These folks are not asking for handouts. They are asking for a strategy to assist them to get out of this industry so they can get on with their lives and contribute, whether it is to the agriculture sector or another sector.

We must remember, and this was pointed out earlier, that it is not just government that is involved in this. There is industry. There are other stakeholders. However, the lead has to be the federal government's.

There needs to be some political will. This process is not complicated. It is up to the government to involve industry people and producers in finding a solution.

Before I move on, I would like to say that as early as March of last year I wrote a letter to the minister on behalf of Tobacco Farmers in Crisis. I have been trying to keep the ministers of agriculture informed. Others from various parties have been working hard on this. My colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London spoke to a group of farmers quite some time ago. I hope he will not mind if I quote from this press release, in which he stated:

“I cannot promise a date for this exit program, but I can tell you that we are working hard to ensure that a strategy will be forthcoming. We understand the plight of tobacco farmers, and all farmers across Canada. This is a government that is made up of Members from predominantly rural ridings [and] if we can't get this done for you, then no one can”...

“This government recognizes [that] the problem facing the tobacco industry is one that will have to be managed through collaborative efforts of industry, the province of Ontario and various federal departments”.

I thank my colleague for his statement and I understand that he represents the needs of people in his riding, but in spite of what he and many others would like to see happen, there does not seem to be a movement from the upper echelons of the government to come to a resolution. That is my concern today.

I am critical of what is happening because I do not think it is right. We see the government moving quickly in other areas where maybe it should not be moving so quickly. I will provide an example.

One example is the introduction of kernel visual distinguishability, KVD, with the Grain Commission. Industry and others in the field are saying to back off and hold on until at least 2010, until we get something to replace the current way of identifying high quality wheat. Yet the current minister is moving ahead. If he had his way, this probably would have been done yesterday.

I also have seen this in the whole issue of the Canadian Wheat Board. There is the idea that we can dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board by introducing gag orders. There is the spin campaign that says our farmers are getting less.

I would like to quote a letter by the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, Mr. Larry Hill, who talks about that very contentious question of who is getting more for wheat, the American farmers or Canadian farmers.

Because we know there is a gag order on our Canadian Wheat Board and there cannot be a publicity campaign to explain what is happening, it has to resort to letters to the editor from the chairman of the board. In answer to somebody else's letter, the chairman talks about pool returns and states:

For starters, the current Pool Return Outlook (PRO) speaks for itself; the CWB has been capturing premium prices on sales around the world. For the March 2007-08 PRO, that translates to $8.97 per bushel for No. 1 CWRS 12.5, and $13.09 per bushel for No. 1 CWAD 12.5.

He went on to say:

--most U.S. producers sold early, before prices rose dramatically. That means that when spot prices were peaking, North Dakota producers were unable to capitalize on the opportunity. In fact, prices peaked in the U.S. precisely because no grain could be found.

U.S. agriculture officials have been quoted for months as saying the average U.S. producer sold most of their wheat and durum early. North Dakota officials have said that the average producer there received about $7 per bushel for durum. It's a fact that the average western Canadian producer is receiving significantly more.

This is not a debate on the Canadian Wheat Board, but I thought I would bring it up to show that when the minister and the government want to move quickly, they make every effort to do so. We have seen this work positively for the pork and cattle producers. There are some initiatives that we all work together on with the government.

However, on this particular issue there seems to be a reluctance, a standstill. As late as April 2, 2008 a press release stated:

Following a meeting with tobacco growers, provincial officials and tobacco manufacturers on Monday, [the] Federal Agriculture Minister...stated that while his government would help tobacco growers to access programs, “no new exit programs will be available.”

The reaction was:

“We are extremely angry and disgusted,” stated Tom McElhone, chairman of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board in a news release.... The news release noted that both levels of government “clearly stated that they had no money or spending authority to put an exit program in place for tobacco farmers at this time.”

I would once again emphasize that around this place political will is what is necessary to move things along. We often get spin when we talk about food security issues. For example, after the agriculture committee went right across the country last year, it made a number of recommendations dealing with food security that would enhance the Canadian agriculture industry, the buy local campaigns. We were told to back off, that the government had to look at Canada's trade obligations, which seem to trump any initiatives we take here.

I have before me a motion that was passed in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which called upon the federal government to immediately implement an exit strategy for tobacco producers consistent with the most recent proposal they had submitted and that it be reported to the House. What is interesting is that the motion passed, but the members of the government voted against it. I cannot quite understand it. Members of the governing party are in agreement with most people and they are saying that some kind of an exit strategy is needed, yet when it comes to a vote in the committee, some kind of directions are received that they have to vote against it. That does not make sense to me.

I have a letter written by a gentleman by the name of Errol Povah, president of Airspace Action on Smoking and Health, addressed to the Conservative member of Parliament for Delta—Richmond East, in which he asks the government to do what is right for tobacco farmers. Copies of this letter were sent to 305 MPs.

Once the industry is not viable and people have invested in it, we have an obligation not only financially, but morally to ensure that these folks have some kind of an exit strategy. I must emphasize once again that we are not saying that they need X number of dollars from government and we have to help them out. What I and others are saying is we need a lead on this from the federal government.

In the past when there has been a crisis situation, such as in Saskatchewan a year and a half or two years ago with regard to flooding in Porcupine Plain, the federal and provincial governments throw the ball back and forth saying that the other government should start with the assistance. Canadians expect the federal government to take the lead and work with its provincial colleagues to come up with, in this case, an exit strategy for tobacco producers.

There is the whole issue of contraband. I would like to quote from a letter written to me by Mr. Brian Edwards, president of Tobacco Farmers in Crisis. It is very significant. I and my staff have met with Mr. Edwards and others in his organization on a number of occasions. I have written a number of letters to the Minister of Agriculture following up on my conversations with the folks from Tobacco Farmers in Crisis telling the minister what they are requesting and that I would like to work with the minister to help them out.

In this letter he touches upon a letter dated February 11. I should quote that letter in its entirety since I do have a bit of time. He states:

Thank you for seeing me while I was in Ottawa. As we discussed in our meeting, tobacco contraband is a thorny issue to get a handle on. I would think at this time a new innovative approach is needed from a native viewpoint for success. I am sending you a proposal that has been drafted here in Ontario, by a Native named Troy Montour, and Mark Bannister, and presented to Chief Bill Montour of Six Nations Reserve. It is written from a Native perspective about tobacco control. Chief Montour worked with Grand Chief Phil Fontaine, as his Chief of Staff at the Assembly of First Nations and is a newly elected Chief here at Six Nations. He sees potential and suggested that Mr. Montour present this Draft to the Confederacy Chiefs. This has been done. The Chiefs are in the initial discussions about the approach outlined in the Draft. While in Ottawa, I met with Neil Collishaw of Physicians For A Smoke Free Canada, and learned that a similar discussion has been started at Akwesasne. I am giving all Federal Parties this proposal as a Heads Up. If Native representatives buy in to this idea, we could get contraband back under control. Taxation agreements are already in place out in the Western Provinces where Native Bands collect taxes themselves and decide what they will do with the funds. It is a new approach from a Native perspective on tobacco and they will need our encouragement and advice on how to help themselves and solve contraband issues.

We continue to press for tobacco transition/exit program for tobacco farmers with few results to date. The financial institutions are acting on tobacco farmers and demanding their money. The 2008 crop size of 21 million pounds at .30 cents per pound less than last year, only amounts to 8% of the owned quota base. It simply won't cash flow for those who don't have debts either. If you need more information about this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to discuss and share this with your fellow MPs.

This letter sums up the problem tobacco producers are facing. It is hard for them to make ends meet and they need an exit strategy. In my opinion, as I have already said a number of times, it is up to the federal government to take the initiative.

I have said this in other places and on other areas, but I think it has relevance here, that we are talking about an exit strategy for tobacco farmers. However, we are seeing a hands off approach by the senior government. We are seeing this philosophy, which I know permeates our government in British Columbia and it certainly seems to govern the course of action here, of letting the market decide, privatizing, deregulating. It is a philosophy of hands off, let the market decide and everything will be okay.

Everything is not okay. It is not right just to let the market decide in the case of tobacco farmers. The government has taken initiatives to help other producers. It has taken the initiative that it is the government's responsibility. It is not right to say that it will not do this or that it will let the province of Ontario or industry do it. It is up to us, the elected officials and the government, which is there to govern, to take the lead on this issue, so that people are not left to the mercy of the open market. We have a responsibility to these farmers to have a transition policy in place.

I will end by becoming a little philosophical as I pursue this whole issue of hands off or how much government control there is. I submit for the record that our challenge in the 21st century is between those of us who are elected right across this nation, regardless at which level of government, to govern as opposed to being governed by the big multinational corporations, the ones who make those decisions in the boardrooms, the ones who are driving the agenda of British Columbia where slowly day by day we are losing control of our resources, whether it is water or oil and gas. Those corporations that are setting the agenda for the security and prosperity partnership are saying that we as a people do not have a right to debate any of these issues. This hands off approach and letting those corporations get away with that is a crime. We have to take control.

We can debate the differences in policy between the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party and the Green Party, but ultimately we cannot let any party or any one of us take control away from the people. Government has a responsibility to decide. It is not good enough, as I alluded to before, for the government to say that trade obligations do not allow the government to do anything. The Americans do not really care about trade obligations. If something is hurting their farmers, they stand up for them and they look after their interests.

In closing, I would like to leave some food for thought. That is an interesting phrase. I am starting a tour across Canada next week dealing with this. It is an initiative that our party has undertaken, which I am quite excited about. We are going to be listening to people right across Canada about their concerns with regard to our industry, the control of our food supply and hope to give some direction to the government with regard to a national food policy. We announced that in a press conference a little while ago.

With that I will close. I am really proud and honoured to have had this opportunity to say a few words on behalf of our tobacco producers.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this petition in regard to Bill C-51 is from about 100 residents of the West Kootenays. Their petition says that 70% of Canadians currently use natural health products, that they do not wish to have natural health products in the same category as pharmaceuticals, and that they want to use their right to free choice as to whether they use natural health products or drugs to maintain wellness.

Therefore, they call upon Parliament to vote against Bill C-51 as it is written and to protect their rights as consumers of natural health products.

[Uranium Weapons, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last year, the United Nations First Committee passed a resolution urging member states to re-examine the health hazards posed by the use of uranium weapons.

Belgium has banned the use of uranium in all conventional weapon systems. However, at least 18 countries, including the U.S., use depleted uranium in their arsenals. They are considered weapons of mass destruction under international law.

According to a Canada-U.S. agreement, Canadian uranium exports may only be used for peaceful purposes. However, according to Dr. Douglas Rokke, a U.S. Army research scientist, and others, Canada provides raw uranium to the U.S. and other countries for processing. The resulting depleted uranium is then used in weapons.

One only has to watch the documentary film Beyond Treason to see the devastating effects of these weapons in countries such as Iraq.

I call upon our government to undertake every measure possible to ensure that depleted uranium weapons of mass destruction are banned forever.

[Committees of the House, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment in the history of our country. We have a chance to make some history by taking a stand for justice and peace in this world as we charge our independent course.

We know our country has officially refused to fight in Iraq. Logic would have it then that we would support those who refuse to fight in this illegal invasion of a sovereign country. They need our support. I just met with Corey Glass who is facing deportation. I have met with other war resisters in my riding, in the town of Nelson. I have listened to their testimony in committee. I believe we have an obligation and responsibility to help these young people.

The argument often is that they volunteered, they chose to go. A lot of these people were deceived, and I will give a couple of examples.

The tenure of Mr. Glass, a native of Indiana, began in 2002 in the military when he joined the National Guard to complete “humanitarian work” within the United States, he was told. At that time, he had no idea he would end up fighting on foreign shores. When he joined the National Guard, he was told the only way he would be in combat was if there were troops occupying the United States. He signed up to defend people and do humanitarian work, such as filling sandbags if there was a hurricane. That was not what happened to Mr. Glass.

I met a young couple in Nelson. The young man was told if he signed up for the military, it would pay for his university education when he got back and it would give his wife health care. She was one of the 40 million people in the United States who did not have health care. What choice did he have? He had the promise of finally getting through school with some help and being provided medical assistance for his wife.

We have to put this in context. In the past we have supported those who did not want to fight or fled the United States because of the unjust war in Vietnam.

I will quote from a couple of letters. One is from Mr. Klaus Offerman of Nelson, who said that according to war resisters he talked to and according to former Iraq weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, the U.S. army used economic, educational and health care incentives to lure and pressure young, poor potential recruits into military service before they understood the reality of military life and responsibility. Meanwhile, their commander-in-chief deceived them into thinking they had a just war and they were going to search out weapons of mass destruction.

Another one of my friends and constituents, Jennifer Voykin, states that she feels:

—we, as responsible and ethical Canadian citizens, have the opportunity, as well as an obligation, to protect the human rights of people who are morally opposed to the American-led invasion of Iraq. We must uphold international laws and support those deserters who seek refuge from military court martial in the United States. No deserter, including those that have already been issued Pre-removal Risk Assessments, should be removed from this country until the Supreme Court of Canada finalizes their decision.

[Ukrainian Famine and Genocide Memorial Day Act, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to rise to speak to Bill C-459. I would like to thank the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake for tabling this very important piece of legislation and also for inviting me to second it. My party and I will be supporting all of the amendments, so hopefully we can get the bill passed in the spirit of cooperation today.

The bill as re-introduced today coincides with the visit by President Yushchenko yesterday. It was an honour for me to be here, as it was for others, and to listen to him. It is because of him and many others in Ukraine that the Orange Revolution was a success.

I have relatives who camped out many nights in Kiev in the hope that finally their country would achieve independence. It was moving to watch and to listen to the speeches yesterday at the flame ceremony commemorating the victims of the Holodomor, this forced famine and act of genocide.

For me it is a very moving time, because I have a personal stake in this. My family also suffered at the hands of Stalin and the ruthless communist regime.

As we know, research has stated that since 1917 millions of people were starved, executed or worked to death by this brutal Soviet regime. The Russian author Alexandr Solzhenitsyn puts that number at around 60 million people. It is hard to imagine all those citizens of the former Soviet Union executed because of this brutal regime.

My family has suffered. My grandfather was a Russian Orthodox priest in the Far East who was taken away and executed. As a girl 10 years old, my mother had to go onto the frozen Amur River to try to find his body before she and her mother and siblings had to flee. Otherwise, they would have been on the hit list. My father was born in Ukraine. He fought in the civil war against the communists, the Bolsheviks, and was evacuated from the Crimea along with General Wrangel.

I first visited Ukraine in 1971. I remember relatives telling me of the horrors, my cousin especially, who experienced going from village to village trying to stay away from the hit squads and seeing big caravans of trucks going by the road. The flaps would go up and he would see piled up, row upon row, the dead bodies of those who suffered during this forced famine.

This is one of the tragedies in the history of humankind that is very hard for us to imagine. Before I go on to describe what has taken place, I would like to mention that there are those today, and I know there are in the Russian government, who do not want to recognize the Holodomor as a genocide and who want to wrap all this in as other unfortunate people who were executed or liquidated.

I would like to point out that this tragedy was engineered in Moscow. Certainly it was the Soviet Union that suffered, but the tragedy was engineered by the Soviet government, by Stalin, from Moscow, and part of this human tragedy that took place did take place in Ukraine. That was the forced famine to forcibly starve people to death. That is genocide.

I would like to implore the Russian people and their government, in the spirit of solidarity, to recognize that and to move on. Let us move forward and let us ensure that it never ever happens again.

Stalin decided to eliminate Ukraine's independent farmers for three reasons. My grandfather was an independent farmer in Ukraine. I had a chance to visit the old homestead in 1971. He was one of them. They represented the last bulwark of resistance to totalitarian Russian control.

The U.S.S.R. was in desperate need of foreign capital to build more factories. The best way to obtain that capital was to increase agriculture exports from Ukraine, once known as the breadbasket of Europe. The Soviet Union confiscated wheat from the Ukrainians, starving them to death, and at the same time exported the wheat to other parts of the world.

The fastest way to increase agricultural exports was to expropriate land through a process of farm collectivization and to assign procurement quotas to each Soviet republic. It is hard to believe, for example, that anyone caught hoarding food was subjected to execution as an enemy of the people or, in extenuating circumstances, imprisonment for not less than 10 years. My Aunt Lusha spent 10 years in a Soviet labour camp because she wanted food to feed her family.

To make sure that these new laws were strictly enforced, special commissions and brigades were dispatched to the countryside. In the words of one Sovietologist:

The work of these special “commissions” and “brigades” was marked with the utmost severity. They entered the villages and made most thorough searches of the houses and barns of every peasant. They dug up the earth and broke into the walls of buildings and stoves in which peasants tried to hide their last handfuls of food. They even in places took specimens of fecal matter from the toilets in an effort to learn by analysis whether the peasants had stolen government property and were eating grain.

Stalin succeeded in achieving his goals. The horrors go on and on if we look at those war years. I have just had a chance to see a film put out by the Ukrainian Canadian Research and Documentation Centre, entitled Between Hitler and Stalin: Ukraine in World War II.

During the war, people in the Ukraine were faced with two evils. Many of them wanted to fight on the side of the Germans in the hope that they could liberate their country from Stalin. All in all, there were something like two million people from various ethnic groups and nationalities in the Soviet Union who were united and ready to march into the Soviet Union with the German army under a Russian general, but the Germans did not allow this to happen. Can anyone imagine people being forced to go with the enemy to liberate their own country?

We have seen many atrocities in history. Often we equate atrocities with fascism. We equate them with the repressive dictatorships that we have seen in various Latin American countries and Asia, but we often slide over this horrible tragedy that took place in the Soviet Union, starting in 1917 and not finishing until the repressive communist regime finally ended.

Part of this tragedy is this forced famine. It is important for us to remember this so that it never happens again. I would like to say to my fellow Canadians, especially those of Ukrainian descent, that as we commemorate this tragedy we have hope for Ukraine and for the future, thanks to people like President Yushchenko and the million or more Ukrainians here in Canada and throughout the world who support Ukraine finally becoming an independent country that will find its way in the world. There are problems, but I have been to Ukraine as recently as two years ago and I have faith and hope in the Ukrainian people.

Once again, it is an honour for me to speak today. My party and I will be supporting this bill and the amendments.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I think the main thing is that we have to ensure that any biofuel program or policy in Canada looks at the environment in a sustainable manner, that we do not have a program that displaces oil and yet increases greenhouse gas emissions.

Let us not forget that this bill, Bill C-33, is part of the environment bill. It is a bill that is supposed to mitigate the negative effects on the environment. That is the first thing we have to do. So if in fact ethanol and biodiesel are increasing greenhouse gas emissions, then we should be looking at perhaps other areas, such as pellets, as my colleague from Western Arctic mentioned. According to the REAP study, solid biofuels have a much better efficiency and almost no negative effect on the environment. So, that is one area.

I know of a company in British Columbia that collects used oil from restaurants and converts it into biofuel. What better way is there of disposing waste? There are other enterprises. I think there is one in Alberta and also one British Columbia that is using waste and biomass to create biodiesel.

I think from the point of view of the environment and new energy sources, if we look at some more efficient areas of production, then this will have a much better effect on the environment as we try to battle climate change.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 2008]

It might be difficult, but I will give it a try.

With regard to biofuels, the statements I made were quotations from articles that do say that it is madness. I said personally that I and my party support the concept of biofuels. There is a way of doing it correctly. I think Manitoba is on the right track. It is limiting 10% of its arable land for biofuel production.

There is nothing in this bill that puts any checks and balances on biofuel production. That is the problem. It gives a green light to the import of corn from the United States which does not support our farmers. It gives a green light to big oil, Husky Oil, to import this corn, and it certainly gives a green light to destroy the environment. I think we need to put some checks so we can move on with a policy that is good for all Canadians.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it hurts to see that my hon. colleague is confused. That is not a nice way to be. It is always better not to be confused. I will try to enlighten him.