Ed Komarnicki

[Canadian Wheat Board, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, a number of constituents from Souris—Moose Mountain visited Parliament Hill yesterday to witness the historic vote ending the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly and allowing marketing freedom to western Canadian grain farmers.

Dale Mainil, who farms thousands of acres of land near Weyburn, Saskatchewan, was delighted with the outcome. He, along with his wife Deana and family, carry on the tradition of hard work and enterprise of their parents Jerry and Orlanda Mainil.

With him was Herb Axten of Minton, Blair Stewart from Fillmore and Allan Johnston from Welwyn. They all see the great potential and opportunity that was released by freeing up farmers from being compelled to sell to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Blair Stewart, with experience as a processor of specialty crops, and Allan Johnston, a grain and specialty crop broker, see great potential for increased returns and value-added opportunities.

To them and the many others who supported the cause, I hope and trust that the next generation of young farmers will be able to reap the benefits of their action and unwavering determination.

[Committees of the House, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to supplementary estimates (b) 2011-2012.

[Canadian Wheat Board, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, marketing freedom is so close that western Canadian grain farmers can almost taste it. Farmers like Dale Mainil, nephew of Art Mainil, Blair Stewart, Herb Axten, Al Johnston, and others, including the Saskatchewan and Alberta ministers of agriculture, made their way to Ottawa to voice their support for farmers and for their right to marketing freedom.

The proposed legislation would allow farmers in western Canada to have the freedom to sell their grains on an open market at a time and place of their choosing, and to seek out the best possible buyer for their top-quality crops.

The Canadian Wheat Board would remain a voluntary option for farmers who wish to pool their grains. We have already begun to see the benefits of marketing freedom in western Canada with a new $50 million pasta processing facility in Regina and a $6 million storage expansion in Alberta.

I would encourage the opposition to stand with the government and vote to pass this important legislation tonight, so that western Canadian grain farmers can finally receive the marketing freedom they want and deserve.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member talk about democracy being a fundamental right and that the voices of the farmers who voted in the plebiscite should not be ignored. There were issues about who could vote and who could not. However, at least 50% of barley producers want the freedom to market outside the Wheat Board. A good number of wheat producers want to do the same. Why is the member and his party ignoring those farmers who want to market outside the Wheat Board?

The member and his party say that they have nothing against people pooling their resources together and selling through the Canadian Wheat Board. However, they also say that the government should not compel those who want to sell somewhere else to sell through the Canadian Wheat Board. What does my colleague have to say about those farmers? Why is he and his party not listening to those farmers, a good percentage of whom grow their own crops and want to deal with them as they wish? They also make huge investments into their farming operations. If the existing legislation is not changed they would be fined and put in jail. In a democratic country like Canada, how can the member justify putting farmers in jail for selling their own crops at the best price they can get for them?

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I feel compassion for many of our farmers who grow wheat and durum and look at the world prices. They produce some of the best durum in the world, certainly in the country. They see the price and they are not able to sell it. There have been some who have taken matters into their own hands and have decided to cross the border, but as the member for Malpeque referred to that action, they were stopped and fined. They had to go through provincial court and the court of appeal. They spent a lot of dollars, but at the end of the day, they were not able to sell what they had produced themselves. It is remarkable that people in this country cannot do that.

Obviously I feel there is nothing wrong for those who would want to band together voluntarily to form a co-op, a corporation or association to market their grain together, but it is wrong to force people into that association when they do not want to be part of it. That is not the way to run a country. That is not the way to run a democracy and we need to change it now.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member was not listening when I read from the email from the farmer in Ceylon, Saskatchewan. He wrote:

We have limited our seeding of Durum and Barley in the past due to the involvement of the CWB and the intrusive nature of that relationship....

He went on to say what that was. The seeding acres have gone down, so they are doing themselves a disservice.

The Australian model shows that the seeding acreages have gone up and it is now producing 30% more wheat on average than it was before. It is marketing in 41 countries rather than 17 countries. That is what happens when farmers are given the option to go through the Canadian Wheat Board or otherwise.

With respect to the plebiscite itself, ballots were sent to more than 68,000 farmers when in fact there are about 20,000 commercial grain farmers. I do not know what that is about, but it says something about that process.

The Canadian Wheat Board was imposed on farmers to be compulsory whether they wanted to trade through it or not. There is a great percentage of farmers who did not want to belong to that system and they had no opportunity to do that because they would be jailed or fined. That is simply wrong. We do not need a plebiscite to see that. We do not need a plebiscite to say that we ought to give producers the ability to sell their product without having to pay a fine or go to jail for it. It was something that was imposed by a government when it should not have been. It is time to get that wrapped up and changed once and for all.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill because it is opening up new opportunities for western Canadian wheat and barley farmers. That is good news, because there is a growing demand worldwide for the high quality grain they grow. As part of our commitment to help farmers make their money from the marketplace, we plan to deliver on our promise to provide marketing freedom to western Canadian grain farmers.

It is a matter of freedom, even if the opposition's numbers are used. If we have 40% of farmers not being able to sell their grain on the open market but are compelled to sell it to a board, it certainly curtails their freedom and right to do business as they see fit.

That is what the bill is all about. We are giving western Canadian wheat, durum and barley growers the same right to market their grain as enjoyed by farmers in other parts of Canada and around the world. It is remarkable that farmers only in western Canada would be compelled to sell to the Canadian Wheat Board when other farmers around the world and in this country are able to sell directly.

The fact is western Canadian grain farmers deserve the freedom to make their own business decisions, just as others do, including the right to market their own grain at the time of their choosing and to the buyer of their choice. Western Canadian farmers want this and so do three of four western provincial governments that produce almost 80% of the wheat and 90% of the barley that the Canadian Wheat Board markets.

As the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture has said, “Saskatchewan farmers spend their own hard-earned money on land, machinery and inputs to grow their own crops, so why should they not have the marketing freedom to decide how, when and to whom they sell their grain?” They invest thousands of dollars in machinery and equipment, hundreds of thousands of dollars in land, and they take all kinds of risks. They sell other commodities directly in the market, yet they are prevented from selling the grain they grow, except through the Wheat Board.

This legislation will open up a wealth of opportunity for western Canadian grain farmers for the future.

In my constituency there are a number of farmers who have written to me, and I will refer to a number of letters to make the point. They make the point for us as to why we should proceed with this legislation.

One farmer, Steve Blackmore of Ceylon, wrote:

I am pleased to see that the federal government continues with its move to introduce legislation to open up the marketing of grain and barley. My brother and I operate a farm in SE Sask [southeast Saskatchewan] with 5500 acres of cultivated land. We have limited our seeding of Durum and Barley in the past due to the involvement of the CWB [Canadian Wheat Board] and the intrusive nature of that relationship and the impact on farm cash flows by having to wait for pool returns to be calculated etc.

Indeed, it is even a disservice to the Wheat Board to prohibit farmers from selling elsewhere. As this individual has indicated, he has cut back on the seeding of durum and barley and many have. Instead of seeded acres increasing for durum and barley, they have been regressing. Yet in other countries like Australia, we find that those acres have been improving after the farmers have been given the opportunity to market their own grain.

Mr. Blackmore went on to say, in referring to the durum crop:

As an example the Durum we grew in the fall of 2010 was all hauled in the fall of 2010 as it was great quality and provided blending opportunities for the grain company.

It is something that they could have got a premium for. He wrote:

We will not see our final return on that grain until December 2011 or January 2012.

Simply put, this is not acceptable. It is far too long to wait for the cash flow. It is far too long to wait for the price they ought to get.

He talked about the voting process. We have heard a lot in the House about the voting process and whether one should pay attention to that or not, but this is what he said:

I know you will have heard all the arguments on both sides of the debate and there is a lot of passion behind both sides however the voting process held by the CWB was a joke. Our operation received 4 votes, but really only one should be considered given that 90% of the volume would have gone through one permit book. I can only imagine that this is the case for lots of farmers. The argument about letting the farmers decide is the wrong debate, this is an open market debate and as a business owner...we need to have the ability to choose who we market our product through.

Whether a farmer runs a big or small operation, that farmer has had the opportunity to operate in the open market with respect to other commodities. As someone said here earlier, the sky is not falling in. Farmers have been able to do that successfully.

Mr. Blackmore wrote that he has been doing it already for years with canola, flax, lentils, peas, oats, fall rye, canary seed, and three varieties of mustard. It is something that farmers are accustomed to.

I grew up on a farm. My parents farmed four quarters and rented two for a total of six quarters. There were many small farmers around. Initially all they grew was wheat, barley and oats perhaps. It was only later in the process they experimented with new commodities like canola. They found they could market the canola and that they could get a cash price and sell it when they wanted to. They could wait for the price to go up if they wanted to wait. Some did better and others did not do as well, but they had the opportunity to do that.

Canola caught on and more of it was grown. Peas, lentils and other kinds of commodities that farmers have taken to have been sold and farmers have done very well with respect to those commodities. They would watch the markets and they would watch the price. They could decide what they wanted to plant.

Mr. Blackmore said that the value of changing to an open market solution will provide benefits for him and his farm operation. He said he would have the ability to contract price against a global benchmark and meet his cashflow needs. He would have the ability to negotiate based on quality and quantity at the grain companies. He would also be able to break down the barrier to cross-border shipping and provide new marketing opportunities.

Some of the best durum in the country, perhaps in the world, is grown in the southeast part of Saskatchewan in my riding. When we look at what the world price is compared to what farmers get, they cannot sell it all even at the price they can get. There is a significant difference so they have to take a loss.

The other thing Mr. Blackmore mentioned, as have other farmers, is the need for some certainty. That is why the opposition should get behind us and get this bill passed. He said:

As we look at the 2012 growing season we hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously this fall in order to allow for effective planning in terms of cropping options, implications of the change from the CWB, response by the market to a new offering, etc.

Farmers want to know what they are dealing with. They plan early for what they are going to put into their land for the next year. They want to see this legislation passed. I would urge all members to get behind the legislation to ensure it goes forward expeditiously.

Another person in my constituency wrote to the editor of Lifestyles on October 6, 2011. Amy Hewson from Langbank, Saskatchewan in my riding wrote:

I grew up on an 80 acre farm in central AB [Alberta]. ...I moved to my husband's 8000 acre farm in south east Saskatchewan....

My husband is a full time farmer; it's his business and his life. My Dad is an electrician and a farmer on the side who raises cattle and rents out his crop land, entitling him to vote.

That means her father's vote has the same weight as her husband's. The obvious point she is making is that it should not be so.

She said:

My husband and I are expecting a baby in January and we're both very excited to know that this child will grow up in a country where it's not a crime for his parents to sell their own wheat and barley as of August 1, 2012.

It is interesting to note that the member for Malpeque said farmers should be put in jail because they are crossing an international border. Imagine putting them in jail for selling their own produce, produce they have produced from their hard work, from their investment, their risk. It is incredible that we would even be having that debate in today's society.

Ms. Hewson said that it is not about getting rid of the CWB, it is about having a choice. That is an important point.

Marc Giraudier, another constituent, wrote to me saying that this is about choice and not about a vote. He wrote, “Regarding the plebiscite vote, take the outcome with a grain of salt, not all our farmers received a plebiscite vote and if a third option, dual market system had been a choice, the outcome would have been very different”.

That is the truth. It is interesting that the opportunity to vote for a dual market system was not put forward by the Canadian Wheat Board.

Another interesting point is that one group of farmers, no matter the percentage, even if it was 62%, ought not to have the authority to ban or the power to prevent other individual producers from having the right to market their grain as they see fit.

If others want to sell through the Wheat Board, they can do so by simply uniting and pooling their resources together and going forward. They should proceed to do that.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and we will certainly be watching for your signal.

This is a very serious matter. It is a matter that, if the course is not changed, will work to the detriment of the existing leadership and certainly to the Ukrainian people. The people need to be reassured. Their trust needs to be regained. They need to see some progressive steps taken that will not cause them to revert to where they were, but to go forward. I think the aspirations of the young people especially and Ukrainians in general is that they not be repressed any further.

I would suggest that this course needs to be reversed and, by putting pressure on various levels by various people, this can yet be changed.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, it is obvious that the hon. member has had the opportunity to see what it can be like. He also was present to see the hopes and aspirations of the people. It is difficult to hold back those hopes and aspirations except by using tactics that revert back to the old days when people were suppressed, when people could not express themselves and when they could not enjoy the freedom to speak, to assemble and to make their thoughts known. However, they have tasted that freedom. They know what it is about, and it would be wrong and perilous to try to revert back to the old way, to the old system.

The people of Ukraine must be given the opportunity to go forward, to experience the benefits of democracy and experience what a true judicial system can be like where one can actually have charges that are not trumped up but charges that are based on fact, have a foundation and are presented in a fair way where one can defend oneself and be presumed innocent.

We look forward to actions being taken by the present authorities to fix what was wrong by doing what is right.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, it is certainly a privilege and honour to speak with respect to this motion that expresses concern regarding the ongoing erosion of democracy in Ukraine, including the most recent politically motivated, arbitrary prosecution and conviction of former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko by Ukrainian authorities. There is no question that this is a very important motion and debate taking place.

I had the opportunity to visit Ukraine and take part in the monitoring of elections. I was of the view that Ukraine had turned a corner and was well on its way with respect to democracy and justice.

I also count it an honour and a privilege to speak today because my grandfather, Nicolas, originated from the Ivano-Frankivs'k area in the southwestern part of Ukraine. He came here searching for democracy and freedom. It is something to be cherished for sure.

When we were there for the monitoring of the elections prior to 2010, it was impressed upon me that Ukraine had the opportunity to go forward. Ukraine had the opportunity to be an example of what can happen. When a government leads in a democracy, it means leading for the good of the people and not for the good of oneself. We can see that it had that potential.

One of the tenets of a democracy is the fact that one has to be able to lose in a fair and free democratic election. One cannot choose to silence opponents by placing them in jail, threatening them or targeting them. It just does not work that way.

Some of the fundamentals of democracy are the right to a fair trial, the right to be presumed innocent and the right to have a trial, so that those watching could say that not only was justice served but it was seen to be done. We cannot have the suspicion that follows a targeting of a number of individuals who were political leaders.

Yulia Tymoshenko was the leader of the largest opposition political party in the Verkhovna Rada. She was also the prime minister in 2005 and from 2007 to 2010. These are people who held public office and made decisions while in public office.

The Prime Minister stated in his address to the Canadian Ukrainian Congress:

...we know that a vigorous political opposition and judicial independence are vital to building a democratic and prosperous Ukraine.

Those are the two pillars that are very important in a democracy. We have a challenge to the political opposition using the tools of government and the tools of the judiciary. In fact, if it is the judiciary itself stifling that opposition, then we are on a backward path. It is something that should not be allowed to happen.

It was good that the Prime Minister wrote to President Yanukovych. He wanted to let him know that he was deeply concerned that the conduct of Tymoshenko's trial does not reflect the accepted norms of due process and fairness.

When we look at the sentence that was handed out, seven years, it is quite remarkable, given the upcoming parliamentary elections in 2012 and presidential elections in 2015. How can they be declared free and fair elections if the leaders of the two opposition parties, including the leader of the official opposition, are not able to participate? It is unthinkable.

However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. When we look at what happens to the freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, we see they are all being stifled. When we look at what has happened to the political leaders in broad daylight, we see it is a symptom of something deeper that is taking place throughout society and that must not be allowed.

During the Orange Revolution we saw hope and aspiration to a great nationhood by the people who were there. That same hope needs to be rekindled. Although there has been a step or two backward, they must go forward. There were ideals of freedom and democracy that were expressed in the Orange Revolution, and I think this must go ahead.

What is important is that the young people who were there--the impressionable people--those who have tasted democracy and freedom--cannot go back. As I speak to them, they must not go back. They must go forward.

For those who are in positions of leadership or authority, it is not too late to rectify the wrong that has been done. It is not too late for those who have been sentenced to have those sentences changed under an appeal or otherwise so they can participate in an election. It is time to go forward, not backward.