Frank Valeriote

[Request for Emergency Debate, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today seeking your leave to move the adjournment of the House to debate the issue outlined in the application presented to you this morning, about which I will now speak. It is a matter that demands urgent attention by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.

The minister has consistently called for the dissolution of the Canadian Wheat Board. We have learned through his answers in question period that the minister will, in the next session of Parliament, attempt to do so without holding a plebiscite of the wheat board membership, which is a sound democratic right bestowed on western wheat and barley farmers through section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

The wheat board is a fundamentally important institution to many tens of thousands of western farmers and their families, whose livelihoods are protected by its crucial work. They deserve to have the act followed and to have their opinions respected in a democratic vote with a clear question, whatever the outcome.

This request for an emergency debate needs to be granted because Canadians, through their representatives, have a right to know why the minister plans to violate section 47.1 of the act, and to know how he will restructure the wheat board if in fact he does not obey section 47.1 and to know how his restructuring will be implemented.

Standing Order 52 explains that the House can adjourn to hear an emergency debate if the Speaker, in his discretion, concludes that the issue of the debate is: (a) within the scope of the government's administrative responsibilities and within the scope of ministerial action; (b) will not be brought before the House in reasonable time by other means; and (c) relates to a matter of genuine emergency requiring immediate and urgent consideration.

It is clear that the conditions set out in (a) above are met, because section 47.1 of the act makes it clear that the wheat board falls not only within the administrative responsibilities of the government but also that any action dealing with the wheat board's mandate will be determined by the minister and it is, therefore, within his scope.

This matter is a genuine emergency requiring immediate consideration as set out in (c) above for the very reason that causes this issue to comply with (b) above.

The minister has telegraphed his intentions to change the mandate of the wheat board, but he has not told Canadians how he is planning to do so and he has therefore comprised the ability of the wheat board to function effectively and has created confusion, uncertainty and alarm among western Canadian grain producers.

It is imperative that this debate be held today, because there is no reasonable expectation that this issue will be brought before the House in a reasonable time or prior to the House's summer recess.

There is also no expectation that the required vote set out in section 47.1(b) of the act will occur within a reasonable time before the minister's legislation is brought forward in the fall, if at all.

The debate I propose will focus on clearly determining if the minister is willing to abide by section 47.1 of the act. If he will not abide by it, we will seek to determine for western farmers how he plans to restructure the wheat board and how the restructuring will be implemented.

I respectfully submit, therefore, that the issues are within the scope of the government's administrative responsibilities, will not be brought before the House in a reasonable time by other means, and relate to a matter of genuine urgency requiring immediate attention.

It is with this in mind that I appeal to you to hold an emergency debate to determine if the minister will skirt section 47.1 of the act, and to determine how the board will change under the minister's undisclosed legislation.

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister has declared that the Wheat Board will be transformed, without disclosing his new model. The $5.1 billion wheat industry relies on the strength of the Wheat Board in negotiations for the sale of wheat, the procurement of contracts for railcars and the funding of agricultural research.

With the future of the Wheat Board undefined, the minister has placed our western farmers in a weak negotiating position, and farmers are at risk of incurring huge losses. Will the minister explain what his new board model will look like, how it will be implemented and whether it will continue to be supported by government guarantees?

[Petitions, June 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to submit the following petition signed by several hundred Guelphites, urging the government to exclude all sub-federal governments and their public agencies, including municipalities, from any Canada–E.U. procurement agreement.

On May 2, 2009, Canada and the E.U. announced the beginning of the negotiations of a comprehensive economic and trade agreement, otherwise known as CETA. It is expected that an agreement will be reached in 2011-12.

As it stands, CETA negotiations include government procurement, including projects at the provincial and municipal levels.

Through losing the right to have independent procurement policies, municipalities like Guelph will lose the right to buy local materials and services, which is one of its most important tools for stimulating local innovation, fostering local community economic development, creating local employment and achieving other valuable public policy goals.

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister has again stated that he will ignore the Wheat Board Act, refuse to hold a plebiscite giving wheat and barley farmers a vote on their livelihood and will unilaterally abolish the Wheat Board.

Forming government with the support of only 24% of Canadians eligible to vote does not constitute the plebiscite set out in the act.

Why does he refuse to ask the very people who will be devastated by his decision if they support the Wheat Board's demise? What is the minister afraid of? Why does he plan to ignore the law?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 21st, 2011]

With regard to the following two Catalogue Numbers, A114-12/2009 (ISBN: 978-1-100-50445-2) and A114-12/2007 (ISBN: 978-0-662-49839-1), of the publication entitled “Rural Canadians’ Guide to Programs and Services”, a publication from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Canada’s Rural Secretariat Branch: (a) when was each paper edition published; (b) when was each paper edition released for distribution; (c) were both publications available to the public and, if yes, what measures were implemented to make the public aware of each publication; (d) which companies were awarded the contracts to print each edition of the publication; (e) what were the amounts of the contracts for the printing of each edition of the publication; (f) which departments authorized the publication of each edition; (g) which departments authorized the contracts for the printing of each publication; (h) how many paper copies of each edition were printed initially; (i) have more paper copies been printed since the initial printing of these editions; (j) what was the total number of paper copies of each edition requested between (i) January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, (ii) January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008, (iii) January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, (iv) January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010; (k) what was the total number of paper copies of each edition distributed between (i) January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, (ii) January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008, (iii) January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, (iv) January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010; (l) what is the maximum number of paper copies of each edition that can be ordered by (i) an individual, (ii) a private business, (iii) a public organization, such as a public library, a university, etc., (iv) a person who holds public office, such as a city councillor, mayor or reeve, MLA or MPP, MP, etc.; (m) can the maximum number of copies in (l) be increased with the permission of departmental authorities and, if yes, who would authorize such an increase in the distribution of each edition; (n) what was the total number of paper copies of each edition distributed to each parliamentarian between (i) January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, (ii) January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008, (iii) January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, (iv) January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010; and (o) for each of the periods between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008, between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, and between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010, identifying for each request which of the two editions was requested, what was the (i) name of each parliamentarian who requested paper copies of either edition, (ii) number of paper copies requested by that parliamentarian, (iii) date the request was made by that parliamentarian, (iv) number of paper copies received by that parliamentarian, (v) date those copies were received by that parliamentarian?

[Petitions, March 10th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present a petition signed by over 1,000 constituents from my riding of Guelph who are calling on the Prime Minister to reaffirm the importance of Canada's national public broadcaster.

There is no denying that, like me, the signatories of the petition are strong believers in public broadcasting and strong supporters of the CBC and Radio-Canada. Their support and their affirmation of the CBC and Radio-Canada's importance is unmistakable, as stated within the first four words of the petition, “We love the CBC”.

The CBC gives a voice to people, communities, regions and issues that would not otherwise be heard or serviced. In addition to requesting the reaffirmation of the importance of the CBC, the petition also calls on the Prime Minister to provide the CBC with adequate financing by raising its current funding levels, rather than reducing them as planned.

I hope that when responding to the petition, the federal government will strongly consider the cherished memories the CBC has provided Canadians throughout its existence and support the calls for increasing CBC and Radio-Canada's funding.

[Petitions, March 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 280 more people in the riding of Guelph, I am presenting a petition calling on the federal government to bring forward and adopt Bill C-544.

The petitioners draw the attention of members of the House to the fact that Canadian horse meat products currently being sold for human consumption in domestic and international markets are likely to contain drugs that are strictly prohibited from being used in all other food-producing animals destined for the human food supply chain.

Thus, to protect the security of our food supply and to protect the health and safety of humans, the petitioners call upon the House to adopt Bill C-544, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act (slaughter of horses for human consumption) to prohibit the importation or exportation of horses, as well as horse meat products, for slaughter for human consumption.

[Mutual Insurance Companies, March 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has 106 mutual property and casualty insurance companies that were set up by farmers over 100 years ago at a time when it was very difficult for them to find insurance at a reasonable cost.

As a result of action taken by external sources, the Economical Mutual Insurance Company announced its intention to demutualize last December. Because there is no process in place for property and casualty insurers, the Minister of Finance will be asked to consider draft regulations.

The Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies is strongly opposed to professional consultants, brokers, directors, officers and selected staff from getting a windfall from the demutualization. Furthermore, in the case of Economical, a small minority of policyholders stands to share in the whole value of the company. This is wrong and should not be allowed.

I call on the Minister of Finance to give significant consideration to how value should be distributed during the demutualization of a property and casualty insurance company with the objective of finding fairness for all.

[Political Financing, March 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, not only did the former Conservative candidate in Quebec, David Marler, know the scheme was illegal and said, “It is gratifying to note that the Federal Court has come to the same opinion”, but former Conservative MP Inky Mark, when asked to participate, told Conservative bagmen, “No thanks.”

The Conservative senators involved in this scheme are guilty of giving the Conservatives a million dollar advantage they should not have had, yet refuse to resign.

Why does the Prime Minister's defiance allow Senator Gerstein, who faces jail time, to continue to raise money for him?

[Political Financing, March 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' devious in and out scandal has been confirmed now by judges of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Director of Public Prosecutions to have been illegal.

The campaign manager for the member from Simcoe smelled the stench of this scheme and refused to participate. Former Conservative candidate, David Marler, also rejected the Conservative conspiracy to gain power at any cost.

The government's pattern goes from deception and deceit and now to illegality. When will the government finally admit to election fraud, now admitted by its own members and candidates?