Kevin Sorenson

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this place to again speak to the subject of Afghanistan.

I almost wish I was rising to ask a question of the person from whom we just heard who said that it is the role of cabinet to make the decisions about whether or not we are in Afghanistan. I am thankful that we have a Prime Minister who brought this to Parliament. Although we were not the government that sent our troops there, we supported the government in doing so. We also recognize that it is not just the role of cabinet. All Parliament should hear.

It is a real privilege to split my time today with my colleague, the member of Parliament for Prince George—Peace River.

I have the privilege of serving in this Parliament in a number of capacities, one being as chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I want to commend all members of that committee from all parties and say that again we have the privilege of studying the issue of Afghanistan and Canada's role there.

It is important that we have this type of debate. We have had it in the past. It is important for Canadians to get as much information as possible about what our troops are doing in Afghanistan. It is not an exercise that Canadian troops and Canadian governments take lightly. We want to make sure that we are making certain achievements, and we see that, and it is good that Canadians can hear that today.

First, Canadians should be proud of the men and women of our troops, who are serving not only Canada in Afghanistan, but serving NATO and the United Nations. Afghanistan is a country that is emerging from years of war and destruction. Afghanistan is a country that is looking for hope. Its people understand democracies to a certain degree and they want to try to achieve a democratic country.

In this country, we know that it is not just a general election that forms a democracy, but rights, values, principles and the rule of law, all those things. Canadians wish to extend those same rights and those same benefits to countries and regions all around the world and very specifically to Afghanistan.

Canada is working hard to support this process. Not only are we working hard to back our military, our defence and our troops, but we are working very hard to support the process of extending human rights and those priorities that Canadians have.

Our soldiers, our Canadian development workers and our diplomats are helping Afghans pursue their legitimate aspirations of peace and security and a guarantee of a better future for their country and for their children.

The progress made by the people of Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban regime has been very impressive and we must take every opportunity to ensure that Canadians are aware of their own role in this success.

Today I would like to tell members of the House of Commons about what Canada has done to help develop and support development in Afghanistan.

A number of speeches have been given, and there will be more, but I want to look specifically at one of the issues that has come forward at our committee, and that is how women's lives very clearly have been changed in Afghanistan. I want to take a very brief look this afternoon at how we have made an impact for the women in Afghanistan.

We know that these women bear the lion's share of the responsibility for looking after the health and the educational needs of their families. In many places, the men, the husbands, are out working, but the mothers and the women of the communities are the ones on whom a great deal of the burden falls.

When the women have the opportunity to participate more broadly in their communities, development progress takes place at a greater pace and their families benefit even more. For that reason, Canadian development assistance places a priority on ensuring the equality of women.

In Afghanistan Canada has helped over 300,000 Afghans, 72% of them women, to obtain small loans and financial services to start their own businesses, their micro-businesses, or to purchase tools so that, even very primitively, they can become engaged in agriculture and farming in order to facilitate and meet their families' needs.

Another Canadian project supports the renovation of up to 4,000 community schools. For the first time, many young girls are able to attend these schools. Extracurricular activities are created around the schools so that these children and these communities find something to do with their time, something that is going to enhance their communities. Through all these schools, 9,000 teachers will be trained. This project, whose essential goal is to educate girls, has a budget of $14.5 million.

Why is the government responding in this kind of way? Because we recognize the importance of making sure that boys and girls and men and women get the type of education that is needed in the long term. It is not just to solve the problem of getting them into schools now, but to solve the problem in the long term so that we can see productivity in a country where it has been so badly lacking over the years.

Last fall the Minister of International Cooperation announced another project, with a $5 million budget, intended to help some 1,500 Afghan women develop horticultural operations in home based gardens. By growing fruits and vegetables, they supplement their families' diets, they supplement their families' incomes, and they generate an income and again become productive.

Canadians are encouraging women to participate in local development. More than 16,000 community development councils have been elected across Afghanistan. On many of these councils women are participating for the first time as full members, making important decisions and playing a role in how these projects can be delivered to improve, for example, public health in Afghanistan. As well, the women are the ones who are making decisions on the curriculum and the education for their communities.

Canada is working to make women's rights known in Afghanistan. Again, it is not simply that we want to educate the children. We want Afghans to know what is acceptable when it comes to women's rights. We have helped to open centres where women can get legal advice, find shelter, take literacy training or obtain health services.

We are supporting the democratization of Afghanistan. The country has adopted a new constitution. It has held presidential and parliamentary elections.

I am not certain of the percentage of women in our Parliament. The other day here many people wore pins that stated, “Elect more women”. I know that 25% of the parliamentarians in Afghanistan are women, a higher percentage than Canada's. They are contributing in that manner and they are showing the country that there is a place for them in their democracy.

We are promoting the education of girls. Today 5.5 million Afghan children to go school. A third of these children are girls. This is something that country has not seen before.

These initiatives show the very concrete steps that Canadians are taking in Afghanistan to help Afghanistan rebuild. There is a long road ahead.

Today in committee, a former journalist and an expert on Afghanistan, Mr. Van Praagh, stated the following in his presentation: “Democracies and would-be democracies near and far will suffer a great defeat in the greater game if Afghanistan, Canadian credibility and NATO effectiveness are lost”.

I ask members to listen again as I repeat it: “Democracies and would-be democracies near and far will suffer a severe defeat in the greater game...”.

What is that greater game? It is the greater game of spreading these rights and freedoms, the democracy, the values and the principles that we appreciate here, and this will suffer a great defeat if the credibility of Canadians and NATO there in Afghanistan is lost.

We can make a difference in that country. Canada has always looked for places where we can make a difference. It is one thing to talk about sending aid here and sending aid there, but when we are in a place where we can make a difference and when we make that difference, let us make sure that we continue to do that. Let us make sure that we continue to do the fine job that we are doing.

[The Senate, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as part of our campaign promise for democratic reform, our Conservative government put forward Bill C-43, which establishes the national process for consulting Canadians on their preferences for Senate appointment through election. We have recently learned that Senator Dan Hays, who holds the seat from Alberta, will be retiring from the Senate after it rises for the summer.

Could our Prime Minister advise the House, Canadians and Albertans on how he will be filling this vacancy?

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

The member, not the minister. We had that once and we do not want to go back to that.

Option two was, “I would like the option to market my barley”, and the majority chose that.

The third option was:

The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in the marketing of barley.

I do not know if the member for Malpeque was around when oats were taken away from the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not know if he is aware that canola is not marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board. It appears he is aware, but it did not collapse. It did not fall apart.

The offices of the members from Winnipeg are still in Winnipeg and people still have jobs, but oats is no longer on the board. I encourage the folks from Toronto, Prince Edward Island and all across the country who are so concerned that those jobs will be there tomorrow. Those jobs will be there. Canadian farmers have the ability now to say, yes, to the Wheat Board or to someone else.

I would encourage the member not to be so opposed to freedom for our farmers. They should be given the ability to make those decisions themselves. Some members in the House believe in big government. They believe that government should be and do everything for everyone. The member for Malpeque thinks that government should make the decisions for farmers. I disagree.

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

The minister shouts across the chamber and says it is impossible. If choice is given, the Wheat Board will collapse and fall. I fear what the question would have been if the member had designed the question.

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I absolutely believe the member has every right to come to this place and debate an issue. This has been an issue that the member has been involved with for a long time, but that does not make him right. That does not make the individual correct in his assessment of this.

He is questioning the questions that were asked. He asks why they could not have been made a little clearer. In all the calls to my constituents and all the rehashed NFU letters that kept coming through to my constituency, 90% of them from Saskatchewan, very few talked about the questions that were being asked. The majority of farmers thanked me for the opportunity to decide which best would represent what they would like to see for the Wheat Board.

The member reminds me of Chicken Little, who runs around saying, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling”. The member does not believe in the Canadian Wheat Board. He said that if it were opened up, it would collapse and fall apart, that there would be no Canadian Wheat Board. I encourage him to have more confidence in its directors, to have more confidence in the ones that are in control of the board.

Competition in a free market society is good. Competition makes one better. Competition gives us the ability to improve on the way we do business.

I want to read into the record the three questions that were put on the ballot. Farmers were asked to select one of the following three options on the ballot.

The first option was:

The Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets.

If I wanted to see the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board, and I do not, I would have posed a much different question. I would have said, “Considering the fact that a large majority of farmers do not like the Canadian Wheat Board, should they retain the monopoly that it has had for far too long?” A question could be drawn up that would be remarkable, but this question asked whether it should retain the single desk. It does not talk about a monopoly for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption. It spells out clearly where the grain is sold: through the Canadian Wheat Board.

The second option was:

I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.

That is choice.

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am really encouraged today to stand in this House and address the issue of the barley plebiscite. I think that it has been a very good day for western Canadian producers.

I sat and listened to members from the other side. Do they have the right to speak? Absolutely, yes. I wish they would put up a speaker who is a farmer from western Canada. I wish that the Liberal side would put up at least one producer who would stand in this House and say that they felt this was good or bad. But they do not. They brought people from the cities to explain to farmers why they believe farmers messed up on this.

It is a great day today because farmers had the opportunity to let government know the direction that they wanted to go in regard to how their barley would be marketed. It is a momentous day for western Canadian barley growers.

As members know, barley producers were given an opportunity to express themselves in a consultation with the government on how they wanted to market their grain and they spoke. They spoke very clearly.

Of the Alberta farmers, the province I come from, 78% said that they wanted the ability to market their own barley. Liberal opposition members are standing and saying they should not have that right; they erred; they made a mistake. Those Alberta farmers, the Liberals are saying, are not aware of the best ways to market their barley or their grain.

Today, the results of the barley plebiscite are in: 62% of those across the west who participated have told us they want to remove barley from the Wheat Board monopoly. They do not want the single desk Canadian Wheat Board to be the only avenue that they have to market their barley.

On this side of the House, we have always believed that western Canadian grain farmers should have the freedom to choose how they market their grain.

At the same time, as a government, we want to ensure that we maintain a very strong, viable, but yes, voluntary Canadian Wheat Board. It is something that we promised in the last election and it is a promise that I believe now Canadians can see we are working to keep.

Our commitment to farmers, the barley and wheat producers of western Canada, has been to give them the opportunity to use their own skills to market and to find the best possible return that they can find for their product, to give them the chance to succeed, and to give them the freedom to make their own choices on how to produce and how to market their crops, whether it is through a strong Canadian Wheat Board or some other mechanism.

In this plebiscite, we asked a very clear, honest question.

In fact, if I were wording the question, I would not have worded the question in the same way. I would have made it very clear that choice number one was for a single desk monopoly where it was only through the Wheat Board. That question was toned down. It did not talk about a monopoly; it simply talked about a single desk Canadian Wheat Board.

We asked a clear question and we got a clear answer. The question is whether farmers want to maintain the Wheat Board monopoly on barley; to have the option to sell to whoever they want, either domestically or internationally, including the Canadian Wheat Board; or to remove the Wheat Board, choice three, from any role in the marketing of barley.

We actively encouraged all eligible barley producers to vote to ensure that their voices were heard.

I want to thank the minister at this time for having the confidence of going to the producers of western Canada and saying, “We want to hear from you. This is decision time. We want to understand which choice best reflects the direction that you would like to go in the marketing of your barley”.

Nearly 30,000 farmers from western Canada responded; 30,000 farmers took the opportunity to participate. Nearly 50% voted for the second choice, option two. About 48.2% voted for option two, the option to market their barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.

A further 13.8% selected option three. They said that they would prefer if barley was similar to oats and canola, and was absolutely removed from the Canadian Wheat Board, and so that it would have no role in marketing their barley. In fact, those 13.8% unlikely said that the Wheat Board had done such a poor job in cases where it was selling their barley that they would rather just go out and find their own markets.

I am not certain I would agree with that. I think it is important to continue to have that choice. That is why I am pleased that the huge majority have opted for choice.

Taken together across the west, 62% of barley producers want to change the status quo. They do not want it the way that it has been for as long as they can remember. They recognize that new technologies, new abilities, and a new style of farming gives them now the opportunity to market and they look forward to it.

Western Canadian barley growers have spoken very clearly. The Minister of Agriculture has said that he intends to move decisively to act on their expressed preferences in order that producers and the entire sector have clarity in the market, and that they know that coming into this next crop year next fall that they are going to have those opportunities that they have waited so long for.

The Minister of Agriculture will be consulting with the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board about the changes that we will be making. We will move forward with this marketing choice.

We should all remember that producers take all the risks and they make all the investments on their farm. We are coming to a time now where we are preparing for the spring and where farmers have got their grain cleaned. They have their seed ready. They have spoken for their fertilizer. They have their plan in place. They know what they are going to be planting and when they are going to start if the weather permits. The farmers take all the risks. They study the variety of barley or the variety of grain that would suit best the land on which they farm. They take the risks.

On this side of the House we believe that they should not be punished. They should not be put in jail for pursuing opportunities outside the Wheat Board that make good business sense to them.

The Minister of Agriculture will propose regulatory changes to the Canadian Wheat Board regulations with the intention of removing barley from the board's single desk authority by August 1, 2007.

Barley growers are encouraged to plant this spring with confidence, that the government is listening, and that the government is working to let them decide how they wish to sell their grain this fall.

The regulations that are being proposed will permit producers to make the economic and marketing decisions that are right for their particular operation and to allow them to maximize the returns from the sale of their barley.

We are noticing that there is a very strong demand for western Canadian barley. There is a demand in Canada and there is a demand abroad. Under the new regulations, western Canadian producers will have the choice of selling their barley to the buyer of their choice. It might be a grain company. It might be a market that they seek out and find. I know that many of our organic producers at this point in time, the ones that I know in my riding, are very good at seeking out their markets in other countries, in the United States particularly, and sometimes in other countries.

They are willing to do that. They are willing to sell to this buyer, but now there will be people competing for their commodity and for their barley.

The government will continue to guarantee the Canadian Wheat Board's borrowings and initial payments under the conditions set out in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The changes will not alter the export guarantee programs of the Government of Canada.

As well, to those who like to scaremonger and frighten producers with stories about losing their advance payments, let me remind the House that cash advances are currently provided to farmers under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act. That program is available to a wide range of producers and barley producers. They will continue to be eligible for cash advances in the marketing choice environment.

When this debate began, that was one of the questions that I had. As a young farmer I always appreciated the ability to get the advance and the ability to get those cash dollars up front, so that I could put money down on input costs and the like. Is that being taken away? The answer is no.

We have been clear from the beginning that we believe in giving producers a choice. That is what we have done with the barley plebiscite. We let producers have their say on an issue that impacts their business. We made a promise to give them the opportunity and today they have responded. They have said that they want to grab that opportunity.

The farmers who received their ballot, sat down, read the questions, and studied and talked to their neighbours, answered very strongly today that they want the ability for choice and the ability to market their own barley. We are going to give them that choice, that ability and that opportunity.

Since taking office just over a year ago, Canada's new government has made it a priority to listen to producers and to respond to their concerns. In budget 2007 we announced new investments in renewable fuel production that will help Canada's farmers capture new opportunities in the growing bioeconomy.

This is a major commitment by the Government of Canada to not just western Canadian producers but to all producers. We now have a case where farmers have a commitment to 5% biofuel or ethanol by 2010. Farmers know that there will be a market should they decide to grow canola, barley or grain that would be used for this biofuel industry.

We had farmers come here from Camrose and from my constituency. I have been speaking to individuals from Stettler, Beiseker and Kneehill County. All of them are farmers who have talked to us about the importance of what they were hoping the government would do and consequently what we did do in budget 2007. It is important to grow canola and not just use it as a feed, for the oil or food value, but now to be able to use it for fuel value. This government was committed to agriculture when the canola producers, the industry, said that they needed parity with the United States.

They said they needed 20¢ on biodiesel and 10¢ on ethanol. The government obviously listened and responded in the 2007 budget and said that we are going to make that commitment, so that the agricultural industry, especially in the west, can benefit. Not only does it benefit but all of Canada benefits.

We have come into the green fuels. We now see that there are huge benefits for all but especially for those who are in areas where they grow canola and areas where they can contribute to this type of industry.

It is not just the producers who are going to benefit, it is the communities. It is communities like many in my riding of Crowfoot that have been looking for primary industry, that have been looking for start ups so that young people can stay, work and have a future in our rural communities. The new Conservative government is listening and it has responded.

Again, in all the talk about what has gone on here today, I have not heard one western Canadian farmer from the Liberal side stand up and give us any indication why the Liberal Party is not on board with the plebiscite that gives farmers the choice.

Not only are we committed to the biofuel industry and the 10¢ a litre, but we will ensure that industry knows right now, when it looks at where to place that plant. Far too often, I have heard rumours that every 11 days there is a new plant starting in the United States. Every 14 days there is a new ethanol plant. Every 11 days there is a new biodiesel plant. We never had a commitment from the former government. That is why we saw all this production and processing go to the United States because the previous government was not committed to it.

This government recognizes the importance of not just a strong agricultural sector but strong rural communities. This is the kind of initiative that will build up our rural communities. These are the kinds of initiatives that will give new hope to the young people and to all in the industry.

This new investment not only puts in $2 billion over seven years to support the production of renewable fuels of ethanol and biodiesel, but it also gives $500 million in renewable fuel programs and incentives that have been put into place since this government has come into office.

These investments are important. We do not call these only expenditures on the expenditure side of the ledger. These are investments and they are an important step in helping Canada achieve that all important 5% average renewable content by 2010.

I am proud of this government. Since the election last January, I have seen a government that has been hard at work, a government that has brought forward its vision for the country. It has been repositioning Canada, not just at home but abroad. Many people have come to me and said, “I'm proud again to be a Canadian”.

Now we are hearing more and more farmers calling and saying that they are proud of the direction in which the government is going. We have had very steady action on agriculture. I look forward to seeing the opportunities that lie ahead for western Canadian barley producers and Canadian agriculture as a whole.

It is an exciting time to be a Canadian. It is an exciting time to be a western Canadian farmer. As a farmer myself, I think the opportunity now of perhaps having a son who may want to stay on the farm is much greater than it has ever been before. Someone has told me that handing the farm over to one's son is not so much an inheritance as it is a sentence. That is changing and now young people are saying that there is hope in the family farm.

I am on a farm. My grandfather moved up from Minnesota in the winter of 1905-06. For over 100 years, we have been on the family farm and family ranch. It has grown somewhat. I have purchased other land that was in the family, but it feels good to say that maybe there is a future for our children coming up. It is direction like this that gives hope for all farmers, where they can see that now somebody has listened to what they have said, to what they have requested. We have listened and we have acted.

I thank the Minister of Agriculture for the positive action he has taken. I thank him for his strong commitment to agriculture. I thank our Prime Minister for his leadership.

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity today to speak to a number of farmers from my riding but not the farmers who I would have expected to hear from.

I spoke with a cattle producer from Bashaw, Alberta, who raises registered Angus cattle. He said that he understood why it was important to have a choice in how barley was marketed but he also said that we should make no mistake about it, that if the Wheat Board were taken away, the price of barley would go up. The Wheat Board is holding down the price of barley.

If the member opposite is an expert on the Canadian Wheat Board, would he please tell me whether, in his viewpoint, the price of barley will now go up or down?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety. My question deals with much of what his portfolio would include.

I chair the foreign affairs committee and I have had opportunity to travel to different parts of the world. In some places in the world the rule of law is prevalent and in other places it is not so prevalent. When tourists and visitors come to this country, one of the things they appreciate is that Canada is a country that is firm and strong in its values, but it is also a country where the rule of law applies. Canada is respected around the world as being a safe, law-abiding type of society.

The government has a very strong commitment to defence, to the military, but also to policing. As an ex-police chief, could the hon. member tell us a bit more of what this budget does? I know dollars have been allocated for a national drug strategy. We are not only talking about cracking down on crime, on gangs, on drugs. The government is making the dollars available. We have seen a diminishing in numbers of police officers. Could the member tell us what this budget does on home security?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has been a member of Parliament since 2004 and represents his constituency very well.

As members of Parliament, we often wait for the next day. The Minister of Finance comes to this place and delivers a budget and we wonder what our constituents will say the next day. Being on the government side, we wonder if they will accept it, or question it or have certain concerns about it.

Calls into my constituency office have been very positive. Constituents recognize the fact that the budget delivers for farmers. The budget delivers for agriculture with the biofuels initiative, the capital gains increase from $500,000 to $750,000, the changing of the CAIS program and much more.

Most people who have called into my constituency office in Camrose have said that this government gets it. The government understands that Canadians are paying too much tax, and we have taken a major step in providing Canadians with a family-friendly budget.

The member talked a bit about what the budget did for families. It provides a new $2,000 child tax credit, providing up to $310 per child of tax relief to over three million Canadian families with young children.

On Saturdays, I have the opportunity to go to rinks or gymnasiums to watch my son or daughter in different sports. I have had the opportunity to speak with many young families who have told me that this type of initiative is something for which they have asked for a long time.

Could the member comment a bit on how this will help constituents in his riding and how it will help young families?

[Human Rights, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today I welcome Ms. Nazanin Afshin-Jam to Ottawa. She is a singer, songwriter, model and former Miss Canada and most impressively, a human rights advocate.

Recently she successfully led a campaign to free an Iranian teenager who was condemned to death for defending herself and her niece from attempted rape by three men.

Ms. Afshin-Jam is in Ottawa to testify before the Subcommittee on International Human Rights tomorrow. Her testimony is important and Canadians know that our government is diligently working to protect the human rights of Iranians.

Just last week, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration granted asylum to an Iranian jailed for demonstrating against his government.

In light of the efforts and the numerous documented stories of political persecution in Iran, I urge all hon. members to take notice of the mass injustice in Iran and the need for significant change.