Leon Benoit

[Petitions, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents and others are upset with the sentence given in the Shane Rolston murder case and believe that in the case of other crimes, sentences simply do not match the crime committed.

The petitioners go on to say that the Young Offenders Act is not effective in deterring criminal activities in youths.

The petitioners call on Parliament to re-evaluate the sentences handed down to criminals to ensure that sentences are adequate in comparison to the crime, regardless of age, class or race.

[Democratic Reform, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, after just 14 months in Parliament, the Conservative government has already implemented many of the democratic reforms advocated by my constituents for the past 15 years.

For example, we have instituted fixed election dates, banned corporate and union contributions to political parties, implemented a five year ban on lobbying for ministers and others, protected whistleblowers, and enhanced the ability of the Auditor General to follow the money to more effectively scrutinize spending.

However, when it comes to making the Liberal dominated Senate more accountable, things are not going quite as well. In fact, Liberal MPs have stalled on allowing elections for senators to replace those who are forced to leave the Senate because they have reached the age of 75. Unbelievably, the Liberal dominated Senate has held up for almost a year a two paragraph bill which would replace lifetime appointments with eight year terms.

While the Liberals continue to stand in the way of democratic reform, this Conservative government is taking action to restore accountability through democratic reforms.

[Petitions, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present, on behalf of the good people of Lloydminster, a petition which states that the protection of children from sexual predators must be a top priority of the government. They note that studies show that 14 year olds and 15 year olds are the most vulnerable to exploitation, including recruitment from pimps.

The petitioners call on Parliament to enact through the Criminal Code an act to protect these vulnerable members of our society, and they ask that this Parliament raise the age of sexual consent from 14 years to 16 years of age to help protect our most vulnerable.

[Committees of the House, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade in relation to Canada's trade policy. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, a government response is requested.

[Petitions, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of constituents on protecting our children from sexual predators.

The petitioners have noted that organizations such as the Canadian Police Association, a number of provincial governments and a parliamentary committee have all called for raising the age of consent. They have also noted that studies show that 14 and 15 year olds are most vulnerable when it comes to sexual exploitation. They are calling on Parliament to raise the age of protection on sexual consent to 16 years from the current 14 years.

[The Senate, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Prime Minister announced that he will appoint Albertan Bert Brown as his first popularly elected senator when Senator Dan Hays retires this June. This is great news for Albertans and it is great news for Canadians.

Through our Senate election bill, we are strengthening democracy in Canada.

In the past, prime ministers have consulted ministers, MPs, friends, family, party members, and a whole host of other special interests before they made a Senate appointment. They, however, have not consulted the most important group of people of all: the Canadian public.

Now, the leader of the Liberal Party has criticized the Prime Minister's decision to appoint Bert Brown. Could it be he is just upset because during the 2004 election Bert Brown got more votes than all the Liberal MPs in Alberta combined?

We promised to modernize the unelected, unaccountable Senate, and that is exactly what we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had to take advantage of the opportunity to speak to this issue. I have heard several speakers today during the debate. In fact, I have followed and been a part of this discussion for 40 years. So little has changed in that time and that is a problem. It simply is not acceptable.

Finally our government made a commitment to give farmers a say on the issue, particularly on barley marketing. We asked the farmers three questions. We gave three options to farmers in the plebiscite. The first option, and I will read it again:

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

For that option, 37.8% of farmers chose it.

The second option:

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

For that, 48.4% of farmers chose it.

The third option:

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

For that option, 14% of farmers chose it.

The results are that 62% chose to operate other than through the monopoly provided by the Canadian Wheat Board. The choice was clear.

Our government now will move ahead, changing the regulations as necessary. We hope in time for the new crop year, August 1, we will be able to put in place this freedom of choice in marketing barley for Canadian farmers within the Wheat Board area. Farmers outside of the three prairie provinces and the Wheat Board portion of B.C., which is a small portion, have had a choice for the past several years. It is only people in that restricted Wheat Board area who have been fettered by a monopoly, unfairly so, and we are now changing that.

I want to talk about that monopoly. How was it put in place? It was put in place originally in 1918. For what reason? To get cheap grain for the war effort. After the war, what happened? It is interesting to read the words of the MPs who were in the House at that time. They made a decision, and it was clear to them, that it was not appropriate to restrict the marketing of farmers with a monopoly other than for the war effort. They removed the monopoly.

Therefore, the Wheat Board operated between 1918 and 1942 as a voluntary board, which is exactly option two that we offered in the plebiscite. Farmers had a choice. They could market through the board or any other way they chose. That was the choice from 1918 to 1942.

Then what happened? The monopoly was put in place in 1941 or 1942, again, for what reason? So the government could get cheap grain from farmers below market value for the war effort. Farmers did not like that. They lost a lot of money. The government promised it would pay them back later and get rid of the monopoly after the war. It did not do that. After the second world war, the monopoly was not removed, and that is the only reason we have had the monopoly of the Wheat Board since then.

The monopoly was put in place, not to give farmers a better price for their grain, but to buy at below market value for the war effort. That is the way the monopoly has worked. That is the reality of what has happened.

I am here to say that our government has finally removed that monopoly, at least for barley as we promised to do, and farmers have quite enthusiastically supported us. In Alberta, almost 80% of farmers supported removing that monopoly.

I am delighted by that. It is progress. Wheat is an issue for another day. Our government has always said and made it clear, that we wanted to give farmers the option to either market through the Wheat Board, keep that in place, or to market any other way they saw fit.

I am a farmer. I have about 2,000 acres of grain land. I do not farm any more, but I rent it out on a crop share so I still sell grain. I am delighted that I, as a farmer, finally have this choice.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are so many questions and so little time. The issue that was brought up by all of the speakers from the opposition parties is that the second option presented in the plebiscite should not count. That option reads like this:

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

All the opposition members today have somehow judged that the option just would not work. Almost 50% of farmers who voted selected that option. What those members are saying is that the 50% of farmers who voted just do not know what the heck they are talking about. That is what they are saying, that the farmers chose an option that is not realistic.

I disagree. Fifty per cent of farmers who voted, or more, clearly disagree. Sixty-two per cent of farmers supported choice in marketing, the option to either market through the Wheat Board, which will remain, or to some other market as they choose. That is what they chose clearly in this plebiscite.

I do not know why all the opposition members are saying that the second option somehow is not realistic. I would like the member to explain that.

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

Mr. Speaker, this member and all the other Liberal members who have spoken today have led us to believe that farmers who voted in the plebiscite were too stupid to understand question number two.

They have said clearly that question number two, which was, “I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer” was simply not possible. Yet, 48% of all farmers who voted chose that option. The Liberals have said that they believe those farmers simply did not understand that that option was possible, to operate under a system that included the Canadian Wheat Board or marketing of some other option.

I would like to ask the member opposite, does she honestly believe that farmers who voted in this plebiscite were simply too stupid to understand the second option?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will read the questions just so people will know exactly what questions were asked in this plebiscite. The questions were simple, straightforward questions.

The farmers were given three options:

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

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

Third: “The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in the marketing of barley”.

The questions were clear and the results were decisive. Sixty-two per cent of farmers said that they wanted to operate under a system where there was no monopoly, no single desk selling.

If those members are saying that somehow that was not an appropriate result, then they are saying one of two things: first, that KPMG, the well-respected consulting firm that carried out the vote, checked the ballots and did everything to ensure that the only people who voted should have voted, that they only cast one ballot and those types of thing, is not respected and not trustworthy; or second, they believe that somehow farmers do not know what they are doing.

I respectfully suggest that farmers knew exactly what they were doing and they did the right thing. I am delighted with the result and I am looking forward to the changes that will come in the months ahead so farmers will have a choice in marketing barley.