Leon Benoit

[Petitions, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, under current federal law an unborn child is not recognized as a victim with respect to violent crimes.

Olivia Talbot of Edmonton was shot and killed in November 2005. Her 27 week unborn son, Lane, Jr., also died, but because no legal protection for unborn children is in place, today no charge could be laid on behalf of baby Lane.

The petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation which would recognize unborn children as separate victims when they are injured or killed during the commission of an offence against their mother, allowing two charges to be laid against the offender instead of only one.

I am sure that this is a petition which is supported by all members of the House.

[Income Tax Act, October 30th, 2006]

That was the last government.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 24th, 2006]

That of course includes durum as well. That is what this bill is about. It has nothing to do with the Wheat Board monopoly. This issue should be pretty simple.

I am going to talk about the Wheat Board in a broader way right now. The issue of the Wheat Board and what it should be is a difficult issue. I am the first to acknowledge that. It is an emotional issue. Farmers are split on the issue. It is an ideological debate.

We have to take the ideology out of the debate and bring it back to one fundamental issue. What is best for farmers who grow wheat and barley, which are board grains? That is what we have to turn the discussion to and away from what we have discussed so far.

It is important to look at the history of the Wheat Board. I have heard members erroneously refer to the history of the Wheat Board and how it got started. They have been completely incorrect in what they have said. I want to point out how the Canadian Wheat Board was founded, why it was founded, and how it got its monopoly and that type of thing.

I believe the Wheat Board actually was first established in the 1920s. It was established because farmers would take their grain to their local elevators and the companies in many cases would get together and set a price, but the market was not working. People were using horse-drawn wagons, so it was pretty hard for them to take the grain back home again because the market was unfair. The Wheat Board was created to help deal with this.

There were founding principles of the Wheat Board, carefully thought out and written down. These were the same founding principles that covered the establishment of all the wheat pools and the pools that were established before that and after that. The Canadian Wheat Board was established by farmers to protect farmers, and its main principle was that it be a voluntary organization, that no one would be forced to use it. That is the reality. That is the truth of how the Wheat Board was established.

Where did the monopoly come from? The monopoly was put in place during the Second World War in the early 1940s. Why was the monopoly put in place? It was put in place to allow the Canadian government to get cheap grain from Canadian farmers at well below market value to help with the war effort in Europe.

Was that wrong? It was not wrong the way it was presented to farmers. Everybody had to do their part for the war effort and they did a lot. The farmers were promised they would be compensated after the war for their grain being taken from them by the Wheat Board monopoly, but it never happened. Not only did it not happen, but the monopoly was not removed after the war effort, after the war ended. It was left in place.

Members here talk about a vote on the Wheat Board. Was there a vote when the monopoly was put in place? No. It was done in the cabinet room behind closed doors. There was no vote in the House of Commons. It was put in place and forced upon farmers to get cheap grain for the war effort. Nobody can deny that. That is history. That is the truth.

I only say this so that when we are examining this issue we can do it in an honest fashion, knowing how the monopoly came about and knowing the founding principles of the Wheat Board, the main one being voluntary participation. Again, I want to point out that this is not the same position taken in the member's bill. I would never say that, but I am saying that there is a relevance issue. This certainly is not in the member's bill, but it is an important consideration when we are talking about the whole debate on the Canadian Wheat Board issue.

It really concerns me when I hear the member from Thunder Bay. What is his great concern about maintaining the monopoly? His concern is about protecting the port and the shipping industry in his riding. What about grain farmers? I say fine, he should be standing up for people in his riding, and that is good, but by gosh, let us talk about the Wheat Board issue and keep in mind what is good for farmers.

Then we heard from the member from Quebec. What was important to him? It certainly was not the interests of western Canadian or prairie grain farmers who are covered by the monopoly. It was not that.

Let us go to the members of the NDP. This is ideology for them. It really has nothing to do with what is good for farmers.

So who is looking out for what is good for farmers? Members of the Conservative Party of Canada are. We are the ones who are looking out for what is good for farmers.

What we want to do with the Wheat Board is a difficult thing for all of us to deal with. All the members of the Conservative Party are talking to farmers in our constituencies because we represent those constituencies. We certainly are having that discussion with the farmers in our constituencies and trying to determine the best direction to take to give them more choice in marketing.

What we have said is that two things have to happen. First, western Canadian grain farmers have to be given more choice. Second, whatever is done has to be to the benefit of western Canadian grain farmers. Those are the two really important things when it comes to this debate, not the things that the member for Malpeque or members from other parts of the country want. They have no vested interest in this legislation and their constituents have no vested interest in this legislation. It is not what they want that is important. It is what western Canadian grain farmers want.

I see that I am out of time, Mr. Speaker, which is unfortunate. I have a lot more to say. I will talk about it at another time.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to speaking to this bill for some time. I would like to thank the members who have just spoken to the bill tonight in the House.

The member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River asked how much Wheat Board grain is grown and shipped in Thunder Bay. The answer is none. It is not even covered under the Wheat Board monopoly.

The Bloc member for Québec asked how much Wheat Board grain is produced in the area where he is from. The answer is zero. The Wheat Board monopoly for some strange reason does not cover that area either.

What about the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Sault Ste. Marie? The city of Winnipeg to my knowledge does not produce an awful lot of Wheat Board grain and Sault Ste. Marie is not even covered. It is not even in the Wheat Board area. It is interesting that not one member from the other three political parties represents an area that is covered by this particular legislation we are talking about today.

I want to thank my colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, for bringing this bill forward. It is an important bill. I would like to thank him as well for the work he has done as chair of the House of Commons agriculture committee. He has done a lot of good work in that position.

I would also like to thank the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands who has done an awful lot of good work on the Wheat Board for the Conservative Party and on behalf of farmers. Those two members are trying to help improve the role of western Canadian farmers, and those are the farmers who are actually covered and limited by the Wheat Board monopoly right now.

This bill actually has nothing to do with the Wheat Board monopoly. It has nothing to do with it, yet what have we heard all of the speakers talk about tonight? They say that somehow this is going to kill the Wheat Board and end the monopoly, when in fact it has nothing to do with that. It is important to clarify that.

I want to point out exactly what this bill is intended to do. I would like to remind the hon. members that the intent of Bill C-300 is to allow prairie farmers to market their wheat and barley directly to processing facilities owned by prairie producers. It sounds like a terrible thing to allow. People must think to themselves, “What is he talking about in this bill? I had better reconsider. He is talking about allowing prairie farmers to ship their wheat directly to processing facilities which are owned by prairie farmers themselves. That is a terrible thing”. It is amazing that we are standing here talking about this at all.

In other words, they would not have to go through the Canadian Wheat Board to sell their wheat back to farmer owned processing facilities. That is what this legislation is about. It seems obvious and logical that it should be supported by every member of the House. I would assume that if members were to listen to what it is actually about, they would in fact change their positions and support the bill.

To speak to the intent of the bill, it widens the marketing choices for farmers and encourages more producers to get into the value added side of the business. We all know that right now farmers could use the boost and really need the boost that would be provided by allowing them easier access to the board grains, wheat and barley, which would be used in processing facilities.

[Petitions, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, Olivia Talbot of Edmonton was shot and killed and her 27 week unborn child, Lane Jr., was also a target of that attack and was killed. No charges could be laid because there is no protection for an unborn child today under our law.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation where the unborn child is recognized as a separate victim of an attack when he or she is injured or killed at the same time as the pregnant mother is injured or killed.

[Committees of the House, October 18th, 2006]

That is the Liberal leadership race you are talking about.

[Petitions, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in current federal criminal law, an unborn child is not recognized as a victim in respect to violent crimes. A vast majority of Canadians would support laws to protect unborn children from acts of violence being committed against the mother. Studies have shown that violence against women actually increases when they are pregnant.

Therefore, these petitioners are calling on Parliament to enact legislation which would recognize unborn children as separate victims of crime when violent crimes are being committed against the mother.

[Conservative Party of Canada, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, democracy is alive and well in the Vegreville—Wainwright constituency and in the Conservative Party of Canada.

Despite the fact that the last election was only eight months behind us, I was challenged for the nomination. No member of Parliament really likes a nomination challenge, but I fully support the right of party members to do just that.

This commitment to the democratic process is something we simply do not see in the Liberal Party, where Liberal MPs are being protected from nomination challenges.

I thank all 2,100 members who got involved in the process for caring enough to come out and vote. I also thank the members of the board of directors of our EDA, who worked hard to make the process work.

Finally, I commend all Canadians who buy a membership in any political party and get involved in democracy at the grassroots level. To them I say that they are the true protectors of democracy in this country and I thank them for that.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the last two New Democratic Party speakers on this issue. Their failure to be informed on the issue is quite astounding.

The member who just spoke talked about the deal as though it is something that is not supported by the industry. That is false. In fact, it is supported by the industry wholeheartedly. It is a good deal for Canada. It is a good deal for the forestry industry. It is something that has been lacking in this country for a long time now. Instead of standing up and speaking against the deal, the NDP should be congratulating this government for arriving at a deal.

The NDP members talked about a billion dollars going to the Americans to be used by their industry to fight the Canadian industry. I would like to correct them on that. The meritorious initiative is $450 million, almost half of that billion dollars, and that fund is being controlled by a non-profit organization to carry out acts that are going to help. When we look at who is involved in that organization, we see that in fact it will give opportunities to the Canadian lumber industry to sell lumber. There will be opportunity for Canadians to be involved in those initiatives in many ways. It is not money going to the American government at all. That has been mis-portrayed.

In terms of the dispute settlement mechanism, which was mentioned by one of the previous members--

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not be commenting on the actions of any particular beaver or anything like that. I do not know about that. I will have to take the member's word for it.

What I will say is that the member's suggestion that we could ever end the litigation within my lifetime is simply naïve. It would not happen. It is not a real option, nor is a completely free trade agreement in softwood lumber with the United States. It is not on the table and is not going to happen. It is a naïve position to take. I would love that to happen. I would love it to happen in agriculture. It would solve most of the problems that farmers have. It would solve a lot of the problems that the softwood lumber industry has, but it is naïve, it is not realistic and it is not going to happen. Let us just put that issue aside and deal with reality.

The member suggested that by signing this deal Canada is giving up sovereignty. That is simply not the case. The reality is that if there are some major changes, for example if there are problems in the industry that require a high level of harvesting, and we have seen that with the pine beetle, it allows the flexibility to deal with that. It is as good as we could possible have it. The deal shows its flexibility. I think the member has defeated his own argument in that area.