Peggy Nash

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-18 and in support of the Canadian Wheat Board. The board is the largest and most prosperous grain marketing board in the world. It sells grain around the globe. It makes arrangements for shipping grain from thousands of farmers to consumers in over 70 countries. In an average year, the board puts some 21 million tonnes of wheat and barley on the market.

In addition, all profits from these sales, between $4 million and $7 million a year, are paid back entirely to farmers. The board does not hold on to any income, apart from what it needs to cover costs and manage the financial risks.

The board mitigates the risks run by farmers, particularly concerning late payments, selling grain to buyers at inappropriate times and shipping the grain to buyers. This is a key problem, considering the large geographic area of the Prairies.

Batch selling has also allowed farmers to have a significant influence on the handling and shipping of grain, and on international trade policies. The board works in partnership with the industry and the government to promote policies concerning trade, transport and other areas that benefit wheat and barley farmers in western Canada. The board has defended farmers remarkably well in cases of unfounded trade disputes and has won important victories that resulted in better fees and rail service.

The board's single desk structure has ensured financial stability, sound risk management and secure supply chains, an indisputable advantage for farmers.

Furthermore, the Canadian Wheat Board is not a government-funded agency or a crown corporation. The Canadian Wheat Board is not funded by Canadian taxpayers. Farmers pay for its operations from their grain revenue.

Ten of the 15 members of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board are elected by farmers. Farmers consistently elect a majority of directors who support the single desk structure.

The Conservatives have no mandate to go against the wishes of prairie farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board is controlled, directed and funded by farmers. Farmers should be the ones to decide the future of the marketing organization that they run and they pay for.

They have made their decision clear. The results of the Canadian Wheat Board plebiscite released on September 12 show that a strong majority of farmers want to maintain their ability to market wheat and barley through a single desk system. Sixty-two per cent of respondents voted in favour of retaining the single desk for wheat, and 51% voted to retain it for barley. A total of 38,261 farmers submitted mail-in ballots in the plebiscite, a participation rate of 56%, on par with the last three federal elections and higher than many municipal and provincial elections.

Canada runs the risk of losing $200 million to $500 million a year in board price premiums.

The board manages a supply chain from gate to plate. It has an enviable international reputation for its quality and uninterrupted supply, its service and superior technical support.

Grain sales made under the exclusive jurisdiction of the board guarantee a secure supply of grain, thus guaranteeing strategic and orderly sales. This gives farmers a competitive advantage in the international grain market. On their own, farmers would have to sell by auction. They would have to decide whether or not to sell depending on the circumstances, a gamble that could cost them their farm.

In fact, many studies carried out by well-known agricultural economists, based on data compiled by the board, concluded that the single desk model allows Prairie farmers to bring in millions of dollars more per year than on the open market.

The dismantling of the single desk system will have a serious impact on communities across the Prairies. A 2005 economic impact analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the Canadian Wheat Board contributes a gross output of $94.6 million to the city of Winnipeg. In addition to its more than 400 employees at its head office, PricewaterhouseCoopers calculated spinoff employment from the Canadian Wheat Board to be more than 2,000 jobs, with a total labour force income impact on the city of more than $66 million. At the provincial level, PricewaterhouseCoopers put the Canadian Wheat Board's gross output contribution at $323 million with more than 3,000 jobs and a total labour income impact of more than $140 million.

The Conservatives have argued that the Ontario experience with removing the single desk can be applied to western farmers, but one cannot compare apples to oranges. The examples are completely different. Ontario wheat farmers produce wheat for pastries, cookies and cakes. They have a ready market available locally. In contrast, prairie wheat farmers produce hard red spring wheat which does not have an extensive local market. Ontario wheat farmers sell about 90% of their product within Canada and the northern U.S., but 80% of the wheat grown in western Canada each year is exported overseas. That means while Ontario farmers have low transportation distances and costs, prairie wheat farmers must pay freight costs to transport grain long distances to inland terminals and to port.

Of course, the other crucial difference between the Ontario experience and the measure being discussed here is Ontario wheat farmers ended their single desk system through a farmer-led democratic process. Prairie farmers have voted in favour of keeping the Canadian Wheat Board and face having it taken away against their will.

A better comparison can be found in Australia. Western grain farmers can look to Australia to know what is in store for them when the single desk is eradicated, and it is not pretty. When the Australian wheat board had its single desk power, wheat could command a premium of over $99 a tonne over the American wheat, but by December 2008, it had dropped to a discount of $27 a tonne below U.S. wheat. In three short years Australia's 40,000 wheat farmers went from running their own grain marketing system, virtually all of Australia's wheat, which was 12% of the world's wheat production worth $5 billion, selling it on their own behalf, to being mere customers of Cargill, one of the world's largest agribusiness corporations, which is privately owned and based in the United States.

Before making any changes to the board, the government must study the impact of its dismantling and analyze the effects this would have on Canadian grain farmers. Otherwise, it is playing Russian roulette with the Prairie economy and with the revenue sources of western farmers.

Allen Orberg, a farmer and chair of the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, has said that this government's imprudent approach will derail the Canadian grain industry. It threatens the future of a sector with $5 billion in exports every year. It will take money out of the pockets of Canadian farmers and give it to American corporations.

In closing, the important thing is to give farmers a say. They have voted. They want to keep the Wheat Board. It is incomprehensible that the government would override the democratic will of farmers and dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

[The Economy, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, once again, that is cold Conservative comfort for Canadians. It is not much of an answer.

The Conservatives' stubborn insistence on slashing taxes for profitable corporations is just another gift to wealthy CEOs and shareholders. It increases inequality and does nothing to help the 99%. Experts keep telling the government that there is no economic logic to such a policy.

Will the minister please explain to struggling Canadian families why CEOs come before them?

[The Economy, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian index of well-being, published by the University of Waterloo, shows increasing inequality in Canada under this government. The benefits of economic growth are not evenly distributed. The top 1% of income earners benefited from 30% of the economic growth and Canadian families have a higher level of debt than ever before.

Why are the Conservatives offering such generous tax breaks to the banks, while leaving Canadian families to fend for themselves?

[Taxation, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, things are getting so much worse for young families. Families are tired of the same old failed Conservative policies, no plan to create jobs and no plan to make life more affordable. Families today have a lower standard of living than their parents. CEO salaries are now one hundred times that of an average Canadian. Banks get richer. Young families are squeezed by bills and debt.

Why are the government and the minister ignoring the needs of young Canadian families?

[Taxation, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, young families are feeling the squeeze from all sides. They are struggling to raise their kids, pay their bills, take care of their parents. The cost of living is skyrocketing while incomes have stalled. The average family makes just over $68,000, the same as in 1976, and yet Canada's top CEOs now average whopping $6.6 million a year.

Why are Conservatives adding to this inequality? Why will they not help out struggling Canadian families?

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I am convinced that the Ukrainian embassy here in Ottawa is probably taking note of this take note debate. I know that people of Ukrainian origin and people who believe in democracy across the country are watching this debate and appreciating that all parties have come together to express their concern about recent events in Ukraine and that we are united in wanting to foster institutions that will help promote democracy in Ukraine. People want to see concretely what Canada can do to help.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress has been very clear in terms of actions Canada can take in helping Ukraine to move in the right direction. We want to fully support those recommendations. We know that Canada will continue to play a big role going forward with the situation in Ukraine.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.

Indeed, Canada currently provides a great deal of aid to Ukraine. Perhaps now is the opportunity to change the orientation of this aid and start training journalists and legal experts to help democracy.

A great deal of care is taken in the maintenance and growth of democratic institutions for the future. Canada has a special relationship with Ukraine and I believe that we can provide a great deal of help.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, my colleague asked about corruption and the relationship with this latest situation with Mrs. Tymoshenko. It is about trust in democratic institutions. If the average person does not believe there is transparency and that institutions are accountable and working for the population, then people do lose trust. There is a relationship between unhealthy and corrupt institutions and an undermining of people's belief that democracy is possible.

That is why, as my colleague was remarking previously, it is important to have young people come here to study and participate in institutions like Parliament through the internship program. It is important to have exchanges, like several of us as parliamentarians have done, where people go as election observers to see the institutions in Ukraine, and help to strengthen the democratic capacity of Ukraine.

People are very worried. The Ukrainian diaspora around the world and Ukrainians are very worried because once things start to slip backwards, people fear losing all the gains they have made.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for her question. Canada has very close ties with Ukraine, and we can help Ukrainians in many ways, especially the youth. They have a lot of hope and ideas for the future. They want their country to be better in the future. Exchanges can be a great opportunity for them to see how our democracy and universities work. It is an important investment for Canada, and I continue to encourage our government to make this type of investment. It is a great boost to democracy in Ukraine.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, it is a privilege to be part of this debate this evening on the important topic of current events in Ukraine.

This happens to be the 120th anniversary of Ukrainians in Canada. This year we have been celebrating the incredible legacy of that 120 years of Ukrainian achievements in building our country. We are proud of our special relationship with Ukraine.

My riding of Parkdale--High Park is home to the largest Ukrainian street festival throughout North America. We have a large Ukrainian community. It is home to the Taras H. Shevchenko Museum.

Many of us have been to Ukraine, as my hon. colleague mentioned, as election observers, including in 2004 in what was called the Orange Revolution. We saw the incredible determination and passion of Ukrainians for democracy and human rights. It was inspiring. People camped out for months at the Nezalezhnosti Square in downtown Kiev in Ukraine.They inspired the country in their quest for democracy after tainted elections had occurred. Those of us who had the privilege of being there as election observers saw the genuine desire of the majority of Ukrainians to have free and fair elections. Many people said to us that they just wanted a normal country. They wanted to see the normalization of Ukraine.

While Ukraine is an old and historic country with a long history, it has only 20 years of modern independence. There is real concern that the country is slipping backward.

The manner in which the arrest, persecution and conviction of Yulia Tymoshenko was carried out by Ukrainian authorities is deeply troubling. With the sentencing of the former prime minister to seven years in prison, the Ukrainian government under President Yanukovych has reached an alarming new low in the deterioration of democracy and the rule of law in modern Ukraine. The apparent political bias and arbitrary prosecution in this and other cases hamper Ukraine's democratic development. A legitimate and active opposition is a vital part of a vibrant and effective democracy, as we see in the House.

There are clear signs that the court proceedings that occurred fell far short of internationally recognized norms of fairness, transparency and due process. The verdict was the product of a politically motivated trial that did not meet international standards and seemed aimed at silencing a member of the opposition a year before elections.

We believe that a fair and independent judiciary is an essential branch of democratic governance. As vice-chair of the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group, I join with my colleagues in urging Ukraine to strengthen its judicial independence and capacity.

EU officials have said that they would like to see both Mrs. Tymoshenko and several others, her jailed cabinet ministers, released by Ukrainian authorities before signing a new association agreement with Kiev that marks the first step to membership in the EU. It is hard to see how any agreement with the EU can be signed as long as Kiev rejects a core value of European democracy, namely that elections, not courts, are where politicians settle their differences.

This debate is about far more than the fate of one Ukrainian leader. It really goes directly to the question of whether the Ukrainian government respects basic human rights and its international commitments and whether Ukrainian citizens receive equal treatment under the law.

It is now more important than ever for Canada and our European allies to work together to make clear to the Ukrainian government that the benefits of Euro-Atlantic integration will not be available to Ukraine so long as it violates the values of freedom, political pluralism, and the rule of law that lie at the heart of the Euro-Atlantic community.

We urge the Canadian government to strengthen judicial independence and capacity. These are necessary to the peaceful, democratic and prosperous society Ukraine is striving to become, and Canada will continue to support its efforts in that direction.

Further, the Canadian government must in no uncertain terms communicate its concern to Ukrainian officials, including requesting assurances that Yulia Tymoshenko's constitutional rights will be fully respected.

Canada also has to be clear that negotiations for a Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement cannot be advanced as long as the Ukrainian government refuses to guarantee the protection of human rights, rule of law and democracy in that country. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress is arguing strongly for these provisions to be included.

In closing, as part of our strong relationship, we have a Canada-Ukraine parliamentary program which this year has brought for the 21st time more than 30 talented students to the Canadian Parliament to work with a number of MPs to experience democracy in action. It is our help with Ukraine for democracy building.

These talented interns working with us, one of whom I have in my office, represent the new wave of young and promising citizens of Ukraine. They work hard every day and dream about the better future for their home country. I encourage them and all Ukrainians to do their best and never give up believing in the bright future of Ukraine, and most important, working toward great change in their lives and in the life of their country.

Today we all wish to see a great country and its talented people succeed in overcoming the legacy of its difficult past and continue to build a democratic, stable, prosperous and harmonious society within Ukraine based on respect for national and religious minorities and strong, mutually respectful relations with its neighbours and beyond.

As we say in Parkdale—High Park, slava Ukraini, slava Canada.