Philip Toone

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously for conservation of the registry.

What does the member say to Quebec police officers who use this tool on a daily basis?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly true that the challenge of family farms in this country is massive. We need to support them in any way, shape or form we can.

Agri-business already has a leg up. It does not need more support from the government. We need to have policies that are clearly designed to help the people of this country weather the storms that are ahead of them and give them all the tools that they need. That means supporting the single desk.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do want to respect the results of the last election. It is clear that the government has the right to introduce bills. However, the government should also respect the rights of democracy in Canada and allow those bills to be debated in a timely fashion.

Over 38,000 farmers participated in an ad hoc plebiscite. Well over a majority spoke and made their intentions clear. They want to save the single desk. The Conservative government's proposal in Bill C-18 is right off the mark and the government needs to listen to the farmers who it claims to so well represent. The government needs to bring those farmers' ideas forward and it needs to protect farmers' rights to continue to farm on their family farms.

Bill C-18 would not help farmers whatsoever. It would challenge farmers' families in the future. We expect that people will have to leave their family farms if we allow Bill C-18 to pass. It is not a democratic move. It is--

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in favour of our motion today.

This is an opportunity for the Conservative government to restore faith with the Canadian public and save an institution that has served farmers so well. Although it is seen as a success story around the world, the Canadian Wheat Board is being attacked by Conservatives with an ideologically driven agenda that favours wealthy middlemen at the expense of Canadian farmers.

The Canadian Wheat Board helps to ensure that farmers can sell their grain to the right buyer and that it can be transported effectively to that buyer. We live in a big country and a co-operative approach to accessing markets is a hallmark of our Canadian experience. Now is the time for us to once again commit ourselves to that co-operative approach and uphold our values in the face of corporate greed. In Canada, co-operation has allowed this country to survive and our co-operative approach is not only demonstrated by the wish of our farmers, it is also, frankly, sound economics.

Allen Oberg, a farmer and Canadian Wheat Board chair of the board of directors, stated recently that dismantling the Wheat Board single desk will “jeopardize a $5 billion export sector. It will shift money from the pockets of Canadian farmers into the hands of American corporations”.

Enriching foreign corporations at the expense of our farmers does not seem like good, sound economic management to me. It sounds like the Conservative government is deliberately risking the impoverishment of our farmers in order to benefit foreign corporations that do not need our help.

Results of a recent Canadian Wheat Board ad hoc plebiscite indicated that 62% of farmers voted in favour of retaining the single desk for wheat. The majority voted to retain it for barley also. With over 38,000 farmers participating, this plebiscite is clearly indicative of the popular vote.

As a gesture of good faith, before any changes are made to the Canadian Wheat Board, the government should study the impact that dismantling the single desk would have on our farmers and economy. The Conservative government should stop its single-minded approach and hear the objections of our farmers and their families. Farm families deserve the government's support far more than a bunch of wealthy agri-business middlemen.

However, the Conservative government seems to lack the will to reflect on its actions. Single-mindedness has led to a complete lack of openness to hearing the other points of view. It certainly has no intention of allowing debate to slow the Conservative express train's transfer of our grain to big city corporate interests.

For example, we had only been debating the bill on eliminating the Canadian Wheat Board single desk for a single day when the government decided to invoke closure and stifle debate. This has to be some sort of a record. The Conservatives are prepared to stifle debate and silence opposition, but to what end? These Conservative Party members used to tell us that they would do things differently and would encourage healthy debate. They seem to have changed their tune.

I will repeat what I said in this House only a few days ago. On March 31, 2004, the leader of the Conservative Party, then in opposition, stated, “The government invoked closure in the House after only six days”.

The leader of the Conservative Party was clearly incensed that a government would be so callous as to invoke closure after only six days of debate that he was willing to call the governing party on it. I completely agree, but the Prime Minister should heed his own advice and reopen the debate on this undemocratic move.

What is the point in forcing an end to debate when the fundamental issue of farmers' rights to decide for themselves has clearly not been heard? The Conservative government seems to have a tin ear when it comes to regional needs. What was its slogan in the last election?

“Our region in power.” It seems to me that the real region in power, at least in the eyes of the Conservative government, is the one between the minister and the boards of multinationals.

The Conservatives seem focused on attacking our regions and everything that affects the families of small and medium-sized producers. In my riding, fishers are the biggest producers of food products. Yet, the government has eliminated the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which was created in partnership with our fishers. This council was created in 1993, after the cod moratorium was announced, in order to determine exactly what the situation was with fish stocks. Each year, the council took a stock inventory, and fishing quotas were based on that data. It was a wonderful example of co-operation between the government and fishers. It was an independent body that generated reliable data. It was because of this partnership with fishers that the council was so successful at helping us manage a crucial resource for eastern Canada's fishers. The council has a proven track record, yet the government shut it down without any warning.

If we do not support the single desk system that is the Canadian Wheat Board, small producers, fishers and fish plant workers, as well as western farmers and their families, will be the ones who suffer the consequences.

The effect that this will have on grain farmers is not our only concern. We must also think about the spinoffs generated by the Canadian Wheat Board. One example of many is access to railway services. The construction of the railway to Churchill, Manitoba, was completed in 1929. Today, the Canadian Wheat Board is by far the largest user of the Port of Churchill, with its shipments accounting for 95% of the port's cargo. Grain is transported by railway in producer cars at an affordable price.

Without a single desk system, it is doubtful that the Wheat Board's competitors will want to use the Port of Churchill as much as the board does since they have their own port facilities on the west coast and in Thunder Bay. The Port of Churchill does not interest them. We believe that they will even want to favour their own facilities elsewhere. The Port of Churchill and the railway will be at risk if we do not protect the single desk system.

The railway in my riding is also at risk. Most of the forestry companies have shut down, and we find ourselves with a railway whose only reliable customers are passengers. Given the privatization of our railway by CN, like the privatization of the railway leading to Churchill in favour of Omnitrax, the railway must be profitable to be attractive to private companies.

We are not questioning the fact that the main routes must be profitable. They are subsidized without too many questions being asked but, to date, it does not seem as though this government is terribly concerned about the railways.

The people in my riding have been reflecting on our railway. Similarly, the people of northern Manitoba should consider how viable their railway will be if the Canadian Wheat Board single desk system is not supported.

The Wheat Board has a much greater role than simply managing the transportation and sale of grain. The Wheat Board supports the economy and infrastructure of a number of communities.

Canada's northern infrastructure is at risk. Our northern railways and the Port of Churchill have taken years to develop and communities have been built around them. Yet, the Conservative government is telling people who depend upon them and their largest client to just go and let the port shove off.

Removing the single desk will risk lower grain prices for producers, which means that farmers will suffer. Farmers may leave the industry. The lower prices will certainly not be passed on to consumers. No. Experience tells us that middlemen, the large corporate agri-business interests, will profit from lower prices and they will not pass on their savings.

The Conservative members are so fixated on their ideologically-driven agenda, they have become deaf to the voices of the farmers, the very people they claim to be helping. Clearly, it is not the needs of the farmers that are being addressed here. It is the desire of large foreign-owned corporations to have cheap access to our grain. It does not need to be this way.

In taking away farmers' rights without real debate, the Conservative government has proven that it has become too self-righteous for its own good. Against such opposition, how can the Conservatives remain deaf to the needs of farmers? We need a plebiscite, the law requires it, and it is only right.

[Newfoundland and Labrador Fishery Rebuilding Act, October 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I will do my best to be very brief.

I rise in the House today in support of my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl and his bill, Bill C-308.

Like my colleague, I represent a riding that relies on fisheries for its livelihood. Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine is made up of two regions that rely on fishing. Particularly in the islands, the fisheries form the bedrock of this community's culture.

The short title of the bill is the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery rebuilding act. I am impressed by the focus for the bill, which is on rebuilding.

In the bill's terms of reference, it commits to conducting an inquiry:

—without seeking to find fault on the part of any individual, community or organization, and with the overall aim of respecting conservation, rebuilding and sustainability of all fish stock and encouraging broad cooperation among stakeholders.

Rather than ascribing blame to any group or individual for the gradual collapse of one vital fishery after another, Bill C-308 focuses instead on how the federal government can take responsibility for the mismanagement of the east coast fisheries.

It requires the government to hold an inquiry into the reasons why the fisheries have collapsed and how the stakeholders can work together to rebuild the Newfoundland fisheries.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the minister to get a grip on reality. Fishers are worried about the cuts at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. People from the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands have already suffered enough because of poor management of fish stocks. Now the government is adding to that by cuts in search and rescue. The industry's future and the fishers' safety are being threatened by these cuts.

Will the government commit to maintaining funding at Fisheries and Oceans Canada to guarantee the future of our fishers?

[Forillon Park Expropriations, October 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in 1970, the Quebec government expropriated the homes of approximately 225 families and the land of 1,500 people in the Gaspé to allow the federal government to create Forillon Park. The people expropriated still feel very bitter about it.

Last February, the members of this House apologized. It was the long-awaited first step towards reconciliation. Forillon Park then gave the expropriated families a pass granting them free access to the park. Other measures have been or will be implemented.

I would like to point out that, yesterday, in the National Assembly of Quebec, a motion to apologize to the people expropriated from Forillon was introduced by the provincial members for Matane and Gaspé, Mr. Bérubé and Mr. Mamelonet. The motion was unanimously adopted by Quebec MNAs. Thus, another step was taken yesterday to ease the pain of those expropriated from Forillon Park.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government is clearly disconnected from the reality of fishers. We even wonder whether the government is still interested in the future of the fishery. If it is, then why abolish the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council? Canadians rely on Fisheries and Oceans Canada to make decisions based on science, as well as on those who know best: the fishers themselves.

How can the government manage the fisheries without any expert advice? Is it throwing in the towel?

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, fishermen from the Pacific coast all the way to the Grand Banks of Newfoundland—including the Gaspé and the Îles-de-la-Madeleine—are worried. Their livelihood, their way of life and their safety are being jeopardized by the cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The government is making cuts to research, management and rescue without thinking about the consequences.

Why has the government abandoned fishermen?

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

Madam Speaker, the minister keeps referring to this side of the House as being full of hypocrisy.

I will quote several remarks made in the House on previous occasions by his leader.

On March 31, 2004, his leader said:

No real reform at committees, instead the same old games the government is playing with public accounts. The government invoked closure in the House after only six days.

I point out that we have only been debating the bill for a day and the government already is invoking closure.

There is no reform or election of Senators. He is driving opponents out of his party, appointing candidates and playing with the election date as a personal political football.

On October 1, 2002, his leader said:

The government has used closure and time allocation more frequently than any previous government.

The government has been using time allocation procedures a lot more. Why the hypocrisy?