Ralph Goodale

[Canadian Wheat Board, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman continues to deny the effectiveness of the democratic process that has been put in place with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board.

He would impose his judgment upon the Canadian Wheat Board rather than trusting in the confidence of the 10 farmers who have been elected to run all the affairs of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The issue with respect to organic farmers has been raised in the House for a number of days. I have also received some correspondence on the matter. As promised, I will make sure that this is laid before the directors for their consideration.

[Canadian Wheat Board, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. gentleman and his constituents to discuss the procedure directly with the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would also point out, as I said in response to a previous question, that under the directions of the Canadian Wheat Board there is now a producer direct sale program in place with a lower administrative charge that can be of assistance in these circumstances.

[Canadian Wheat Board, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, again I make the point that the place to begin the dialogue with respect to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board is with the duly elected directors of the Canadian Wheat Board where farmers make the decision and not politicians.

I point out that on December 8 of last year the Canadian Wheat Board board of directors announced a new producer direct sale program for organic producers. Producers will now have an expanded and improved option for marketing their organic wheat and barley themselves.

[Canadian Wheat Board, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what I pointed out in the House last week was that when the original legislation to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act was put forward in the predecessor to Bill C-4, we attempted to include a specific procedure for dealing with the jurisdiction of the board, either the expansion or the diminution of that jurisdiction.

It was at the insistence of the opposition that explicit procedure was removed from the draft legislation.

[Natural Resources, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right to draw attention to National Forest Week.

Nearly half of Canada's land mass is covered by forests. We are home to 10% of all the world's forests. The sector employs more than 750,000 Canadians in more than 350 communities and contributes nearly $20 billion to Canada's GDP, plus immense social, cultural and environmental value.

All Canadians must be dedicated to sustainable forest management, as is the government. To get the full story, people can consult the Government of Canada online at www.nrcan.gc.ca.

[Tokamak, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, an organization called Iter Canada, which is largely involving the private sector, including I would point out a number of private sector firms from the province of Quebec, is promoting the notion of an Iter location in Canada at some future date.

The Government of Canada has not contributed millions of dollars. One million dollars is what the Government of Canada has contributed over a three year period to support the activities with respect to siting.

I would point out with respect to Tokamak that upon the withdrawal we provided full compensation, as required under that program.

[Seniors, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources Development, obviously the situation of elderly people is a matter of importance to all Canadians.

We have over the years in Canada developed a system including the OAS and the GIS which provides for senior citizens. It is one of the most comprehensive and generous in the world. We are always looking for ways to improve upon it. The commitment to the elderly in Canada will continue to be a characteristic of the government.

[Canadian Wheat Board, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, just to refresh the hon. gentleman's memory about the course of that legislation which went through the House of Commons a couple of years ago, in the original draft of that legislation proposed by the government we laid out a proposed procedure for changing the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board one direction or the other. It was the opposition that insisted that be removed from the legislation.

[Canadian Wheat Board, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. gentleman what part of the word democracy he does not understand.

The Canadian Wheat Board is governed by a board of directors that is two-thirds controlled by farmers who are elected by farmers. The debate we had in the House two years ago was to democratize the Canadian Wheat Board, to get rid of the old commissioner system, and to put decision making and accountability in the hands of farmers. It is up to the board of directors to make those decisions. I encourage it to be pro-active in doing so.

[Employment Insurance, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, again I point out that the hon. member is referring to a specific case that was subject to a ruling by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. It was the commission that made the unanimous decision to pursue a judicial review of the umpire's ruling because it appeared to go beyond the specifics of that particular case. It is important to seek clarification on that point.

I remind the House that the government has moved to improve the employment insurance system to make it more sensitive to the very concerns the hon. member has referred to, some of the concerns that were reflected in the particular—