Sadia Groguhé

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I think the government is continuing to ignore the very people most affected by this. This reminds me of Bill C-11, where the people most concerned are being completely ignored. The same thing is happening with Bill C-18. The people most affected are being ignored.

The Conservatives think they are the only ones who can speak for all farmers, and that is simply not true. The fact that they are ignoring the plebiscite that was held proves that they are not listening to all farmers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I would simply like to tell him that my comments cannot be summarized by just the end of my presentation. I clearly stressed the essential role of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a vital component of the prairie economy, and the fact that dismantling it would be ruinous for farmers. We are in a very critical time, given our current economic situation, and I think dismantling it would be truly ruinous for all farmers.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to inform you that I will share my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

To be able to truly have a thorough debate on Bill C-18 and the negative implications it will have on prairie farmers, we must first answer some initial questions to learn about the history of the institution at the heart of Bill C-18. Where did the Canadian Wheat Board come from? What was behind its creation? What role did it play in the past in the lives of farmers? What role does it play today in the economy and lives of prairie farmers?

The Canadian Wheat Board, whose future is at stake in Bill C-18, is an organization that markets wheat, durum and barley for prairie farmers. Recognized as the largest and most successful grain marketing organization in the world, the Canadian Wheat Board, which is what Bill C-18 is all about, was created in the 1920s, when farmers in western Canada started to join together to get the best price on the wheat market.

It reminds us of the farmers' fight to protect their interests against powerful foreign companies that tried to crush and destroy them. In 1943, continuing that fight, farmers in western Canada opened a single desk that allowed them to sell their wheat through the board. The pooled sales that began through this single desk gave farmers a powerful voice in grain handling and transportation as well as international trade policy.

The board ensures that farmers get the highest overall returns as they have an effective monopoly on wheat sales since there are no competing sellers of western Canadian wheat. The single desk structure provided financial stability, prudent risk management and certainty of grain supply. In other words, the single desk contributed to progressive marketing of wheat in the interests of farmers, not of large American or other foreign companies.

The single desk continues to play the same role today, as the board is controlled, directed and funded by farmers. It is not a burden on the state and it is not government-funded. It was in this spirit that the act to create the Canadian Wheat Board gave the board the mandate to generate the best possible returns for farmers by taking advantage of the powers given to this single desk.

This organization continues to play an important role for farmers as well as for the economy in the Prairies. It sells grain all around the world and arranges for its transportation from thousands of farms to customers in 70 countries. About 21 million tonnes of wheat and barley are marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board each year. Given that 80% of the wheat grown in western Canada each year is exported overseas, it is easy to understand the major role that the Canadian Wheat Board plays. Yet the Conservatives want to dismantle it to benefit private companies that are more concerned about profit than about farmers, who create jobs for a large number of Canadians. Acting as a marketing agent for farmers, the Canadian Wheat Board negotiates international sales and passes the returns back to farmers, who spend them in Canada.

Clearly, the Canadian Wheat Board has real, tangible benefits for the economy of the Prairies. The Conservatives are attacking those benefits with Bill C-18. I find this completely unbelievable. What is the purpose of Bill C-18, which the Conservatives have brought before this Parliament? Bill C-18 proposes dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board; putting an end to the single-desk marketing of wheat and barley; replacing the board with an interim structure with voluntary membership; and privatizing it or dissolving it completely if, in the coming years, it is not profitable for any private firms.

Bill C-18 is a reflection of the neo-liberalism that underlies economic policy. Dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board would have a devastating effect on prairie farmers.

At a time when the Canadian economy needs measures to get unemployed Canadians back to work, the idea of doing away with the Canadian Wheat Board seems ridiculous and irresponsible.

That is why when prairie farmers—who would be the most affected—were called upon to vote on this government initiative on September 12, 2011, they rejected the idea, even though the government likes to tell anyone who will listen that dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board would be good for farmers. A majority of farmers voted in favour of maintaining the Canadian Wheat Board. Of a total of 38,261 farmers who voted, 62% voted to maintain a single desk for the marketing of wheat and 51% voted for the same for barley. Acting against the will of the majority is undemocratic and we will not accept it.

The NDP believes that in the current sluggish economic context, the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board would have an incalculable impact on the lives of farmers as well as on the economy of the Prairies, given the role that the Canadian Wheat Board has played and continues to play. Passed without any clear analysis of the repercussions it could have on farmers in western Canada, the measure to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board will be ruinous for them. The bill serves the interests of major American grain companies by allowing them to lower the market price for wheat and undermine the security of our own farmers.

If the Canadian Wheat Board is dismantled, Prairie farmers will sell as individuals, which could result in some farmers losing their farms to huge foreign companies.

Western Canadian farmers might experience the same fate their Australian counterparts did when they lost their single desk. Right now, the price of Australian wheat, which once commanded $99 a tonne over American wheat, has dropped, in just three years, to $27 a tonne below U.S. wheat. As a result, 40,000 Australian farmers who were running their own grain marketing system became customers of one of the largest agribusiness corporations, which is privately owned and based in the United States. Since 2006, Australia's national wheat sales have dropped from 100% to 23%. Meanwhile, 25 other corporations are competing to see how to make a profit on the discrepancy between buying and selling prices.

Let us make responsible decisions. Let us avoid putting our western Canadian farmers in a situation similar to that of their Australian counterparts.

I would like to remind the House that the Canadian Wheat Board sells Canadian farmers' grain products in 70 countries. All the profits from these sales—between $4 billion and $7 billion per year—go to the farmers. In 2009-10, the Wheat Board's revenue was estimated at approximately $5.2 billion and its administrative costs were approximately $75 million.

This is revenue that we will lose if we dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. By reducing the benefits that farmers receive from the Wheat Board by virtue of the fact that it is the sole seller of western Canadian wheat and barley, the Wheat Board's demise will no doubt affect the Port of Churchill and the farmers who deliver grain through the port, because the Wheat Board is the primary user of this port. Generally speaking, Wheat Board shipments account for 95% of the cargo that goes through the port. In a free market, private grain companies will have no incentive to use the Port of Churchill, since they have port facilities on the west coast, in Thunder Bay and along the St. Lawrence.

The demise of the Wheat Board will also affect producer car shippers and short-line railways in that farmers who load their own cars will save from $1,000 to $1,500 in preparation and cleaning fees per car that is shipped.

The demise of the Wheat Board will also have financial repercussions on Winnipeg and Manitoba. In fact, studies have shown that the Wheat Board contributes $94.6 million to Winnipeg's gross output.

In conclusion, dismantling such an institution in the name of blind neo-liberalism means sacrificing prairie Canadians to benefit foreign grain companies. We cannot support such a bill, which would mean supporting government control over the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his very informative speech.

My question for him is this: if we wanted to keep the title of the bill as is, a bill to modernize copyright, what are some of the main amendments he would propose?

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech and would like to quickly ask her what consequences digital locks would have on the industry.

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. He talked about compensation for piracy. What type of compensation was he thinking of and what form could it take?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. Earlier he talked about something that I think is essential and that is to have a vision. That is what is missing from this budget: vision. Concretely, in my riding, there are families in need who are likely to turn to food banks for help. Last week I was in my riding all week and able to interact with agency representatives and families. Unfortunately, even those who are currently employed have to get help from charitable organizations to feed their families. In that sense, I think this budget lacks a great deal of vision.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In fact, the hiring credit in Bill C-13 will not help at all to create jobs. Furthermore, the status quo for taxes on small business will have a serious impact on their budgeting and will not create new jobs. Small businesses in my riding are asking for assistance. Keeping these taxes will not help small and medium-sized businesses at all.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I back him completely with regard to the $50 per year increase. I have spoken to seniors who have been truly shocked by that amount. They told me outright that it does not do much for them.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, many of those who spoke before me talked to the House about poverty and about Canadians who are living in very difficult situations. More and more people are relying on food banks. That is a telling indicator. From coast to coast, Canadian families are having a harder time taking care of themselves and feeding, housing or clothing themselves. The cost of living is rising higher and higher for these families, and they cannot manage to make ends meet. They are finding it even more difficult to meet these basic, fundamental needs because of the current crisis, which is rocking the foundations of the world economy.

In Canada, the gap between the rich and the less fortunate is growing. The current crisis has a particular impact on the most vulnerable people in our society, such as single-parent families, seniors, welfare recipients and the unemployed. Even people who are employed are making use of food banks.

Canada 's economic and social situation is worrying. According to recent statistics, approximately 1.4 million Canadians are officially unemployed. That number is close to 2 million if we include those who have given up or are underemployed. The International Monetary Fund predicts that Canada's unemployment rate will rise this year to 7.6%. According to the projections of this financial institution, the unemployment rate will rise from 7.6% in 2011 to 7.7% in 2012 because our economy is growing more slowly than expected. This high unemployment rate is costing $20 billion a year in lost income, not to mention the losses in terms of economic stimulus and tax revenue.

No segment of the population is immune. Youth employment is considered to be a disaster. The youth unemployment rate reached 17.3% last summer, which is an increase from the previous year and from the pre-recession unemployment rate, which was under 14%.

As we all know, Canada's current economic situation requires measures that will help reduce unemployment, create jobs and support the economy.

On September 29, 2011, in his fiscal sustainability report for 2011, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that Canada's fiscal structure is not sustainable over the long term. Economists and other financial experts are constantly pointing out how fragile the current economic situation is.

In order to reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy, considering how fragile the current economic situation is, we need measures that will support the economy and create jobs. Bill C-13 is completely out of touch with the problems facing Canadians. Accordingly, the measures it calls for do not address the current economic imperatives or the problems facing Canadian families, seniors and youth hit hard by unemployment.

The measures proposed in Bill C-13 are based on forecasts that no longer apply, as demonstrated by the International Monetary Fund, and on minimal-state theories that reject social programs. The measures are unrealistic and completely out of touch, not only with the real needs of Canadians, but also with the general economic situation that experts are describing as fragile and shifting. The budget proposed by the Conservatives does not even begin to respond to the needs of Canadian families, who want concrete measures to create jobs and promote economic growth. The measures proposed in Bill C-13 do nothing to address concerns about employment, improving health care for all Canadians, strengthening pensions and taking care of seniors in need. The measures set out in the bill do nothing to promote job creation.

Bill C-13 is sacrificing Canadian families while offering large corporations lavish and substantial tax reductions, which are not even conditional upon job creation. These tax credits are granted even if the corporations do not create any jobs to respond to the challenge of unemployment. In other words, the reductions serve only to reward companies that already have employees, whereas the economic recovery needs new jobs to put Canadians who are looking for employment to work.

Furthermore, since they are based on a certain income level, the tax credits in Bill C-13 actually benefit only a very few Canadians, mainly wealthy individuals. They exclude many people who, because of their poverty, do not pay taxes and therefore cannot benefit from these tax credits. Seen from this perspective, it is clear the tax credit measures are just for show. For example, Bill C-13 talks about tax credits for family caregivers. Creating such a tax credit is not a sufficient response to the needs of people who take time off to take care of their loved ones who are ill, simply because they must have a sufficient level of income to be able to benefit from the tax credits set out in Bill C-13. A total of 65% of households with a caregiver declare a combined income of less than $45,000 and 23% declare less than $20,000. In short, most caregivers cannot benefit from the tax credits in question.

For this measure to provide direct support to caregivers, we, the NDP, are proposing that these tax credits be turned into tax credits for caregivers. That is a concrete measure that responds to genuine needs. And that is why a number of members who spoke before me have proposed that the child disability benefit be used as a model. Caregivers would receive a monthly non-taxable amount that would help them cover the costs associated with taking care of a sick family member. This type of credit would be of particular help to low- and middle-income caregivers.

Another example from Bill C-13 is the tax credit for medical expenses. This credit allows Canadians to claim medical expenses that are not covered by the public health system. But the problem is that this measure does not fix the underlying issue in its entirety—Canadians with excessive medical expenses that are not covered by our public health system cannot recover all the expenses they incur.

The NDP is calling upon the government to listen to the needs of Canadians by creating a national pharmacare program, which would reimburse Canadians for all their medical expenses.

This same inconsistency exists with the children's arts tax credit. Where will people who already have a hard time feeding themselves find $500 to invest in arts activities to benefit from this credit? The measure proposed by Bill C-13 regarding the partial forgiveness of student loans for doctors and nurses raises the same questions.

Canadian families deserve better. They want concrete action to create jobs and fix the economy, not the Conservative government's half measures. Concrete measures need to be taken—ones that target the real job creators—instead of tax cuts being handed to big business.

According to the IMF, long-term, stable economic growth depends on equitable revenue distribution. In light of the objections I have raised, we believe that Bill C-13 does not contain enough measures to support the economy and jobs in Canada. It should be rejected, pure and simple.