Tony Martin

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that for a second, but there are supports that volunteers need to do that work effectively.

More and more we find volunteers being asked to do work that is sophisticated, technical in nature and it requires a certain level of expertise. They need training, support and sometimes they need transportation. There is a whole bunch of things that well-meaning volunteers need to have in place if they are to do their work and be effective.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important motion brought forward by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. I will be splitting my time with my NDP colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I have a few things that I want to say on behalf of the veterans in my own community and across the country and on behalf of my caucus in response to some of what I have heard so far in the debate. There may be a fair bit of confusion on all sides where this issue is concerned. I would recommend very strongly that the House take the advice of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who has worked on this issue for a long time and knows about what he speaks.

We should take a chance and step up with courage on behalf of our veterans and pass the motion. Let us get it into committee so that folks can come forward and make their case to all of us. Together we can come up with a bill to meet the needs of the veterans and of the government in terms of being accountable and managing finances responsibly. I would suggest very strongly that is the attitude we should take on the motion before us.

Having said that, I am a little disappointed that we still have not heard clearly from the government members whether they are going to support the motion and allow it to go forward. I am pleased that the Liberals and the Bloc are going to support my colleague and our caucus in this effort. It is an important and noble work that we do here. We do a lot of work in this place, but I do not think there is much of it that can be classified as noble in the same way that today's motion can be classified.

All of us have veterans in our ridings who are struggling to make ends meet. They are trying to participate and to contribute, but they are finding it hard because the cost of living keeps going up. They have been hurt in many instances. They came back from the war with skills that in many cases were not adaptable to the workplace at that time, and even more important, the workplace that is there now. They struggle. They are trying to find a way to make ends meet. They are not as lucky as the member for Edmonton Centre who was able to go on to a career in finance and then to become a member of Parliament with all that means in terms of income, security and support.

Many of the veterans in my community are poor. They struggle from day to day to pay the rent, to feed themselves, to look after their families, to clothe themselves. They want to participate in the community. They want to go to the odd hockey game and enjoy the life of the community. They fought across the water so that we would be free to do just that.

We stand here today, in particular the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, to drive this agenda. We ask respectfully for the support of the House to sent the motion to a committee so that we can deal with some of the issues that have been raised and which have to be addressed. I do not think there is anybody here, including the member Sackville—Eastern Shore, who wants to put something through simply because it is the emotionally feel good thing to do. We want to do it because it is the right thing to do. We want to do it because it is the smart thing to do. We want to do it because it will help veterans in the long run.

I say to the members of the government caucus, and I often say this to myself in terms of my public life and the work that I do as a member of Parliament, if one cannot be helpful, at least do no harm. The do no harm position where this motion is concerned is to move it forward because veterans are expecting us to do that for them and with them.

I want to address another issue that was raised by some of the members, that possibly the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore went to bed one night, had a dream about how wonderful it would be to do this, that and the other thing on behalf of veterans, got up the next morning, wrote it down, and decided to introduce it as a motion in the House. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, and the member for Edmonton Centre has given him credit for this, has worked long and hard on this file. He has worked directly with veterans over a long period of time. He is known in this place and around the country as a bit of a champion on behalf of veterans. I think he would probably be recognized in any legion hall, which he walked into, as someone who stands up, is not afraid, has courage and speaks passionately and emotionally on behalf of veterans.

What he brings before us here today is the result of work done by veterans and veterans organizations. They looked at the situation within which their members had to live on a day to day basis in their communities. They met with their veterans. They asked them what they thought the government could do to help them in their situations, such as poverty, health issues, lack of good housing and transportation, all the challenges that men and women across the country face on a day to day basis, particularly some of our veterans who have been hurt, who have emotional scars, who perhaps have lost family and are trying to keep it all together.

They tapped into the emotional vein of those who went and did a job that not many of the rest of us would have been willing to do. They put their lives on the line to ensure that we could continue to enjoy the freedom, peace and good government. Then when they came back, they perhaps found themselves in a situation where they felt, in the quiet of their room, as they reflected on this at night, that maybe no one really cared or maybe what they had done was not important.

Therefore, one of the ways we can indicate to them and to our men and women in the armed forces, going forward, is to ensure that all of them are well looked after and helped.

I know in my community, and in the community that I grew up in as a young man after I came to Canada from Ireland in 1960, the legion was the centre and heart of the community. Legion members back in the 1960s and 1970s were young. They worked at the plants. They coached hockey and baseball teams. They were fathers and mothers of the children who went to school. They ran the PTAs. They were on the school board. They were the heart of our community.

When our community celebrated, we went to the legion hall. On a Friday night in Wawa, the adults would be drinking, dancing and singing in the basement while upstairs was teen town. We would all be there having a great time listening to music, having sock hops.

Under this rubric of do no harm, the cuts the government has made recently will affect our veterans as well, cuts to housing, literacy and particularly, to the volunteer not for profit sector. It is the volunteers in our community who support and look after these people, who were the heart and soul of our community. They are now our elders, our seniors in their waning years. The volunteers in our community ensure they have a quality of life that speaks of dignity and respect. The government has cut serious money out of the programs and the ability of those volunteer not for profit sectors to do this job.

If the government is going to do that, then maybe it needs to be doing something else to make up for it. This is one way it could do that.

I appeal particularly to members of the government caucus, and I know the Liberals, the Bloc and ourselves will do this, to move it forward one more step so we can get it to committee, so we can have that very important, real and intelligent discussion about what the right thing is to do. We can sort out the numbers. Is it $2 billion or is it $300,000 to $500,000? There is a difference of opinion on the numbers as we go forward. We can do the math in a number of different ways.

I ask the member for Edmonton Centre, knowing where he comes from, what his experience is and his passion for this, to work with us to move this ahead, to do the best we can with what we have and at least salvage--

[Government Programs, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, not only is she confused, but she is wrong.

It does not matter how the minister spins this. Her ministry took the largest hit and it is driving poverty through the permafrost. Homelessness in Canada's most prosperous cities, Victoria, Calgary and Toronto, is growing at an alarming rate.

I am going to Calgary and Saskatoon next week to meet with the homeless, people who work with the homeless, people working to eradicate poverty. Will the minister join me and see for herself?

[Government Programs, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, every report on income security released in the last six months indicates poverty is growing deeper and more pervasive.

I have been consulting across the country and people tell me the recent cuts by the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development are hurting the poor disproportionately.

Why will the minister not stand up for her ministry and fight these cuts?

[Petitions, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by a couple of hundred people from across the country who want the government to revisit the whole question of our auto strategy and actually begin to deal with our auto industry in a way which indicates that the government appreciates the very important contribution it makes to our economy. The petitioners are calling on the government to act quickly and aggressively to develop an automotive trade policy that protects jobs and communities.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of petitions to present.

One petition is signed by a number of people from my riding who are asking me to table this petition in the House in support of raising the age of consent to 16.

[Paper Mill Closures, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, northern Ontario communities are being devastated by mill closures, with no help from federal and provincial governments.

The latest mill in danger is St. Marys Paper in Sault Ste. Marie, which has filed for bankruptcy protection. Unless governments act, 400 employees of St. Marys will join what the Forestry Coalition says is 25,000 other northerners who have already lost their jobs.

Provincially, it is the Liberals' disastrous hydro policies harming the mills. The federal government, formerly under the Liberals and currently under the Conservatives, does not have a plan to respond to the over 200,000 manufacturing jobs lost in Ontario and Quebec.

We need a jobs first economic strategy. We need stronger sector councils and a partnership approach. And when restructuring happens, we must ensure that hard-earned pensions are not on the bargaining table. Retirees depend on their pensions. They are deferred wages of hard-working employees.

Stop killing an--

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I know he is a farmer and a good farmer. In eastern Canada, yes, that is the way that producers market grain. In western Canada farmers have chosen to do it differently. Over the years they have elected themselves a board and that is the way that they have chosen to do it.

All that we are saying is if the government wants to make changes, it should at least talk to the farmers. I was in a room with 250 farmers from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta on July 27 of this year. Every one of them, including the leadership of the agricultural organizations from across Canada, spoke and were in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board. They knew that it was not perfect but they were willing to work to make it better and have it evolve.

However, at the very least at that meeting they were saying, “Let's have a vote. Let's have a plebiscite, not a controlled manipulated plebiscite but a true plebiscite, a free plebiscite. That is what we're asking for”. The member accuses me of fearmongering. I have to say it is not me.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important issue.

There is an axiom that many of us in public life should remember: if we cannot be helpful, at the very least, we should do no harm. I would suggest that in this instance the government would want to be really careful because it is walking a fine line.

I have heard from farmers in my own area. On July 27 I was at a meeting in Saskatoon where some 250 farmers from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta gathered in a room. If what I heard from the farmer leadership that day is any indication of what the government will do over the next number of months as it does away with the Wheat Board, it is going to do great harm to the farmers across this country.

The farmers in my own area understand that when the Wheat Board goes, the next target could very well be supply management. They have gone through some very difficult times over the last number of months and years in the beef and dairy industries. They know that supply management is the only thing that saved a number of farmers.

When they speak to me or when there are public gatherings, there is always a very strong message to government and to those of us who represent the farmers and speak on their behalf to government that we must protect the instruments that have been put in place by the farmers themselves over a number of years to protect themselves. This is especially so in this global economy in which we find ourselves. When product can be moved so easily from one country to the next, competitiveness becomes very important and we have to have some advantages. The farmers look at countries around the world that provide subsidies to their farmers, such as just across the border in the United States. We do not do that for our farmers but they have to compete against that.

The only vehicles that are unique to our country are supply management and the Wheat Board. The farmers are very concerned that if that is taken away and they end up having to compete in this world where huge subsidies are being given to farmers across the continent, they will be even worse off than they are now. Indeed many of them are struggling now.

I say to the Conservatives who are here tonight and to others that if they are going to do this, at the very least they should respect the democratic principles upon which this country is based and which we use so often to solve issues such as this one when there is a difference of opinion. They should respect the democratic processes.

The member who spoke before me said that the Conservatives are going to have a plebiscite on barley. He then went on to say that they are going to consult some more, but they are not sure with whom. We know whom they consulted with to arrive at the report they tabled today. We know whom they consulted with in Saskatoon on July 27 of this year. They consulted with their friends in the corporate sector who want to get rid of the Wheat Board because it gets in the way of their reaping even more profits at the expense of the farmers.

They will consult with those they think will give them the answers they are looking for, and that is a problem. They have done that up until now to arrive at the report that was tabled today. I suggest that as they move forward with this plebiscite on barley the process that the member spoke of should be the same. He said they will not announce until just before the plebiscite what the question will be, what the process for the election itself will be, and who will vote.

That brings me to my next question for the government. It is a warning to everybody and the government again about democracy concerning this issue and the election of the Wheat Board. We know they have summarily decided through an edict, an order in council driven by the Prime Minister that unilaterally 16,000 farmers cannot vote for the Wheat Board. How democratic is that? What is it that the government is afraid of where the democratic process is concerned?

When I was an MPP in Ontario, I heard the Conservatives at that time as they drove their agenda, and I mean drove their agenda, in 1995 until 2003. They said they did not need to consult with anybody because they had consulted in the election. There is consultation in an election in a very superficial way, in a brief and busy way, but there is no in-depth consultation or effort to figure out the pros and cons. As I said, try as much as one can, if one is not going to help, then do no harm while moving forward.

The member who spoke before me said that the people of Canada voted for change. Yes, they did. They voted to change the government that we had; they were not happy with the Liberals because of all of the shenanigans that they were reading about. But Canadians voted for a minority government, a government they thought would be thoughtful, process oriented and willing to sit down and work with others to move things forward, such as the evolution of the Wheat Board.

When I was in Saskatoon on July 27 I heard the farmers and the farm leadership say that they were not against the evolution of the Wheat Board. They knew there were some shortcomings and that they had to get into the day that they were in, make change, listen to farmers and respond to the concerns that the farmers were bringing forward. They were committed to doing that and wanted to do that and would have liked some help from the government, some resources so that they could do the proper consultation.

But no, that is not what the government chose to do. It did not choose to sit down with the farmers and the Wheat Board. As a matter of fact, the Conservatives have told the Wheat Board that it should stop its lobbying, stop acting as it naturally should do on its own behalf in order to protect what it has to protect, that vehicle which has served farmers so well will continue to serve farmers well as it evolves.

That is my first concern regarding this concurrence motion, along with the action of the government where the Wheat Board is concerned. There is the whole issue of freedom and democracy and yes, true choice, not manipulated choice and not as we saw in Ontario, the creation of crises so people might begin to believe they have no other choice in a given matter.

I am here tonight to put my own thoughts on the record along with the thoughts of my farmer constituents whom I spoke to only two weeks ago as I went through our area with my colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, who is our agriculture critic. He asked me to put on the record some thoughts on behalf of our caucus, on his behalf and of course, as I said, on behalf of the farmers with whom he met in my constituency and in the constituency next door, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. I will put on the record the thoughts that I heard very clearly and confidently from the over 250 farmers and the leadership of agricultural organizations across the country who met in Saskatoon on July 27 this past summer.

The Conservative government is not acting in the best interests of democracy. The whole process of the Canadian Wheat Board task force is a sham and a needless waste of energy.

I will repeat what my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior has said and what our leader has stated, that it is important for farmers to have a say in their future. This should take the form of a vote or a plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board as a single desk seller and not a plebiscite manipulated by the government in the way we are beginning to see with the plebiscite on barley. Instead, the Minister of Agriculture has chosen another approach in choosing a task force of anti-Wheat Board individuals to recommend how the Canadian Wheat Board, a viable, credible player on the international scene, can be transformed into the Canadian Wheat Board II, another grain company that will somehow be able to successfully compete with the powerful multinational stakeholders.

A thought came to me as I was saying that. There is one comment that I heard and which really struck me when I was at that meeting on July 27 in Saskatoon with those 250 farmers and the leadership of the agriculture community. The comment was about there being people out there who are willing to pay more for the barley than what is being paid now and that those people will come forward once the Wheat Board is gotten rid of. It was said tongue in cheek, but I think they were serious and it is something we all ought to think about. Is there someone out there who will pay more for the barley and the wheat once the Wheat Board is gotten rid of? I do not think so.

It is a further insult to farmers. The minister has changed the format of the Canadian Wheat Board director election in midstream to sow confusion among farmers. He recently fired a Canadian Wheat Board director who spoke out against this nonsense. That is the process that is in place now. That is the kind of thing that is going on as we speak.

Let us look at this so-called report. In essence, it is the wrong approach, ideologically driven and a blueprint for the Americanization of our grain industry. We have seen an approach by the government to bring a group of people together who agree with the destruction of single desk selling of the Canadian Wheat Board. Then a so-called task force was appointed to recommend how this should be done.

Before looking at this totally undemocratic process, perhaps we could suggest what could have happened instead. The minister could have met with the Canadian Wheat Board board of directors to discuss the possibility of change, for example, to leave the current status quo as a possible option. A balanced task force could have been set up to discuss all options and include a truly representable segment of farmers who currently use the Canadian Wheat Board.

The conclusions of these deliberations could have been provided to farmers to make an informed decision on their future by way of a plebiscite. Obviously, to respect the democratic process, there would have been no tampering with the Canadian Wheat Board director election process. This would probably have taken more than a month, but could have resulted in a fair and balanced review of the Canadian Wheat Board. Instead, we have big government interference and steps of how to fulfill this bizarre agenda.

One of the rationales for doing away with single desk selling has been the supposed effect this has had on our milling industry. Yet statistics show that Canadian wheat and durum milling has increased by 31% since 1991 compared to 14% in the United States. Canadian flour mill capacity has grown from 7,700 tonnes per day to about 10,300 tonnes per day. Canada's mills enjoyed the sharpest increase in flour production among the leading milling nations since 1990. I do not know where the problem is here that we are addressing.

If the Conservative government has its way, its Canadian Wheat Board II will just be another grain company with no power to secure and maintain quality world markets.

Here are some very possible scenarios: one, farmers uncertain of the future would not buy shares in the Canadian Wheat Board II; two, rail rates would increase to conform to the U.S. rates; three, Canadian Wheat Board II would be marketing U.S. grain; four, Churchill would suffer and jobs would be lost; five, the Canadian Wheat Board II would not be allowed to administer cash advances. This could hit farmers hard.

Basically, the transformation to the new free for all system would cause confusion and uncertainty not only in Canada, but in the global marketplace. This would wind up to be another bad deal for Canada, just as the softwood lumber agreement is a bad deal for Canada.

This exercise is a sham, a waste of time and a slap in the face to the democratic process. Hopefully, reason and good judgment will prevail in the months to come.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by the member. He said Canadians voted for change. Yes, they did, because they were unhappy with the Liberals, but they did not give the Conservatives a majority government. They gave them a minority, which means they are supposed to work with all of us around the House. To come in with such a unilateral aggressive move where the Wheat Board is concerned does not portray that at all.

The hon. member referred to a meeting of July 27 in Saskatoon. I was in Saskatoon that day at another meeting across the road with about 250 farmers, leaders of farm organizations from across the country. They were not invited to that meeting. Why?

The hon. member also said that there would be a plebiscite on barley. Then he went on to say that the government would wait until just before the vote to share information on the question in that plebiscite, how the voting process would take place and who would be allowed to vote. Why not be open and free and sharing with the farmers about the question, how that vote will happen and who can vote? What is it about democracy that frightens the Conservatives so?

Why were folks across the road not invited, the 250 farmers and the farm leaders, to the meeting in Saskatoon on July 27? Why will the Conservatives not just have a plebiscite like all plebiscites happen? Let us have the question. Tell us what the process will be and who can vote.