Get the PMO notes gathered up.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 41% of the vote.
Income Tax Act April 7th, 2008
Get the PMO notes gathered up.
No grip lost here, Mr. Speaker, just the facts and that is what the parliamentary secretary tries to avoid.
Again, he fails to mention that the Canadian Wheat Board is made up of a board of directors of farm producers elected by their peers. There is another quote that I want to put on the record in terms of how bad the decision of the government really is in terms of U.S. influence. Agriculture Canada made this statement at a conference in North Dakota a few years ago:
--the Wheat Board should not be viewed as an independent entity but as an extension of producers themselves into grain marketing. Through collective action, producers are able to counteract the market power of domestic railways, handling companies and international grain marketing firms just the way a credit union helps ordinary people cope with concentrated market power in local financial markets.
That is what the Wheat Board does for producers in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary says that some people do not hear. It is absolutely true. He has not been listening for a long while on the Wheat Board, so I will try again tonight.
The question asked of the government on December 3 was whether former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had lobbied the government, as a member of the board of directors of the transnational grain company Archer Daniels Midland, to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board.
The government, which includes the Prime Minister, has relied on Mr. Mulroney to provide advice and guidance. One thing the former prime minister has demonstrated is his expertise at making money for his clients. ADM is most certainly a client the former prime minister would want to see succeed, especially since he is on the board of directors.
In that light, the House should be made aware of the following with respect to who will benefit from the government's fevered ideological drive to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. The problem is, where are most of the winners from the government's drive to undermine the board? They are south of the 49th parallel in the United States, especially among the multinational grain trade.
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, in a November 2005 study, outlined the consequences of the loss of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Australian Wheat Board. It stated:
The...proposal to eliminate monopoly export rights would effectively kill both the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and...the Australian Wheat Board....The elimination of the CWB and AWB Ltd would do nothing to increase export competition for grains; the giants of the industry (Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Dreyfus) will basically absorb the Canadian and Australian supply into their existing global grain processing and trading businesses....CWB and AWB Ltd. offer an effective second-best solution to the market failures and imperfections inherent in bulk commodity trading. Their private counterparts are much less constrained by public oversight and, at least for the producers they deal with, offer less benefit.
A report prepared by the Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies at North Dakota State University found that if the Wheat Board were to be eliminated:
The U.S. and Canadian markets would become more integrated without the CWB, making it possible for multinational grain companies to buy wheat in Canada and export it from U.S. ports.
The beneficiaries of the loss of the Canadian Wheat Board have been enumerated in many United States studies. It is unbelievable that the Government of Canada, in putting forward this proposal, failed to do any studies or economic analysis. In fact, a study prepared for United States Senator Kent Conrad in November 2004 found that:
If the CWB's single-desk authority is eliminated, the advantages enjoyed by the CWB will disappear and the United States may become more competitive in offshore markets.
Again, the U.S. is gaining at the expense of Canadians.
The efforts of the Conservative government to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board have attracted the appreciative attention of the United States wheat industry. It is that time the Canadian government worked for Canadian farmers.
Petitions April 2nd, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition from residents of Prince Edward Island with the appropriate number of signatures.
The petitioners are concerned about Canada Post switching residents from door-to-door mail delivery to community mailbox delivery without properly assessing the safety of these community mailboxes to the residents.
Many of the community mailboxes being established in the province of Prince Edward Island are no safer than regular mailboxes and have additional problems in terms of accessibility, litter, snow buildup and the environment.
The petitioners request Parliament to ensure proper consultations with the affected customers and a thorough assessment of the location of the community mailboxes before they are put in place.
Points of Order March 14th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the incident that I believe the leader of the New Democratic Party yesterday brought forward and myself again today relates to a personal attack that was launched by the parliamentary secretary during the emergency debate on livestock on February 13 in the House. You can refer to that debate and see the remarks.
I have in my hand, and I would be willing to table it, a letter that is directed to the parliamentary secretary, signed by Stewart Wells, president of the National Farmers Union. He states clearly:
I am writing regarding a personal attack that you launched against me during an emergency debate on "livestock" on February 13, 2008 in the House of Commons.
You are hiding behind your parliamentary immunity by attacking me in the House of Commons, where I cannot defend myself nor can I find a remedy for your defamation through the courts. Your comments in the House of Commons are unacceptable and a disgrace to you and your party.
You have deliberately implied—
This is the meat of the evidence, Mr. Speaker:
—to the House of Commons that you know how I market my grain through the Canadian Wheat Board. The only way you could have any knowledge of my personal business dealings is if you have been abusing your powers and investigating my transactions with the Canadian Wheat Board.
On the parliamentary secretary's point that he just raised, the minister yesterday, in response to the question by the leader of the NDP, said that this information was requested from the board.
Therefore, this is a serious matter of commercial confidentiality coming from the board that the member released in the House.
Mr. Wells goes on further to say:
Have you been abusing your office as Parliamentary Secretary and investigating my personal business transactions with the Canadian Wheat Board? Either you have intimate knowledge of my business dealings with the Canadian Wheat Board, or you are lying to the House of Commons when you pretend to know how I market my grain-which is it?
I will conclude by the request that Mr. Wells made, directed to the parliamentary secretary, when he said:
Do you have the integrity required to stand in the House of Commons and apologize to your colleagues and then make a further apology to me for your unsubstantiated, defamatory, and incorrect remarks?
That relates to the point of order raised. Clearly the member has used confidential commercial information in attacking a constituent in his own riding and a president of a national farm organization.
Agriculture March 14th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, we know the parliamentary secretary's vendetta against the Wheat Board leads him to say ridiculous things. However, he seriously crossed the line when he attacked the president of the National Farmers Union and released confidential information on Mr. Wells' business through the Board. The minister confirmed yesterday such information was requested.
As demanded in a letter from Mr. Wells, will the parliamentary secretary apologize for his unsubstantiated, defamatory, incorrect and disgraceful remarks? Will he stand in his place today and apologize?
Points of Order March 11th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with regard to yesterday's question period when the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food misinformed the House on milling wheat prices available to western farmers through the Canadian Wheat Board.
I read a Canadian Wheat Board bases price contract program. Farmers could have availed themselves of prices ranging above $700 per tonne. This is more than twice the price the minister said. I am willing to table that information before the House if I am permitted--
Agriculture March 10th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture did a little tour on P.E.I. last Friday to shore up his nominated candidates. However, in the process the minister insulted not only producers in Prince Edward Island, but all of Canada by telling them there would be no free ride for farmers. There has never been a free ride for farmers in our country. Farmers are the generators of wealth. The only problem is they do not share in terms of that wealth.
The minister has failed abysmally, cutting program spending by 33% in Prince Edward Island. Will the minister accept his responsibility and assist farmers today?
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about program spending.
In 2005, program spending by the Government of Canada for agriculture in Prince Edward Island was $45.9 million. In 2007, it was down to $30.6 million, a loss of $15.3 million to Prince Edward Island farmers over two years. That is not putting farmers first.
Providing less support for farmers is not putting farmers first. Introducing a bill in the House that would take power away from western grain producers and an elected board of farm directors and turning control over to the multinational grain sector is not putting farmers first.
The Conservative government is a disaster for agriculture producers in this country. It fails to act. It provides false messaging but the facts are clear. By their own department program, spending is less.
Mr. Speaker, the government has a duty to demonstrate that it is prepared to assist our struggling farm community and to date it has refused to do so.
Let me make two points in the beginning. One, the income of Canadian farmers is crucial in sustaining Canadian food sovereignty, and two, Canadians want truth in labelling of food on grocery store shelves.
I raised a number of questions related to the crisis facing our hog and beef producers and the crisis the government is intent upon inflicting upon our western Canadian grain farmers through its illegitimate efforts to undermine the Wheat Board.
As I stated in my question on January 31:
The minister talks about programs, raising expectations, but never delivers real cash.
The response I received then from the minister was:
I advise the member for Malpeque to hang onto his chair, quit sitting on his hands and support the budget when it comes up and more cash flow for Canadian farmers.
Now we know that statement by the minister was a falsehood, because there was no cash flow in the budget for farmers. There was no new money, with one small exception, and that is the $50 million cull sow program which is designed to get farmers out of business.
In fact, the action by Bill C-44 to allow the December 19 money to flow to farmers came about as a result of Liberal suggestions released at a press conference in Charlottetown about 10 days before the announcement by the government. Those suggestions were also tabled in this House in the emergency debate on the livestock crisis. However, the government failed to implement all of our suggestions.
I heard the parliamentary secretary heckle, but I would say to him to live and learn and go back to the emergency debate and look at the recommendations put forward by myself with the strong support and efforts of Cindy Duncan McMillan. Those suggestions are there. The government has picked a couple of them and with our assistance the government managed to get them through the House last Monday so that farmers could gain some money. The government is still failing to deal with the crisis.
The minister told this House on January 31:
We delivered more for Canadian farmers in the last short term than the Liberal government did over 13 years, $4.5 billion and climbing.
The parliamentary secretary repeated those statements on February 13.
The minister has obviously not read his own department's farm income forecast report of February 8, which states in part that program payments reached a “record level of $4.9 billion in 2005”. To refresh the minister's memory, the government of the day in 2005 was Liberal.
The report from Agriculture Canada contained some additional information which Canadians should be made aware of, considering the minister has used program spending as the criteria of success. In aggregate program payments for 2008 in Canada, they are expected to fall by 6% to $3.8 billion.
The translation of that for the members opposite is that the Conservative government, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, has effectively reduced agriculture program spending by $1.1 billion. It is time they acted.