I know, Mr. Speaker, that the truth really hurts.
Could the member clearly spell out how this really is a backdoor censorship policy under the guise of a tax policy by the government?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 41% of the vote.
Business of Supply March 5th, 2008
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the truth really hurts.
Could the member clearly spell out how this really is a backdoor censorship policy under the guise of a tax policy by the government?
Business of Supply March 5th, 2008
They are yelling and heckling over there. They really hate to hear the facts and the fact is the Conservatives are bringing in censorship by the back door—
Business of Supply March 5th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I found the parliamentary secretary's question to the member rather interesting. We all know that if there is any government that ever resided in this town, there is none better than the current one for bringing in what it really wants through backdoor policies. Clearly the backdoor policy in this instance is censorship.
Petitions March 5th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, on behalf of residents of Malpeque, a petition about their grave concerns with the actions of Canada Post.
They are concerned that Canada Post is 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 P.E.I. are no safer than regular mailboxes and have additional problems in terms of accessibility, litter, snow buildup and the environment.
The petitioners request that Parliament ensure proper consultations with the affected customers and thorough assessment of the location of the community mailboxes before they are put in place.
Points of Order March 4th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I will admit that we are almost in the area of debate here, but a lot of what the member opposite just said relative to this point of order is in fact out of line and not specific on what section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act states.
As I said in this House yesterday, the act is very specific. There must be consultations. The Canadian Wheat Board itself said that as of last Saturday there were no consultations. The act is also specific that there must be a plebiscite held, the question to be determined by the minister.
As the member opposite stated, and he did have it right, there were clear consultations last year, but the former minister of agriculture said that the consultations would not be binding. That is what the former minister of agriculture said: it would not be binding. The act requires that there be a clear plebiscite on the specific legislative point that is being brought forward. The government is clearly in error here, relative to section 47.1, and is in fact doing an illegal act by bringing this legislation forward because the conditions of section 47.1 of the act itself have not been met.
Mr. Speaker, we believe in a healthy, vibrant industry but we also believe in empowering the farm community through the Canadian Wheat Board where it can maximize returns back to primary producers and gain maximum resources out of the marketplace.
Of course, as the member said, the maltsters and the brewers want to get rid of the single desk selling under the board. It is to their advantage to do so because they can get into negative competition with farmers and drive prices down. The grain companies will be the ones to gain.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary to join with us and with the farmer elected members of the board of directors and demand that the government follow the law, that it hold a fair plebiscite on the question and determine where farmers are at. I would even propose that the standing committee go out to those communities and hear from farmers if this legislation still comes forward.
Mr. Speaker, the debate tonight was caused by the minister's lack of an answer to a question I raised on February 4. The question was what involvement, directly or indirectly, the minister and/or the Prime Minister had in the firing of the Canadian Wheat Board's vice-president of farmer relations and public affairs, Deanna Allan. I did not get any answers then. Maybe the parliamentary secretary will be a little more forthcoming and a little more honest tonight.
This firing is on top of many other undemocratic acts fostered by the Prime Minister's ideological attack on the Canadian Wheat Board. It is shameful the kind of undemocratic actions that the Prime Minister is taking toward the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is important to put the Wheat Board into perspective on what it is not. The government goes to great lengths to try and leave the impression that the Canadian Wheat Board is some entity out there, a crown corporation or whatever, when it really is not. It is run by an elected board of directors of farmers, who has challenged the Prime Minister, and we know he does not like to be challenged.
I will explain what the Wheat Board is not. Judge Hansen, in her judgment on July 31, 2007, said this as background:
The CWB is a corporation without share capital...The CWB is not an agent of Her Majesty the Queen, nor is it a crown corporation.
I lay that out so people understand what the Canadian Wheat Board is not. Therefore, why is the government trying to treat it like it is an entity of government? It operates under government legislation and is managed by a board of directors elected by producers.
As I indicated, this was not the first firing. The CEO was fired for taking his direction from the elected board of directors and for standing up to the Prime Minister. There were three directors fired and new directors were appointed basically for their ideological dislike for the board. In fact, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food had rejected one of those directors, but the Prime Minister showed contempt for that decision as well.
All along there have been gag orders placed on the board. The government has tried to manipulate the election of directors. The government struck 16,000 farmers off the voters list in the middle of an election. Never before in Canada have we seen such undemocratic activities by a government against a segment of the population. In this case, it is grain producers, elected directors to the board, and the Prime Minister does not like them at all.
The history on this goes back a long way. It goes back to when the current Prime Minister was crusading against the Canadian Wheat Board since his days as chairman of the National Citizens' Coalition. His beliefs are held just as deeply today.
After the Federal Court ruling on his government's attempt to circumvent the law and make changes to barley marketing by changing the regulations, he was rejected by the courts. The Prime Minister came out of his party's caucus meeting and said that he was going to get the Wheat Board one way or another. It is undemocratic.
The Budget March 3rd, 2008
My goodness, we are back in 1984?
The Budget March 3rd, 2008
And polling.
The Budget March 3rd, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on the budget. He also has responsibility for Canada Post. We have been raising a number of questions with him in the House but not getting many answers, I will admit.
There is nothing in the budget other than the regular funding for Canada Post and we know it is basically wasting $600 million to do a review of rural delivery and individual mailbox delivery in rural Canada. I would like to ask the minister, could that money not be spent more productively?
All it is doing is making rural Canadians angry. Canada Post is taking away individual mail delivery. The numbers, for which the minister has responsibility, are saying that there have been 1,300 safety concerns. That is using safety pretty liberally because 800 of those we now know are for ergonomic damage where the courier reaches across and out the window. They are not really to do with safety concerns on the highway at all.
When will the minister show some leadership, take on Canada Post, and tell it to stop this ridiculous policy of destroying individual mail delivery and using safety as an excuse? Strong direction from the minister would probably do it. He should tell Canada Post to stop wasting that $600 million while he is at it.