Wayne Easter

[The Budget, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this budget is a huge disappointment for farmers.

Last year the Prime Minister promised that he would move to cost of production. All we see in this budget is the $1 billion that was announced several times. There are no details and no negotiations established with the provinces. It could have been done in a way under the Farm Income Protection Act that it could have been rolled out immediately but he locked it into the budget. It really is just a promise. There is no real money there. The only real money in this announcement is under the capital cost allowance, capital gains tax exemption, in order for farmers to get out of the business.

Why did the minister not live up to the Prime Minister's commitment of a year ago of achieving cost of production?

[Canadian Wheat Board, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in an earlier answer, the minister failed to net out the $600 million he will take from farmers annually by his attack on the Canadian Wheat Board. A friend of the Minister of Agriculture, the Market Choice Alliance has, by letter attached to a Conservative member's parliamentary mail-out, called upon farmers to inform other neighbours on who is and who is not a Wheat Board supporter.

The establishment of an enemies list in Canada is wrong. Will the Minister of Agriculture condemn the establishment of this enemies list by neighbour informing on neighbour today?

[Cabinet Ministers, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not impressed by the three Conservative amigos left over from their days as provincial Ontario ministers.

Like a bad dream, the Harris triplets are trying to take Canada “back to the future”, undermining the social and economic progress of hard-working Canadians.

The anti-Kyoto environment minister, so puffed up like a blowfish on his own hot air, greenhouse gas at its worst.

The hospital hunting health minister handing contracts to long term friend Gordon Haugh. No accountability there.

The blarney fuelled finance minister still searching for his pot of gold at Canadians' expense.

Just like in Ontario, Canadians are gathering strength against the three Harper triplets. Canadians will not allow the three amigos to do damage to Canada like they did to Ontario.

This party, the official opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada, will prevent it from happening.

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, another parliamentary secretary who spent his whole speech attacking the Canadian Wheat Board and not dealing with why his party has shown contempt for this House in not living up to the motion on the sixth report of the agriculture committee that was passed by a majority of this House.

My question relates to the ballot itself, which is biased and misleading. The Canadian Wheat Board, in a statement released the same day as the ballot, said:

The option asking farmers if they would prefer to sell their barley to any buyer, including the CWB, creates an unrealistic expectation that the CWB can continue to offer the same value to farmers without its single desk.

It is clearly saying that the middle option on the ballot cannot be done. In fact, the minister's own task force said it is not possible.

What is the member's response to that question? Why does he not have a ballot that has clarity?

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that there is no personal attack by me on the member. I am talking about his responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board

Yesterday, the CEO said:

Making inaccurate statements about sales values and our relationship with specific customers is damaging to our business....

As I said earlier, he talked about the factual inaccuracies by members of Parliament in that member's party. Standard & Poor's has lowered the credit rating of the Canadian Wheat Board and it named the government 11 times as the reason for its lowering.

I would just ask the member opposite, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, whether he agrees with the following statement by the Wheat Board on the ballot. It reads:

The option asking farmers if they would prefer to sell their barley to any buyer, including the CWB, creates an unrealistic expectation that the CWB can continue to offer the same value to farmers without its single desk.

Does he agree or disagree with that statement on the agency's responsibility--

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I quoted directly from the statement of the Minister of Agriculture. I should not be accused--

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member's words. I said previously in the House that what we were seeing from the government opposite was a Stalinist approach to this issue. The word sabotage is also correct because the government is trying to confuse the rest of Canadians by claiming it is having a plebiscite or a ballot. However, the ballot in terms of its whole structure is faulty.

The House passed the Clarity Act. The Clarity Act puts a series of questions that could be accepted by the federal government with respect to a referendum on the future of the country. Why should farmers be treated the way they are? The vote is not clear. It is confusing and misleading. The Prime Minister is trying to—

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the minister, the Prime Minister, who is ideologically driven and who believes everything from his podium and his teleprompter, is bringing Republican standards to Canada. We see that in his judiciary process. With the Prime Minister's approach, nowhere else do we see the tactics as bad as we do with the Canadian Wheat Board. The member reviewed some of those points, gag orders, loss of freedom of speech, manipulation of the list of voters, a faulty question, et cetera.

The member is from the province of Quebec. The bottom line is the government is going to great lengths to let on it is in support of supply management these days, but there is a principle at stake here. Farmers want to make a collective choice to market through a single desk. If we allow choice outside that system, we undermine the system. The same principle applies to supply management. If the Prime Minister is going to apply the principle of allowing some farmers to market outside the system of single desk in the west, then the same thing is going to happen with supply management. Big producers that may want to market outside the system will start a campaign for choice too, and away will go the supply management system, which has been a pillar of the Canadian farm economy.

We are seeing a move toward destroying two pillars in terms of farmers. First is the orderly marketing for the Canadian Wheat Board. Second is the supply management through supply—

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it has been the privilege of my life to work for the farm community, having travelled the farm community for some 22 years as a farm leader.

What is needed in the farming industry is power in the marketplace for farmers. The Canadian supply management system gives us that. The Canadian Wheat Board gives western farmers that.

In response to a question of his yesterday to the CEO of Wheat Board, he went on with this issue of “Oh, well, it is only in the west”. The fact is the west grain industry is all together different than the Ontario industry. Farmers in Ontario have a domestic market. Farmers in the west are up against the international grain trade. Do members not realize we export most of those grains and the Canadian Wheat Board is one of the largest sellers in the world. It is up against Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and others? Because of its clout through marketing power and through the single desk, it is able to compete head on with those folks.

The CEO yesterday said, “The Canadian Wheat Board sells into the Ontario marketplace at a premium to what Ontario producers get”.

The members talk about spot prices, but they misrepresent the issue. The Ontario Wheat Board returns more money to primary producers as a result of the single desk.

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in any event, the statement on The Rutherford Show came from the minister. The CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board said clearly that the Canadian Wheat Board had achieved premiums over our competitors in the Algerian marketplace. Members opposite are using information to try to discredit the Wheat Board, and that is wrong, especially when one is the parliamentary secretary who has some responsibilities for the Canadian Wheat Board.

However, since I am running out of time, let me review quickly the process that we have seen from the government in terms of moving toward the vote.

First, we are in major discussions on the Wheat Board. The people who really know the facts are the farmer directors who are elected to the Wheat Board. What has happened? Gag orders have been placed on those boards of directors. The board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board have lost their freedom of speech.

At the same time, as I just said a moment ago, members of the governing party are using their privileges through ten percenters in the House to continue to perpetuate misinformation about the Canadian Wheat Board. That misinformation was cleared up yesterday by the CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Conservatives appointed the CEO, and either the CEO is right or he is wrong. If he is wrong, then they have an obligation to fire him because he is saying different stuff than they are saying. On the other hand, if they are wrong, they should apologize to Canadian farmers.

We have seen a manipulation of the list of voters. We have directors fired and the appointment of people who ideologically oppose and hate the Wheat Board. We have seen the firing of the former CEO, who had the full confidence of the board. We have fraudulent and biased questions and now a marked ballot. I never thought I would see the likes of this in a democracy called Canada.

It may be from their point of view, it is only farmers and their marketing institution that gives them power, but those are the reasons why we need to support the report. What we have out there is an ideological campaign. We have a Prime Minister who is doing nothing less than trying to bully farmers into accepting his ideology. That is wrong. It should be a clear question—