House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 41% of the vote.
Committees of the House December 12th, 2006
There is a huge difference. The government has its republican spin doctors up here. Farmers understand what dual marketing is. It means no more single desk selling. However, in terms of marketing choice it sounds better so the government is listening to the spin doctors because the words sound better. It is more deception by the government opposite and it believes that by using the words “marketing choice”, it will be able to confuse--
Committees of the House December 12th, 2006
I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I was quoting from an article. I will quote the article and I will insert the words “the Prime Minister”. It states:
Their organization is also the subject of [the Prime Minister's] government propaganda attacks on an almost weekly basis; it is restricted by a cabinet directive from expending any corporate resources to defend itself. These attacks come in the middle of this organization's democratic elections for membership to its board of directors.
Obviously this is now not just about a question on a plebiscite; it is about a government so driven by ideology that it is willing to undermine our reputation abroad as a trading nation, a government that is willing to weaken our credibility as a trading nation and the respect our grain markets have, with an economic cost for producers. It is about a government that is willing to use misleading propaganda, a strategy that really strays from the truth.
Why are we having this debate? Why did the agriculture committee put forward this motion in the first place? It is because the government, which calls itself the new government, cannot be trusted. It cannot be trusted to allow a fair question. It cannot be trusted to abide by the Wheat Board Act itself. It cannot be trusted to abide by democratic principles.
Farmers actually believe the minister will try a trick question, one that would mask what the government is really doing. That is why farmers forwarded these questions to the committee and asked that we as a committee at least put these questions forward so that a fair question could be asked of farmers if indeed there is a plebiscite called on barley and wheat.
These questions put forward by the farm community are clear and I ask Parliament for its support in this matter: a clear question on any plebiscite that may be held in the future.
Farmers are right not to trust the government, because this has been the issue all along. The government has tried to mask what the debate really is, and indeed, although now the Minister of Agriculture stands up on an almost daily basis and claims he is turning to farmers in a plebiscite, what did he say some while ago? I will quote the minister.
In the spring the minister failed repeatedly to support a plebiscite by producers. At the Senate agriculture and forestry committee on October 3 of this year, he stated, “I have not had a plebiscite and I do not have plans for a plebiscite”.
The parliamentary secretary was soundly defeated in terms of his theory that farmers in his riding wanted to do away with the pro-marketing board Wheat Board directors. In the election on the weekend in his riding, the farmers voted 66% in favour of a pro-Wheat Board single desk selling director, but the parliamentary secretary for the Canadian Wheat Board told the agriculture committee on October 25, “For me, the issue is not about a plebiscite”.
However, on October 31 of this year, the minister announced that a plebiscite will be held on barley marketing. It is a good thing that there will be a plebiscite, but it really should be on both barley and wheat at the same time.
What I am saying is that we really cannot trust the government in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board issue. Let us look at the Prime Minister's trickery itself. On April 6 the Prime Minister said in the House, “The government will empower producers by allowing them to have dual marketing options when it comes to the Wheat Board”.
The government has now changed its mind. It is not talking about dual marketing anymore. There is no question that the government, in the last election campaign, did campaign on dual marketing. While the Prime Minister may have promised something in the election, he really did not have the authority to carry it out because it is farmers themselves who should make those choices.
What we are seeing is that the government is now all about changing the language. When we listen to the minister's response or the responses of members opposite, they are no longer talking about dual marketing, which they campaigned on during the election. They are now using new words, “marketing choice”. Why?
Committees of the House December 12th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented to the House on Wednesday, December 6, be concurred in.
This debate, while on the specific motion of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, has a series of questions in it that we believe should be used in any future plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board, but it is about much more than just those questions.
This debate is really about governance, justice and fair play. This debate is about a Prime Minister who is enforcing his ideology on prairie grain farmers regardless of whether farmers agree with him or not. This debate is about undermining the democratic principles that exist within Canada.
I will turn first, to emphasize this point in terms of democratic principles, to an article in the Red Deer Advocate by an individual by the name of Ken Larsen, who said:
Stephen Harper's Conservatives have identified an internal enemy that does not fit their ideology. Using their power as the government, they have started a campaign of suppression and disruption supported by a flood of propaganda and misinformation, utilizing the federal bureaucracy.
The target of this attack, an organization 100 per cent funded and democratically controlled by its members, has been permanently stripped of its right to free speech by ministerial order.
Their organization is also the subject of Harper government propaganda attacks on almost a weekly basis--
Request for Emergency Debate December 11th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I am seeking, again, under provisions of Standing Order 52, leave for an emergency debate concerning the impact recent actions and decisions taken by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have had on the functioning of the Canadian Wheat Board and its reputation abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I believe your previous ruling was, in part, due to the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food coming before you but that report really only deals with the specifics of a question for a plebiscite.
The need for the emergency debate is all the more important today because last night the results of the Canadian Wheat Board director elections were announced and 80%, four out five, of the pro-Wheat Board directors were in fact elected. Later this week, under directive from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is intending to fire the CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board, a man with some 33 years experience in the grain industry. As was said during question period today, the man was really the chief salesperson for Canadian grain sales abroad. It throws into jeopardy our reputation in the international community and our credibility in grain markets. It is a very serious matter.
Let me conclude my request with a glaring statement made the other day by the CEO himself:
...I have been asked to pledge support for the government's policy of eliminating the single desk, barring which I will be removed from my job. It would seem to me that opposition to the single desk should be far better grounds for my dismissal than unwavering support for the laws of Canada.
Let me put it simply. The CEO has been asked by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, even though pro-Wheat Board directors were elected this weekend and eight out ten of those directors have full confidence in the CEO, to either break the law and keep his job or maintain the law and lose his job. That is no choice. I think this House needs to consider this issue and give direction to the government so that our reputation does not continue to be injured abroad.
The CEO markets some $6 billion worth of grain to some 70 countries around the world. It is a major known institution around the world and one that maintains great credibility for Canada and Canadians abroad.
On that basis, I am making the request for an emergency debate.
Canadian Wheat Board December 11th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the farmers spoke yesterday and the minister knows it. The results of the Canadian Wheat Board director elections are particularly telling in the riding of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Pro single desk selling achieved two-thirds of the votes cast. Clearly, the parliamentary secretary is completely out of touch with farmers. Now 80% of board directors are pro single desk selling.
If the minister really is of sound mind, will he limit the advice from his parliamentary secretary and turn to the elected board of directors of the Wheat Board?
Canadian Wheat Board December 11th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, yesterday farmers in western Canada sent the Conservative government a clear message: the government does not speak for the majority of western grain farmers when it comes to the Wheat Board, and it never did. Over 60% of the ballots cast in the director elections were for pro-board candidates and 80% of those elected support the Wheat Board.
Will the minister, instead of being directed by the PMO, finally listen to farmers? Will he cease and desist in firing the CEO, withdraw his gag orders, and allow the farmer controlled board to do its work without interference from him?
Canadian Wheat Board December 7th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, this party says to let farmers make the choice. The Minister of Agriculture is starting to believe his own baloney. Ignoring farmers' rights is not listening to them. Ordering information websites down is not being transparent. Firing the CEO from a non-government agency is not consultation.
The Prime Minister's campaign, his ideological attack on the board and its officers, is killing Canada's credibility abroad in international grain markets. Will he for the good of the farmers and their livelihood stop this attack on the CEO of the farmers' marketing agency?
Canadian Wheat Board December 7th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the government has imposed gag orders, manipulated voters lists and exercised threats to the CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board. The CEO has said that the government has asked him to either support its agenda, which means violating the Wheat Board Act, or lose his job.
Is this the Prime Minister's definition of choice? Some choice: break the law and keep one's job, or respect the law and lose one's job. I ask the Prime Minister, what kind of choice is that?
Canadian Wheat Board December 6th, 2006
What is really going on, Mr. Speaker, is that minister is trying to destroy the board and take income from farmers.
The minister's attack on the Wheat Board has nothing to do with what farmers want. It has everything to do with the Prime Minister's ideology.
To fire a CEO without cause, a man well respected around the world and $6 billion of grain marketed to some 70 countries, is unconscionable. He has 33 years of experience.
Canada's international reputation is being destroyed. Is the minister not concerned about our markets? Will the Prime Minister not just rein in his minister from his crazy actions?
Canadian Wheat Board December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, in glaring contrast with the no directives Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food issues a directive a day to a non-government agency.
Not only has the minister put gag orders on board members, he has now directed the Wheat Board on two occasions to take down its website containing an analysis of the discredited task force.
The Prime Minister may believe this is the dark ages where he can use a big stick, but this is the 21st century, the information age. Why is the government suppressing information?
Will the minister just allow the board to do its job for farmers?