House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 41% of the vote.
Agriculture October 19th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, that minister is subject to wild whims of fiction.
The other minister, on the other hand, stated it would be inappropriate for grain companies to be part of the discussions for undermining the Canadian Wheat Board. However, on September 18 he wrote Agricorp, a grain company, stating:
I appreciate your comments, which will be very useful...as we move towards implementation of marketing choice.
Now a director of that company is calling on key board officials to resign. Why? Why is--
Committees of the House October 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it was good to listen to the NDP critic outline his support for the current concurrence motion.
It was interesting to note that the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster confused the facts in his question, but those members on that side of the House consistently do that. He is right in what he said about oats, but that was prior to 1998 when the act had changed. Does the member for Battlefords--Lloydminster not know that in 1998 the Canadian Wheat Board changed from being a government agency with appointed commissioners to an elected board of directors?
My question to the NDP critic is really two-fold. The parliamentary secretary neglected to mention earlier the fact that 88% of farmers in the survey he talked about said they wanted a vote to decide the future of single desk selling.
The only government that ever mucked around and gave directives to the Wheat Board is the Conservative government with the exception of the war in Afghanistan when it was invaded by the Russians. What does the NDP critic believe? Does he believe that farmers should have a vote on whether they want single desk selling or not? Should that be the vote as mandated under the act?
Committees of the House October 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, we have seen quite a line from the parliamentary secretary, that is for sure. We are seeing a new tactic. Just to make a point, we are seeing the difference between the two parties, we really are. We consult with farmers. We take their advice and then we try to represent their interests in the House. The member opposite, the parliamentary secretary, obviously just takes his direction from the Prime Minister based on ideology. We are seeing a new tactic.
It was interesting listening to the parliamentary secretary as he spoke of the motion the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food put forward. We are seeing a new tactic now from the governing party. On top of the gag orders and the propaganda campaign, we are seeing scare tactics.
This motion is about one thing. There are three pillars to the Canadian Wheat Board: single desk selling, price pooling and the government guarantee. The motion and the report is about a clear and direct question asking whether those eligible to vote support or oppose the single desk selling provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board. Simply put, that is what the motion is all about.
Is the parliamentary secretary willing, on behalf of his government, to allow producers the choice whether or not they want single desk selling to be maintained under the Canadian Wheat Board as that pillar which gives it the ability to maximize returns to primary producers?
Committees of the House October 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made the point and the point is that producers should be given the right to decide the choice of the powers in their marketing institution and whether or not they support or opposite single desk selling.
That is what we are asking the government to do. The government has denied that right. It has denied the right of producers, by plebiscite on a clear question, to vote on single desk selling.
Worse than that, it is going out there to manipulate public opinion, holding secret task forces, holding secret meetings by a stacked task force, and putting a gag order on those who have the most information, experience and knowledge relative to the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. That right has been denied by the Prime Minister. He made that clear today in the House.
Committees of the House October 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the question goes to the heart of the issue. We live, or we believed we did up until now, in a democracy where members of Parliament pass certain laws based on discussions with the community.
In the case of the Canadian Wheat Board, in 1998, at the request of farmers, the Canadian Wheat Board Act was changed so it no longer would be a government agency of which the cabinet appointed the commissioners for it. At that time, the Board was changed to be an elected board of producers, elected in their Wheat Board districts, to represent the farmers. That is true democracy.
We are seeing a trend from the government, and not only on grain. This is a bigger issue than a farm issue. This is about the Prime Minister's character; it is either his way or the highway. If a person does not agree with the Prime Minister, or the Conservative government, or the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture, then do not try and have a say in the issue. They are only meeting with one side of the equation.
This is a very serious matter. It goes to the heart of our democratic institutions in our country. It is the Prime Minister, by his character and his ideology, that matters, and this is undermining the essence of our democracy.
Committees of the House October 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented on Thursday, June 22, be concurred in.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Churchill.
I am pleased to stand in support of the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food which has the following in its report:
That the government prior to any legislative or regulatory action affecting the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board as it is currently constituted under the Canada Wheat Board Act, submit through plebiscite to all those eligible to vote in Canadian Wheat Board elections, a clear and direct question asking whether those eligible to vote support or oppose the single desk selling provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board.
We put the motion today because of the tactics being used by the Conservative government. These tactics that have been taking place in a Canadian democracy are shameful.
The questions concerning the Canadian Wheat Board and the Conservative government really are: What will the Conservatives not do to destroy single desk selling under the Canadian Wheat Board? What will it not do to take power away from primary producers and give that power to the international grain trade? What will it not do to tear down a marketing institution that has become renown around the world for how it maximizes returns back to primary producers? What will the Conservative government not do in terms of catering to its American friends in the grain trade who have challenged the Canadian Wheat Board 11 times and have lost every time under international trade law?
From its actions to date, it would appear that the government is prepared to use any device up to the very line of legality in an effort to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board.
Under the act, producers should determine their marketing future. I was shocked and surprised by what I heard from the Prime Minister today during question period. What we heard in the House just 30 minutes ago was absolute arrogance from the Prime Minister. He basically told farmers that he would decide what was best for them.
It does not matter whether it is the law of the land or not, he was going to decide what was best for primary producers even though under the Canadian Wheat Board Act they have a right to determine the Wheat Board's future. The government opposite is not only by its words showing its true colours but its actions are even worse.
Earlier on in this exercise we heard about a secret meeting in Saskatchewan, that became public, and the only people on the invitation list were those who were opposed to the Wheat Board. In the final analysis, after Saskatchewan and Manitoba kicked up a stink, they were allowed to go as observers. Imagine this happening in Canada.
Four provincial governments are duly elected to represent their citizens on the Wheat Board and two of those provinces were denied the right to participate. They were denied the right to take part in discussions concerning a marketing institution that affects their constituents. In other words, duly elected governments were denied the right to speak on behalf of their citizens at that one-sided meeting.
The Minister of Agriculture set up a task force which is stacked with only those who oppose the Canadian Wheat Board. We cannot find its schedule. We cannot find out who this task force is meeting with, although we have had a few little brown envelopes slipped to us. This task force is holding secret meetings for invitees only and participants are not talking to those who believe strongly in single desk selling under the Wheat Board.
We know as well that there is word of a fake letter writing campaign, encouraged via the email from a communications firm in Saskatchewan, which said “encouraged by government, MPs and others”. We know they are catering to a propaganda campaign from the other side as well. However, the worst of all was an order in council from the minister himself directed toward the Canadian Wheat Board, which is absolutely nothing short of a gag order.
What we are seeing now is not only has it stacked task forces, not only has it denied democratically elected governments the right to participate in a meeting, but it is also taking away freedom of expression for those Wheat Board directors who have the most knowledge and experience in this industry. They can tell their primary producers, who elected them to their positions, what the pros and cons of various proposals relative to the Canadian Wheat Board really mean to those producers on the ground.
It is unbelievable that this could happen in a democracy like Canada. Those with experience are being intimidated.
The minister will say that it is not really a gag order, but this is what the Library of Parliament has said on these orders in council:
It appears that several activities could fall within the purview of this Order in Council. For instance, electronic and print publications, information on the CWB website and information sessions/meetings held by the CWB, may be prohibited under the order, if it advocates the retention of monopoly powers and involves the expenditure of funds. Further, the term “advocating the retention of its monopoly powers” may itself be subject to very strict interpretation. It is possible that publications prepared following the Directive (and therefore involve the expenditure of funds), which do not necessarily advocate the retention of the CWB's monopoly, but discuss the single desk selling capacity, from a positive point of view, may also potentially violate the Order in Council.
It goes on to say:
Similarily, advertisements sponsored by the CWB, containing information about the advantages of the CWB monopoly may also be considered to violate the Directive.
That is pretty serious stuff. I never thought that a Government of Canada would deny freedom of expression in our country to primary producers, to elected producers to the Canadian Wheat Board who have the information and the knowledge to talk to their fellow farmers.
There are many other factors as well.
Let us look at the economic losses that would occur if we lose that marketing power through the Canadian Wheat Board. I will give summary, and this comes from the Wheat Board itself in terms of independent studies.
The Summary of the annual Canadian Wheat Board, benefits and services for single desk marketing approach for wheat are: the net benefit to producers, $146 million to $255 million per year; the value of single desk marketing approach for barley, $59 million per year; the value of single desk marketing approach for durum, $92 million to $103 million; tendering and railway and terminal handling agreements, $38.1 million per year; net interest earnings, $66.2 million; approach to managing the delivery system, giving farmers power within the delivery system, a benefit of $115 million per year; terminal blending, $7 million to $10 million per year; and farmer access to producer cars, $6 million per year.
The net total loss to primary producers, if they lose single desk selling, which the Prime Minister is doing everything in his power to take away from them, right up to almost illegal means, is $530 million to $655 million per year. Why would the Prime Minister want to take marketing power away from western grain producers? I just cannot understand it.
He will go on. He tried this today in the House by the way that the Prime Minister tries deception, tries to confuse people about the real issues. The Conservatives are using the words “dual marketing”. There is no such thing. We either have single desk selling or we have an open market. Let us not be fooled. If we lose single desk selling under the Wheat Board, then we have an open market in which the multinational grain trade controls. It will take control and gain those profits and those benefits now accruing to primary producers.
Under the law, the Government of Canada, under the Canadian Wheat Board, is supposed to give primary producers a vote on single desk selling in our country. That is what the government should do, even though, at the head depots, it is trying influence producers in many ways with fake letters, manipulation of the press, gag orders in the Wheat Board itself and so on. Producers deserve the right to decide their own destiny on single desk selling.
Canadian Wheat Board October 18th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, earlier in the House the Prime Minister, as is his way, attempted to confuse Canadians on what the Canadian Wheat Board Act is about.
The act empowers farmers as opposed to them being at the mercy of the grain trade. Farmers under that act have rights and one of those rights is, by vote, to determine their marketing institution's powers.
Will the Prime Minister do the right thing, obey the law and give them a vote on single desk selling?
Request for Emergency Debate October 16th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I have given notice seeking an emergency debate on an urgent matter relating to the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Minister of Agriculture has taken measures in his attempt to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board and the consequences of his actions are serious. He has set out on a course of action which has not been sanctioned by western grain farmers as is their democratic right under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, an act of Parliament the minister has a responsibility for respecting.
The minister has engaged in a secretive process, beginning with a by invitation only closed door meeting in July at which the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba were excluded due to their support for the Canadian Wheat Board.
In September the minister convened a task force whose objective was to undermine the board and take away single desk selling. That task force has been holding discussions with undisclosed parties at undisclosed locations. The task force is stacked with people who are strongly opposed to the Wheat Board and some representatives from the grain trade.
Also in September it came to light that a communications firm in Regina, in response apparently to contacts from government, MPs and others, was asked to assist in developing a propaganda campaign against the Wheat Board. On the list of recipients of that email was a member of the minister's task force which calls into question the integrity of that process.
Last week the government, in an effort to further intimidate the Wheat Board, issued an unprecedented order in council instructing the Wheat Board and those affiliated with it not to engage in any activity advocating for the Wheat Board.
Finally, the minister has refused to state at any time that it is his intention to respect the Canadian Wheat Board Act and allow producers the right to the vote they are entitled to. In fact, he did not answer that question today during question period. The government has demonstrated a willingness to advance to the very line of legality in its ideological effort to destroy the Wheat Board.
Any of these measures in themselves demand immediate repudiation, but given the haste with which the government is moving, I believe the matter constitutes the need for an emergency debate.
Canadian Wheat Board October 16th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely nothing but a gag order. This is for the Prime Minister. This gag order is on an independent elected board of directors of a marketing institution.
The list of infractions of that minority government continues to grow, from fake letters, manipulation of the media, stacked government task forces, circumventing Canadian laws and now a gag order violating freedom of speech.
Is this the Prime Minister's definition of ethics and accountability?
Canadian Wheat Board October 16th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, that minority government, in its attempt to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, did the unconscionable in a democratic society. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, through an order in council, shattered freedom of speech for farmer elected directors. The order stated in part, “It shall not advocate the retention of its powers”. This directive goes against every principle in a free society for citizens elected to represent their electors.
Will the minister rescind this order now?