Robert Chisholm

[The Environment, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada's Dartmouth office is slashing 18 to 43 staff, devastating vital research on toxic substances, having the impact of axing studies on important environmental impacts of salmon farms and on poisonous mercury fallout from U.S. coal-fired power plants.

Our environment cannot stand the government's death by a thousand cuts. When will the minister stop sending these skilled workers to the unemployment line and start doing his job of protecting our environment?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I call a government that ignores the democratic rights of farmers, that makes decisions with this kind of economic impact without due consideration of the impact on taxpayers, that flouts the law, completely out of touch. I call that government completely out of touch with the responsibilities accorded to it by the rights instilled in this Parliament to be respectful of the people of Canada, to be respectful of this institution, and to make sure government members conduct themselves in a responsible and mature manner in the best interests of all Canadians.

The government has shown again that it is completely out of touch and is running recklessly forward without any consideration for what it is doing to the fabric of this country.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that it is the height of fiscal irresponsibility for the government to be making a decision with this kind of impact without having determined the costs.

That member knows, as I do, we are watching negotiations with Europe regarding the CETA, where we have on the table the possibility that the government could extend patent protection to pharmaceuticals which could add $2.9 billion in costs to the health care system in Canada and it has not done one lick of study to determine whether that will happen. That is the level of irresponsibility the government continues to show Canadians.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to split my time with my colleague, the member for Drummond.

I rise today to speak in support of the motion from my colleague, the member for Churchill, which is calling upon the government to acknowledge the fact that farmers have a democratic right to determine the future of their own supply management tools and marketing boards. It also calls upon the government to conduct a full and free vote of current members of the Canadian Wheat Board.

While listening to the debate I was struck by the fact that government members believe they know what is best and that they have the answers. The Canadian Wheat Board is an organization that has existed for some 60 years. It was set up by farmers for farmers and decisions are made by farmers for the benefit of farmers, yet without consulting farmers the government is making a decision as to whether or not it will exist. It is completely undercutting the right and responsibility afforded to farmers in the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

The government members have made claims as to why they are allowed to do that. They claim that because the majority of farmers voted for them in the May 2 election they can do whatever they want. Another claim is that the Wheat Board was one of the items in their election platform.

There were a number of items in the Conservatives' platform. Many people voted for the Conservatives for a whole host of reasons, not necessarily because they agreed with one particular item. To suggest that everyone who voted for the Conservatives supported every one of those policies is a complete misrepresentation of the democratic process and is irresponsible in the extreme.

A plebiscite was held in September wherein farmers had the opportunity to indicate how they felt about the government's decision. The result was that 62% of farmers clearly indicated they felt the Wheat Board should continue. If they have determined that is the best way to go forward, why would the government reject that?

I know that perhaps eight, ten or a dozen or more members opposite will be directly affected by this decision. I do not know why they think they know it all and believe that the some 20,000 farmers who voted to keep the Wheat Board are wrong. Obviously, those eight, ten, twelve or so farmers who are sitting on the government benches believe they would be affected positively by this decision and feel that they have all the answers.

There is another question that I had thought of recently which others have mentioned. That is the question of supply, both for exports and for imports, which relates to the transportation network. I am the international trade critic for the opposition and one of the issues we have with regard to transportation in Canada is our ability to move goods in a timely and orderly fashion to our ports for export purposes or transporting imported goods to markets. There are serious concerns as to how that is handled.

One issue we will be talking about in the House at some point relates to who is in control of the rail system and whether that has been in the best interests of industry, of Canada and of Canadians. We will examine that more clearly.

In the event that the Canadian Wheat Board is dismantled, the marketing, sale and transportation of these products will either fall to the corporate sector or, as some people have suggested, to private interests. However, others believe that before long the control of the marketing and sale of these products will end up in the hands of Cargill, one of the world's largest wheat buyers and marketers. That would pose a problem for farmers. That is one reason they have largely voted against the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board.

We already have problems negotiating trade deals with other countries concerning how we can do a better job internally with the transportation of goods either to markets or from our ports into our cities.

Those are a few of my concerns with respect to transportation.

I now come back to the fact that I am struck by the lack of democratic respect the government has shown toward farmers by taking it upon itself, with the stroke of a pen, to dismantle an organization that has existed for so long and has been such an important tradition.

Farmers continue to come together to make decisions regarding how their grain will be marketed, how it will be sold and how it will be transported. That right will be taken away from them.

The members opposite suggest that farmers need freedom. Farmers have freedom. They can vote on whether or not this is in their best interests. That is why the legislation that was put in place to set up and manage the Wheat Board was constructed as it was.

If in their wisdom farmers decide that it is not in their best interests to keep the Wheat Board, they will make that decision. That is laid out clearly in the bylaws pertaining to the Canadian Wheat Board. However, they have not made that decision. Rather, they have decided that they want the Canadian Wheat Board to remain in place and to continue representing their interests, which it has done for so many years now.

Government members, who are seemingly fearful of the democratic process, thump their chests and say they know best. They claim that because farmers voted for them on May 2 they have the authority to do this, yet they have not presented any evidence, impact studies or reports to the House to back up their claim that this will be in the best interests of farmers. They simply say that this is what they will do.

NDP members and other members, including those in the third party, have spoken eloquently with regard to the history of the Canadian Wheat Board and the right of farmers to make this decision on their own. That is what this motion is about. It simply reiterates what is contained in the legislation and in the bylaws pertaining to the Canadian Wheat Board. It allows farmers who are members of the Canadian Wheat Board to make a decision. It provides for a fair and a full vote to be conducted by members of the Canadian Wheat Board that we are to live by and respect. Yet the government looks at us and says, “Why would we do that? We know best”.

From my experience in politics and otherwise, I suggest that the people most directly affected are the ones who know best. That is why I am supporting this motion. It is why I urge members opposite to come to the realization that maybe they do not know what is best, and in this case they should allow farmers to make that decision.

[Canada- U.S. Relations, October 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot get anything right when it comes to standing up for the interests of everyday Canadians. First there was the buy American fiasco, then tariffs on Vancouver ports and now a new tax on entering the U.S. People taking a family on a trip will be dinged $5. Small businesses that need to cross the border will be dinged. Snowbirds going south for the winter will be dinged.

My question is this: when will the government stop letting the U.S. steamroll over Canadian interests?

[International Trade, October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Canadians breathed a sigh of relief when they heard that confidence from the parliamentary secretary.

When it comes to defending the interests of Canadians, Conservatives have shown they cannot be trusted: the IRS pursuing law-abiding Canadians, the EU trade deal that lays us open to big pharma, buy America provisions that make a mockery of trade reciprocity, and now a surcharge on Canadians travelling to the U.S.

When will the government abandon the platitudes and empty promises and get to work protecting the interests of Canadians?

[International Trade, October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government's ongoing incompetence in trade negotiations is once again on display. After failing to obtain an exemption to buy American rules and opening the door to Europe's big pharma, now we learn that while Conservatives pretend to deal with border thickening, Canadians will now be charged every time they cross the U.S. border.

What is the government's explanation for its latest failure at the bargaining table?

[International Trade, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that even the government's friends say that it has fumbled another deal. Again today, we heard that the Conservatives have continued to mess up the relations with the U.S. Another round of U.S. stimulus has meant that Canada is being excluded.

The Conservatives continue to ask Canadians to trust them while they negotiate a massive, closed door deal with Europe.

Every time the Conservatives make a deal, Canada loses. When will the Conservatives stop folding on trade negotiations and start standing up for Canadians?

[International Trade, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, a new report from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canada China Business Council says that the Conservatives have fumbled economic dealings with the region so badly that Canada now has a bad reputation with Asia. Once again, the Conservatives are blundering relations with yet another important trade partner.

How can Canadians trust the Conservatives to move Canada forward on trade when every time they sign a deal they set the country back?

[International Trade, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the minister and the government cannot see because of their rose-coloured glasses.

We need some straight talk on the impacts of this deal. European officials are quite happy to tell us what is going on. One European official boasted that Europe stands to gain while Canada loses. He said, “there will be some losers, there are always losers”.

Why is the government content with this loser status? Why will the government not start giving the straight goods to Canadians and stand up for them?