Wednesday, 16 November 2011 20:38

DEBATE OF THE SENATE - QUESTION PERIOD

Hon. Maria Chaput: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government and concerns the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Last week, in Calgary, the Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, announced in his economic update . . .

Let me be clear: we will not be bound by ideology when it comes to making decisions to keep our economy strong and protect Canadians, their financial security and their jobs.

He also said:

We have responded to critical situations with flexibility and pragmatism, and we will continue to do so as situations dictate.

With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, the government is stubbornly ignoring the concerns and the democratic weight of a majority of farmers. Abolishing the board will cost farmers money, eliminate jobs and lead to the disappearance of family farms, thus changing Canada forever.

In view of this critical situation, is the government willing to show the flexibility and pragmatism Mr. Flaherty spoke about last week in Calgary?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the premise of the senator's question is incorrect. We are not abolishing the Wheat Board. We are simply providing marketing choice for Western Canadian wheat farmers, the same marketing choice that wheat farmers have in other parts of the country, including in my province of Ontario.

Minister Flaherty was addressing the global economic situation. With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, we made the government's intentions very clear. If we did not live up to this promise that we made to Western farmers, which they overwhelmingly supported, honourable senators opposite would be asking me why we broke our promise.

The government has the right to change the legislation, just as farmers must have the right to market their own grain. A member of the Wheat Board who recently resigned said that the Wheat Board's legal challenge is quite simply wrong. Another director who resigned said that what they are doing is a waste of farmers' money.

Senator Chaput: Unfortunately your response, madam leader, seems to indicate that the government does not intend to abandon its position on this matter.

I would like to remind you, once again, that this decision will disproportionately harm Canada's smallest farmers and result in a significant increase in the price of food for Canadian families.

In this fragile economy, can the government truly afford to take this ideological approach, which will jeopardize the survival of this country's small farmers and unfairly increase the expenses of Canadian families?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, it is not an ideological approach. The honourable senator makes claims for which there is absolutely no basis. Australia has followed a model like this to their great benefit. We heard all of these arguments from the grape and wine industry in the Niagara Peninsula during the great free trade debates in the 1980s. That sector predicted dire consequences of the Free Trade Agreement. They said that they would lose family farms and industries would die out. However, the grape growers and wine producers of the Niagara Peninsula have been among the biggest beneficiaries of that policy.

The government's commitment was very clear and it was clearly understood by the people. We will absolutely not go back on our promise to Western farmers.

[...]

DEBATES OF THE SENATE - ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Maria Chaput: Honourable senators, as Senator Plett has said, I am from Provencher in Manitoba and am proud to be so. I know for a fact that some farmers in Manitoba do not agree and are not in favour of this bill. I know that for a fact. Now, they might be a minority. As honourable senators know, I always fight for minorities in this place. I sincerely believe that they need to be heard. They might not have been heard in this election. I do not know how they voted, but the fact of the matter is that they need to be heard. They have a right to be heard and I support the amendment.

Senator Eaton: I thank the Honourable Senator Chaput for what she has said, but is it not true that this amendment is just a way of dragging the puck? That is, of prolonging the agony of defeat?

Senator Chaput: There is no intention on my part either of dragging out the process. It is a matter of democracy, a matter of rights and a matter of minorities having the right to be heard. So be it.

Senator Plett: I wonder whether my honourable friend would accept another question.

Senator Chaput: Yes.

Senator Plett: In the other place, when the members opposite were in government, the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Wayne Easter, made a comment. I agree with the comment and I wonder if my friend would agree with it. I think this speaks very much to minorities. Of course, members opposite are suggesting that people who want to get rid of single-desk marketing are in the minority, so I do support this.

Mr. Easter said, "However, the denial of legitimate rights to one group is an infringement on the rights of all, so those people who want to sell their wheat on the open market and are not allowed to." Would the honourable senator not agree that that is an infringement on their rights?

Senator Chaput: That is not the question, senator.

Senator Plett: It is my question to you.

Senator Chaput: Majorities take care of themselves. Minorities need to be heard. This is what I mean.