Wayne Easter

[Speech from the Throne, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if we just go back to the speech of the member for Calgary—Nose Hill we will see how that member of the Canadian Alliance, of which the member for Delta—South Richmond is a part, although I am sure he must hate to admit it sometimes, took every section of the speech we mentioned and talked about it as if we have not done enough when we are moving forward in these areas.

In terms of fisheries, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is doing very good work. Yes, work has to be done. We have tabled some reports from the fisheries committee too. We did not expect this to be in the throne speech. Where we expect to see the efforts in the fishery is in the forthcoming budget, so as a past chair of the fisheries committee, along with my colleague opposite, we are certainly serving notice to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans right now that we expect great strides forward to come in the next budget.

[Speech from the Throne, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Secretary of State for Rural Development.

First, I cannot resist talking a bit about the right wing rant we just heard from the member for Calgary--Nose Hill when she talked about nine long years.

The throne speech is a real Liberal throne speech based on a Liberal agenda. We are not catering to the right wing ideas of the party opposite, which has been done too much in the past. Today as we set the stage for the throne speech, Canadians have fiscal sovereignty and they are united. We are united as a country and we are a confident people. We can move forward with the kind of economic and social agenda that we can be proud of as Liberals and which meets Liberal values.

I welcome the throne speech. It lays out an important direction. It is a road map for the future and where the government will go in the next several years.

This is a real Liberal throne speech and I am proud to take part in the debate on it. In the throne speech there are some of the issues we campaigned on as far back as 1993 and I will admit that. When we came to power we ended up facing the fiscal deficit that was left as a result of the Mulroney years. We had to get the country's finances in order and we did. We made some tough decisions. Some of them have been mentioned that we made in 1995. We made the necessary cuts and today the foundation is under us to enable us to move forward.

The throne speech breaks the catering to some of the right wing values of the past and moves us forward. It not only builds on a strong economic base but it also builds on a social policy for better health care. It helps families and children. It improves the situation in agriculture. It deals with climate change. It tries to develop a better opportunity for others around the world. It is based on Liberal values.

I was very pleased that the Prime Minister gave caucus members the opportunity to participate and put forward their ideas in the development of the throne speech. I am pleased that a good many of our ideas in the discussions we had as a party are in the throne speech.

I want to quote from the letter I gave to the Prime Minister. I do so because we have to be ever vigilant of our natural resource industries including fisheries, as members opposite yell about from time to time.

Sometimes the difficulty with the heady excitement surrounding new technologies is that we lose sight of the fact that the key enduring strength in the Canadian economy lies in our natural resources: agriculture, fisheries, forestry and mining and the value added that we get from those resources. Those natural resource industries have been the foundation of the country from the beginning and they will remain the foundation. We have to make sure those natural resource industries are well funded in the future. We will do that through the budgetary measures.

Most of those areas were mentioned in the throne speech. The throne speech addresses several of these points and we must be vigilant to ensure that we spend the necessary moneys in the future.

Since my background is in agriculture, I want to talk about it. The initiative outlined in the agricultural policy framework stated as its purpose that the government is committed to “moving agriculture beyond crisis management to greater profitability and prosperity in the 21st century”. This marks a new activist involvement of the federal government in agriculture.

This past June the announcement of the framework was accompanied by a new infusion of funds from the federal government in the amount of $5.2 billion. With provincial cooperation this funding will increase to $8.18 billion for agriculture. This initiative has the support of the farming community and is one which must be built upon further.

The benefits of this initiative depend not only on domestic efforts, but also on the situation our farmers face at the international level. I do not have time to go through the figures and the subsidization levels in the United States and Europe, but they are outrageous. We have to stand by our farmers in the interim.

The United States farm bill and the renewed United States trade actions targeting the Canadian Wheat Board demonstrate that the efforts of the federal government to meet the commitments under the agricultural policy framework will include action in response to the United States agricultural policies and unwarranted trade challenges.

The U.S. farm bill will put about $190 billion into their agricultural industry over the next 10 years. However this new level of protectionism will continue to drive commodity prices down in this country and around the world and will have a direct negative impact on Canadian farmers. To respond to these unfair trading practices and subsidies, the government must be committed to a direct response as outlined in the throne speech, noting that the government will work “bilaterally and multilaterally to resolve trade disputes”.

A more activist government agenda will be one securing the critical infrastructure of our agricultural sector. There must be a strong and aggressive challenge to the United States efforts at undermining the Canadian Wheat Board. We must stand up to the Canadian Alliance as well, which is also trying to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. The most recent challenge is the 10th effort by the United States. All previous attempts to challenge the board have been unsuccessful.

The federal government must issue a strong statement of support for the supply managed commodity sector, one of the unique Canadian success stories in terms of agricultural management and production benefiting farmers. It must ensure that at the World Trade Organization and other trade negotiations this important institution is not compromised.

As a final point, with respect to resolving trade issues, the rules must be the same across the board. Specifically with respect to the issue of potato wart and mop top virus, the United States has been attempting to negotiate a more stringent quarantine program for Prince Edward Island farmers than the Americans are willing to accept for theirs. That is unacceptable and we must have similar program restrictions for both countries.

I emphasize that in terms of health care the throne speech is moving in the right direction. In terms of environmental protection and climate change, we are also moving in the right direction.

Regional development is one of the areas the Alliance Party always attacks, especially in Atlantic Canada. I want to talk for a moment about what regional development has done for Atlantic Canada in terms of putting it at the forefront in moving forward.

Let us look at business costs. The most comprehensive business cost environment among the G-7 countries is in fact Atlantic Canada. In Atlantic Canada the cost of living is 25% to 65% lower than other regions. Building permits and environmental assessments are done much faster, in a matter of weeks or months. Land costs are in the lowest 5% of locations around North America. We have competitive reliable energy rates. We have a workforce of 1.2 million people who are well educated. We have a strong infrastructure in terms of 16 seaports and 15 commercial airports.

Canada has the second highest rates of broadband penetration in the OECD. We have over 40 colleges and universities. We have a dependable and very strong labour force. The Alliance should listen to this one on taxation. Atlantic Canada has the second lowest average corporate taxes in the G-7.

As well, property taxes are 30% lower and it is one of North America's leading e-learning clusters. We have more than 1,400 training companies. Atlantic Canada is the place to do business. We have been able to do it and maintain our social agenda and it is in part thanks to our regional development agencies like ACOA.

[Timothy Findley, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this occasion to pay a special tribute to a great Canadian author who passed away today at the age of 71: Timothy Findley.

Mr. Findley was a renowned Canadian author who received recognition and accolades around the world for his work. Included on his list of awards is our Governor General's Literacy Award and an appointment as an Officer of the Order of Canada.

Mr. Findley began his writing career in 1967 creating many great works, one being The Piano Man's Daughter . He also wrote several plays, short stories and television, radio and film scripts. Even in this arena Timothy Findley excelled, for which he earned an ACTRA Award. Mr. Findley was also very active in the Canadian writing community and was the president of the Canadian chapter of PEN International.

Perhaps I may close with a quote from critic Eugene Benson who said of Timothy Findley that “He has written only masterpieces”.

On behalf of all citizens I express my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Timothy Findley.

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the member for Burnaby—Douglas said about the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. The committee does work well together and he is a great addition to the committee. However the member for Burnaby—Douglas, in quoting one section of the report, might have wrongly left the impression that we want to take all those fish beyond the 200 mile limit for ourselves. That is not what we are saying. We want them managed properly. We may undertake custodial management to do that. I will quote directly from the report so that it is on the record. It states:

We believe that there is a third option: custodial management. Under a custodial management regime, Canada would assume sole responsibility for the management and conservation of the areas of our continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit: the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. However, foreign fishing interests would not be removed; instead, historic allocation and access would be respected.

We do not feel NAFO is working the way that it is supposed to work. Member states of NAFO are violating their own scientific recommendations. They are overfishing, using smaller gear, using targeted fishing in terms of bycatches and so on. We believe it must be managed properly. We would not take over complete control but we would manage the resource according to historical allocation so that Canadians and foreigners could benefit from that fishery for the future and for future generations.

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burin--St. George's for his remarks. I agree that the committee members work well together.

The town of Burgeo is in the member's riding. As the member said, there is nothing like being out there on the ground with the people who are affected by these issues. I am fortunate enough to have with me the presentation by Allister Hann, the mayor of Burgeo, who stated:

The reason I have chosen to come here today is because of the importance I attach to extension of jurisdiction. Also, your committee...will be able to put a face on a particular town, the town of Burgeo. There are many other Burgeos.... Our towns have made and continue to make the ultimate sacrifice, that is, of dying. This is due in no small part to Canada's mismanagement of our fishery inside 200 miles and total inaction and disregard for the nose, tail and Flemish Cap of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.

Those are his words, not mine. That is the view of an individual on the ground. It is his point of view that the country is not taking enough action to back them up in terms of this issue.

I will not read all three pages of his presentation into the record. It is available in the minutes and proceedings of the committee. I encourage members to read it so they can feel from the heart how he felt. He concluded by saying “Rural Newfoundland is dying while Canada pussyfoots around. The question is not should Canada, act but when. The answer is now”.

Perhaps the member for Burin--St. George's could talk about the other Burgeos in his constituency and the impact the loss of the fishery is having on those communities. Perhaps he could comment on why it is so very important for the Government of Canada to stand up and take action against the violators of the conservation measures that NAFO itself established. They are member countries and they are violating the conservation measures established by the scientific council of NAFO.

[Petitions, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of citizens of Canada. The petitioners believe that an injustice was done to Steven Truscott, that the case should be re-examined in a timely fashion and that justice should be restored.

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in hearing the comments from the member for Cumberland--Colchester on the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

One has to be at least half fair to the minister. The member is suggesting that the minister has rejected the report out of hand. There was a media story to that point. We have to be fair to the minister. As we said in the report the government has 150 days in which to respond to the report. I would hope it responds quicker than that and that over that period of time the minister takes a much different position than he was alleged to have taken in the media report. I have a couple of questions for the member for Cumberland--Colchester.

One of the key recommendations was that we need to implement custodial management over the nose and tail of the Flemish Cap. The way that we would do that would be through the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Is the member saying that he would be in favour of making amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to accommodate coastal management?

The member comes from Nova Scotia not from Newfoundland and Labrador. Can the member outline some of the benefits that might accrue to his own area as a result of the increased economic activity, et cetera, that might occur as a result of not allowing the fisheries to be decimated by these foreign fleets, as is happening now?

[Committees of the House, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member opposite. Could the hon. member outline some of the points of view Newfoundlanders and Labradorians gave to us when we were in Newfoundland? Could he give us a taste of some of the views they expressed?

To get the hon. member started I will refer to the testimony of Mr. Jim Morgan, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Rights and Boat Owners Association. Mr. Morgan felt the Government of Canada should be moving on the issue. He said Canada must act now to stop the decimation of our stocks. He said we should use our legislative framework to arrest ships that fish illegally outside the NAFO framework.

Alastair O'Rielly, president of the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, outlined where Canada's lax regime was leading. He said that prior to 1995 there were 26,000 fishing days from 71 vessels. As the hon. member opposite stated, after 1995 when we seized the Estai the problem cleaned up for a few days. After 1995 there were 6,000 fishing days with 16 vessel years. There are now 10,000 fishing days with 27 fishing years.

Pat Chamut, the assistant deputy minister of fisheries, clearly outlined the problems although he did not say he was in favour of custodial management. He said the problems included: a significant increase in infringements since 1995; directed fishing for moratoria species; exceeded quotas; misreported catches of three ounce shrimp; use of small mesh gear; and failure to provide observer reports.

Could the hon. member give us a taste of what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been saying before the committee? Could he expand a bit and say how we could implement custodial management from the point of view of the standing committee on fisheries? We are not talking about taking historic rights away from foreign nations. Historic allocations should remain but we should manage the fishery the way NAFO intended. NAFO is clearly not doing this now. Canada must take strong action.

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I call upon the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to reject recommendation 14 contained in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The recommendation, put forward without the support of the elected board of directors of the wheat board, would result in my view in the board's destruction.

The government has long been on record as supporting the Canadian Wheat Board and in fact passed legislation in 1996 for farmers, through an elected board, to have governance and manage their own affairs. Because of single desk selling as opposed to the open market, during the 2000-01 crop year alone the board ensured that grain producers received a $160 million higher return for wheat. Without the board these moneys would have gone to grain companies.

To agree with a proposal that would take money out of producers' pockets and give greater control to the railways and grain companies would be wrong. This recommendation must be rejected.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, we are a farmer friendly party and will be increasingly so. I do not know what Bill C-15B has to do with the report, but the chair of the rural caucus did his best to ensure the bill would be changed. I expect that when the Senate gets around to it Bill C-15B will be changed to ensure current farm practices relative to cruelty to animals--