Wayne Easter

[Agriculture, April 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as all members of the House will know, it has been a long and difficult winter for P.E.I. potato producers.

Many warehouses still remain full of high quality potatoes blocked from movement to market by unfair United States trade action.

It is my understanding that some progress has been made to resolve this dispute. What could the minister tell the House and Prince Edward Island potato producers with respect to the discussions and any decisions which have been reached on this issue?

[Access To Information Act, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand to oppose the motion by the member for Brandon—Souris, because the net impact of the bill would be to undermine the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to do its job.

The bottom line is the fact that the bill could even hurt producers' returns by, as the member who just spoke said, providing the competition with all the commercial information, the marketing information, et cetera, that the Canadian Wheat Board has available through its diligence and through the good work of its market information section.

I should not be surprised by the tactics of the member for Brandon—Souris, who is now using this new tactic under the guise of the access to information bill he is pursuing here to again attack the integrity of the Canadian Wheat Board. It seems to be commonplace for this member and members of the Canadian Alliance Party opposite to do that. They do it through the process of maybe stretching the facts a little and I would not want to go much further than that. They are building on myths about the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would use this as an example. In his closing remarks, the member for Brandon—Souris said, and I quote, “When public funding is a major cornerstone” of the organization then the Access to Information Act should apply.

The fact of the matter is the Canadian Wheat Board is not publicly funded. The Canadian Wheat Board operates under the legislation of the House. The Canadian Wheat Board is financed by farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board is controlled by a board of directors elected by farmers through legislation passed in the House.

In fact, there is no commercial organization in the country more transparent than the Canadian Wheat Board. It upholds its tranparencies in a number of ways. First, there is the elected board of directors who have to stand for election. Second, there is the annual report that is presented to the minister of agriculture. In fact, the member for Brandon—Souris, if he so desired, and I imagine he does, would be able to bring the Canadian Wheat Board before the standing committee on agriculture and question the board in terms of its activities. Can he do that with Cargill Grain and those other commercial grain institutions that he seems to be supporting in the guise of attacking the Canadian Wheat Board?

Next, there are the district meetings held in all the elected districts across western Canada. As well, there is the monthly newsletter that goes out from the Canadian Wheat Board. Also, there is the auditor general, who looks at the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board.

How much more transparent does this organization have to be in order for the member to understand the fact that certain commercial information should not be made available to the competition?

I also want to point out that the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands was on the typical Canadian Alliance rant against the Canadian Wheat Board. I want to underline the fact, in disagreement with what he had to say, that the bill would hurt primary producers. It would seriously hurt farmers in western Canada.

If some of these members would tour the Canadian Wheat Board head office in Winnipeg, they would see how it gathers its market intelligence, how it is one of the best sellers out there in terms of being able to maximize returns, and how, through its system of pooling, it is able to prevent negative competition within Canada and maximize what is in the international market and efficiently get the maximum returns from the international marketplace back to primary producers. If they would look at that business operation, they would see why the Canadian Wheat Board is so often so able to beat the competition. If the members opposite did a little research, they would find that the Canadian Wheat Board, in terms of some analyses that have been done, has been able to beat the open market pretty nearly all the time, not all the time, but most of the time, in terms of maximizing returns to primary producers.

The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands also talked about the culture of secrecy of the wheat board. That is another myth. Nothing is further from the truth. Earlier in my remarks I outlined the reports, the meetings, the annual report and the information base. There is no culture of secrecy at the Canadian Wheat Board. Indeed, it is the direct opposite.

In conclusion, the bill would very seriously hurt the farm community. As I said earlier, I should not be surprised, but I am amazed that the members opposite continue to use any vehicle to try to build on the myths that are out there rather than talking about the strengths of the Canadian Wheat Board and how it can be used to assist farmers in their time of need.

As I said earlier, the Canadian Wheat Board is farmer financed. This access to information proposal from the member for Brandon—Souris would in fact put it in the position of actually having to subsidize the competition. The member, through his efforts in the bill, would actually subsidize the competition, the likes of Cargill Grain and other grain export companies, by having the Canadian Wheat Board, through its farmer financed organization, provide information on markets, on the markets of other countries, on weather patterns and all that intelligence base that the Canadian Wheat Board uses to assist in its market intelligence to try to make the best sales possible.

Under the bill, all of this would possibly have to be turned over to the competition. In effect, the competition would have to spend far less time in research in terms of corporate operations because the member's bill would be actually subsidizing the competition against the very farm community he proposes to speak for.

It gives me great pleasure to stand and oppose a bill that would undermine our farm community in western Canada if it were allowed to pass in the House. It would also put the Canadian Wheat Board at a disadvantage with its commercial competition in terms of trying to maximize returns to primary producers.

[Committees Of The House, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee recommends that pursuant to subsection 52(2) of the Oceans Act, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be granted an extension for its report on the review of the provisions and operation of this act, from January 31, 2001 to October 1, 2001, and I should like to move concurrence at this time.

(Motion agreed to)

[Fisheries, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. New Brunswick and P.E.I. fishermen appearing before the fisheries committee gave shocking testimony that they, the fishermen, at times have had to supply fuel and pay overtime for fisheries officers to do their job.

They expressed concern that a lack of officers and a shortage of equipment could lead to increased lobster poaching. What, if anything, is the minister doing to correct and strengthen fisheries enforcement capacity on the east coast in the immediate term?

[Cetaceans, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the member for Labrador, to rise in the House today to respond to the motion put forward by the member for Vancouver East.

First I would like to thank the member for Vancouver East for her continuing concern and interest in the live capture and trade of whales and dolphins. I think it is very important that we outline the facts as they exist and the work the government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have been doing in this area.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada takes the well-being of aquatic animals, including those in aquariums, very seriously. For decades all applications for live capture have been carefully scrutinized to ensure that the well-being of these creatures is always the first priority. Applications are examined to determine the adequacy of each aquarium's facilities, the quality of its staff and veterinary support and a range of other considerations. If there is any doubt in these areas, the application is turned down.

While keeping whales and dolphins in aquariums is generally seen as both safe for these creatures and a useful educational tool, DFO is well aware of the concerns expressed by Canadians about keeping whales in captivity. It is true that the long term effects of captivity on whales and dolphins are largely unknown. For these reasons, in 1992 Canada placed a moratorium on the live capture of whales and dolphins for export. The moratorium is still in effect. There has not been a live capture in Canadian waters since that time. I want to emphasize that: there has not been a live capture in Canadian waters since that time. In fact, since 1992 there has been only one application for the live capture of a whale for a Canadian aquarium. That application was rejected.

To develop long term policies for live capture, however, DFO is working to improve its knowledge on the effects of captivity on whales and dolphins and to clarify the various jurisdictions involved. Allow me to present the details of the review.

An independent scientist commissioned by the department conducted a comprehensive review to provide recommendations about the relevance of live captures to DFO's role in marine mammal management. To do this, he travelled across Canada and consulted a wide range of interested groups. While the review acknowledged the benefits of live capture and gave qualified support for whales in aquariums, it also pointed out specific deficiencies and provided a series of recommendations on how to improve marine mammal management in three key areas: one, whales in captivity; two, care and maintenance standards; and three, international trade.

The first group of recommendations, however, whales in captivity, is one where the federal government can do little. Under the constitution, the holding of animals in captivity falls under the responsibility of the provinces. DFO has legal authority only over the live capture of whales from wild stocks in Canadian waters and their release back into the wild.

In the meantime, however, in keeping with the spirit of the review the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is looking at other ways to address the recommendations outlined in areas where the department can in fact make a difference.

The second group of recommendations, care and maintenance standards, is one in which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is looking to make progress. Once again, while care and maintenance of these creatures is a provincial responsibility, DFO is examining opportunities within the federal jurisdiction to work closely with organizations such as the Canadian Council on Animal Care to establish voluntary standards for aquariums as well as a process for their independent verification.

Indeed, preliminary discussions are confirming that Canadian aquariums and their association, the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums, are generally supportive of a set of formalized care and maintenance standards as well as an independent verification process.

For the third area of interest, international trade, Canadian legislation is already in place to deal with the protection and trade of species, particularly endangered stocks. The 1996 Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act addresses any threats to wildlife that may result from trade. In effect, the act implements the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, or CITES as it is generally known. This is an international treaty designed to protect various species, including a number of whales and dolphins. Canada is a party to this convention, along with 151 other nations.

Under the convention any trade in rare or endangered species is not permitted for commercial purposes. Species that are not rare or endangered but that could become so if trade is not regulated, such as beluga whales, which the member mentioned, are also covered by this convention. Under the regulations, trade in these species is subject to an export permit from the country of export.

Once again, I should reiterate that there is presently a moratorium in Canada on live capture of whales and dolphins for export. At this time, banning imports of dolphins and non-endangered whales such as the beluga whale, as put forward in the member's motion, would be inconsistent with the convention and perhaps also with obligations to which Canada is subject under other international trade agreements.

Having said that, let me point out that DFO is currently reviewing the question of live capture and is considering appropriate alternatives.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that Fisheries and Oceans Canada takes the well-being of all aquatic creatures very seriously. The stringent application process that has long governed the live capture of whales and dolphins and the moratorium that has been in place since 1992 provide effective protection for wild animals in Canada. These measures, along with the comprehensive review currently being examined by DFO, demonstrate the importance the department places on this subject.

Until concrete recommendations are developed there is no pressing reason to change the mechanisms in place with regard to live capture. As I mentioned a moment ago, Canada fully supports CITES and has domestic regulations that fully implement our trade obligations under this convention. Clearly it would not be appropriate to adopt a proposal that is inconsistent with our international obligations. For this reason, we are unable to accept the member's motion to decree an immediate moratorium on the live capture and trade of whales and dolphins at this time.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to raise a point when the member for Toronto—Danforth made his points. I just want to put on the record that I do agree with a lot of what he said. We do not really need to change the system in here; we need to change it totally, starting at the Privy Council Office and on down.

However, the member who just spoke talked a lot about free votes. I really think on that point that I look at every vote as a free vote in the House. I vote my conscience. If I want to vote against my party, I can.

The member mentioned that if these walls could speak, but if these walls could speak they would tell us that there have been more free votes since 1993 in the House than ever in its history. Those are the facts. That is reality. There is not this great restriction. In fact, we have seen more members vote different from their party on this side of the House, the governing party, than we have seen in the member's party, the Canadian Alliance, over the last number of years.

I just want to point out that I agree with free votes, but they are not the do all and end all in terms of changing everything in this place. I was not able to be here for a lot of this evening, but I listened to a fair bit of the debate on TV. I really like what I see tonight. There is a good spirit in the House, with good discussion, good debate and good ideas, and I think we need to carry it further.

However, I just want to point out to the member opposite that free votes in and of themselves will not be the do all and end all in terms of changing how this place operates, because we have had more free votes with this government than ever before in our history, but it may not be enough.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if I had the policy statement of the Alliance Party here, I guess I could get into a discussion on those points and what they really mean in terms of supply management, the Canadian Wheat Board, et cetera. However, I will not take the time of the House. I can give the member a copy of his party's policy, if he wishes, so he can understand it.

The member mentioned that the Canadian Wheat Board is not supply management. Of course it is not. Supply management is a system that came into place where producers of certain commodities, dairy, poultry, eggs and turkeys, decided that under legislation they would produce to meet effective market demands. In other words, they were not producing surpluses. A 5% surplus can drive down the whole price by 105%. They manage the supply. That is what supply management is all about.

In return for doing that, consumers are assured of a high quality product at reasonable prices. That is a very good system. However, it will not work for every commodity and I recognize that. It certainly will not work for commodities where the major amount is exported.

What will work and can work in that area, if we have the right international environment, is orderly marketing. The Canadian Wheat Board is orderly marketing. It sells through a single desk and tries to maximize what is in that marketplace back to primary producers. That is what the Canadian Wheat Board is doing, given the rough prices internationally. In other words, with the orderly marketing system within our country, we are not competing against ourselves to drive prices down.

The members opposite talk about subsidies. That is the party that says, and there are other farm groups out there that will agree with it on that point, let the market decide all things. As I said earlier, if that is its position, to let the marketplace decide all things, then let it live by the sword and die by the sword.

However, if we are ready now, after facing this crisis and seeing that the system does not work, then let us come to the table. Let us discuss it and decide where we will go as a country on the recognition that the marketplace does not work in its entirety. There is a need for government involvement in terms of farm policy, be it through assistance, through marketing programs or through whatever, but let us have that kind of discussion. The resolution on the floor today does not lead us to that kind of discussion.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there has been some firing of derricks from the other side in terms of how we might vote on this issue tonight. Let me make it clear off the top where I stand on this resolution today by the Canadian Alliance. I will vote against it. I will outline the reasons why I will vote against this resolution.

Yes, I believe that we must do more. We must do much more to encourage the minister of agriculture and cabinet in terms of assisting the farm community. However, I do not want to see that decision handcuffed by this narrow motion by the Canadian Alliance.

The party across the way, the Canadian Alliance, was the party that came to Ottawa and said it was going to do politics differently.

I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker.

Here it is today basically saying what it has said all along and that is get government out of agriculture, get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board or dual marketing, and it attacks supply management.

What the Alliance is really doing with this motion is violating its own principles. It is asking for government subsidies when it has said all along it does not believe in subsidies.

The Alliance cannot have it both ways. Its position, and I have fought against it, has been to get the government out of the farmers' lives. That is why it attacks the Canadian Wheat Board. That is why it attacks supply management.

I have always believed there is a role for government in farm policy and I continue to believe so. I advocate a much stronger role in terms of farm policy by government than we currently have in the country.

Contrary to my party on this issue of support, I believe we must support at levels close to that of the United States so that we are not a poor country. I believe we are a very strong industrial nation. We have good fundamentals in our economy. We should be there for our farm community when our farm community needs help. However, we should be there in a number of ways, not just by subsidies.

I found the discussions over the last number of weeks very interesting in terms of some of the people who came to us looking for government subsidy support. I spent 17 years in the farm movement and many of the people today who are calling for government subsidies are the very people who said “Get government out of the business of farming. Do not allow it to subsidize things. We can survive in the marketplace”. We cannot have it both ways. We either believe in the farm market, live by the sword and die by the sword or we do not believe that that market is the absolutely determining factor.

Farmers, governments and political parties have to think this through. What is the best way? Is the marketplace really the answer? If the marketplace is really the answer, and the farmers and the parties believe that, then they should not be in the House asking for government subsidies. I believe in them, but I come from a different philosophical base because I believe there is a role for government in farming, to assist the farm community.

Tonight I am not going to align myself with a party that says one thing and does another. I stand by my principles. If it is willing to rethink its position, I am willing to work with it in order to try to find a long term solution.

To comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge, we see where the Alliance Party stands through its attack on the Canadian Wheat Board again. The fact is, as bad as prices are in the grain industry as a result of international subsidies and the export enhancement program in the United States forcing prices down, the Canadian Wheat Board is able to protect the interests of farmers and producers somewhat.

The Canadian Wheat Board is able to at least maximize the returns that are in the marketplace back to the primary producer. As well, through single desk selling, the Canadian Wheat Board in selling into that competitive international market has created a situation where farmers are not competing against themselves and are maximizing the price that is in that marketplace.

This is not the first crisis that farmers have faced since we became a nation. In the 1930s, under emergency measures, the Canadian Wheat Board was brought in partly to challenge the unbridled power of the grain companies and the railways at that time. It remains today, and we have made improvements to the wheat board in the interests of farmers.

In the sixties and seventies, dairy, poultry and egg producers were in much the same situation as grain producers find themselves today. The buying power of who they sold to was so concentrated that they could basically drive prices down. There was not too much product in the marketplace but product was manipulated, the market was manipulated and farmers were being driven out of business. What did farmers do? They got together and came to the government. We had a minister, a department and a party that was willing to go out and say that the market was not working. They were willing to challenge that market. They implemented the supply management systems which remain in place today and which that party attacks.

We do not hear supply management producers in here today. Those farmers went out and changed the system that was not working, with the support of government. I maintain that is what we have to do in this area as well.

I think Elbert van Donkersgoed perhaps said it best, certainly better than I can say it. He was talking about the minister of agriculture's $500 million in federal funding and the total of over $2.6 billion. He said “The commitment is timely and welcome. Rural Canada will breath a small sigh of relief”.

He went on to say that the minister of agriculture said “With this funding in place we must now focus on our ability to compete over the long term”.

He further said:

We've been there and done that! If Canadian agriculture has done anything well over past decades, it is focusing on our ability to compete—almost to the exclusion of all else...reinvested assets, latest technology, faster machines—

We are still producing more for less. The answer is not to just go that route.

Let me conclude by saying the current crisis will require short term assistance. The Alliance Party resolution is not going to do it. Yes, in my view there should be more on the table, but it will require long term, global solutions and changing how that marketplace operates. We have to change the marketplace so it operates for farmers rather than against farmers.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake mentioned something I said earlier in a past debate in the House relating to the department, and I stand by that view. I believe that the people within the department do not really understand the practicality on the farm, and we have to change that too. That does not mean those people are not good people. They are just in the wrong department at this point in time. We are going to have to change this thing from stem to stern.

The departmental level and the farm community are going to have to come together and analyze this from the total perspective, not just a subsidy or a dollar here and a dollar there, but in terms of putting in place the kinds of marketing programs and transportation policies that will assist the farm community so that it can be the best in the world in agricultural development.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in closing that maybe we need to put ideologies aside. He is far from doing that. We have had the usual rant against the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Canadian Wheat Board is one of the vehicles that is there to maximize returns back to producers from the international marketplace. We have had that kind of rant from the Canadian Alliance before.

He wants to set the ideology aside when it comes to paying subsidies, which the Alliance Party is opposed to doing, although they are talking about it now, but when it comes to the wheat board he wants to keep his old ideology. Does he want the government in or out? He cannot have it both ways.

I want to correct for the record what the member said about government controlled bureaucracy or something along those lines in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board. The fact of the matter is that he was in the House when we passed a new act in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board, in which the Canadian Wheat Board, after much debate, was turned over to the control of the farm community through an elected board of directors.

The member cannot have it both ways. For Pete's sake, he should give the real facts to the House instead of the malign ones he is producing.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Where was Stockwell Day?