Wayne Easter

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This has nothing to do with the piece of legislation we are discussing. Where is this member coming from? I think you should bring him to order, Mr. Speaker.

[Committees Of The House, March 29th, 2000]

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the committee recommends that it be granted leave to travel from April 30 to May 10, 2000 to Quebec, New Brunswick, Maine, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador and P.E.I. to continue its comprehensive study on aquaculture, its statutory review of the oceans act and of fisheries issues, and that the committee be composed of two Canadian Alliance members, one Bloc member, one NDP member, one PC member and five Liberals and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

[Agriculture, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity along with my colleague the member for Essex to welcome Mr. Nick Parsons to Parliament Hill this morning.

Mr. Parsons, a grain farmer, drove his combine all the way from Peace River to outline to the public and the government the devastating farm crisis affecting many farm families and their communities across the country.

His journey was not easy but it signifies the spirit and determination for better farm policies for all farmers across Canada. His journey signifies a historic moment in terms of farm policy politics in which farmers from across Canada have travelled across many areas of the country, have demonstrated publicly for better farm policies and his—

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

It is not unusual for members of the Reform Party to say no because they do not listen to ordinary people. They do not care about ordinary people. They are a non-caring party, that is for sure. It is obvious in their remarks today. Talk about a culture of neglect. The party opposite neglects ordinary people. The fact of the matter is that they definitely do not care. This program was put in place to create jobs and it in fact has done that. The minister—

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was just looking at the ceiling to see if there was a full moon. There must be a solar eclipse or something because the member opposite certainly has a strange imagination.

He had a very rhetorical speech with no substance or facts at all. He talked about facts but there was no substance to what he was saying. He talked about blowing $1 billion out the window. Has he not listened to one thing the minister said in the House in terms of explaining—

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the response to the last question shows how ridiculous is the Reform Party's thrust. The member opposite has no proof that the Minister of Human Resources Development released the document on the 17th because the Reform Party did what it did on the 19th. It might have been the other way around. The Reform Party might have had information that the minister was doing her job adequately, which she has shown she was doing. She said there would be corrections. Maybe the Reform Party decided to go the way it went to create an avenue going the other direction. Maybe that is what happened.

We are seeing allegations from the Reform Party that do not have substance. The answers today from the Prime Minister and the human resources development minister clearly show that we have projects that are good right across the country. Will the hon. member not admit that these projects are good?

[Privilege, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege for which I have already given the Chair notice.

My question of privilege arises from news reports on Wednesday, December 15 in the Ottawa Citizen , Edmonton Journal and National Post each of which made reference to the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled Thursday, December 16 in the House.

I draw the Speaker's attention to the following quote which appeared in each of these newspapers cited. It stated:

To accommodate the treaty right the government should encourage native participation in the fishery through a program which provides native fishermen with a down payment on a licence and vessel and a competitive loan to cover the outstanding value of the assets purchased.

Each newspaper identified that statement as one section of the report.

I would draw to the Speaker's attention the recommendation section of the Reform Party's minority report as appended to the committee report. In that section there appears a quote on page 43 which is identical to the one I have read.

I further point out that even I as chair did not have access to that minority report until Thursday, December 16 and that appeared in the paper on Wednesday, December 15.

I would draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that in two of the newspaper accounts, the title of the report for which that quotation was supposedly extracted was provided to the media as “The Marshall Decision and Beyond: Implications for the Management of Atlantic Fisheries”. That title as provided to the media is of course the title of the report as tabled in the House.

Neither the title of the report nor the contents of the Reform Party's minority report were disclosed in any way by the committee in public session. Both of these were provided to the media without the consent of the committee and therefore in violation of the rules of the House.

It is my contention that providing the media with what was attributed as being part of the standing committee's report has violated the privileges not only of the members who dedicated themselves to the work of this committee but to all members of the House.

My remarks are not directed toward the contents which were contained in the Reform Party's minority report. My concern is that someone provided the media with that minority report and obviously implied that what they were providing was part of the committee's report. That was done, I would submit, intentionally and maliciously.

I conclude by saying that this unfortunately is not the first time a report of the standing committee on fisheries has been leaked to the media prior to its being tabled in the House. The difference this time is that there appears to be little doubt, in fact absolutely no doubt, as to the source of the violation of the privileges of the members of the House.

If the Speaker finds that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Committees Of The House, December 16th, 1999]

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee has completed its study of the implications of the September 17 supreme court decision in R. v Marshall on the management of fisheries in the Atlantic region and tables its report. Notwithstanding Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response thereto within 45 days.

I particularly thank committee members and the staff of the committee for their very hard work. They worked late hours trying to get this committee report completed in time. That includes Publication Services; Alan Nixon, the researcher; Bill Farrell, the clerk; France Lewis, the clerk's administrative assistant; Nathalie Labelle, the administrative officer; and Michael O'Neill.

[Committees Of The House, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans which recommends that it be granted permission to travel from February 13 to 23, 2000 to review the Oceans Act, the aboriginal fishing strategy and the aquaculture issues.

[Supply, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to get into an extended debate with the member on the Canadian Wheat Board but we really do not have the time.

No one on the government side is saying that the Canadian Wheat Board is supply management. We are saying that the Canadian Wheat Board is orderly marketing, maximizing the returns that are in that market. Instead of confusing the facts the member should have clearly said that the government has put in place an elected board of directors so that the farmers on the board could be masters of their own destiny.

I am surprised and disappointed at the member for Selkirk—Interlake. He used the tactics of divisiveness in his remarks by talking about some of the grants to culture and so on as if they were not needed as well. They are needed in that area. I have seen this type of tactic being used previously by a former Reform Party member, the present Saskatchewan party leader. He used the argument of east versus west as to what one was getting and the other was not.

We do have a problem. The minister has very clearly said that there is a farm crisis. We have outlined the problem with subsidies in the European Economic Community and in the United States. We tabled a position at the WTO for those countries to bring down the subsidies. Yes, we have to do more.

The member said additional funds were needed for the farm sector. I agree that additional funds are needed. Could he tell us how much in additional funding is needed from his perspective? How should it be paid out so that it gets to the farm community quickly and helps the family farm? Let us put the facts on the table. What are you really saying?