Wayne Easter

[Tax On Financial Transactions, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I want to briefly summarize what I said previously.

I explained how much a tax on currency speculation was needed. I also explained that we could not allow the money speculators in New York and elsewhere around the world to sometimes bring countries to their knees by statements that a country was a basket case or whatever which drives trading in the currency down. I also explained that we could not allow money speculators, who just play with paper and create no real wealth and do not produce anything, to jeopardize ordinary people's working lives by their actions.

Let me use the few minutes I have left to build on why Canada should push for such a policy globally. The fact is a small and some would say very tiny tax on currency speculators could stabilize economies. At the same time it could help finance social initiatives and third world development.

By stabilizing economies I mean that some speculators who are playing with the financial markets on Bay Street or some other such place have a notion about a country and make a statement that a country is in serious financial trouble, that it is a basket case or whatever. Those words get into some of the investment papers. That one single statement by people play around with money and create no real wealth other than for themselves starts a run on the country's currency and causes serious problems for the finances and people of that country.

Putting this small Tobin tax as it is called on money speculators would ease that kind of activity. They would not play those kinds of games. We are talking about a very small tax, somewhere in the rage of one-tenth of one per cent. That kind of a tax would also bring in a fair bit of return. It would have to be put in place globally. With that kind of financing a lot could be done for the third world in terms of needed social policies.

The book Good Taxes by Alex Michalos had this to say about the tax and how it would be put in place:

A transaction tax on purchases and sales of foreign exchange would have to be (1) universal and (2) uniform; it would (3) have to apply to all jurisdictions, and (4) the rate would have to be equalized across markets. Were it imposed unilaterally by one country, that country's FOREX market would simply move offshore ... (5) Enforcement of the universal tax would depend principally on major banks and on the jurisdictions that regulate them. (6) The surveillance of national regulatory authorities could be the responsibility of a multilateral agency like the Bank for International Settlements or the International Monetary Fund. It might be authorized to set the size of the tax within limits. (7) It would have to possess sanctions that could be levied on countries that fail to comply with the measure.

Those points are important. That is what we are saying we have to move toward. All those conditions have to be met. It is important for Canada to lead the way by discussing with other countries that this kind of tax is needed on a global basis. This should lessen the money speculation and would provide moneys to do good things in social policy and other ways for the third world.

[Division No. 358, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point regarding the House leader's point and that is the fact that what was presented by the President of Treasury Board this evening does not change the substance of the issue. It does not change the substance of the issue. The fact is that there was an agreement reached—

[Fisheries, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated many times in the House that regardless of budgetary commitments, safety is always a priority of the government. We will ensure that we maintain that safety through the coast guard.

[Movement Of Grain, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I too welcome the opportunity to enter into this debate and outline the seriousness of this situation, in particular for western Canadian farmers.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague.

At the outset I would like to outline a bit of my own background because I have had some involvement in this area. In fact I was a farm leader for a decade and a half in the west. I have marched in the streets with the Public Service Alliance of Canada because I believe so strenuously in collective bargaining.

I will use the word “hostage”. Farmers on the prairies are third party victims and have been held hostage by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the leadership of the Public Service Alliance of Canada knows that. There were other options open to them which they did not choose.

As far as the member for Winnipeg—Transcona talking about using the word “hostage”, I would use the same word against a capitalist or a corporation if they were using these kinds of tactics.

Given the cash flow and the kind of year that farmers have had in western Canada, and in northwestern Saskatchewan for four years, they do not need this kind of problem, which is caused by events beyond their control. With the cash crunch and the disaster relief program we have had to put in place, it will be difficult to attain the targets to actually get the amount of money required to the farm community, which they do indeed need.

The actions of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, causing disruptions to delivery times, can and will affect future sales. I will quote what the minister of agriculture had to say today. He said “Grain prices are low enough that Canadian farmers do not need anything else reducing their incomes. Unfortunately, the Canadian Wheat Board has informed us that in the last 48 hours it has lost a $9 million sale because the reliability of our delivery system is in question”.

I say again, the leadership of the Public Service Alliance of Canada knows that. They knew it before they took these actions.

As well, there was a press release from the Canadian Wheat Board itself, which stated: “The CWB lost a CDN $9 million sale to an Asian buyer in the past 48 hours. It has also had to forgo sales to several customers in other areas because timely delivery for nearby shipment positions could not be guaranteed”.

This indeed is a serious matter.

How do we balance this with the collective bargaining process? Were there other options available to the Public Service Alliance of Canada? In fact the kind of action they took previously, which we were able to work around, was putting pressure on the government and was putting pressure on industry to come to a negotiated settlement. There certainly were options.

I question the leadership. In fact I believe members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada should be questioning the leadership of that organization as a result of these actions because they have put the government, which has a desire to believe strongly in collective bargaining, in the position of perhaps having to implement back to work legislation. I think the leadership of that organization should be questioned for these kinds of tactics which hold Canadian farmers hostage.

I am saying that the actions that were taken by PSAC in Vancouver were unnecessary. They hurt the farm community and they hurt the ability of the membership of PSAC to achieve a settlement through negotiation. They have erred. They have erred in targeting Vancouver as the pressure point for a complete shutdown and have caused serious damage to our ability and our reputation as a country to serve and supply grains to international markets.

As it stands, there are 17 ships idle or waiting to load grain and that number will grow. If these pickets continue for three weeks or so there could be 35 ships in port waiting for grain, grain worth $230 million. That is a large sum of money in any context, but to Canadian grain farmers it is more than a figure, it is their livelihood.

I understand what some members have said in terms of income tax returns being slowed down and, yes, that is serious. Those kinds of actions are taking place in my own riding. However, that is a slowdown in which income will eventually come. The situation in Vancouver is specifically targeted at terminal elevators and is jeopardizing livelihoods. It is not a delay in terms of income.

In ordinary times the work of the Canadian Grain Commission in keeping the safe and orderly movement of grain across Canada is easily recognized as important. The commission plays a very vital role in support of the grain industry, in setting grain standards, performing grain quality research, serving as official inspectors and weighers, and regulating the system to ensure safe and dependable grain delivery.

Under the current difficult conditions we have to congratulate these people. The efforts of the commission to keep grain moving despite the PSAC strike and other job actions are even more important. The grain commission has monitored the situation and responded with direct action to keep the grain moving as best it can. That effort continues and I think all hon. members should appreciate the work being done to make sure that Canadian farmers will see their grain reach the markets that the markets so clearly want to buy.

There have been rotating strikes affecting the movement of grain since January 18. The first in the port of Vancouver occurred on January 25. I think it is worth noting that the system was never entirely shut down and, indeed, was operating thanks to grain commission management which kept grain shipments moving as best they could.

We are talking about a cross-country effort because some of these Canadian Grain Commission managers are experienced weighers. There are only seven of them in the country and they manoeuvre to try to keep the flow of grain moving as best they can under very difficult circumstances.

The pressure was on by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The grain was moving. Livelihoods were not seriously jeopardized. That was a tactic that could have moved to settlement by negotiation instead of, potentially down the road, settlement by back to work legislation because of this action by the leadership of PSAC.

Today my office in Prince Edward Island was occupied by about 25 PSAC workers who are on a rotating strike action. They outlined their concerns in a very serious, deliberate and I think very legitimate way. They brought their concerns forward.

One of their big concerns is regional rates of pay. I can understand that. I speak to the President of the Treasury Board when I say this. I believe the government, in and of itself, has to seriously get back to the bargaining table and seriously consider the regional rates of pay issue. I think it has been doing a reasonable job in terms of those issues, but it takes two to tango, and the government also might have to make a little stronger effort in terms of settling this issue on the basis of fairness and equity.

In the near future I will be raising with the President of the Treasury Board the fact that PSAC workers have said to me in my riding that 97% do have regional pay rates. I am not sure if that is correct or not. If we are only dealing with 3%, why deny those three? I will be raising that with the President of the Treasury Board in a letter at a later date.

The issue indeed has to be solved. The bottom line is that the actions which have led to this emergency debate tonight were actions taken by the Public Service Alliance of Canada in targeting and shutting down grain movement in the port of Vancouver. There were other options available. The leadership has jeopardized the ability to get a settlement at the negotiating table. I encourage the membership of the Public Service Alliance of Canada to tell its leadership that we have to go back to the table, that we have to negotiate in good faith and that we should not take action that will jeopardize the livelihood of third party victims.

[Swissair Flight 111, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for the coast guard. He has made it very clear in the House many times that there will be no compromising of safety with regard to the coast guard. Whether it is the Swissair disaster or any other disaster, the coast guard is there to protect the safety of people and seagoing vessels. We will do that, absolutely.

[Liberal Party Of Prince Edward Island, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, good things are happening in Prince Edward Island. I rise in the House to congratulate the new leader of the Liberal Party of P.E.I., Mr. Wayne Carew, who was formally declared leader at a convention in Charlottetown on Friday evening of last week.

Mr. Carew is a dynamic and extremely talented individual with experience in both private business and senior public administration. Island Liberals are enthusiastic about the prospects of his leadership.

I attended last Friday's convention, an uplifting spirited event, which also included a tribute to retiring leader the hon. Keith Milligan. The mood was very upbeat and positive. It is clear that the Liberal Party of P.E.I. is again on the move. That spells great things and great tidings for the nation, for Canada.

Our thanks to Keith, and our congratulations to Carew.

[Canada Winter Games, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note that the closing ceremonies of the 1999 Canada Winter Games took place in Corner Brook, Newfoundland on Saturday, March 6, 1999.

Each games is a celebration shaped by the vision of the host community and animated by the thrill of competition and the pride of athletes seeking to achieve their personal best. The experience changes the lives of thousands of young athletes and the life of the host city and surrounding region.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the 3,200 athletes and over 600 coaches and managers from all across Canada who participated in 21 sports at the games in Corner Brook. I would also like to congratulate the organizing committee and the 7,000 volunteers who made the 1999 Canada Winter Games a very special event and a tremendous success.

I know that all hon. members and Canadians everywhere join me in congratulating the host society, the community of Corner Brook, which had wonderful hospitality, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for one wonderful, fine time.

[Division No. 327, March 8th, 1999]

Absolutely, protectors of Canadian culture. That's right.

[Fisheries, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the New Democratic Party member is not suggesting that the companies in Atlantic Canada, in particular Nova Scotia, not be profitable. There is a convention in Nova Scotia tonight that perhaps he should go to. The Liberals are going to be talking about building business and industry in Nova Scotia.

The fact is large fish companies and small fish companies are trying to restore profitability in Atlantic Canada and to the fishery. This government is working with them to do that both at the fishery level and the company level.

[Division No. 325, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member was quite wrong in his preamble and quite wrong in his last statement. The minister has made it very clear that he believes in conservation and protecting the fisheries.

Just to establish some of the facts, harvest management plans for Pacific salmon in 1998 were based on two conservation objectives: zero fishing mortality for upper Skeena and Thompson River coho salmon stocks, and where these stocks were not prevalent, only selective fisheries which clearly demonstrated that the risk of coho bycatch would be minimal were permitted.

The sport fishery that the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond is concerned about is at Langara Island in the Queen Charlotte Islands. This fishery was designated an experimental pilot sport fishery for chinook salmon. There was non-retention of coho. Even though fishers could not keep the coho they encountered, departmental scientists accounted for a portion of the coho that may have died after being released.

Two methods were used to estimate the number of coho encountered in this sport fishery: a creel survey estimate by the Haida first nations and an estimate by departmental patrolmen.

Using an accepted mortality rate of 10%, it was estimated that coho mortalities ranged from 4,500 to 13,100, far less than the member is accusing us of. Even using a significantly higher rate of 20%, the estimated mortality of Skeena coho from the experimental sport fishery at Langara Island was only .4%. This is considerably less than the mortality resulting from the north coast commercial fishery which was estimated to be 2% to 3%.

These successes are a direct result of the management policies introduced in 1998 and reflect our commitment to conservation. We intend to put fish first, and the minister is certainly doing that.