Wayne Easter

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 18th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. What the member for Winnipeg Centre said is in fact true. The minister did, and I can find the quote if we have to find it, promise farmers a vote. He said that he believes in democracy.

Then, when it comes to introducing this bill, he is claiming that the vote was the election. That is not what he told farmers. I met with quite a number of young farmers in this town yesterday. They believed the minister. What the member for Winnipeg Centre is saying is the truth. The minister lied to those farmers.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 18th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I did enjoy the member's remarks because I believe they are right on the money. He said in his earlier remarks that the government is threatening, with this action, the integrity of parliamentary institutions. The government has not threatened. It has hurt the integrity of this parliamentary institution because it went with a steamroller over section 47.1 of the current act and taken away farmers' right to vote in a legitimate plebiscite as it suggests in the act. The government has not only taken away farmers' votes, by the way it has handled committee as the member very well explained, but it has taken away farmers' voices.

Now we are finding out that the government, through executive order, and it has come out in the Gazette, is not only taking away farmers' votes and voices but it is now picking farmers' pockets by using their money in the contingency fund to offer a cushion for the new board. What does the member have to say about that?

[Canadian Wheat Board, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing prudent about what the government is doing. Elected farm directors are abiding by their oath of office. It is too bad the minister could not do the same. The minister knows the contingency fund is a result of the current board's management and comes from farmers' grain sales. His increasing the fund by executive order is an admission of greater risk under his government board. However, to expropriate millions of dollars of farmers' money is akin to theft.

How can the minister justify taking farmers' money to run his government-controlled grain company?

[International Trade, November 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government's answer to that last question is shallow indeed. Almost weekly, the U.S. surprises the minister with new fees or restrictions on Canadian business. Now, as a precondition to our joining TPP discussions, the U.S. is targeting supply management.

On Saturday, the minister said the government did not see any reason to join the talks, and 24 hours later the Prime Minister was compromising supply management just to get to the table.

Will the minister explain how an individual defends something the government is prepared to give away just to get in the room?

[Points of Order, November 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, something happened in the House at the end of question period, which is really serious with regard to the state of our democracy. A public servant just quit over what he felt was principle when the President of the Treasury Board asked to have tabled in the House the fact that he had given a donation to a political party. It happened to be our party, but it could have been any party.

That goes against everything that we stand for in this democracy. It is fear and intimidation. It can put the chill of fear into public servants and individuals in Canada donating to a political party that a minister will use that against them. By implication, it can be damaging to a person's reputation. In my view, it goes against freedom of choice, freedom of speech and freedom of political affiliation. The government has access to information on Canadians all over the place, whether it is their tax matters, health matters or whatever it may be. This is unbecoming of a minister to do. I do not have a clue what rule to apply here, but I think what that minister has done is wrong.

We know that during the election the Conservatives used Facebook and Twitter to prevent people from coming to certain meetings. This is the kind of stuff that we would expect to see in Russia, where people are spying on others and where fear and intimidation are used to prevent people from doing certain things.

I think what the President of the Treasury Board did in the House, by naming a person's individual political affiliation to try to make a point and destroy his reputation, because he resigned on principle, is absolutely and utterly wrong in this country called Canada.

[Committees of the House, November 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to be clear that the bill that the committee is reporting on is the bill where the Conservative government violated farmers' rights by not allowing a vote under the current legislation before the House. Is this also the committee that failed to hold hearings in western Canada and give farmers a say?

[Canadian Wheat Board, November 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

We know that for years the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources has run a campaign of hate against the Canadian Wheat Board, the very board he took a solemn oath to uphold. That is one thing, but why does the minister himself betray the facts, even misinform committee? He stated before committee, “They've”, meaning the board, “always said 'now is not a good time. The directors don't really want to hear from you'.”

I have had three invitations from the board over three years. Why does the minister not tell the facts?

[Petitions, November 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit a petition signed by western grain and barley farmers, from Alberta mainly, concerned with the government's ideological plan to kill the Canadian Wheat Board without first holding a plebiscite of its membership, as is required under section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

The livelihoods of western Canadian farmers are at risk should they lose the clout of the Canadian Wheat Board to set the best price for grain, negotiate fair treatment from the railways and lower transportation costs among the many services it provides.

The petitioners demand that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food honour their wishes as expressed democratically through a plebiscite.

[Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize William Cairns of Freetown, Prince Edward Island, on his recent induction into the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.

Mr. Cairns has made outstanding contributions to the Island farming community, among them being a member of Junior Farmers of P.E.I., vice-president of the Federation of Agriculture, member of Dunk River Dairy Company, and being the lone surviving attendee who pushed ahead with Amalgamated Dairies Limited.

In 1952 Mr. Cairns became the first Islander to be accepted as a Nuffield Scholar, which fosters agriculture leadership through international study. As a result, he became a Canadian pioneer in adapting innovations for the dairy industry.

Mr. Cairns and his son continue to operate Willscott Farm Ltd., which has been in the family since 1852, and is a seventh-generation farm.

Our sincere congratulations to Mr. Cairns. We thank him for his lifelong dedication to agriculture, to P.E.I., and to Canada.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the member has been the leader of a provincial party. He mentioned that he is concerned about the lack of democratic respect.

Based on his experience, I know he would think there should also be some fiscal and financial responsibility in doing a net benefit analysis in terms of government making decisions.

In a previous court action when the government was trying to bring in Bill C-46 the Wheat Board took the government to court. The director general of marketing policy for Agriculture Canada testified under oath before the Federal Court of Canada with respect to whether the federal government had undertaken a specific economic impact analysis in relation at that time to proposed regulatory changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. Legal counsel asked him this: “Do I have your answer that as far as you are aware, nobody within government has done any analysis of the kind I have described to you?” He means a net benefit economic analysis. The answer: “No, I am not aware that anyone in the government who has done.”

That is Federal Court transcript testimony of Mr. Paul Martin, director general of marketing policy for Agriculture Canada on July 16, 2007.

In terms of a corporation, the magnitude of $5.6 billion a year controlled by an elected board of directors, does the member think it is irresponsible to go ahead without an economic net benefit analysis?