Wayne Easter

[Business of Supply, October 4th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I think the leader of the party said that very vividly in his remarks when he opened this discussion, when he made the motion and that is, that this issue requires federal leadership. It could be any number of things. It could be utilizing one of the ministers, whether health or others, to set up a committee to look at a national strategy on suicide. It could be the Prime Minister, in what he should be doing anyway, calling a first ministers meeting on a number of issues and putting that down as one of the agenda items.

The key point I want to make is that under our system of government and the various constitutional responsibilities, and there are certainly split jurisdictions in this area, in order to get the kind of action that is needed, it will require leadership from the Prime Minister and executive council.

[Business of Supply, October 4th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it may sound like a simple answer, but I really think it is just being open about the issue. This is not a situation that we should hide from.

In terms of the experience that both of us had in the farm crisis, with hotlines and the debt review boards, it was people recognizing that others had the same problem. It was recognizing that their neighbours, governments, and the community could come together to assist them in a number of ways. It was basically just being open about it, that this is not something to be afraid of, to admit there is a problem.

Stepping out that door and admitting they have a problem is the first step. We have to give people the encouragement to do that and the acceptance of society if they do.

[Business of Supply, October 4th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the leader's remarks in terms of the action component were that we need to establish and fund a national suicide prevention strategy, which among other measures would promote a comprehensive and evidence-driven approach to deal with this terrible loss of life by suicide.

The key point is that suicide is preventable. Our leader said in his remarks that the suicide rate is three times higher in Canada than in the United States. Many others here have expressed part of the reason for that difference. Those numbers are just plain unacceptable.

It has been moving to listen to the heartfelt remarks by members in the House today from all parties. Now we have to turn that emotion, that concern and that expression into action. We all say, when suicides happen, “If only...”. We do not want to be back here in a year after other situations occur and say, “If only...”.

Yes, we can talk about the numbers, but the numbers are a person whose death is so hard on families and friends. Such a loss is human, but it is a loss of social and economic potential.

We all know of people we have lost from our communities. I know of one who worked on my election campaign in May. A week after the victory celebration we heard the word that he had committed suicide. He was a farmer who left a family and two kids. He left 70-year-old parents whose hopes and dreams for their retirement were destroyed, because this young fellow in his late thirties was doing the farming. That was their future. That was their hopes and dreams.

There was much horror and destruction in that family. I can remember the night of the victory celebration and dance. Everyone was happy, and this happened a week later. We all asked the question, “Why? What did I miss? What did we miss as a whole?”

I recall vividly my days as a farm leader during the farm financial crisis of the 1980s, when interest rates were at 23%. Some of us in the House do not believe interest rates were ever that high. The minister of financial institutions certainly does. We were both in that movement together at the time, with an interest rate of 23.5%. Farm debt was coming out our ears, and we all felt that pain. That was the time of penny auctions, and farm suicides were at the highest they ever were.

Two friends of mine in Saskatchewan committed suicide. One, aged 27, committed suicide one day, and his 28-year-old friend committed suicide the next. What worked reasonably well was that we set up farm crisis hotlines through which people came together.

We all think we are tough. We can abuse people in the House and we can take abuse in the House, but during those times I would walk across the yard at 5:30 a.m. and say, “My pride is shot. I am the one who could potentially lose this farm. Is the world better off without me?” Those are the thoughts that go through one's mind, and those are the actions that some of our colleagues in the farm community took at the time.

What worked reasonably well was setting up farm crisis hotlines. They were in Ontario, the west and Atlantic Canada. People with some expertise came together to sit down, and people could sit down and talk about their problems. They would find out that their neighbours had pretty near the same problems that they did. It was being able to talk about it and be open that gave people the courage to face their problems and move ahead.

It is one of those things. When people with financial problems or mental problems are walking down the street, sometimes people will walk to the other side of the street. It is not like a physical ailment, for which people will come and offer support, and I think we have to recognize that. Understanding that reaction has to be part of a national strategy.

One other example I will give out of those times is of a friend I had in Alberta. I personally was working on his case with the farm finance issue. We were just a couple of weeks from a deal; through this restructuring, he was going to lose half his farm. He called me one night, late, and I happened to answer the phone at one o'clock in the morning P.E.I. time. I think it was ten or eleven o'clock in the province he was in.

He basically said, “Thanks for your effort, but that is it. I am packing it in.”

Now, I happened to answer the phone. I talked to him for a bit. I called a friend who was not an hour from his place. That guy did not do what he intended to do; he lost half his farm, but he has lived a pretty good life since that time.

It just shows the importance. It is not just mental issues. It is stress issues or family issues, and things happen quickly. We need to develop the understanding and the encouragement for people to talk and to accept help in those times of personal trauma that cause us to do things we otherwise would not think of doing.

The bottom line is, as my colleague previously said, we do need a national strategy. We are a federation, a country, and we can do much together. This is an area where I think we basically all agree in this House. Much more needs to be done.

As a country we have a history of doing much together, but what it requires to get to that action I talked about earlier is federal leadership. I encourage the federal government to not only support this motion today but to turn it into action, to call the necessary meetings with the appropriate people in the provinces across the country and to act on what the motion says. It is the action that at the end of the day will prevent us from having to say why we did not act.

I will close with this quote from Dr. Nizar Ladha, president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association. She says:

Canada stands alone as one of the few developed nations without a national strategy for the prevention of suicide. It is astonishing that more isn't being done to stop this serious yet often preventable public health problem. We need leadership from our federal leaders to advance good health policy. Many psychiatric disorders lead to untimely deaths by suicide in all ages. This can change if we tackle this complex problem with a nationally coordinated and multi-faceted approach.

That is the action we need to see as a result of this motion.

[Prince Edward Island Elections, October 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to congratulate Premier Robert Ghiz and the Liberal Party of Prince Edward Island for their outstanding victory last night in the provincial election.

Electing 22 Liberals out of the 27 seats to foster a second term for Premier Ghiz and his team builds on the progressive and forward-looking policies he established in term one.

The Liberal Party had a strong platform and stuck to their message in the face of negative personal attacks never seen before in Island politics. Improving health care, programs for seniors, early learning and K to 12, bettering post-secondary education, as well as support for our primary industries are part of that positive message.

Interference from the office of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was unacceptable but Islanders saw through the political games.

I congratulate all candidates and all leaders for their part in making democracy work. The province is better for it.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to defending Canadians against U.S. protectionism, the government has failed consistently.

DFAIT officials before a committee admitted that the government had failed to take pre-emptive action against buy American, even though President Obama has been stating made in America for months.

The WTO found United States country of origin labelling is a trade violation and yet the government makes excuses.

When will the Minister of International Trade realize that United States protectionism is something he must defend against, not make excuses for?

[Privilege, September 26th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I was very reluctant to add to my original question of privilege but felt I must because of the government's late input on this matter last Friday in an attempt to misrepresent the question I presented to the House on September 19.

It continues to put forward a position that only the House can take. That is the substance of my argument. It is presumptuous on the part of the government to think otherwise. It has put forward the position that the notice for procurement of auditors, and its wording, was merely part of the government's “planning efforts”.

I submit that the wording in the notice that categorically states an end date of July 31, 2012 upon which the work of the audit is to be based has only been put forward due to the fact that the government has a majority.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have both confirmed that the elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board has been “a staple of Conservative election platforms.”

That being the case, one must ask oneself why the government had not placed such a notice at any time since taking office in January 2006. The reason is obvious. It knew that any legislation brought forth to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board would not receive majority support in the House and would in fact be defeated.

As I indicated on September 19, the presumption on the part of the government contained in my original submission was that the House and Parliament itself can be taken for granted. The government cannot let contracts to auditors as if the House and Parliament has spoken. That just affirms the government's fevered drive to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.

In short, the fact of the notice appearing in the wake of the May 2 election and at no prior time speaks to the point that I have raised with respect to contempt.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, at pages 1398 and 1399, claimed that on two occasions the decision of Speaker Fraser did not apply to the matter I presented to the House.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in my citations of Speaker Fraser's ruling I acknowledged that there most certainly was a difference, one I would submit that prevented him from rendering a decision of a finding of contempt in 1989. The difference is that he acknowledged the fact that a technical paper on the goods and services tax was before the House by way of committee. In his opinion, that did constitute a public declaration of intent which prevented him from finding against the government.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader stated at page 1400 of Debates that I had implied that the “message on the MERX website was similar to the public advertisements placed by the former Liberal government in 1989”.

My first point is that the parliamentary secretary has failed to even get his facts correct. He would be well-advised to have someone do it for him. The government of the day was in fact the Conservative government. The GST is a Conservative policy.

My second point is had the parliamentary secretary taken the time to either listen to or read what I had presented to the House on September 19, he would know that I raised the point that these situations are different. What makes them different is the fact that Speaker Fraser acknowledged that a technical paper was before a committee of the House that provided a fig leaf of legitimacy and prevented a ruling of contempt at that time.

I had previously quoted comments from Speaker Fraser's contempt ruling. However, I would rather re-emphasize this point than quote them again. Speaker Fraser's dissatisfaction with the course of action taken by the Conservative government of the day should serve as a guide in terms of what I am claiming is a more egregious contempt by this Conservative government.

Mr. Speaker, I would add one last ruling for you to consider. Due to timing, I will not get into the length of it.

On page 1399 of Debates the parliamentary secretary references a decision of Speaker Milliken of November 25, 2002, which I believe once again reinforces my argument.

I would again submit that the fact that the notice of procurement and the task force terms of reference clearly states that the operating premise of both is not that the government is seeking input related to a possible policy initiative but that it is the outcome of the policy, namely the definitive termination of the Canadian Wheat Board within less than a year. That is the premise upon which both must conduct themselves in terms of the MERX proposal and the task force put forward by the government.

That presumes that Parliament has somehow indicated that this is to be the outcome of government policy. Neither the House nor any committee of the House has at any time even implied such an outcome as acceptable in any respect. In fact, over the last several parliaments we will find cases that the very opposite is true.

I conclude by stating that the interpretations of the citations of previous Speakers by both parliamentary secretaries have ignored one salient fact. The situation relating to the matters I presented on September 19 related to the notice for procurement on the government's MERX website and the terms of reference of the ministerial task force are different in that no specific proposal has been presented by the government in terms of its budget. Nothing has been presented let alone tabled by way of a technical paper. No legislation in draft form or otherwise has been provided to the House or any committee.

While expressing concern about the propriety of government advertising, previous Speakers have acknowledged that prior references in terms of documentation by the government prevented them from finding the government of the day in contempt of the House. The most important point being the lack of such documentation, I would respectfully submit, justifies a finding of contempt in this matter.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would think that Hansard would have that word correct. It is really “persecution”. However, with my Island accent, it might have sounded different for the member for Yukon, who is so far away up there in the chamber.

Certainly we want to help people who are fleeing persecution or wars in other countries. That has been our tradition. We have always been an open haven and a welcoming country and operated on good laws. This, as I said in my remarks, would move us back to a different time, to a less open haven as a country—

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the impact or effect on refugees is very clear. As I outlined in my speech, with one class of refugees, the bill, as sponsored by the Government of Canada, would be made victims of the very people that Canada has traditionally welcomed as a safe haven.

It is kind of guided on the possibility that we would be going after human smugglers. That is not necessarily so. The human smugglers may be getting off the hook, but the people who have been encouraged either to get on a boat or whatever by these human smugglers and abused in that way, in terms of their financial and human resources, are themselves, rather than us helping them as a country, going to be made the victims. That is the bottom line. That is the long and the short of it.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary can try to allege in the detail certain things, but the fact is the net result at the end of the day, because of the actions in the bill, is there will be two classes of refugees.

As I have said in my remarks, the Liberal Party believes very seriously that there has to be a serious discussion on the bill. The bill is based on fearmongering, mainly, and the reaction to what happened in one ship and needs to be more seriously thought out before it becomes law.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4. However, I wish it were a bill that would enhance our place and our policies as a forward-looking country. Instead, the bill is the direct opposite. It would move our policies and our place in the world backward, showing a kind of intolerance that we might have seen half a century ago.

The bill is a policy that is built on fear, intolerance, ideology and an avoidance of the serious facts. Laws should be improved, in my view, based on facts and on knowledge of what works.

Bill C-4 is a bill that almost gives the minister dictatorial powers. I will name three particular areas. I am especially concerned about that particular minister.

The bill would authorize the minister to designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons, the result of which is that some of the foreign nationals in the group become designated foreign nationals. It would authorize an officer or the minister to refuse to consider an application for permanent residence. It would provide that a person may not become a permanent resident as long as an application by the minister for cessation of that person's refugee protection is pending.

I outline those points just to show how the bill would basically give the minister almost dictatorial powers. He or she would have a lot of say and a lot of authority over the lives of people who perhaps are thinking of moving to the promised land.

It is a bill that almost certainly, I believe, will be found to violate our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, summed it up best. I will restate for the record his comments because they cut to the heart of the serious issues in the bill. The member for Lac-Saint-Louis stated:

It [the bill] creates two classes of refugees. One class would be the regular refugee stream. The second class would be denoted by the minister as designated arrivals, which, upon being designated accordingly, would be treated differently. They could be held in detention for up to 12 months.

What is really happening is that the government is categorizing refugees. It is creating classes of refugees for different treatment based on, if we really look at it and read between the lines, the mode of transport the refugee claimants have used to get here. Refugees who come by plane typically would not come in big groups and would not receive the ministerial designation of designated foreign nationals and would not receive the different treatment that is being reserved for designated foreign nationals in this bill.

He concluded by saying:

Refugees who come in groups who will be designated as designated foreign nationals under the act typically will come by ship in squalid conditions. If they come by plane, they are not considered to be designated foreign nationals under the law.

I think that sums up one of the greatest concerns in the bill.

The long and short of the bill is that, in many cases, Bill C-4 would make victims of the very people that Canada traditionally and historically has tried to help. I find it amazing that the government, which is always talking about the protection of victims, is, in this instance, using ministerial authority and attacking the very victims themselves through Bill C-4. It goes against the kind of traditions and history we have as a country. We are losing our respect around the world by the actions of the bill and the government almost on a daily basis.

For a government that often goes to great lengths to talk about victims, then Bill C-4 exploits victims who are so often victims as a result of human smugglers themselves.

The people who get on these ships get fed a line in their home country. They may be fleeing persecution or war. They are, as I said, fed a line, told a story. They sometimes very innocently get involved and believe they are going to a welcoming country because Canada traditionally was a welcoming country until some of the activities of the current government.

We are a country that is historically seen as a country with the balance of law, protection of rights and freedoms, not a country that makes victims of people who are fleeing persecution or war, or being abused in other ways, but that is what the bill could possibly do. The bill could in fact leave those who come here further exploited by a law and actions perpetuated by the government itself.

Canada has a long deserved reputation as a safe haven for those so deserving of a haven in the world. We are a country of immigrants and a country, to a certain extent, of refugees. The ancestors of many of us in the House came from foreign lands. Mine came from England and Scotland. They came to this country and built a great country that was open to all.

In attempting to deal with a small criminal element, the federal government should be extremely careful and must take the necessary time to ensure that legislation, such as Bill C-4, accomplishes what it intends while respecting both our international obligations and domestic laws. I believe the bill seriously fails to do that.

As the parliamentary secretary said a moment ago, the bill was introduced in the last Parliament. It was opposed in the last Parliament by the opposition and opposed strenuously. We would think that a reasonable government would have taken that as a message that there were some problems with the bill, would have taken it back and met with other groups across the country and tried to change it and recognize some of the concerns. We cannot throw out everything the opposition says. We have some reasoned opinion too, and the government should have listened to that, been concerned about it and changed the bill accordingly.

In response to the bill, the Liberal Party has raised a number of concerns that we believe need to be addressed. My colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, outlined those concerns and they are on the record. We are committed as a party to finding pragmatic and evidence-based solutions to human smuggling. We reject this draconian and backward piece of legislation that targets legitimate refugee claimants and not the real criminals, the human smugglers themselves.

As I said earlier, the bill is really nothing more than crass fearmongering and we cannot support the bill as currently constituted.