Wayne Easter

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I certainly welcome the question.

I welcome the work of the member for Richmond—Arthabaska in terms of his fighting for producers in the agriculture committee and for the supply management industry in this country.

He is absolutely correct. The record will show that in the 2007 negotiations there was a proposal on the table that would have reduced the tariffs substantially for supply management and that would have basically made it impossible for our supply management industry to survive over even the short and medium term.

The government had the opportunity to reject and object to that proposal, and it did not. If those negotiations had been successful, then the industry would have been completely undermined. Those are the facts, and that is the reality.

That was an instance where the government was allowing supply management to be negotiated away. Thank heavens for other countries that stood up, and the agreement did not proceed.

Hopefully the government has now seen the light and will stand more firmly behind supply management, not just in rhetoric and words but in actual action. That is what we want to see here. We do know it is still on the table.

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, as I indicated on the record, the Dairy Farmers of Canada made it very clear to us that they are concerned. The quotes of the Dairy Farmers of Canada are accurate as stated to us in various documents. The parliamentary secretary went on at some length about how the government has defended supply management and to its credit, sometimes it has. But all we need is for it not to defend it once. That is what we are worried about. All we need to do to destroy the system is to lose it once. And supply management is on the negotiating table. The negotiators have made it clear. We are sending a clear message to the government, do not negotiate it away.

The other point the member made is that the EU is in the process of changing CAP. We have been hearing that since I studied CAP in 1988. It has been in the process of changing it year after year after year, but the fact of the matter is it is contributing about $30 billion Canadian a year to its farm community and our farmers have to compete against that treasury.

I am saying to the Government of Canada, stand up for Canadian farmers and ensure that we compete on a relatively level playing field.

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this take note debate on the Canada-EU trade agreement.

While there is widespread support for a Canada-EU trade agreement, concerns have been raised specifically as to what is on the negotiating table with respect to one of our key agriculture institutions. If nothing else regarding the negotiations on the Canada-EU trade agreement, the reality is, and remains, that supply management is on the negotiating table and has been from the very beginning. This fact was confirmed by Canada's chief negotiators,not once but at least three times before two committees of the House.

On June 15 before the international trade committee, the government's chief agriculture negotiator stated:

At the time the negotiations were launched, there was an agreement that there was to be a no-exclusion a priori.... That essentially left it open to each side to make proposals on anything of interest to them.

[I]t's up to the European Union to make proposals that may relate to protocols under supply management.

At the same committee, on November 15 the chief negotiator stated:

[W]hen we started the negotiations we agreed officially that everything was on the table. That was an explicit agreement at the beginning. As to whether everything will be on the table at the end of the negotiations, that's a different question.

More recently, on December 2, Canada's chief negotiator stated in the context of supply management that “everything was on the table when we began the negotiations”.

The rhetoric from the political side of the Conservative government about supporting supply management is, in many respects, suspect. In reality, one can support the idea of something until, to obtain something else, it is negotiated away. If the Conservatives were really honest in saying that they will defend supply management, then it would not be on the table in the first place, because there is the real possibility that although they support the idea of supply management, it can in fact be negotiated away for something else. It can be traded off. That is our worry in the official opposition. That is the worry of the Dairy Farmers of Canada.

We have in supply management one of the models for the world in terms of having a system whereby farmers collectively come together and achieve their cost of production and a fair return on labour investment in lieu of managing supply to meet effective demand and providing products at reasonable prices to consumers. It is one of the models that the world should be looking at, that we should be promoting to other countries around the world instead of running the risk of negotiating it away.

Even if the government allowed supply management to remain on the negotiating table which, so far as the EU is concerned is therefore subject to negotiation, the government can claim it supports it, but does it really? If the government were honest that it supports supply management, the government would simply state that the issue of supply management has been removed from negotiations of any kind.

According to Dairy Farmers of Canada, Canada has agreed that there would be no prior exceptions, but did indicate that this was a position which should be of concern, given the EU's common agricultural policy, CAP, is not on the negotiating table. It is serious that CAP is not on the negotiating table. What essentially is CAP and why should we be concerned that this program is not on the table?

CAP is what serves European farmers and serves them well. I spent considerable time a number of years ago studying common agricultural policy. On an annual basis the EU spends about 43 billion euros on CAP, of which 88% is in direct payments, with the remainder dedicated to programs focused on responding to declines in market prices of commodities.

Given that a single Canadian dollar has a 75¢ value in euros, the amount available under CAP, common agricultural policy, to the European farmer community is about $30 billion Canadian annually. That is serious.

The European community is willing to be there and support their governments. They are willing to stand up and not put it on the negotiating table. Yet on one of the most progressive and valued farm programs in this country, the Conservative government has actually put it on the table and has admitted so several times. CAP represents approximately 46% of the EU's total budget.

During the most recent hearings of the agriculture committee, officials negotiating the Canada-EU trade deal did not deny that the EU has removed from discussion the common agricultural policy. Dairy Farmers of Canada have indicated that “while the Canadian government remains committed to defending supply management the EU's insistence to gain access to the Canadian cheese market and obtain agreement that geographical indications be fully recognized”.

My colleague from the Bloc, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, raised a question with the minister a few moments ago, and he certainly did not get many answers. He in fact got none.

This is a government that is not transparent about how these negotiations are pressing forward. This is a serious issue, that our cheese markets could potentially be opened up and undermine our price structure in Canada. That is a serious issue. Geographical indications could also be a serious issue for some of our products that are produced in this country.

This is of serious concern to our dairy producers. They have maintained that the government defend our industry from this provision being weakened during these negotiations.

Finally, Dairy Farmers provided an analysis in November and stated that if the negotiations are continuing on the basis of the fourth draft modalities on agriculture, that is December 2008, that draft states that Canada will be required to “reduce over quota tariffs by 23% and agree to additional access to dairy products market potentially reaching 6% of consumption”. The DFC estimates that this would result in income losses in excess of $1 billion at the farm gate, or the equivalent of over 20% of proceeds from milk sales at the farm gate. That is serious.

According to a study conducted in April 2010 by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the position articulated by the EU in the December 2009 document on, for example, the Canadian Wheat Board, are consequential:

Hampering the procurement policies of the Wheat Board...complements the EU's publicly-stated goal of dismantling the Board, which it reiterated at the outset of negotiations.

This is an issue which requires full and careful consideration prior to any agreement being fully negotiated, let alone concluded.

Supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board are pillars of our agricultural policy in this country. Supply management maintains a system of supply in which farmers are assured their cost of production and a fair rate of return on their labour and investment. The Canadian Wheat Board maximizes returns back to the primary producer through orderly marketing or single-desk selling.

While we acknowledge that Canada is a trading nation and that our agricultural sector to a very great extent is dependent upon export markets, it would serve us well to keep in mind the reality that we cannot allow some of our main institutions to be negotiated away.

[Agriculture, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate western farmers for fostering democracy in the Canadian Wheat Board director elections. Results show that four of the five districts elected single desk supporters. Therefore, after two cycles of elections, eight out of ten farmer-elected directors are supportive of the single desk.

Farmers have spoken.

Farmers stood strong, even up against a gag order imposed on the board by the minister and against the Conservative propaganda machine using MPs' offices. Even though the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands used a YouTube video attacking the board and spreading misinformation, in violation of his oath of office as PS for the CWB, a strong board supporter, Stewart Wells, won that district.

Given these results, I ask the Prime Minister to allow farmers to run the CWB, to stop arbitrarily delaying interim payments, to lift the gag order and to support farmers.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Modernization Act, December 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor made it perfectly clear when he said that the bill was very restrictive. One of the concerns that I expressed in my remarks had to do with how it could divide people within the force who feel they are all part of the same system. They could basically defy or separate in terms of their representation, from special constables to civilian members to regular members. These people all work together in one way or another. It is a total system.

Yes, there are some people on the highways and some people in criminal investigation but those people have to be connected throughout the system to do their job appropriately. The bill has the potential of dividing them into silos, which is the last thing we want to see. We see enough of that in this particular city between departments. The bill is worrisome in that regard.

The bottom line is that the bill does not allow the third alternative, which the current representative program is trying to put forward, and that is a dilemma. There needs to be that alternative so that the rank and file can make decisions on the system they want under appropriate choices.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Modernization Act, December 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the member more. I am not sure of the number of bills the member has put forward, but probably there is no other member in the House who has put as much effort into putting legislation forward that would deal with some of the problems that members of the RCMP felt were occurring to them. The member had the courage, did the research and did the drafting to put that into legislation.

The government took parts of that. For whatever reason it did not take the whole package, and some critical areas were missing. That is, as the member said, the kind of off ramp where it would not be a management-run union. It would allow the rank and file a ways and means of having their say without fear from management, but being able to represent themselves as rank and file members, expressing their points of view, expressing their complaints into a system without fear of retaliation as a result.

Those very important aspects of the member's work were left out as the government took what it desired and drafted this piece of legislation that is called Bill C-43.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Modernization Act, December 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of questions in there. I believe it is the rank and file that should make the decision.

I want to make it very clear, and I targeted my remarks at the current staff relations representative system, that option is not in there. If members of the RCMP decide they want to go to a union, then that is their choice. If they want to go to somewhat of a take on the current system and maybe report to Treasury Board and not the commissioner, that should be their choice too, but the current bill only allows two choices, either unionize or report to the commissioner of the RCMP.

The hon. member asked should the commissioner have more power than he currently has. In my view, absolutely not. That is my personal point of view. It would be giving the commissioner too much power. If an individual has a problem within the system, somebody who is a staff relations representative has to report to the commissioner, but the commissioner is the person's boss. It makes no sense at all. No, there should be no power to the commissioner of the RCMP.

From my point of view, the Government of Canada made a terrible mistake in not appointing a commissioner from the rank and file. The next time it appoints a commissioner of the RCMP, it should be from the rank and file.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Modernization Act, December 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague before me said, Bill C-43 should go to committee, but I personally have some problems with it. The RCMP rank and file need to be given voice, not be forced to take direction from the government in the way members may or may not want to be represented.

One of the faults of one of the options in the bill is giving the commissioner of the RCMP more power and that staff relations representatives would have to report to the commissioner. I can see nothing but problems with that kind of proposal.

There were three concerns that led the Ontario superior court to find that the RCMP staff relations representative system was invalid. First, RCMP members had not had the opportunity to decide whether the SRRP was the system in which they wished to associate for labour relations purposes. In other words, they did not make a decision on that through a voting process. Second, the staff relations representative system was not sufficiently independent from RCMP management. Third, while RCMP management listened carefully to the views of staff relations representatives, it retained the ultimate decision-making authority in the SRRP consultative process.

Those are the three concerns that led to the Ontario superior court finding that the RCMP staff relations representative system was invalid. I wanted to lay those facts on the table.

After the superior court's decision, staff relationship representatives decided to comprehensively assess the labour relations needs of RCMP members and their satisfaction with the current SRRP through a quantitative study. Pollara Inc., an independent polling firm, was engaged for that assessment and 6,147 members took part in the survey. The survey has produced reliable and accurate information that can now be used to improve the SRRP to better serve the 22,000 RCMP members and address the superior court's concerns.

It also found that 65% of RCMP members who expressed an opinion were satisfied with the system and 71% of RCMP members preferred to associate in either the current SRRP or a modified version of it. I believe every member of Parliament received a copy of that Pollara report.

It is clear that the wishes of the very strong majority of the 22,000 of RCMP members were not reflected in this bill in total.

Let me be clear. Contrary to the ruling of the Ontario superior court, Bill C-43 would offer no real choice to RCMP members for how they wanted to be represented, either in a union or non-union model of representation. It is either a union or a body established by the RCMP commissioner.

Maybe there are some other alternatives that need to be considered, especially after the staff relations representatives went to their members and looked at potentially different ways of doing it. In committee that discussion can be held and if there are alternatives or other views brought forward that relate more to what the rank and file prefer, then that is the value of the bill being before committee. I hope the committee is open-minded enough to look at all the alternatives at play.

There is a feeling out there, accurate or not I am not entirely sure, that the bill could split the RCMP's existing membership into regular, civilian and special constable bodies. Some of the representatives from my province have made that very clear to me, especially those from the civilian sector of the RCMP.

As a result of this legislation, the RCMP could be treated like any other public sector union. That is one of the possibilities. That means labour groups, like PSAC, would use it as a benchmark in contract negotiations.

Finally, Bill C-43 also endangers, according to some within the RCMP, hard-fought benefits currently held by RCMP members.

There are some very strong concerns being expressed by current staff relations representatives. They are finding that the bill as currently proposed is unacceptable to a fairly strong majority of the RCMP members across the country.

The staff relations representatives informed me that they believe the RCMP is at a crossroads and faces a number of difficult challenges, especially with respect to leadership and representation. Canada's police force does not need further uncertainty and more distractions.

Members of the RCMP would certainly prefer to be focusing their energy on improving public safety rather than worrying about whether the federal government will impose a union on them.

I would also say to those RCMP members that it is critical they involve themselves in this hearing process and make their views known, because if this new system is going to work with an important police force and everything its members do nationally and internationally, and the fact that they are seen as such a model for the country, they need to involve themselves in these discussions and make their voices heard. At the end of the day, whether it is this specific legislation or improved legislation, the rank and file, certainly the majority, have to be in accommodation with this legislation.

From their perspective, Bill C-43 would create some significant problems. It is a top priority for the staff relations representatives and the membership of the RCMP. The members of the RCMP have been represented by the staff relations representatives for the past 36 years on all issues affecting members' welfare and their dignity as a force.

The current staff relations representative program is non-union representation, but in the main it has worked reasonably well. An alternative or somewhat of a take on the current system is not in this bill as it is currently written.

I would refer MPs to the RCMP magazine, Frontline Perspective, which I think has gone to most offices. In the 2010 issue, volume 4, number 2, there is a major article about Bill C-43 from representatives of the RCMP.

I want to read a couple of paragraphs from the article. I would encourage members to read the magazine article. It goes through the bill in detail. It talks about some of the good parts, some of the bad parts and some of the questionable parts of the bill.

It does show that the staff relations representatives who have written the article are into the debate in doing a critical analysis of the bill. We as members of Parliament have an obligation to take this seriously, to listen and analyze, and hopefully improve the bill as a result.

I quote from the article written by Brian Roach and Abe Townsend on page six of Frontline Perspective:

The Staff Relations Representative Program has developed through consultation with its membership a clear alternative to Bill C-43. The program forwarded this to its membership on September 29, 2010 and is noted below for your information, reference and discussion at this time.

The legislation limited the options to either a union or a body appointed by the Commissioner. This was clearly unacceptable based on the results of the recent survey of members' wishes. We have shared this document with government officials and have included it here for your feedback.

This document is not a done deal. It is simply a proposal that we would like your input on. The SRR Program believes that it reflects your views while respecting the Charter of Rights. We urge you to review this document and other associated material.

I am not going to read the whole article; I think members can do that. There is certainly mixed views on this. There is certainly mixed views within my own party and with my colleague, who will speak next. I think that is what this place is all about. It is all about debate and discussion.

To close, I have tried to outline some of the concerns that have been expressed to me by the rank and file of the RCMP and staff relations representatives. These are serious concerns.

The bottom line for me, having been a former solicitor general, is if the system is going to work, we certainly do not want all the power and authority within the commissioner's office. At the end of the day, for the system to work well, the rank and file have to be onside with how their views can be represented and brought forward, whether it is management administration within the force itself, or whether it is bringing forward issues from a policy perspective that the RCMP believes government should adopt and move forward with.

I will close with that, but again, if members want to get a very in-depth analysis of one side of the argument, I refer them to what I consider to be a very well researched, well done and quite open-minded critical analysis of Bill C-43 by the staff relations representative body of the RCMP itself.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 8th, 2010]

With respect to the recent visit of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh: (a) which Members of Parliament or Senators were invited to any functions related to the visit; (b) which Members of Parliament or Senators received additional invitations; and (c) how many additional invitations were sent to each Member of Parliament and Senator in (b)?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 8th, 2010]

With respect to Kevin S. MacLeod's position as Canadian Secretary to the Queen, as of September 20, 2010: (a) what was the total cost associated with the position, broken down by the amount spent on (i) travel, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) hospitality, (vi) gifts, (vii) all other expenses; (b) what government department or agency paid for the expenses in (a); (c) what are the names of the people who travelled with Kevin MacLeod in his capacity as Canadian Secretary to the Queen; and (d) for the people in (c), what was the amount spent on (i) travel, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) hospitality, (vi) gifts, (vii) all other expenses?