Wayne Easter

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, December 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this government puts farmers first only when it comes to debt. That is when it puts them first.

A headline in The Globe and Mail reads in part, “Canada slips from agricultural superpower status”. It is no wonder. While the United States supports farmers with billions, Canadian farmers are being forced to live off loans. While the government is squandering billions of borrowed money on fake lakes and billboards, Ontario farmers' incomes fall.

When will the government get its priorities straight and support farmers in Canada?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, December 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, 900 beef and hog farmers attended an urgent meeting in Stratford entitled “Farmers Matter”. Farmer after farmer stated that the government's farm safety nets are not working. Farmers made it clear that they cannot pay back the targeted advance loans under the terms the minister announced.

Why does the government impose loans on farmers while wasting billions of dollars elsewhere: waste on fancy photo ops, waste on cabinet ministers' expenses, waste on planes and prisons? Do farmers just not matter to this government?

[Atlantic Beef Products, December 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to congratulate the Atlantic Beef Products plant in Albany, P.E.I. for its recent culinary achievements.

Atlantic Beef Products processes beef from the Maritimes and it does so with “from the farm to the plate” in mind. Its product is getting rave reviews.

As headlined in the local press, “Like a fine wine allowed to age, a group of national food experts has declared P.E.I. beef as some of the finest in North America”.

The National Post meat lessons expert Sam Gundy and his team from Olliffe visited farms, toured the plant and sampled the excellence of P.E.I. beef. Emphasizing the P.E.I. production method, Mr. Gundy's article stated, “All of this serves to explain why the beef tastes differently and, why we think better. With its greater age before kill and unique diet, to us the beef has a more beefy taste–resembling what beef used to taste like”.

Congratulations to Atlantic Beef Plant and P.E.I. producers for their superior product.

[Seeds Regulations Act, December 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has an obligation to speak to Bill C-474. We know he is trying to mislead on the Canadian Wheat Board, but Bill C-474 is the topic tonight.

[Seeds Regulations Act, December 1st, 2010]

I don't think so.

[Seeds Regulations Act, December 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the parliamentary secretary's remarks, I will have to change my introduction somewhat.

First, I congratulate the member for British Columbia Southern Interior for putting the bill forward. After listening to the parliamentary secretary's remarks, like so much of what the it does, the government likes to bury its head in the sand and not recognize that there are some problems. It wants to limit debate.

The government tried to encourage Liberals, rather than have a serious debate on the issue, both pros and cons, to defeat it before it even got started. It is like what is done in the Senate. It shuts it down before there is a debate. That is the mantra of the government. It does not want to talk about the reality out there and there are some serious problems with alfalfa and wheat, as the member for British Columbia Southern Interior said in his remarks.

Bill C-474 warranted a full review of the agriculture committee, but as a result of that review, it has failed the essential test of earning a greater degree of support. However, that hearing needed to be held. It is interesting. While the parliamentary secretary criticized the hearings, half or more of his quotes were based on what was said at the hearings. Parliament and debate is all about that, having discussions and bringing witnesses forward. Sadly, the government members on the committee jeopardized that debate by filibustering and not allowing the full discussion on the bill that the committee should have had.

Let me go to the bill itself. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board is yelling over there, but that is not unusual.

The intent of the legislation is “to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted”. That is the major thrust of the bill.

The issue for the official opposition, in examining this legislation, was twofold. First, the bill did not challenge the integrity of Canada's current approval process for genetically-engineered or modified materials. Second, the bill did not provide an articulate and recognizable and objective process by which to conduct the analysis called for in the legislation. That is key.

The issue of GMOs and genetic engineering is one which has been controversial and is one which deserves serious debate. I mentioned a moment ago that the mantra of the government is to shut down debate before it even happens. A fact may come out with which it does not really want to deal.

As indicated earlier, Bill C-474 begins not from the position of opposition to GMOs or genetically-engineered seed or products, but from a position of accepting the reality of their use in the marketplace and ensuring they are safe and do not impact on markets negatively. As will be noted, in the content of the bill there is no reference to the mechanism by which the analysis of potential harm to export markets will be achieved.

During the course of the hearings by the committee, one of the major concerns was the means by which this analysis would be conducted in a fair and impartial way, precisely who would conduct the analysis and what kind of input stakeholders would have in determining the parameters of that analysis.

Ten amendments have put forward by the member. Really all the amendment in Motion No. 2 does is identify the Government of Canada as being responsible for doing that analysis, but the definition of how that analysis is to take place is not there.

That is the key component of this legislation. How would we do the analysis? What would be the role of the government, other than being responsible? What would be the role of stakeholders? What would be the role of our international competitors in the international marketplace? None of those questions are dealt with in this particular piece of legislation.

Another amendment, Motion No. 4, would make the economic analysis part of the current application process. However, no evidence was presented at committee to justify this addition.

What would be the implications, and this is a serious question, of that kind of analysis on the science-based system that we have in place?

So, those are key points that have not been answered by the discussions we had at committee, by the original proposal from the proponent of this bill or by the amendments we have before us today. I think that is a very serious shortcoming.

If I could sum up on that particular point, the parameters of the analysis on economic harm have not been identified. I think that could undermine our key science-based system we have at the moment and could have major implications on the advent of new products into the marketplace, on farmers' economic potential and certainly on our biotech research industry. There are just too many unanswered questions that, regardless of hearings having been held, have really not been answered at those hearings.

The legislation would apply to genetically engineered products developed and grown in Canada, but it would in no respect apply to the importation of similar products for processing or use in Canada. This is an oversight, I believe, that is not addressed by the amendments, which again undermines the basic integrity of the legislation.

Also, the introduction of an economic harm analysis prior to the sale, not the approval, of any genetically engineered seed would appear to layer a new and far more subjective approval process over the current accepted science-based approval process.

That is complicated wording just to basically say that there is not enough definition around what the member is trying to do with this bill, in terms of defining economic harm.

Just to sum up, yes, the amendment would make the government responsible. It does not define how it would be done or the parameters of that analysis. So I think there are major implications potentially on our science-based industry here, on the science-based approval process at the moment. Therefore, we cannot support the bill.

There is one last point I want to make, though, on the hearing process. We did hear from a number of witnesses. We were supposed to hear from several others. There is a serious concern that I think Parliament or Agriculture Canada or someone, certainly, has to address; that is, as the member for British Columbia Southern Interior indicated earlier, that there is potential risk in the alfalfa industry by the introduction of GMO, genetically engineered seeds. It would be the same in terms of the wheat industry, over a slightly longer term.

We have to recognize that those issues have to be dealt with. That is one of the benefits of having had those hearings. We recognize there are problems. The minister should recognize there are problems and the government should recognize there are problems, and they should move to address them.

The bottom line is, based on the foregoing, that because of the risk as a result of this particular bill, Bill C-474, we cannot support this bill as currently drafted.

[Committees of the House, December 1st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, one of the difficulties on the statistical side is that the government did not provide us with the documentation we asked for. It claims that the prison farms are losing $4 million. I do not believe that for a minute.

Where is the food for these institutions going to come from in the future? Is it going to be American food? Is it going to come from Chile? Is it going to come from Argentina? It is not necessarily going to be Canadian, under our system, but let me point this out.

The government is adopting the American system, but the United States now is recognizing how valuable prison farms are and it is reinstituting some of them. In California, it is a crop operation.

Here is a headline from the Associated Press: “South Carolina's largest dairy will be at prison”. The article goes on to explain it. It says, “Others take away a work ethic”. In a quote from this, a Mr. Dew says, “They are learning that for everything you do, it takes effort. You get up, you go to work, you do your job and you go home.”

The Americans, which the government likes to follow, it seems, are now recognizing that prison farms are of value, and the government is throwing away an opportunity for feeding our own prison system from within and rehabilitating inmates in a way that they are more productive in society. That is a shame.

[Committees of the House, December 1st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the minister's understanding of the issue relative to rehabilitation when he was the minister in charge of public safety, in charge of the RCMP, in charge of CSIS, in charge of prisons in this country, is almost beyond belief.

The problem though, and the reason the minister does not understand, is that he never walked in the doors of one of those prison farms. We need to walk in the prison farm, go in and see these inmates working with the livestock, whether it is the cattle in a dairy operation, the beef in a beef operation or the poultry. We need to see them working in the machinery shop.

What the minister should have seen is the pride of these inmates when they worked in the dairy operation and provided food for other institutions across the country, but that is one of the failures of the minister and the government. They do not want to know the facts. They will not go and look at the facts, because they want to believe what they want to believe even if it is wrong, and in this case, they are very much wrong.

[Committees of the House, December 1st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this concurrence debate. I want to expand on some of the comments made by colleague from Ajax—Pickering.

A lot has been learned since the government first decided, against all facts and common sense, to close prison farms. Its agenda is to go the American way and emphasize punishment over rehabilitation. Punishment is an American system that has proven to be one of the worst in actually fighting crime and rehabilitating people.

Let me ask a question. If members were to walk the streets in many of the big cities in the United States or in many of the big cities in Canada, where would they feel safer? I think they would feel safer walking the streets in a Canadian city.

However, when we look at Canada and the United States, in terms of their incarceration rates, the United States incarcerates about six times per capita as many people as Canada does. The United Sates incarcerates them and has a system that is based on punishment. It has a system of private jails. It has a system of super prisons. However, it is a system that is recognized around the world as one that is not working in terms of preventing crime over the long term, because it does not emphasize the rehabilitation of people.

The government likes these short bills talking about fighting crime. However, what it avoids at all costs, at all times, is facts that would back up its arguments. In fact one of the reasons it has closed down the mandatory census is that it really does not want to have to deal with the substantive facts. The government wants to believe what it wants to believe and does not like arguments based on facts going against it.

However, where the borrow-and-spend government sitting across the way is going with regard to the prison system in this country is that it is looking at spending another $9 billion or $10 billion on building more super jails. One of the biggest failures in getting there is closing the prison farms. The excuses the government has used, in terms of closing the prison farms, are really unbelievable.

When the announcement was made to close the prison farms, the former minister of public safety told the public safety committee that, in the view of the government, the funds directed toward the prison farm program could be better used if the resources were “redirected to programs where people could actually gain employable skills, as virtually nobody who went through those prison farms ended up with employable skills...”.

There are several problems with the point that the former minister of public safety made.

There is a great need in the farm community itself for those employable skills learned on the farm. There is a huge shortage of labour in much of the farm community, and we have to bring in people from other countries with those skills to work on those farms. It was a miserable statement to make against people who worked on farms, as if their skills were not of value.

The fact of the matter is that working on prison farms is not just about getting a job on a farm, as Conservative members at the public safety committee tried to make it out to be by asking the Correctional Service Canada people how many people got a job on a farm. They did not dare ask how many people got jobs. That is what working on these prison farms is all about. It is about learning life skills. It is all about rehabilitation. It is working with others. That is what it is all about.

In terms of rehabilitation, and my colleague mentioned it earlier, there is just nothing like working with livestock to give one a better sense of life.

I recall at the prison farm in Kingston I ran into an old gentleman who was in prison for life for some very serious crimes. When I talked to him, he told me he had been in trouble all his life, both inside and outside the institutions, and that he had revolted all his life, even inside the institutions, until he came to this farm. He put his hand on a cow and he said that these animals made him recognize what life is all about. He was rehabilitated as an individual. He said himself that he actually became a human being because he was working with livestock. He understood and loved those animals.

My colleague mentioned earlier how they cared so much about an animal with foot rot that really, from my perspective as a farmer, should have been put down. But they cared and they wanted to bring that animal back to life. They wanted to give her life again, where she could walk and be productive again. When I went back to that prison farm eight months later, that cow had healed. That is rehabilitation and working with animals, and I make those points to point out how important working with livestock and working on prison farms really is for the rehabilitation of individuals.

I want to come back to the facility itself. A case study of the Frontenac facility indicates that the program has been successful. The program that the government wants to close down was successful, and I have to ask why it wants to close them down. Why does it want to misrepresent the facts relative to these institutions? Why do the Conservatives not want to rehabilitate inmates so that they can get on to producing in the economy again in a productive way?

The Frontenac facility has been in operation since 1962 and it operates on 455 hectares of class two farmland. The facility houses 130 cattle and produces 4,000 litres of milk per day, which places this facility within the top 20% in terms of productivity in the province of Ontario.

In 2005, this prison farm operation won Frontenac County's most improved dairy herd award, and when we walk in the facility we see the breeding, the genetics that are in that herd. That herd has been around since the turn of the last century. There are genetics in that herd that just cannot be replaced by going out and buying another herd. The facility supplies milk and eggs to Corrections Canada institutions in Ontario and Quebec.

The training program provides, through the prison farm, as follows. Inmates receive training on heavy equipment maintenance related to farm machinery. Inmates receive training on operating tractors, loaders, corn planters, harvesters, ploughs and spreaders. Inmates working in dairy operations can receive third-party certification for learning to operate and maintain the industrial pouch filler. They learn welding skills in the repair of farm equipment. They learn how to operate a variety of hand and power tools. They learn about environmental stewardship, which includes nutrient management and composting. They are trained in crop management and how to maximize yield and feed values. They receive training on feed management as it relates to milk and egg production. They learn how to grade eggs to meet industry standards. They learn how to operate a major poultry operation. They learn about animal care and welfare, including proper management and breeding techniques.

They learn a lot in these institutions, including management skills for the herd, administrative capacities in running computers and clerical skills. All those are important and, with the loss, with the closing down of the prison farm system, the ability to learn those skills in a farm setting where they get rehabilitation as well is lost because of this ridiculous decision by the Government of Canada. It is a decision not based on facts but based on an attitude toward people who have gone to prison, yes, to pay a price for a crime. However, the prison farm system actually rehabilitates them in a way that makes them better persons in society when they get out. That is what we need. The government should be ashamed.

[Committees of the House, December 1st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure for me and my colleague to tour quite a number of prison farms in the Kingston, Ontario area, New Brunswick, Manitoba and other areas.

I wonder if he could elaborate on the dairy herd at the penitentiary farm in Kingston. What was enlightening was the pride the inmates took in looking after the dairy herd and in providing milk and other food products to other institutions in Ontario and Quebec.

My colleague met with the mayor and town council in Kingston. He also met with people who are part of the group, Save the Prison Farms. I wonder if he could expand a bit more on what it means for the community to support the continuation of prison farms.