Wayne Easter

[October 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on May 14 I asked the government a series of questions related to the damage it has inflicted upon Canadians with respect to its economic mismanagement. The basic thrust was that the Conservative government operates on a policy of borrow and spend.

Canadian families are struggling with debt loads that even the OECD has found to be the highest in the industrialized world. While the government claims the economy has created jobs, the fact is that those jobs are either of short duration or of lower quality than Canadians require. As was mentioned in question period today, there has been a serious net loss of jobs since the Conservative government came to power.

The fact is that this government has been the biggest spending government in Canadian history. It has had the biggest deficit in Canadian history and it is growing. It has taken the country from surplus to deficit and seems to have no real direction.

We have a government that, instead of actually dealing with problems, somehow believes in the purchase of untendered stealth fighter aircraft costing $16 billion. We have a Prime Minister who is bringing on his staff an individual who represents interests that will benefit from the signing of the contract for that same fighter aircraft.

To sum up the mismanagement and how the government is borrow and spend, there are $16 billion for untendered aircraft, $9 billion for additional prisons, $30 million in additional costs for a census that will provide less reliable information, and a $6 billion tax cut for corporations that already pay the lowest corporate taxes as compared to much of the world.

Let us look at a sector that I know well, and that is the agriculture sector. Farmers in this country are leaving the industry at about 3,600 annually. The government said it would live up to its commitment when it advanced payments under the advance payments program as emergency assistance to the livestock industry. It committed that livestock producers would not have to pay back those moneys until “conditions improve”. Instead, the minister has now announced a payback. The government is insisting on a rapid payback, regardless of the kinds of circumstances producers face, and that is going to drive many producers into default.

This is a government that shortchanges our critical food inspection system. CFIA's own auditor has clearly pointed out that imported foods coming from other countries around the world do not meet the same kinds of safety standards as Canadian domestic foods do. Worse, Canadian producers are required to meet a regulatory regime in Canada, with production standards and the materials they have to use, that actually makes our farmers less competitive with imported products. That is wrong. It is time the government stood up for Canadians.

I again ask the government, why is it borrowing money from our grandchildren, basically, to give corporations cuts in taxes when they are already the lowest in the world?

[Ministerial Responsibility, October 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, with the answers in the House today, obviously not only is the minister not living up to his responsibility, he is hiding behind the coattails of the House leader.

When will the minister take responsibility for his action, for his staff that broke the law? The minister either oversaw this information cover-up scheme or he blindly allowed it to happen. In either case he should resign. If not, will the Prime Minister accept responsibility for this coverup and fire the minister?

[Ministerial Responsibility, October 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the former minister of public works says that he has nothing to hide in the investigation into the illegal information cover-up scheme operated by his senior staff. He told the House that he had the current minister forward the Togneri file to the Information Commissioner.

Could he explain why he is refusing to have that minister turn over hundreds, maybe thousands, of emails that would shed some light on this affair? Why the culture of secrecy? Will the minister stop stonewalling the Information Commissioner and provide the evidence, all of it?

[October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting how the government member tries to reinvent history. Of course we asked that the minister resign and for valid reasons. It has now been proven that the charges the Prime Minister laid against the member for Simcoe—Grey were not fact but were invented.

The parliamentary secretary talked about the Federal Accountability Act. The fact of the matter is, as we are learning more each and every day, that never in the history of Canada have we seen a government with such a level of secrecy and abuse of information laws as we have seen from the Conservative government. It is unprecedented. The Conservatives talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk.

When it comes to my riding of Malpeque, I have never said that I would vote against the gun registry. I made it clear that I would speak up for constituents. Members on that side of the House should not try to falsify that argument too.

[October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the question I asked on May 6, last, related to the current government's questionable record on ethics and how it seems to have established its own set of what is ethical. It talks a lot about rules, about law and order, but there are certainly different rules that apply to the government.

This is a Prime Minister who decides to set as an example, for all his caucus to consider, the treatment he meted out to the member for Simcoe—Grey. His ethical standard is simple, “Disappoint me in any way and I will not only remove you from cabinet but I will kick you out of caucus and, in the process, do everything in my power to ruin your reputation in the community”. That is the way the Prime Minister operated. No one, certainly not the current Prime Minister, has had the courage or the decency to explain his actions in regard to the treatment of the member for Simcoe—Grey.

Did the official opposition believe the member should have been removed from cabinet?

Absolutely. We felt she should, and we stated so.

However, did we, on this side of the House, ever demand that the member in question be kicked out of caucus, that the RCMP be manipulated by the Prime Minister personally to undertake an unwarranted investigation, which led nowhere?

Absolutely not. We did not.

These actions came out of the Prime Minister's Office, personally.

Where is the ethical bottom line for the current government and the current Prime Minister? What will the current Prime Minister not do to keep order in his caucus?

We now know that the RCMP found nothing, and although the member wants to come back into caucus, the Prime Minister stands by his position.

I would say to members opposite, the backbenchers of the governing party who jump like trained seals when the Prime Minister speaks, that if it can happen to the member for Simcoe—Grey, it can happen to any member on the government benches. Quite seriously, they have a leader who is prepared to destroy not only their political career but their and their family's reputation in the community if he sees advantage in doing so.

Members opposite should give that some thought, and they no doubt do, although I am certain we will not hear any admission of that on the floor of the House of Commons.

Let me close with the most recent example of a serious lapse in ethical behaviour by the current government.

Here is what the former House leader told this chamber on June 4, 2010:

Our ministers will not only be answering questions, as they do every day, in this chamber but at committee as well. Ultimately, it is they who are responsible for the actions of their staff and for their departments.

But that does not seem to apply to the current Minister of Natural Resources who, while minister of public works, had in his employ Sébastien Togneri. Mr. Togneri, in his testimony before the ethics committee, testimony given under oath, stated two things. One, he acknowledged that he had broken the law with respect to the Access to Information Act prohibiting the interference with an access to information request. Two, he stated that he was given the “informal” authority to be actively involved in the access to information files by his minister, the current Minister of Natural Resources.

Why has that minister not resigned? This government campaigned—

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. She mentioned there were members of the community who were fearful of filling out government documentation because of some of the countries they came from. However, when it is made mandatory and Statistics Canada personnel explain to them that it is important for decision making relative to their geographic—

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a very valid point. The government spin is all about that. The member for Beauce never backed that up with emails or the information. It was a figure he pulled out of the air to try to spin the line to argue the Conservative point of view.

The government is all about that. We hear it every day, even on the gun registry debate. We have seen it use false statistics. We need accurate information.

Therefore, the member for Beauce is clearly wrong because he has not backed up that argument. I would go to the central authorities that have documented how many complaints they have received, and that would be the more accurate figure.

It just goes to Conservative spin once again and goes right to ideology.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member just does not get it. Those are the kinds of citizens from whom it is important to get information. If we do not get information from the full sector of society, and that is why it is required to be mandatory, then the data is thrown off. We need that information. Whether they are single mothers, or in the aboriginal community or in the farm community, we need that information. A voluntary census, as expert after expert and organization after organization have told the government, will not provide that reliable data.

Therefore, it is important to get it. It is important for those citizens who the member is talking about to provide that information so the right public policy decisions can be made to better their lives.

The member is trying to undermine—

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

—or the law, as the member is screaming opposite. He is a law and order member of Parliament. It is the law and order agenda: spend $9 million more for prisons for unreported criminals and crime. What ridiculousness.

However, let us look at what others, who are responsible for decisions, are saying about this stupid decision that is based on ideology by the government. In a report prepared and presented to the Edmonton city council on July 15, the actions of the federal government on eliminating the mandatory long form census were condemned. The report stated that the elimination of the census would have a direct impact on all the citizens of the city in that the loss of this data could negatively impact the ability of the municipality to plan everything from the location of recreational centres to transportation issues.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, in a letter to the Minister of Industry in July, stated that clearly that not only did federal and provincial governments require the data from the mandatory long form census, but municipalities like Edmonton, Calgary, Charlottetown, et cetera relied rely upon this data.

The Canada West Foundation's CEO, Roger Gibbens, has opposed the drive to ignorance by the Conservatives, stating the foundation knows, “a voluntary census will not produce reliable data. This is not an opinion; it is as close to a fact as one can get”.

The Canadian Medical Association appears to share the concerns of the city of Edmonton. According to the article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on July 15, it stated that the decision of the government was absurd and dangerous. It said, “With no consultation, the [Prime Minister's] government has undermined evidence-based decision-making in Canada”. It went on to state, “In health care, it is an essential tool in the planning and delivery of services”. It concluded by saying, “If this decision is not reversed, Canada will stand alone among developed nations in not having detailed information about its population”.

That is quite a statement. It shows where the government is taking Canada. No wonder we are losing international respect. The government bases all its decisions on ideology and tries to avoid the facts at all costs.

Let me look at another area of hypocrisy of the government. The Conservatives claim they are doing away with the mandatory long form census to keep Canadians out of jail, or having to pay fines. That does not and apparently will not apply to farmers.

Who will be responsible for sending farmers to jail? It will be the Minister of Agriculture , according to the Minister of Industry. When the Minister of Industry was before committee, he said that is the Minister of Agriculture's decision.

As I said earlier, there is a clear double standard in that the government argues that it is all about jail time, but as the Minister of Agriculture knows, the agriculture census is important. The only way to get that reliable data is through a mandatory form. It is mandatory with fines and jail sentences applied against the farm community. The farm community accepts that because it knows how valuable that information is and how accurate it must be in terms of business decisions.

What we have is a decision made somewhere in the bowels of the PMO in the spring, imposed down on the government's members in the House. Now they are all singing the tune and trying to argue the case. It really is ideology over substance. That is all.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion today, moved by my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie, calling on the government to reinstate immediately the long form census.

The motion, as members know, goes somewhat further by calling:

...on the government to introduce legislative amendments to the Statistics Act to remove completely the provision of imprisonment from Section 31 of the Act in relation to the Long-form Census, the Census of Population and the Census of Agriculture.

As members know, I questioned a member of the government earlier on the fact that at 12 o'clock today the census on agriculture still has a fine of $500 and a threat of imprisonment. That shows the double standard that the government has and the lack of principle for its remarks on this particular issue.

This is an extremely important motion in that it goes to the heart of political decision making at all levels, decisions that should be based on facts and facts that should be based on absolutely accurate data. Whether it is a bus route in a city, a school in a community, a rural community centre or a rural health centre, those decisions by municipalities, by provincial governments, by federal governments and by community advisory committees rely on accurate data. Therefore, accurate data is essential.

An article in The Globe and Mail by Steven Chase outlines how ridiculous the current government's position on the census is and has been. He states:

A study conducted by Statistics Canada weeks before Ottawa revealed its plan to scrap the mandatory long-form census found that significant errors can creep into survey results gathered on a voluntary basis.

He goes on to say, “it'll undermine the rich trove of data upon which they rely”.

I would add that because of the way the government is changing the 2011 census, it will throw off the trend lines and the reliability over time of data that Canada has become famous for around the world. We were respected around the world through Statistics Canada. We were the model to follow. The government is undermining that respect and that international reputation.

The article in The Globe and Mail goes on to say how the “new census-taking rules could skew data in a range of areas from housing to demographics”.

As the article implies, anyone who deals with statistics and data collection around the world knows that a voluntary census is flawed.

However, to make it even worse, the government is not only going to go to the voluntary census, it is trying to cover it up by putting out more forms, which will actually make the data even more unreliable because it will skew the figures. It is spending $30 million more than the regular census for less reliable information. Does that make sense? I know this is a borrow and spend government and there is nothing even on the census that it does not want to spend more money on to get less reliable information. Does that make sense? I certainly think not.

However, as we have seen on so many issues on what the government does, it does not want its government of ideology, ideology over substance and ideology over facts, and it takes the position of not letting the facts get in the way of decisions it wants to make and it will try everything to skew those facts. We have seen that in some of the debates recently in this House.

The government's position is clear. It is ideology over substance and ideology over facts that infiltrates most of the decisions of the government.

In my responsibility as agriculture critic, I can look at the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister does not want to hear the facts of that issue either. In fact, he has been minister for a long time, but he has not even been to its offices yet because he does not want to learn the good work it does. My point is it is ideology—