Wayne Easter

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite extensively to the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont. I was surprised by his statement at the very end of his remarks, accusing the opposition of intellectual dishonesty in terms of our motion. If intellectual dishonesty rests anywhere, it rests with the government on this issue.

What this is all about on the government's part is ideology over substance, paying $30 million more for a census return from this borrow and spend government to get less accurate information. That does not make sense.

However, the member's argument, and he went to great length in his remarks, was that one reason the Conservatives were doing away with this was because of the criminal aspect for the long form and the mandatory nature of it.

There is a double standard on that side of the House. If that is really the substance of the government's argument and the principle of its argument, then why is it still a criminal offence for farmers if they do not fill out the agriculture census?

At 12:10 this afternoon, I took this off the Statistics Canada website. One question on the agriculture census was, “Are there penalties for not answering and returning the questionnaire?” The answer was:

Yes. Under the Statistics Act, agricultural operators are required to complete a Census of Agriculture form. Refusing to answer the questions on the census form could result in a fine of $500 or a jail term of three months, or both.

Most agricultural organizations support the agriculture census with the penalties in it because they know the value of the agriculture census to the agricultural community. However, my point is this. If the government is talking about principle, then why the principle in one area and not in the other, or is its argument just intellectual dishonesty?

[Food Safety, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's food safety inspection system is again under suspicion. This time the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's internal audit on imported products showed “deficiencies that represent multiple areas of risk exposure”.

First, why has the minister again failed Canadians, with respect to food safety?

Second, why does the minister not enforce the same standards on foreign production as he expects Canadian producers to meet?

[Petitions, September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of quite a number of Canadians. It is on the issue of traceability in health regulations for Canadian horses that took effect on July 31 of this year.

Canadian horse breeders say in their petition that they were not involved in any democratic discussions concerning those proposed traceability in health regulations. They ask that the government deal with the Canadian horse traceability program and ensure that it is working effectively.

[Agriculture, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, many western farmers are facing financial ruin due to severe weather. However, government programs are proving to be useless.

Linda Oliver from Mozart, Saskatchewan, states, “We have had over 1000mm of rain here - over 40 inches - and all I am told is [the government] are monitoring the situation....Agri recovery won't even pay on clover - seeded last year...but drowned out. Is that fair?”

When will the minister and the current government actually help farm families who are in severe financial stress?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2010]

Has Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada completed or contracted to have completed any economic impact analyses of removing barley from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board on western grain farmers and, if so, (i) on what dates were the studies completed, (ii) what are the titles of the analyses, (iii) what are the names and positions held by the authors of the analyses, (iv) what are the names of the individuals or organizations the analyses were distributed to?

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to respond to those comments. It really comes back to leadership. The government does not have a majority. A minority Parliament is a place of compromise, debate and compromise, and looking at the issues.

As I said on the gun issue, our leader showed leadership. Their side has not. We have not even seen a bill from the government on that issue.

On many of the committees, we see leadership coming from the opposition side. On the citizenship and immigration committee, it was my seatmate who provided the leadership on that issue to find the compromises to make the bill work. That is what we see coming forward from the opposition.

The member talked about previous governments, the Pearson government that brought in so much of what is the foundation of social policy in this country. That was during a minority government because Liberal leaders are willing to develop the compromises and show the leadership to do what is best for Canadians.

The problem is the Prime Minister is on a one-track agenda. It is his way or the highway and that is not the way democracy is supposed to work.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, of course I am going to exercise my democratic right. Maybe that member knows something I do not. He claims that my constituents oppose the long gun registry. A majority of my constituents do not.

In terms of my original motion, I wanted the government to show some leadership in terms of finding a compromise that would work. The government has failed. The Prime Minister has failed to bring in a government bill. It is a backbencher's bill.

When I turned to the leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition, he worked with rural Canadians, he worked with urban Canadians, and he found a compromise that works. That is leadership that is coming from this side of the House where we see none over there. I will vote—

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know they do not want to hear that but this is a very serious issue. This is about the rights of Canadians through their elected representatives.

I know on that side of the House, we have seen how the government has operated, and previous speakers have spoken about this, about how organizations that question the government have their funding cut and how farm organizations that challenge the government have the door slammed in their face, never to see the minister again. I know for Conservative backbenchers there is a lot of fear and intimidation from the PMO but, for Heaven's sake, they were elected to represent Canadians, to represent their constituents, and it is time that they stood up to their leader who is attempting to run roughshod over this place. His actions, in so doing, are undermining democracy.

After Canadians exercised their democratic right and prevented the Prime Minister from gaining a majority, he first broke his election promise of fixed elections and then he prorogued Parliament and basically tried to put a padlock on democracy. Members will remember that at the time he said that it was to recalculate. Recalculate their legislation, I guess, but we have not seen much recalculation. When Parliament opened a considerable time later, what came forward from the government was the weakest and shallowest legislation agenda in Canadian history.

In fact, in a Canadian Press story, it stated:

Parliamentary expert Ned Franks says he can't recall another legislative sitting that has accomplished so little.

He went on to say:

This parliament isn't functioning like a normal parliament.

He blames a government that "views Parliament as the enemy"....

That is a fairly serious comment from a well-known expert on parliaments and democracies and how they work. Backbench members over there should be very concerned.

To sum this up on this end, the Prime Minister sees Parliament as the enemy. He does not want debates or discussions. This motion lays down some rules around how any prorogation would work.

I think part of the problem here is that the Prime Minister has failed to understand that respect for this place is not a matter of convenience. This is a government that when confronted on an issue of the rights of Parliament, in this case, the right of Parliament now confirmed by the Speaker, to have access to the documents related to the detainee issue that the Speaker had to rule on and challenge the government, we did get into negotiations and got, we think but we will see, a reasonable settlement for the moment.

The consequences of all that was clearly a failed legislative agenda. Only really two substantive bills have passed this place. That is probably the worst record in history.

However, it goes further than that. It is not just the Prime Minister and how he tries to shut this place down. It is how he tries to challenge the rights of committees, and that is a very serious issue. The Prime Minister has instructed his ministers to follow his example and deny committees the witnesses they have asked for.

I am on one of those committees and I want to background this so that people understand how serious this matter is. At committees, we need to be able to do our job. If we are going to represent the Canadians who sent us here to hold the government to account, we need to be able to see and question the witnesses who we believe have answers.

When the committee started its hearings on access to information, Mr. Togneri was to appear as a witness. He had named some others who we should maybe investigate as well. We also wanted to hear from Mr. Soudas, the Prime Minister's chief spokesman. However, all of a sudden the House leader stood in the House and there was a new rule around this town, which was that certain witnesses would not be able to appear.

In fact, I have a letter from the Prime Minister directed to the clerk of the committee, which states:

The purpose of this letter is to inform the Committee of my instruction to Mr. Soudas that he will not appear before the Committee.

The Prime Minister did go on a little further to say:

Next week I will be present in Question Period on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Questions about these matters can be directed to me there.

However, when a member stood to ask a question on June 10 about Mr. Soudas, the Prime Minister did not answer. Is the Prime Minister's word worth the paper it is written on? He said that he would answer and he did not, but he would not allow Mr. Soudas to appear before the committee. That is a very serious matter.

As well, the legislative law clerk appeared before the committee, Mr. Rob Walsh. Committee members were questioning him this week on the authority that the Prime Minister may or may not have and this is what he had to say in response. We were talking about the authority of committees to call witnesses. Mr. Walsh stated, ”the Prime Minister and any minister has no authority to prevent someone from appearing in front of a committee”.

He went on to say, “but everyone has a duty--apart from members of Parliament, senators, and the Governor General--to show up when summoned before a committee”.

Mr. Walsh, who is the expert in this town, clearly believes that committees have the right to call witnesses. This is a very serious issue.

I do not know what the government is trying to cover up. I do not know what it was thinking in terms of its action in not allowing Parliament to work by proroguing it, then not re-calibrating and bringing in, as I said, the weakest legislative performance we have ever seen in government, and now monkeying around with committees and preventing them from doing their work. I see this motion as extremely important. We need to put some rules around what the Prime Minister can and cannot do.

This Parliament is the people's Parliament. It is here so that we as elected representatives can do our jobs on behalf of Canadians. We live in a democracy, not a dictatorship, and, in a democracy, parliamentarians need to be able to do their job but we cannot do our job if this place is closed down on the whim of the Prime Minister or if ministers and the Prime Minister order others not to appear before committee. That is unacceptable.

I encourage everyone, especially the backbenchers in the Conservative Party, to develop some backbone and stand up for Canadians for a change.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Papineau.

I am pleased to speak to this motion. I think it is a very good one. I would hope that all members in the House support it. I hear some laughing on the other side, but I would say to those Conservative backbenchers sitting over there not to allow their whip to whip them into line, as he always does, because this is not about--

[Agriculture, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, just like the Minister of Agriculture fails farmers, the Minister of Transport fails them even worse. He allows the railways to gouge farmers with excessive freight rates. A study released yesterday shows farmers are overcharged by the railways on an average $200 million per year. That is $17,000 to $32,000 per farm, ripped off by the railways, condoned by the minister.

Why no costing review and why does the Minister of Transport allow the railways to gouge farmers?