Wayne Easter

[Status of Women, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister just not get it? Bullying tactics on individuals, insults on provinces and creating havoc at airports is absolutely unacceptable behaviour for a senior cabinet minister.

His former inner circle believes it is outrageous. Kory Teneycke stated, “It speaks to a sense of entitlement and different rules applying...”. Now Tom Flanagan offers, “The minister must go. Her behaviour is not compatible with being a cabinet minister”.

Will the Prime Minister just accept his responsibility and remove the minister from cabinet?

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the hon. member said.

I know there are quite a number of urban people in the government's caucus, and there are also quite a number of rural people. One of the sad points in terms of the budget is that there is a glaring neglect in the agricultural arena.

The hon. member talked about jobs and the economy, and manufacturing and exports. The problem is that Canada, in terms of its exports in the agricultural sector, is losing its own market share in Canada because of American farm policy. It is not that our farmers cannot be competitive. Our farmers are competitive, but what they lack is competitive policy.

With the livestock industry, the hog and beef industries in terrible financial trouble, there is not one new dime in the budget for primary producers. There is a little bit of recalculation on agri-flex, but not a new dime in the budget.

I ask the hon. member, seeing as he is a member of the total caucus, what happens over there? Do farmers just not rate? Does the government just not care about the farm community in terms of its prosperity?

[Status of Women, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister glued to his seat? When officers of Parliament challenge the government, the Prime Minister acts with haste and removes them from their jobs. When public officials question the government, their reputations are attacked and destroyed.

However, when a senior cabinet minister insults a province and bullies the very people she is supposed to serve, the Prime Minister sits on his hands. How can the Prime Minister justify this kind of an attack on my province?

[Status of Women, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is another day and we are still waiting for the Prime Minister to act on the irresponsible actions of his Minister of State for the Status of Women.

Does the Conservative sense of entitlement know no end? Insult a province and just say that the minister's emotions went astray. Belittle, berate and bully airport staff and just run out the door and fly far away.

What is next, get out of jail free cards for the entitled? When will the Prime Minister finally accept his responsibility and remove that minister from office?

[Status of Women, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, talk about righteousness. We have had righteous Conservatives over there by that last answer.

Even prominent Conservatives are condemning the behaviour of the Minister of State for the Status of Women. Former PMO communications director Kory Teneycke said:

This kind of stuff is toxic to the Conservative brand. It speaks to a sense of entitlement and different rules applying....

Now that the Conservative spin doctors are demanding accountability, will the Prime Minister do the right thing and accept his responsibility and fire the minister?

[Status of Women, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is now 20 days since the Minister of State for the Status of Women called my province “a hell hole”, or worse. Yet the member still sits as a full member of cabinet, with no sanctions whatsoever.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is from Prince Edward Island, makes lame excuses instead of standing up for Prince Edward Islanders.

What kind of message is the Prime Minister trying to send to the people of P.E.I.? Does he condone the minister's outrageous insult? Why is that minister still there?

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, being from Atlantic Canada, my colleague would know that perhaps one of the best opportunities for Atlantic Canada came out of a study by the Liberal members of the Atlantic caucus called “Atlantic Canada: Catching Tomorrow's Wave”. It was a long-term vision looking out 20 years.

One of the programs in that package announced in 2001 was the Atlantic innovation fund, funded with $300 million. Under a Liberal government in 2005, it was funded with another $300 million. However, in this budget, ACOA will be given $19 million for one year.

The member talked about the need for long-term vision.

Is it the policy of the government to announce a little bit of money everywhere but not enough anywhere to really do the job, that is, to have a short-term vision rather than a good long term vision that can could actually do something for innovation in this country?

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for Saint John, New Brunswick say how proud he was. I think the people of New Brunswick had better understand. With previous Liberal governments, the money was spent on innovation and development. When the Conservatives came to power, they cancelled that. It was not borrowed money. The member talked about all the wonderful numbers. People should understand that this is the biggest deficit in Canadian history after the previous budget, which was the biggest spending budget in Canadian history. The money the member talks about is borrowed from our children and grandchildren.

The Minister of Finance's prediction is not even living in the land of reality in terms of it going to be paid back by growth. The money the member talks about has not been put out in a responsible way because it has been borrowed from our children and our grandchildren.

However, I have a specific question for the member. The government has talked for a long time about the Atlantic gateway. Funds were to be put in place to build key infrastructure for the movement of goods in and out of Canada, which would involve all three maritime provinces. Where is the money? The advisory committee tells us there are no funds in place for the Atlantic gateway. Is it another broken promise? Why is that money not in this budget?

[The Budget, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at page 98 in the budget book which is supposed to be the place where there is something comprehensive on agriculture.

I just cannot understand it. How can this parliamentary secretary, this member for the rural riding of Macleod, this former farm leader, stand in his place and support this budget that does not have one new dime in it for farmers who are in tragedy in this country?

We are losing the hog producing industry. The industry is going down the tubes and production is being replaced by American production. There is nothing in this budget for hog producers.

There is nothing in this budget for the potato producers in Prince Edward Island and Manitoba who had their processing contracts cut.

There is a wee bit of money in here for beef farmers, but it is not the proposal that the beef processing industry and the producers asked for which would be a per head payment to deal with the uncompetitive position we are in as the result of SRM removal.

Worse yet, the money that is announced in this budget to deal with that problem in a half-mannered way comes from AgriFlexibility. So that money that is going to go to the SRM removal, to the processing plant, actually comes out of current funding for Agriculture Canada through AgriFlexibility and in fact is goring other farmers in the process.

My question is simple. Does the government just not care about farmers in this country? Will the parliamentary secretary now admit that there is absolutely nothing—

[Status of Women, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, what unbelievable deed does one have to do to lose one's job when one is from among the entitled cabinet?

Several independent officers of this Parliament lost their jobs for doing their jobs by questioning the government. Yet, the minister berates, belittles and bullies the very people that she has been sworn to work for.

Is it the sense of entitlement of the cabinet that they are above other Canadians? Why is the minister still in cabinet?