Wayne Easter

[Canada Grain Act, October 8th, 2009]

No, no. Producers voted. Be honest.

[Canada Grain Act, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my hon. friend's remarks. I had forgotten about this quotation from the minister. He was quoted in The Western Producer, saying, “We're not going to leave you hanging with nothing”.

As the NDP member has said, it has now been six months. We still see no proposals from the minister on what the government would replace bonding with. If the bill takes away bonding, all kinds of companies will go broke. There is only one person who bears the burden of a company going broke and that is the producer who shipped the grain. Without bonding, it is an absolute disaster.

We do know that there are all kinds of other cases where the minister has left producers with nothing. In fact, they were left with less than nothing. As I mentioned earlier, the hog plan leaves producers with no security and more debt. The CAIS program it replaced with AgriStability leaves them with even less returns than CAIS provided. Now, on its exit program for hogs, farmers have to bid against each other for who will sell the lowest to get out of the business. That is really a race to the bottom by producers so that the government can get the lowest cost possible.

When the minister said, “We're not going to leave you hanging with nothing”, there are all kinds of examples out there where this minister has left producers with less than nothing.

I would ask the member this question. He mentioned the fact that in the bill, deleted from the original Canada Grain Act, is “in the interests of producers”. He has worked with the fisheries. Who would ever believe that a minister would introduce a bill for an area that he is responsible for and drop the producer interest from that bill? Is that not crazy?

[Canada Grain Act, October 8th, 2009]

No.

[Canada Grain Act, October 8th, 2009]

Yes I will, Mr. Speaker, but the member spoke at great lengths about the hog plan and, as I said, it is the best disguised Ponzi scheme in the country.

What really happens here is that when farmers get unsecured money from the Government of Canada, which has very few ways to collect, they are now being asked to go to the credit institutions, such as Farm Credit Canada, credit unions and chartered banks, and take a secure loan that is, yes, guaranteed by the government, but the first thing they need to do is pay off the Government of Canada.

This is really a transfer of money from farmers who are now indebted to the banks, to Treasury Board and to the Department of Finance. Would the member not call that a Ponzi scheme?

The bottom--

[Canada Grain Act, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was just so shocked while I was in my office, watching and listening to the member for Westlock—St. Paul's remarks, that I had to come over.

He talked about the minister's hog plan. Instead of blowing about it, he should hang his head in shame because of the Minister of Agriculture's record of failure. He should hang his head in shame over that program instead of talking about it.

I submit to the President of the Treasury Board that the hog crisis proposal by the minister is probably one of the best disguised Ponzi schemes that this country has ever--

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks of the member for Sault Ste. Marie. I tried earlier to ask questions of the government side but members seemed to produce answers straight out of the PMO. I know the member always gives direct answers.

In his remarks, the member seemed quite reluctant to support Bill C-51 and said that he did not think it went far enough. He talked about unemployment and the fact that it is a serious situation. As the member would know, people in Atlantic Canada would not benefit from these new measures and it is a problem. I am wondering if the people in Sault Ste. Marie would benefit from these new measures. Would they get the additional time?

Second, the government has now put Canada's economy into the biggest deficit in Canadian history. One of the ways it envisions getting out of that deficit is to increase payroll taxes to the tune of billions of dollars down the road. I wonder what the member's thoughts might be in that regard on the increased burden--

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would not want the record to be wrong. It is not unusual for the Conservative government to provide the wrong message. The fact of the matter is that was not in the red book. It was a promise by one member. She stepped down and ran again and was re-elected.

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Brian Mulroney.

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I remain shocked at the message coming out of the government backbenches. Do those members really believe what they read?

The member for Medicine Hat talked about working to reduce the government's tax burden. The previous Liberal government gave the biggest tax break in Canadian history. The Conservatives took a surplus and presented the biggest spending budget in Canadian history. They misinformed Canadians about the deficit they were entering. They may be reducing taxes a little bit, but now they are leaving Canadians, our children and grandchildren, with the biggest deficit in Canadian history. How is that going to be paid?

The member should tell the whole story. The Conservatives might have reduced taxes in one area, but they are leaving the biggest deficit in Canadian history, a burden on this country's future.

I have a simple question and that is about what is not in this implementation plan.

In 2006 the Prime Minister promised the farm sector, an area that the member for Medicine Hat should know well, cost of production. It was missing in the budget and it is certainly missing in this document.

Could the member please tell me why the Prime Minister broke his word on delivering cost of production to Canadian farmers?

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I can only stand here and shake my head after listening to those remarks. To even suggest that the government has sound fiscal management is so far from the truth it is unbelievable.

We have a Prime Minister who has taken a surplus that was left to him by the previous government and has driven this country into its biggest deficit in Canadian history. In fact, it was in deficit before the global recession started. The government just does not want to admit it.

I am absolutely shocked that the member for Huron—Bruce, which is the biggest hog-production sector in Canada, would get up and nary mention a word about hog producers. He talked a little about helping farmers. Does he think the Ponzi scheme, established by the President of the Treasury Board, will help Canadian hog producers?

Let me explain the scheme to him. Perhaps he just does not know because he is talking from the speaking points from the PMO.

Does the member support the fact that farmers will go and get a loan from the bank that is guaranteed by the Government of Canada, which is a start, at least it is guaranteed, but the first condition of that loan is that producers must pay back the advance payment program they received from the government last year, which is an unsecured loan from the Government of Canada? Farmers will be left indebted to the chartered banks or other credit institutions and in the process they pay off the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada gets its money securely and farmers are left further in debt with no hope and no future.

The government has been an absolute disaster for the farm community. How can the member for Huron—Bruce, which has a big hog-producing population, support such a Ponzi scheme exercised by his Minister of Finance?