Wayne Easter

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, let me answer the question quite directly. Of course, I see many benefits in this agreement, especially for the farm sector, such as livestock exports. Certainly the Canadian Wheat Board, a great marketing institution in this country which the current government continues to try to undermine, is saying very clearly that the trade agreement with Colombia is important to move grains and oilseeds into Colombia. There are opportunities. There will be other opportunities down the road as well. However, we need to have that debate and let those producers come before committee.

The member raised the issue of the Prime Minister coming back to Tim Hortons and I must make a couple of comments. It was just another re-announcement of a previous announcement. That is what the Prime Minister is so good at. In Prince Edward Island, I announced the new public building in Charlottetown in 2003 and my colleague, the member for Charlottetown, saw that it got off the ground and got built. That was about four years ago. What did the Government of Canada do two weeks ago? It put up a sign in front of the new federal building in Charlottetown, trying to leave the impression that it is part of its economic stimulus package. It is no such thing. That is the kind of mis-messaging the Conservative government does all the time. The government is trying to confuse Canadians that it is providing stimulus when it is not doing anything of the sort. That stimulus was provided by a previous government that believed in building Canada for Canadians.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether it was a double-double or not, but it may have been. He had the opportunity to challenge directly the President of the United States and, from what I can gather, did not do so.

Canadian producers are standing by watching their asset base decline and tumble while the government sits on its hands. To have a trade agreement is one thing, but when one has a trade agreement one has to have a government that has the courage to stand up for the people in our country who are operating under that trade agreement, not just cave in to it. That is what the government has consistently done. Whether it is open market, trade agreement, whatever, it is failing Canadian producers.

With respect to this bill, what really needs to happen from the official opposition's perspective is to move the bill to committee where the voices of Canadians and Colombians can be heard and hearings can be held to establish the direction in which we want to go. The committee and the House can vote on it after all the evidence has been put forward.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

There has been a considerable amount of debate in the House, with arguments from all sides and, in fairness, reasonable arguments from those in support and also from those opposed. Debate has certainly been held in this place and that debate is on the record.

The official opposition believes that the time has come to move this debate and this discussion to committee so citizens can have their say and express their opinions and concerns directly. Those who have concerns, whether they are over human rights or trade issues, and those who strongly favour the trade agreement, as those in the farm sector do, would be able to express directly what they see as opportunities.

Let me be very clear. Bill C-23 should be moved to committee and it should hold hearings across the country and hear from people. The committee should do one of two things in terms of the Colombia argument: first, either travel to Colombia and hear from people directly on what they see as opportunities and what they see as concerns; or, at the very least, invite some Colombian people to come here as witnesses so they can express either concerns or what they see as opportunities in a vivid way. This trade agreement affects both of our economies and should be examined closely at committee level.

There are concerns about human rights in Colombia. The best way to understand the extent and impact of those concerns would be for committee to visit Colombia or invite Colombian witnesses to appear in this country.

There are two approaches that one could take on the conflict of human rights versus trade.

The first approach would be as we have done in China, and various governments have taken this approach. We could foster trade and encourage human rights as a result of the trading relationship. The other approach would be to oppose trade altogether until the human rights concerns have been addressed. Those are the kinds of parameters of the debate on the human rights argument.

Let me emphasize the fact that the best way for Parliament to find the balance and establish a direction and come to a conclusion is to aggressively now pursue hearings in the country and possibly in Colombia or bring Colombian witnesses here.

I can assure the House that farmers will want to be heard. They have sent letters to most of us in the House directly, suggesting how important the Colombian market is for their exports so they can achieve some economic opportunities in our country.

With committee hearings, the people of Canada, the people of Colombia and industries in both countries could be given a direct voice and direct input.

On the Colombian side, I will admit that I am very concerned, after hearing that the president has indicated he may change the constitution so he can stay in office beyond the two term time limit. That is worrisome. Has the Prime Minister raised this issue with the president? Has he said to the president that to violate the constitution in order to extend his term could have an impact in this country as to whether we would pass the Colombia free trade agreement in the House?

I will admit I have serious concerns about agreements once they are signed and the government's ability, or courage or lack thereof, to stand up for Canadians who have established rights under those agreements. The best example is that the Conservative government certainly has failed to stand up for Canadian trade rights under the trade agreement with the United States.

The U.S. is our closest trading partner. Everybody knows how the Conservative government sold out on softwood lumber, but let me explain the latest dispute. The government has failed Canada's livestock industry, beef and hog and other livestock producers, with the trade agreement that is in place with the United States. I have said in the House many times that Canada is losing the hog industry in part due to the United States' protectionist policy and the Conservative government's failure to utilize the authorities under trade law to protect Canadian producers' interests. Here are the facts.

Dr. Milton Boyd, in an editorial in the Calgary Sun, said this about the situation of country of origin labelling in the United States. He opened the article by saying:

Struggling US livestock producers--hit hard by the recent economic downturn and the drop in demand for meat in the United States--have spurred recent trade protectionism measures—

We know what the Americans are doing is illegal. We know the Conservative government should be standing up for Canadian producers. But what are the consequences of the government not challenging the United States and standing up for Canadian producers? Here is what Dr. Boyd had to say:

[Country of origin labelling] COOL has resulted in a tightened, protectionist border. Canadian hog exports to the U.S. for market pigs have dropped...60% [from last year]...

...this loss is around...$163 million over a full year... Also, slaughter-cattle exports are down 20% and feeder-cattle exports are down by 50%.

That is an extremely serious issue. We are losing an industry. The government has the authority under trade law to stand up and fight for Canadian producers, but the minister sits on his hands. When the Prime Minister had the opportunity to apply more pressure when he was in the United States, what did he do? He got in his Challenger jet and flew home at a cost of about $60,000 to have a coffee at Tim Hortons.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think it is right for the member to provide misinformation to the House. The previous government lowered the employment insurance payment 14 times, brought down the rates--

[September 17th, 2009]

I have just a couple of points to make, Mr. Speaker.

The $17 million will actually be used to promote American pork on Canadian store shelves. That is what will happen to that money.

The transition program taking people out of the industry is really a reverse auction, where producers bid against each other for whoever can get it the cheapest and drive them out of the industry. More loans is not the answer.

For the parliamentary secretary to spout the words of the farm leadership is, indeed, sweet, because to a great extent the farm leadership in this country has been neutered by the fear and intimidation of the minister and the Prime Minister.

The minister goes so far as to ask the farm leadership to come out with a release and support the government and it knows it changed its first proposal because the minister threatened he would close the door on it. That is not responding to the needs of the industry. That is the minister playing games with the livelihoods and the economic reality of those producers on the farm. That is a sad commentary on this government.

[September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hog crisis in Canada continues to worsen with the government offering desperate farmers to either acquire more debt or quit the industry. The question I asked on May 15 was very specific: Is the government going to come to the assistance of Canada's hog industry? The answer then and the actions of the government to date clearly offer a resounding no.

This is an industry that contributes $7.7 billion in economic activity, 70,000 jobs and $2.1 billion in wages. We are now losing hog producers daily. Whereas we started the year with 8,310 producers, down 30% from 2006, those numbers are dropping daily, and the government fails to act other than to provide more debt to producers. Hog producers are ending up with lost hope and lost dreams.

When federal and provincial governments over the last 30 years asked farmers to take up the challenge of increasing efficiencies, increasing production and increasing exports and contributing to Canada's balance of trade, farmers stepped up to the plate and took up the challenge. They are among the most efficient producers in the world. Now that they have done all that and contributed to the economic activity of this country, having done what governments asked them to do, the federal government is telling them to face the difficulty on their own. These were events that were beyond the producers' control.

This is an industry which clearly the Conservative government has decided is not worth saving or really worth assisting. That is sad. What is worse is that the program the government is now offering farmers is not the opportunity to move forward with any increased cash flow. What it has offered producers is an opportunity where it tells them that it will guarantee them a loan at the bank, but first they must pay back the advance payment program money they received last year from the government, which is really unsecured funds.

In effect, the government is involving itself in a scam. It is a scam that is seeing the men at Treasury Board and the Department of Finance paid off while producers either have the same amount of debt or more debt with the lending institutions in this country. That is absolutely unacceptable. Who continues to lose in this process while the government gets paid? It is hog producers in this country. That is awful. It is nothing but a scam.

The consequences are severe. We are losing hog producers right across Canada. They are facing financial ruin and are leaving the industry, all because of events beyond their control. Instead of standing up for Canadian producers, the government is basically allowing them to be sold out.

Part of the reason they are in trouble are the actions of COOL in the United States. The Canadian government ought to be putting money out there, showing the U.S. that it is going to be standing by Canadian producers and not allow an illegal trade action by the United States to drive them out of business

I ask the minister tonight to come forward with a realistic solution and help Canada's hog producers financially.

[Agriculture, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister is not talking to ordinary producers.

Has the minister been party to this scam or was he hoodwinked by the Department of Finance into agreeing to impose this injustice on hog producers?

Here are the facts. Hog producers go to the bank to obtain a guaranteed loan. The condition is: repay the unsecured loan under the government's APP. The result: money flows through the farmers' hands to the government and farmers are left holding more debt. How does the government expect this to help hog producers?

[Agriculture, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have known for a long time that farmers cannot trust the government but now the government is enhancing its own bottom line by forcing producers to transfer government debt to banks.

With hog producers facing financial ruin, the Minister of Finance is cutting his financial obligations under the advance payment program but hog producers are left holding a bag of more debt and less hope.

Why did the Minister of Finance perpetuate this scam on farmers whereby the government gets paid and farmers are left mired in debt?

[Employment Insurance Act, September 17th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am really surprised at the member for Acadie—Bathurst getting up and basically supporting a bill on employment insurance that would do absolutely nothing for fishermen in his riding. And he admits that. That absolutely amazes me. Usually we can count on the member to stand up and be counted in terms of people facing unemployment.

I have a double question for the member.

First, with respect to the fishermen who have had poor prices this year, would the bill do anything for them? I would like him to be specific on that.

Second, where is the rationalization plan that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced which would help substantially as well? This plan has not been delivered in my area of Prince Edward Island in terms of actual cash. Is there any delivery on that in his riding in New Brunswick?

[Employment Insurance Act, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, every day we certainly see a lot of theatre from the government. It is all about messaging in terms of what the government tries to do. I have seen the TV shots of the minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister sitting in the room. That was theatre. It was orchestrated to try and send a message.

However, that message is confusing to the public, because this Prime Minister is all about division and, in my view, deceit.

I have a question for the member on Bill C-50. I know the member is very experienced on the employment insurance issue and has worked very hard on this file, but what will this proposal from the government do for those who do not qualify for employment insurance?

The big issue is the 40% to 45% of people out there or higher who do not qualify under the current system and are left without a job and without funds for their family and loved ones.