Wayne Easter

[Request for Emergency Debate, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have made a request for an emergency debate on the hog crisis in this country. Members of all parties have been hearing from farmers right across Canada, from coast to coast. It is one of the worst crises the hog industry has faced in our lifetime.

In my area in Atlantic Canada we have only 14 hog producers left in P.E.I., which is down from 600 ten years ago. There are only seven producers in New Brunswick, and they are down to four in Nova Scotia. We are at the point that we may not even be able to feed the one remaining plant in Atlantic Canada.

There were 600 producers from western Canada at a meeting in Manitoba in the spring, which members of the government and we, as the official opposition, attended. Those farmers are extremely worried about their future. They are losing their assets; they are losing their livelihood. This country is losing an industry with tremendous potential.

I have made the request for an emergency debate so that all parties can participate and outline the concerns of primary producers in the hog industry and what it means to the Canadian economy. The public should be aware of these issues. The government could report on what it is or is not doing relative to this crisis and bring greater profile to the emergency that the hog industry faces in this country.

[September 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's initial remarks on who requested a public inquiry at committee leaves one wondering if he is really following the Prime Minister's advice that “we'll teach them a lesson”. Is there a black list that the Conservative members seem to be following of who they check out? I do not know how they check them out. How do we know if they donated money to the Liberal Party or not?

The fact is that people have a right to come before the committee and, if they so decide based on evidence, call for a public inquiry. That is what they did and that is what we supported.

On this point, the University of Manitoba food microbiologist, Rick Holley, a member of the academic advisory panel on food safety at the inspection agency said that lack of knowledge about food-borne illness, how it happens and its cost to society in terms of death and illness is a weak spot in the Canadian food safety system that none of the recommendations of the Weatherill report addressed adequately. He basically calls for more work to be done and that there should be a full public inquiry--

[September 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on April 20, I asked two questions to the government concerning the criticism of the Ontario chief medical officer of health, who in the report his office released stated clearly that the federal government, specifically this minister given the responsibility for food safety, had failed Canadians during the listeriosis crisis of 2008, which resulted in the deaths of 22 people.

The questions raised in April have yet to be answered. The only recourse to the government's refusal to respond to serious concerns is for there to be a full inquiry under the federal Inquiries Act. The Conservatives on the agriculture committee, and indeed the government itself, refuse to allow a full public inquiry to occur. They used a parliamentary manoeuvre, leaving the impression of a reversal of a majority vote of the agriculture committee calling for a full public inquiry.

This manipulated majority does not reflect the true majority on the committee. In fact, the original report of the subcommittee calling for a full public inquiry after months of hearings still stands, but we have yet to hear the government response on that report.

The fact that the government went to such lengths to manipulate an outcome tells us more about the Conservatives' desperate determination to avoid a full public inquiry. The question is, why? What is the government really afraid of?

There would appear to be a number of reasons.

Remember that this is a government that called a full public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, in which a former prime minister is alleged to have taken money from a German businessman two decades ago. No one was injured. No one died. That full public inquiry is into the possible sleazy activities of a Conservative prime minister.

Last Friday the government issued its response to the listeriosis crisis by implementing the Weatherill report. While the official opposition has indicated that a number of recommendations in the Weatherill report are worthy of consideration, the statement of the government reinforces the need for a full public inquiry.

For example, in the Weatherill report, Ms. Weatherill claims that it will take a third-party auditor to find out the numbers of inspectors.

On July 21, the minister said it was impossible to determine how many meat inspectors there are. That is interesting, considering that the CFIA told the subcommittee on April 20, 2009, that there were 1,467 meat inspectors. On May 14, the minister told the House that half of the 3,228 inspectors were involved in meat inspection.

So who misled with Ms. Weatherill: the minister, the CFIA, or both?

I guess it is simple. The fact is that the government does not have the numbers right and cannot report to Parliament in a direct fashion.

On another matter, I asked the government in April why it did not take action when it was first notified of the crisis on July 29, 2008, yet CFIA claims they were informed only on August 6. Testimony before committee showed that those were the facts as alleged by the Ontario ministry, yet it is not even mentioned in the Weatherill report. Why? If it was before our committee, why the discrepancies in the two committee reports?

In closing, the bottom line is that there are all kinds of areas where there are discrepancies. Why is the government avoiding a public inquiry?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

How much financial support, to be identified by program and calendar year, including cost-shared programming with the government of Prince Edward Island or any other provincial government, has been provided by federal government departments or agencies to the Atlantic Beef Plant between December 9, 2007 and April 1, 2009?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

How much funding, to be identified by program title with the relevant amounts contributed by the federal government identified, was spent by Agriculture and Agri-food Canada between August 31, 2008 and April 1, 2009 to Prince Edward Island potato producers: (a) to individual producers or through the PEI Potato Board; and (b) as direct payment programs or cost-shared programs with the provincial government?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

With regard to the proposed closure of the prison farms run by Correctional Services Canada (CSC): (a) how many CSC prison farms currently exist and where are they located; (b) what was the rationale for establishing the Prison Farm Program at its inception, and what was the rationale for the location of the farms; (c) how much revenue does each CSC farm generate; (d) what is the value of the each CSC farm property; (e) have any audits or evaluations on specific farm operations, or the CSC Prison Farm Program in general, been conducted, and if so, what did they conclude; (f) has CSC, any government department, or any external organization conducted studies or evaluations of the CSC Prison Farm Program and if so, what did they conclude; (g) with regards to CSC’s statement that the proposed closures are the result of few prisoners securing agriculture-related jobs after their release and that the farm program fails to reflect the realities of the employment world and the current needs of the labour market, (i) what evidence does the government have to support this statement, (ii) does the government have statistics or other information regarding prisoners’ employment after release within the agriculture sector, and if so, what are they; (iii) does the government have information regarding the overall employment rate of prisoners post-release, in all sectors, who have participated in the Prison Farm Program, and if so, what is it; (h) was a cost-benefit analysis conducted of the prison farms program before the decision to terminate the program was made, and if so, when was it conducted and what did it say; (i) has the government or any organization collected statistics on the recidivism rates of offenders that take part in the Prison Farm Program, and if so, what do they say; (j) how much food currently produced by the Prison Farm Program is sold back to CSC for prisoners’ consumption, and what does the Prison Farm Program do with any remaining output; (k) what is the cost to CSC of buying food from the prison farms as compared to outsourcing; (l) has the government been receiving quotes from vendors that will replace the food provided to CSC by the prison farms, and if so, when were those quotes received, how much were they for, and what are their details; (m) with regards to the abattoirs operated by the CSC, (i) how many are there and where are they located, (ii) what is the operational cost of each abattoir, (iii) how much income does each abattoir generate, (iv) how many outside clients use the abattoirs, (v) has the government conducted any analysis of the cost to the local communities of shutting down the abattoirs, and if so, what did they find; and (n) with regards to an independent panel appointed to review the operations of CSC, as part of the government's commitment to protecting Canadian families and communities, did they study the Prison Farm Program, and what were their findings?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 14th, 2009]

With regard to the Agriculture Minister’s 2008 request for his then-Parliamentary Secretary Guy Lauzon to conduct a study on the future of agriculture, trends in agriculture and how to attract youth to agriculture: (a) what were the findings of this report; (b) when was the report completed and presented to the Minister; (c) what communities were visited by the Parliamentary Secretary as part of the research, (i) who did he meet with in compiling his information, including their names, positions, associations represented and stakeholders in the agriculture industry, (ii) what documents were submitted for this report; (d) what were the dates, times and locations of town hall meetings held in researching this paper; (e) what were the costs associated with producing this report, including travel, meals, hospitality, meeting venues, support staff, and accomodation; (f) why has the study not been tabled in Parliament; and (g) what are the government's plans for acting on this report?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the existing programs do not work, and the minister knows it.

Pork producers have no cash, no credit, no feed and a government in denial. Now added to that problem is a western Canadian drought that has unbelievable damaging conditions. On weather disasters, P.E.I. producers have found that the government's agri-recovery program is itself an abject failure.

Will the minister at least deliver real disaster assistance and not convoluted programs that offer no hope?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to fail Canada's hog producers. Another week and more families are driven out of business.

With cash denied, will the minister change the reference margin to include CAIS payments so as to deliver immediate cash?

Nieuwland Feed and Supply, in a request to the government said, “Governments can react quickly with large dollar bailouts to the auto industry. Now that same speed is needed to keep the pork industry from collapse and is needed straight away”.

Previous governments have acted. Will the minister act and act today?

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario Act, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to speak to Bill C-309 and support my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming.

He is right when he states that the residents of northern Ontario deserve the same privileges, services and powers that full-fledged agencies, such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions and Western Economic Diversification Canada, in fact, do have.

However, although I am a strong supporter of regional development and ACOA in Atlantic Canada, I have to admit that the services of that agency have really deteriorated substantially since the current Conservative government came to power. A lot of that deterioration is due, at least in part, with ACOA now, in Prince Edward Island, being allowed to be used basically as patronage heaven, right from its vice-president within the province, to some of the contracts it feeds out, to how it operates in terms of almost supporting a research department for the official opposition in Prince Edward Island.

That is not why ACOA was set up in the beginning. It was set up to be an agency, to create programs, to do business development, not to be a slush fund for a government that had claimed that it was against patronage when it came to power. Most sadly of all is that the president of ACOA, whose office is in Moncton, New Brunswick, has failed to stand up against the Prime Minister in terms of doing her job and prevent that kind of political patronage from happening. That should not happen within a regional development agency.

So I say that at the beginning, as a word of caution, that these agencies have a job to do. They are important, but they have to be staffed in such a way so as to do their job and not be allowed to be used for patronage purposes.

I could elaborate at length on that, but I really want to get back to the key point that my colleague is making on the need for a northern development agency rather than a program.

It is important that the Government of Canada be committed to ensuring that the people of northern Ontario are given every opportunity to develop and maintain a strong regional economy, as well as diversify and strengthen their employment base. The whole purpose of this bill to ensure that this indeed does happen.

Since the Conservative government took office in 2006, the FedNor budget has been slashed by nearly $7 million a year for a region that needs development. This bill is designed to ensure that FedNor would not be subject to further cuts.

The government has failed to give due recognition to the fact that the regions where it failed to get members elected, places like northern Ontario, merit fair consideration with respect to regional and rural development.

We did see, and we do not disagree with it, in the last budget two new agencies created. One is the southern Ontario development agency, with $1 billion over five years, that is if the Conservatives ever spend it. We know they are good at making announcements, as we heard in the House during question period today from the President of the Treasury Board. He rolls out the numbers, but there is no substance to the facts that he talks about.

The fact is the government makes announcements but fails to deliver. Hopefully, it will deliver to the southern Ontario development agency the moneys it promised. As well, there is a new regional economic development agency for the north, with $50 million over five years.

It is important that fair consideration be given with respect to regional and rural development in places like northern Ontario. The same of course applies to the Atlantic region and the unique concerns of our rural communities.

Some no doubt will be wondering why the legislation was not introduced sooner than today or why it is being introduced by a Liberal member as opposed to the minister responsible for FedNor.

The answer to both these questions is quite simple. Regional development programs, such as FedNor, were never in jeopardy under the previous Liberal government. Since taking office, the Conservatives have made it abundantly clear that they do not believe in the effectiveness of regional development as we in fact do.

We target specific programs through agencies into areas with specific objectives, whether it is developing the infrastructure within the region, whether it is developing the base for businesses to operate, or whether it is assisting in terms of studies so businesses can develop business plans which they can then commercialize and create regional economic development and jobs in their area.

The bottom line is that the bill would promote economic development, economic diversification and job creation in communities throughout northern Ontario. A FedNor agency will demand greater accountability and would be required to report to Parliament on a regular basis.

For all those reasons, I support my colleague in proposing Bill C-309. I know the Speaker made a ruling earlier, but I would hope that FedNor would come to pass as a true operational agency as we believe it should be.