Wayne Easter

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, there is not enough time for me to re-set the record straight after the remarks by the member.

The fact is the previous government was there for the livestock industry, putting out millions of dollars. The current government has basically failed in that.

The member also mentioned China. I have to admit I have been to China and talked to some of the Chinese trading agencies. The Conservative government has really jeopardized our trading relationship with China by its attitude toward China in the public arena.

However, the bottom line today, in terms of this motion, is for the government, and the hon. member should recognize that, to wake up and challenge the Americans aggressively on the stimulus package that would in fact bring in protectionist measures. It has been asleep at the switch.

The whole purpose of this motion is to try to bring accountability to the Government of Canada and have it understand how very important jobs are, whether they are in my province of Prince Edward Island, or in the auto industry in Ontario or in the forestry industry in B.C. It is important for the government to stand up and challenge the U.S. at the congressional, the senate and the administrative level, and the government has not been aggressive enough in doing that.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion from the member for Kings—Hants but, given my voice today, I will do an unusual thing. I will speak slow and low and hope my voice lasts the 10 minutes.

The motion really calls upon the government to intervene forthwith and persistently with the United States administration and the congress in order to protect Canadian jobs. Simply put, what the motion really means to those opposite is that the Conservative government must wake up. The U.S. is becoming more protectionist and the government needs to be on top of this file. It needs to stand up for Canadians, not be asleep at the switch.

This motion has become necessary simply because the United States, at the height of a global downturn, is looking inward and is becoming more protectionist. We saw back in the dirty thirties what happens when we have an economic downturn, or did not see, as my hon. colleague is laughing over there, or read about it in a history book. We know history and when we add an economic downturn and protectionist policies that basically seize up trading relationships between nations, then that makes matters even worse for all countries globally involved.

Therefore, on the one hand, we have the U.S. becoming more protectionist, and on the other, the fact that the Conservative government seems to be asleep at the switch. Worse than that, the government record on this issue has been very poor. We know where it was on the softwood lumber dispute where the U.S. basically took the government to the cleaners. Canadians who work in the forestry industry and in the lumber plants, whether it is eastern Canada or western Canada, have suffered ever since.

Canada is a trading nation. In fact, we are more dependent on trade than almost any other nation in the world and we are very dependent on the United States market. I see the Minister of Agriculture is here and he will know that no industry is more dependent upon that trade than the agricultural industry, for which I am agriculture critic for the official opposition.

Sixty per cent of our hogs are exported, not all of them to the United States but we are greatly dependent on that market. Fifty per cent of our beef is exported and an even higher percentage of wheat, but the wheat industry is not as dependent on the United States market as it is around the rest of the world.

Trade is extremely important. Yes, we need to expand our relationships around the world. In fact, I believe the minister made an announcement the other day in opening up an additional market for beef, and that is good, but the fact is that the U.S. is our closest trading partner. It is our neighbour and our friend most times and we will always be extremely dependent upon that market, and that cuts both ways. Both countries gain extensively from that trading relationship.

Farmers, though, perhaps more than most, can tell us the impact upon their livelihoods when all of a sudden the United States uses whatever levers or excuse it has and becomes protectionist. No industry, bar none, was as integrated as the Canada and United States livestock industries, up until five or six years ago when we exported feeders to the United States and brought up slaughter cattle from the U.S., but then we had a situation where we had one cow with a case of BSE and immediately the border was closed.

As a result of that border closing, in what I believe were protectionist measures taken by the cattle industry in the United States and supported by congress and the senate, cattle farmers in Canada today are still suffering even though the border is now open. Billions of dollars have been lost. As a result, the previous government and the present government had to pump considerable millions of dollars into the industry to support it in its time of need. Those are the consequences.We have seen first-hand in the cattle industry the consequences of measures taken that will bring in protectionist measures and isolate certain industries from trading relationships.

We know very well that congress and the senate especially can be very protectionist and the government opposite should know that. However, the government seemed to be caught off guard, just like it was on the economy. We heard stories during the election that this country would not see a deficit next year. Now we know differently. Instead of being on the ball and paying attention to what was happening in the U.S., it seems to have been caught off guard as the U.S. Congress and Senate take more and more protectionist measures.

The purpose of this motion today is to push the Government of Canada to be more accountable, to take aggressive action with the United States, to send delegations to the United States from the ministerial level and to be on top of its counterparts in pushing the issue of good, open trade relationships between the two countries.

When Ron Kirk was put forward as the United States' trade representative, he was quoted in a Reuters news service report saying:

The United States cannot afford to turn its back on trade as it tries to dig its way out of a deep recession, President-elect Barack Obama's choice to be U.S. trade representative said on Sunday.

He went on to say, talking to mayors:

But I also know there are mayors in this room that represent communities that feel very differently about that, and part of our challenge as we go forward is to make sure we have a trade policy that basically makes sense to the American public.

Mr. Kirk has pointed out very clearly the consequences of the United States becoming more protectionist. It would drive the recession even further. His second point is that, yes, there are mayors, communities, congressmen and senators who feel differently about that, and that is where our government needs to be on the ball. It needs to be on the ball talking to people at the congressional level, senate level and administration level to enforce the point of how valuable that trading relationship is to both our countries.

I am a member of the Canada-United States parliamentary association, as some members are on the other side. One of our members, a co-chair, Senator Grafstein, has been to the United States several times in the last few weeks. In my view, he, as one senator, has been more aggressively pushing the fact and informing Americans on how serious these trade protectionist measures they are taking could be. I ask the government to catch up to the senator in terms of being aggressive and protecting Canadian interests, building understanding in the United States that this trade relationship is important to both our countries and pushing them to cease and desist on the protectionist measures that will undermine both our economies and livelihoods into the future.

I am pleased to support the motion put forward by the member for Kings—Hants. It basically tells the government to aggressively pursue the U.S. administration to cease and desist on the protectionist measures it is proposing through its stimulus package.

[The Budget, January 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks and comments on Brant. I recognize the great agriculture viability in that area. However, I was surprised that he is so supportive of the budget. The budget is a record of failure on the agricultural policies of the government.

We know that during the election there were commitments made for tobacco producers, some in his riding and neighbouring ridings. Where is the commitment to tobacco producers in this budget?

Beef and hog producers in his riding are very much in disarray. They are facing the greatest crisis in Canadian history in the livestock industry. There is nothing in the budget for them.

In fact, the government talks a lot about the $500 million agriculture flexibility proposal it promised over four years in the election campaign. The budget claims it is $500 million and now is over five years, but when we look at the budget document, it is really only $190 million over five years. The rest is re-profiled agricultural funding.

How can the member go home and face his producers on that kind of record of failure, ignoring the agricultural industry and the primary producers that reside in his riding?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, all the hon. member needs to do is look at the record. We Liberals had our feet to the ground and looked at the reality of the state of affairs globally and in our country.

Our party is being responsible. Our country does need stimulus. Yes, there is not enough in terms of the government proposals, and we know it. We too would like to have seen the two week waiting period at the beginning of a claim eliminated so people could receive EI immediately. We would like to have seen the conditions changed so they could draw EI easier, and some of those who cannot now, draw it. However, we have taken a responsible position and clearly, as we said, we can hold the government to account in what it has put forward.

As my colleague and my leader said, we are basically putting the government on probation. Maybe we can push the government collectively as the opposition, and we were able to work together previously, to improve some of the areas in EI and other measures.

However, to take the irresponsible position that you are taking and put Canadians into more political turmoil for six weeks is not the proper way to go.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard. A comparison could be made between success and failure, the success of the governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin and the absolute, utter failure of the Prime Minister and that party, which has driven us into a deficit similar to the Mulroney times.

When we were in government, we put a solid foundation in fiscal capacity under our country. It is because your government spent the country bare by doing away with the reserves with absolutely stupid tax cuts in the GST. Every economist will tell you that—

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the budget. I first want to thank my fellow islanders for their input at a joint town hall held between the MP for Charlottetown and myself. We appreciated islanders' input and we forwarded that on to our finance people, eventually to the finance minister. Some of that input did get considered and put in but, sadly, a lot of it did not.

I spoke on the economic statement just two short months ago and I have to ask this. On what planet were the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party just two months ago with the economic statement? The Prime Minister was in denial that his policies at that time were leading the country into deficit. Now we know we are in deficit, as my hon. friend said, to the tune of $15.7 billion.

Is the Prime Minister still in denial today that his policies were leading our country into deficit and that his and the finance minister's statements during the election were to a great extent untrue? In fact, they were untrue.

In two short years the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance have taken our country, Canada, and driven it not only to the brink of deficit, but into deficit. Worse yet, because of their spending and their inability to manage the fiscal capacity of the nation, they spent the cupboards bare and the reserves are not there anymore to do what has to be done when a country needs a stimulus package.

We should not be surprised. As we said in previous debates, that is the same Minister of Finance who drove the province of Ontario into deficit and it has been suffering as a result for decades since he was there. Now the same Minister of Finance has provided the same tragedy for Canada as a whole.

As my colleague said, this budget tries to cover up the fact that the government already has a deficit. Economists are saying there needs to be a $30 billion stimulus package this year. The government is saying it will have a $34 billion deficit, leaving the impression that this is the stimulus package. On page 217 of the budget document, we find the government is already in a $15.7 billion deficit because it could not manage the affairs of the nation.

Therefore, there really is not a $30 billion stimulus package, there really is not a $34 billion stimulus package, there is only a stimulus package of $18 billion, which is not enough. I felt I had to draw out that fact. Even with the consequences and the trouble the nation is in at the moment, the government tries to cover up the fact of how it managed the economy in the past.

However, Canada needs an economic stimulus, jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow. One of the areas where we need them the worst is in the province of Prince Edward Island.

I am concerned that the equalization cuts announced by the government in this budget will hurt Prince Edward Island and the principle of the program for the long term is being undermined. Stimulus is needed even more now than it was in the past in those provinces that receive equalization.

Let us look at a few facts that relate to P.E.I. The government announced in its first budget the building Canada fund, which would provide P.E.I. with up to $40 million over four years. However, after two years, only the existing programs, MRIF and CCIP, have been committed. Not one dollar has flowed from the Conservatives' building Canada fund, only political announcement. What we get from the government is mostly smoke and mirrors.

The bureaucratic red tape put on municipalities is of the Conservatives' making. No dollars have been spent, yet the government still runs deficits. Under the proposed new, if I could call it that, accelerated plan with its one-third requirements, it is very doubtful that municipalities and provinces could participate. Again, it would only be political announcements because they would not have the money to put in their share.

Prince Edward Island's fiscal capacity will be further reduced by the budget under the Conservative plan. Like all Atlantic provinces, P.E.I. would have their transfer payment increases, which were agreed upon in November, reduced by up to 50% by 2009-10. P.E.I. would have cuts to health care and social programming as a result of these federal decisions. At an economic time when we really need that money, the federal government is cutting back the funding. That will put the province in the position of having little fiscal flexibility to participate in any new spending for infrastructure, primary industries and skilled training.

Discussions are taking place on the community adjustments fund. As I understand it, there is not one dollar being considered for rural community stimulus. Not one dollar is being considered to stimulate agriculture, which is in real trouble. Not one dollar is being considered for innovative jobs for tomorrow. That is a huge problem.

Agriculture seems to be the forgotten industry in this budget. The government's record, as we know from this file, has clearly been one of failure. However, in Prince Edward Island, for instance, the Conservatives announced crop loss payments of $12.4 million. However, they set up a program that prevents farmers from receiving the money. With farmers facing bankruptcy, $9 million is going to go back to the federal accounts. The program was very poorly designed.

I see the Minister of Agriculture is here. He announced a $500 million agriflex program, which is something we committed to in the budget. However, the previous commitment was $500 million for what could be considered companion programs over four years. Now, it is over five. When one looks at it, the $500 million is not really $500 million; it is only $190 million because of the restructuring of existing programs.

We are seeing too much smoke and mirrors from that government. We need to get that money to the farm community. Worse than that, the agriflex program, as I understand it, will not apply to the RMP in Ontario or the ASRA program in Quebec. That creates huge difficulties for getting that money out appropriately to those farmers on the ground. The budget announced $50 million for increasing the capacity of the slaughter industry. However, how is that going to be designed? Will it only go to the big packers, who already control too much of the industry, or will it go to the primary producers where it can do the most good?

In the budget, there is, in fact, credit availability and more money made to the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada, which is a good thing. What about the Farm Credit Corporation? Farm Credit is more difficult to deal with than the lending institutions. There does not seem to be any increased money to that agency, nor a lessening of the credit conditions that would allow farmers to stay on the land.

Those points are very important, as they apply to the farm community. Much more needs to be done. In fact, I had a call today from a constituent in the minister's riding who was very concerned about the lack of response from the Minister of Agriculture on the beef and hog crisis in our country. It has been in disarray for two years and all the government seems to do is extend loans. We cannot borrow ourselves out of debt. We need some real actions that will put us on a comparable footing with our competitors in the United States.

The government's record is terrible and its word is often broken. This party, through our amendment, will hold it to account.

[The Budget, January 28th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister's remarks, although I disagree with many of them because there is nothing in the budget for the basic industries in Prince Edward Island at the production level.

We welcomed the announcement by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the other day on the infrastructure funding for barns and a racetrack in Summerside. I am wondering if the precedent she set there would apply to other federal government programs. The precedent she set was a federal share of 91.2% of the funding for that racetrack, yet there are other infrastructure programs that only get one-third, one-third, one-third. Municipalities cannot do it. I want to know if that sets a precedent for the federal government. Can we expect 90% funding for other racetracks in the country, for other infrastructure in some of the basic industries?

P.E.I.'s hog and beef industry is in trouble. Our potato industry is in trouble. The current minister and a previous minister announced $12.4 million for crop loss during the election, but only $3 million of that has been spent. Those industries remain in trouble.

Is the minister going to allow $9 million of that money to come back to Ottawa when it is needed in Prince Edward Island, or is she going to assure us here today that it will go to those basic industries?

[The Budget, January 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I did what the member requested. I read the document. The problem is it tells a much different story as compared to the government propaganda.

The fact of the matter is, and we have been saying this for some time and our leader said it today, that when the government came to power it had a huge surplus. It spent the cupboard bare. Through the reduction in the GST, which took away $12 billion a year, it destroyed the ability of the federal government to have the reserves to be able to do something real in terms of a stimulus package. I want to get the facts straight. The Conservatives are trying to leave the impression that this year there is about a $30 billion stimulus package. That is what economists have called for. The government is budgeting $34 billion and expecting that will leave the impression there is a $30 billion stimulus. In the budget document on page 217 it says there already is a deficit of $15.7 billion. Therefore, there is really only $18 billion worth of stimulus in the budget.

Is the minister and the government trying to hide the fact that they have already put this country in a $16 billion deficit hole before we even start to do stimulus?

[Elmer MacDonald, January 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to honour and pay tribute to the late Elmer MacDonald. Elmer was a loving husband, father, grandfather and friend and leaves behind a legacy of agriculture ingenuity and community service.

At age 18, he bought his own farm and turned his one cow, one employee operation into a multi-million dollar business. Products such as Elmer's Ice Cream and Elmer's Yogurt have become household names throughout the Maritimes.

In 1994 Elmer's leadership and dedication was recognized by his induction into the Agriculture Hall of Fame. He humbly attributed his success to dedicated employees and family commitment.

Elmer shared his creative and generous spirit with the community through the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Foundation, the Chamber of Commerce, UPEI, his church and the 4-H.

Elmer's memory will live on through the soccer complex made possible by his generous donation.

Our regards to his family.

[Food Safety, January 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the listeriosis outbreak had tragic consequences. Twenty people died and confidence in our food system has been undermined, yet the Prime Minister ordered nothing more than a whitewash instead of a comprehensive inquiry. The investigator has no power to compel witnesses to testify, no authority to order documents, and no authority to do an investigation into the minister's office or the PMO.

Why did the Prime Minister break his word? Why is there not a full judicial inquiry into this serious matter?