Wayne Easter

[Canadian Wheat Board, November 27th, 2008]

My question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.

Government members, in violation of all democratic principles, have been attempting to interfere and influence the outcome of the Canadian Wheat Board director elections.

Does the Prime Minister deny that those MPs, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, have access to the confidential voters list of names and addresses and are using those to send out letters? Does he deny that the MPs who are sending out letters are not registered as third party intervenors? Will he confirm that the election co-ordinator is looking into these illegal practices?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, congratulate the member on her election. I am glad she at least raised a concern about struggling industries. A lot of industries are struggling at the moment.

Although there are great words in the throne speech, everyone knows it is an outline, it is not really a book of substance. Recently the president-elect in the United States, although he is not even president yet, talked about a stimulus package for those industries. What we hear from the Conservative government, which said some things in the throne speech that made sense, is there will not be an immediate stimulus package.

Is the member willing to encourage and pressure the government to get with it? People are on unemployment, forest industries have shut down in many areas, the auto industry is in trouble as is the agriculture industry. There is a crisis now and the government cannot wait.

The previous speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, although she had the $6 million right in terms of assistance to the beef industry, it has not been paid out. It was committed the February before last.

We need to see not only money being committed, we need to see the money on the ground before it will do any good. Will she encourage the government to get with it, get on the game and get the money out there right now with a stimulus package?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the minister mentioned in her remarks the P.E.I. farmers. However, she talked about thePrime Minister, the same Prime Minister who allowed us to lose 85% of our hog farmers in Prince Edward Island in the last year, the same Prime Minister who allowed our beef farmers to get into trouble and the same Prime Minister who insulted Prince Edward Island potato and cash crop farmers with the offer of one cent a pound for water damaged crops.

Is the member saying that the Prime Minister will now do something different and actually support P.E.I. potato, cash crop, hog and beef farmers, which he clearly has not done in the past?

I can tell the minister where the Conservatives can find the money. The Conservative government now has, as was pointed out yesterday, the most bloated cabinet since the Mulroney days. It has more cabinet ministers since the Mulroney days. Twenty million dollars to thirty million dollars has been wasted on political contingency funds by the new cabinet for political purposes.

If your Prime Minister is showing sensible leadership, like the minister claims, is the minister willing to make a commitment today that she will work to reduce the size of that cabinet so that the money can be spent in sensible places instead of the Prime Minister's ideological agenda for political purposes?

[Privilege, November 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege relating to a letter that was sent under the franking privileges of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

The letter, a copy of which I am prepared to table, was sent to a number of individuals, farmers in fact, and organizations in western Canada. The letter is directed to those producers. I would like to quote from the letter:

A change in leadership around the Board of Directors' table would mark a new era of opportunity in Western Canada. Your vote can make that happen.

The member then makes reference to the individuals for whom he is advocating. I will quote again from his letter:

Together, we can bring marketing choice to Western Canada. Time is running out, vote for Sam and Walter today and mail or fax it back to Myers Norris Penny.

I believe this is a very serious breech of parliamentary privilege and a breach of democratic principles in this country. The letter comes from a parliamentary secretary who has access to confidential information of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is he or is he not using that list which should remain confidential to target a political agenda within his own riding? I understand other members of the Conservative Party are also sending out letters.

Mr. Speaker, there are two points here. One, is the parliamentary secretary breaching his oath of office and using confidential lists for political purposes? Two, is the parliamentary secretary breaching the rules of the House and using his franking privileges for political purposes and getting to his ideology in marketing choice?

What would happen if we in the House, in the next provincial election in any province, used our franking privileges day in and day out to mail out and advocate for a certain politician? We do know that the government, that the Minister of Agriculture has lifted third party spending rules and that allows the big grain companies and others to work for their opponents which is against, I believe, individual farmers.

This is a very serious matter. The question, Mr. Speaker, that you must resolve, is whether by using the privileges of a member of Parliament, as has been done by the member, a parliamentary secretary no less, has he not impugned the integrity of an election which is supposed to be independent of government interference and thereby called into question the integrity of the election and the role of all members of the House? The question here is, what will the government and its members not do to achieve their ends?

The misuse of the letterhead of a member of Parliament and the franking privileges to attempt to blatantly influence a democratic process of the Canadian Wheat Board constitutes, I believe, a clear violation of those privileges. Mr. Speaker, I believe that you should find that member in contempt of his parliamentary privileges by what has happened.

I have a last point to make. The recent election for Speaker was all about decorum in this House. In fact, the Prime Minister in his throne speech said that upholding the ideal of democracy that we embody in the world is a responsibility that each of us bears. I believe the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, has undermined what we are talking about in terms of the ideal of democracy because he has taken away fairness and equal rights in terms of a democratic election for directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. He is undermining the very thrust of what the Prime Minister talked about in the throne speech.

This is an extremely serious issue and cannot be allowed to continue. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule in that way.

[The Economy, November 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, so much for responsible spending. Let me be specific. Let us turn to P.E.I.'s regional minister who is currently attempting to break an office lease signed by the former regional minister, the now Minister of Defence, to move the office to her riding 30 miles away; shopping for new offices, shopping for new furniture, and worse, Conservatives are lined up at her door and receiving high-salaried patronage appointments.

Will the Prime Minister stop his wasteful cabinet excess?

[The Economy, November 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's propaganda machine was out in full force last night trying to divert attention away from his responsibility for the deficit. The Prime Minister expanded cabinet from an original 26 to a new 37 four weeks ago, full ministers, inflated salaries, personal cars and drivers, bloated staffs, bigger and more offices and millions in contingency funds.

Will the Prime Minister reduce his cabinet to a sensible level, cut the 37 limo service and cut the bloated staffing, show leadership and cut cabinet excess?

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing about the Liberal Party and that is that it lives in the real world while the NDP lives in the clouds and can be irresponsible as the fourth party in the House.

The member talked about the employment insurance program. If it were not for the Liberal Party, there would not be an employment insurance program in Canada. If it were not for the Liberal Party, there would be no medicare in this country. If it were not for the Liberal Party, there would be no supply management system in this country, which we are talking about defending today. The member should stand in his place and thank the Liberal Party for all the good it has done for Canadians since the beginning of Confederation. That is what the NDP should be doing instead of playing silly games.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, let me lay it on the table. If the government is saying it is energetically defending supply management, then I am really worried. We cannot really believe what government members say on that issue.

A deal was on the table at the last WTO negotiation. The government did not agree to it, but it did not disagree to it either. What saved Canada's supply management producers' bacon was the fact that India and China basically pulled out of the deal. Otherwise, what would we have had from the minister over there? We would have had an agreement which would have reduced tariffs and would have increased market access into Canada.

That is what was on the table. The Conservative government was willing to coalesce on that issue. That would have destroyed supply management in this country.

We will see, when the time comes, whether or not these words in this document are truthful or not. What was certainly on the agenda at the WTO, that the minister and the international trade minister were agreeing to, was a sellout of supply management in this country.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ajax—Pickering.

I want to begin by expressing my thanks to the voters of Malpeque for allowing me the privilege of representing them in Ottawa again. It is certainly an honour to do so. I appreciated very much hearing their concerns during the election and I will continue to put their concerns forward in this place.

I also want to thank those on my campaign team and volunteers for their tremendous effort and the confidence they placed in me to represent the riding once more.

The Speech from the Throne is the government’s first opportunity in a new Parliament to outline the direction in which it wishes to take the country. It should be a statement of substance given that from it will flow the kinds of legislation the government believes will be in the best interest of our country. However, this throne speech is different, for it is based upon government actions that have greatly diminished its ability to perform the tasks that governments should be able to perform in tough economic times.

There is one party responsible for destroying the ability of our country to face these difficult economic times, and that is the government sitting across the way. The member for Sarnia—Lambton just talked about sound budgeting. That would really be a novel idea for that government. If we had sound budgeting, the country would not be facing the difficulty that it is facing right now from coast to coast to coast. The government took a surplus given to it and basically squandered it away.

Governments have an obligation to, at a minimum, ensure that Canada’s financial house is in order. Previous Liberal governments did that. We took the $41 billion deficit left by the Mulroney Conservatives and not only eliminated it, but left the current government with a $12 billion surplus, the contingency fund, to be called upon in tough economic times. What did the current Conservative government do? It squandered it.

In two short years, the government has moved from being the economic envy of the western industrialized world to putting Canada on the brink of deficit. I believe the Prime Minister was talking about deficit over the weekend, a word he would not utter and be honest about during the election campaign. In two years it moved from a strong, central government holding financial reserves to assist in troubled times to a weakened centre with the financial cupboards practically bare.

No longer do we have the prudent planning with financial resources to partner with provinces and industries in time of need. The government has squandered that away and that is a sad commentary at a time when Canadians really need the central government in our country to assist them in their time of need. The government has squandered the cupboard bare.

Clearly, the Prime Minister is now admitting that the country is on the brink of deficit, something he denied during the election. However, he still fails to accept responsibility and any government should be accountable and responsible. The Prime Minister should admit that his Minister of Finance was wrong in terms of how he budgeted the country. The Prime Minister should admit that he was misinforming Canadians during the election process.

As I said, he fails to accept responsibility. Let us look for a moment at the report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a position established by the Conservative government. On page 16, it states:

The weak fiscal performance to date is largely attributable to previous policy decisions as opposed to weakened economic conditions...Tax revenues are down $353 million year to date compared to a year earlier, due in large part to recent policy measures, such as the second one-percentage point reduction in Goods and Services Tax and reductions in corporate income taxes.

How bad could this situation become? According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the deficit could reach $3.9 billion next year and $14 billion the year after. I hope he is wrong, but the government has to accept responsibility for the position our country is now in. If nothing else, these kinds of numbers are a confirmation of economic mismanagement at a level unseen in Canada since Brian Mulroney and the Conservative government of that time.

On the deficit issue, the Minister of Finance was absolutely convinced that the measures the government had taken last February were sound. However, this is the same finance minister who drove the Ontario government into deficit when he was minister of finance for that province. It is no wonder we are seeing the concerns on finances in this nation today. In fact, he is the same finance minister who said, “Do not do business in Ontario”. What a shame. His advice was taken and that is a problem.

If the title of the throne speech, “Protecting Canada's Future” means anything, it will mean the government taking a substantially different direction in this Parliament than it did in the last.

Let me speak for a moment on the issue of agriculture spending. There were some questions and responses in the House today. We know for a fact, from members' speeches on the government side, that the government is claiming it put more money into agriculture. The facts do not bear that out. The fact of the matter is the government spent $1.1 billion less in program spending than the previous Liberal government did at the end of its term.

What about spending on agriculture on Prince Edward Island? These are the facts. In 2005 the Liberal government provided to Prince Edward Island farmers, through program spending, $45.9 million. According to the numbers provided by Agriculture Canada, Island farmers lost $15.3 million in the first two years of the Conservative government. So much for good economic planning on its part.

The throne speech stated that the Conservative government will “review all program spending”. That worries me a lot. The question is, what will that mean for our farmers on Prince Edward Island? What will that mean for seniors across this country? What will it mean in terms of program cuts already in place when we still have some industries struggling in this country.

In my own province we have had serious crop losses in potatoes and field crops this fall. The Minister of Agriculture announced 1¢ per pound for those crops lost in the field, which farmers in Prince Edward Island deem an insult.

The government has to do better than that. Cuts and further cuts in program spending will not be the answer. We need additions to program spending for certain industries in this country.

On the environmental issue, which was an issue during the election there was no question about it, while the speech talks about tackling climate change, it says little of the costs of the approach that the government will be taking.

We do know that the government's “Turning the Corner” document, published and distributed in March 2008, stated with respect to estimated economic impacts the following:

Our modelling--

That is the Conservative government's modelling.

--suggests that Canadians can expect to bear real costs under the Regulatory Framework...these costs will be most evident in the form of higher energy prices, particularly with respect to electricity and natural gas.

However, these changes will come at a cost for Canadians. Negative impacts from the Regulatory Framework on Canada's real GDP level will be small over the next 5 years but will gradually increase,--

That is another burden that the government failed to admit during the election, that it will impose upon Canadians. I am worried about a lot that is in the throne speech in terms of cuts to program spending, cuts in the federal public service, and the way the federal government has operated during the last election. We need more support under infrastructure, under regional spending, under program spending for agriculture and for fisheries, for improvements in small crafts and harbours. That is what we need as we go into this downturn in the economy that, in part, was caused by the Conservative government.

I look forward to the government coming forward with a positive economic agenda, not a negative one.

[Frank Ledwell, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Frank Ledwell and to recognize his outstanding contribution to the community of Prince Edward Island.

Frank was a renowned author, teacher and former poet laureate who was dedicated to celebrating and promoting the lives of Islanders. Frank’s work was honoured by many distinguished awards, including the Order of Prince Edward Island. In 2004 he was appointed provincial poet laureate for three years.

Frank grew up during the Depression, began his teaching career at the age of 16 and continued to work with the arts community throughout his lifetime. Through his kindness, goodwill and humour he inspired all whom he met. First and foremost was his family. Frank Ledwell enriched the lives of his students, his colleagues and his friends. His work will continue to inspire writers, and the attitude and encouragement he instilled in others will continue to make the world a better place.