Wayne Easter

[Agriculture, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, markets are at below the cost of production. How can the minister respond with such a callous disregard for Atlantic Canadian producers, producers who put high quality food on Canadian tables?

While our American counterparts support their industry, the new government will allow our beef industry to disintegrate before its very eyes.

Why is the new government putting Canada's food security at risk? With a government swimming in cash, how can the minister do nothing for slaughter plants, for producers and for our national food security? Why is he failing our country?

[Agriculture, November 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the good fiscal management of previous Liberal governments, the new government is swimming in cash. Yet, while the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food describes the potential of the Atlantic beef plant, the only federally inspected plant in Atlantic Canada, he fails to deliver any financial support.

Atlantic ministers and livestock producers are calling for support now, today. When will the minister deliver his financial support to seize the opportunity that exists for the Atlantic beef industry?

[October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that what the government is trying to do is to take the choice of collective marketing away, the choice of collective marketing through the Canadian Wheat Board. Study after study has shown that farmers maximize collectively more through the Canadian Wheat Board than they do through the open market.

The government has done no studies to see what the impact would be because it does not want to know the answer. It knows it would cost farmers over the long term.

The parliamentary secretary tried in his remarks to leave the impression, as the Prime Minister did the other day, that barley prices fell after the Wheat Board was confirmed as the single desk seller. That is a dishonest position. They did not fall. In fact the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board confirmed that prices under the open market were at around $4.75 and after the Wheat Board was confirmed, they went up to $5.06--

[October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, tonight's adjournment debate relates to a question I raised on October 23. The question related to the fact that respect for the law is a core fundamental Canadian principle, and the Prime Minister violated that principle when last July the government was found guilty by the Federal Court of attempting to illegally take farmers' marketing rights through the Canadian Wheat Board away.

I referred in my question to the contemptuous response of the Prime Minister to the ruling of the Federal Court of Canada, which found in its ruling that the government had attempted to illegally undermine the Canadian Wheat Board through the use of regulations. Instead of the Prime Minister stating that the Government of Canada would abide by the decision, he stated, “We should make it clear that does not change the determination of the Government of Canada to see a dual market for Canadian farmers”. This veiled threat, coupled with the statement that change will occur “one way or another”, demonstrates absolute contempt for the courts.

We have a Prime Minister who talks about law and order, but only laws that suit his personal purposes. The bottom line is that the Prime Minister has shown contempt for the courts and he has shown contempt for the decisions of Parliament, which, by motions in this House, requested the government to ask an honest question, but, of course, the government overrode Parliament and asked a fraudulent question.

On October 16 in the Speech from the Throne the government went further and stated that it “will recognize the views of farmers, as expressed in the recent plebiscite on barley, by enacting marketing choice”.

There are two facts. Fact number one is that the plebiscite was fraudulent with three questions asked and then the government added two together to promote its discredited position. In fact, the government only managed 13.8% support to destroy the board. Fact number two is if the government attempts to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, it will have to conduct a binding, legitimate and honest plebiscite. The act is reasonably specific and the minister has failed to meet those obligations.

As well, the former Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food acknowledged on not one but two occasions last year that the plebiscite that he had devised was “not binding or legally binding on the government”. Worse yet, the Government of Canada failed to do any analysis in terms of the economic impact that its decision would have on farmers themselves.

Before the Federal Court, the director general of marketing policy for Agriculture Canada when questioned if any economic analysis had been done, said no. Asked by the lawyers if anybody was retained to analyze the recent past, he said no.

The government failed to do an analysis and put forward a fraudulent question. Will the government admit that it failed to do due diligence in this case in terms of the financial returns of farmers? Will the government commit to a proper plebiscite if it attempts to introduce legislation to further undermine the board?

[October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has a potential agreement on growing together. Is that not something? I took a look back to the 1979 agreement signed by the minister at the time, Don Mazankowski, and it was called “Growing Together”, much the same old story. We know where “Growing Together” got us. Farmers went out of business, two-thirds of the industry gone, increasing exports and incomes down. It has been the worst income situation for farmers in Canadian history over the last four years.

We want more than words from the minister. The member talks about a bold new vision. Changing the name of CAIS to AgriStability and NISA to AgriInvest will not solve the problem. When will the minister get real?

We want to see not fancy words. We want to see cash and we want to know when the minister will deliver the cash so the hog and beef industry in the country can survive?

[October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this adjournment debate relates to a question raised with the minister on October 24 when I asked:

...the throne speech failed to outline any vision for primary producers in this country. [The minister] virtually ignored the fact that programming agreements with the provinces end on March 31.

Let me repeat that virtually all farm programs related to safety nets depend on those agreements and the government fails to show leadership, either announcing completed agreements or authorizing an extension, but that is not unusual for this new government when it come to farm policy.

Let us review some facts.

During the last election, the Prime Minister promised to eliminate the CAIS program. It never happened. He changed the name and made a few cosmetic changes that were already in the works.

The Prime Minister promised a disaster relief program, but as yet there are no details and no funding.

The Prime Minister promised to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board and in fact directed his minister to spend most of his time pushing that ideological agenda rather than dealing with pressing producer income issues. On that point, the actions of the Prime Minister and his henchmen were found by the Federal Court to be illegal.

While the government sits on its hands, rural MPs are getting calls from frantic producers in the beef and hog sectors who see their whole life's work being destroyed before their very eyes. Their life's work is being destroyed, not because of inefficiencies on their part but because of a high Canadian dollar and a highly supported, vertically integrated industry south of our border. The United States government supports its farmers, while our new government fails to take any action.

It is tragic when we see some of the headlines. A headline today read:

Beef business going bust; Alberta may lose up to 40 per cent of cow-calf operations by Christmas.

It is the same across the entire country and the minister sits on his hands.

Atlantic Canada is on the verge of losing its hog industry. Many of the most efficient hog operators are packing it in and hoping to get out with some dignity and the minister still sits on his hands. Why?

We saw a huge surplus today and tax breaks but those tax breaks will not do any good to those producers who are out there, who invested hundreds of thousands of dollars and who are seeing their operations go down the drain while the government sits idle.

The minister may dislike ad hoc programs. However, right now we have the livestock industry across this country facing financial ruin that needs immediate help. Farm crises do not occur on the government's timetable. They happen suddenly and require action.

Previous governments acted on potatoes, on PVYn, on poultry and on ad hoc payments for the grain and oil seeds industry when the safety nets did not do the trick. The current government has demonstrated no intent to respond to this farm crisis.

Will the government not act on this crisis facing our hog and beef sectors? Why will it not, at the very least, give some certainty to safety net programming after March 31?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would propose that we see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, chapter 8, “Winning the Race 2005-2006, New Democrats, New Friends”. It is a good chapter for all Canadians to understand. Mr. Flanagan says:

No matter how well-designed our campaign had been, it would have been hard for us to win if the NDP had not held up its end.

Would the hon. member please accept responsibility for his leader making the bid for the Conservatives so they could kill the very programs that the NDP allegedly claims it believes in?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP absolutely amaze me in how it attempts to change the channel from accepting the responsibility for its leader and really making the bid for the Conservatives to cut so many good programs in this country that the NDP actually believes in, like Kyoto, like Kelowna, like early learning and child care and like raising taxes for middle income people.

Instead of taking a whole lot of time, I will refer the member to a book for some evening reading. I would refer him to the book by Tom Flanagan called Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, chapter 8--

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member for St. Catharines. He talked about a sensible economic plan, but that is not what we have seen from the government thus far. We have seen it break its word on taxing income trusts, which has taken a little over $20 billion out of the incomes of investors, many of whom are seniors who depend on those investments. It took $20 billion out overnight and broke the trust of those individuals with the new government.

We see signs posted around Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver of the Prime Minister breaking his word on income trusts. Is he going to do anything to re-establish that trust with those individuals?

Second, the member talked about cutting taxes, but in the budget the government increased taxes for low income folks from 15% to 15.5%. Is the government going to roll back that tax increase so we can get to a sensible economic plan again?