Wayne Easter

[February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's response goes to the heart of his efforts to mislead and confuse.

Why would the parliamentary secretary quote from the article? He talked about the original document when in fact his own minister's appointed CEO has corrected that information. Mr. Arason, CEO of the Wheat Board, in a letter dated January 29, which the parliamentary secretary must know about, said this:

Mr. Kacem has advised us that some of his comments in the original article in the French daily were not properly interpreted by the journalist. Mr. Kacem feels the relationship between the CWB and OAIC is a commercial one first and foremost and that prices are based on international market values at the time of business.

A review of the original press article in French clearly shows that at no point does Mr. Kacem say that they enjoy 'very low prices'. The main message in the Algerian newspaper article centered on the positive commercial relationship the CWB and OAIC have enjoyed since the early seventies.

If the parliamentary secretary was unaware of that letter from the Wheat Board, for which he is directly responsible, he was derelict in his duties.

[February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the question for the debate this evening relates to a question that I asked on February 2. At that time, it was related to the issue of Standard & Poor's rating agency, identifying not once, not twice, but 11 times the federal government as directly responsible for the reduced credit rating of the Wheat Board.

As I stated at that time, the Prime Minister and his ministers stand accused of wilfully harming the economic viability of the board, not its directors, as the parliamentary secretary alleges, not farmers, but the government. It likes to call itself the new government.

However, instead of answering and admitting to the truthfulness of the Standard & Poor's report, the answers the parliamentary secretary provided the House on February 2 to this critically important question were at best misleading.

That is not unusual for this parliamentary secretary because even though he has responsibility for the care of the Canadian Wheat Board, he has done everything to undermine it, to misrepresent it, and further erode its authority in terms of operating in the interests of primary producers through single desk selling.

The question was whether the minister denied what the internationally respected credit rating agency, Standard & Poor's, stated in its report of January 30:

Standard & Poor's expects that government support of the CWB will continue to deteriorate as long as the current government lasts.

Standard & Poor's did not identify the Conservative government once, as I mentioned a moment ago. It identified it, in a two page statement, 11 times. Standard & Poor's also stated:

--given the desire of the government to reform the wheat market and the current strained relations between the government and CWB’s board, the level of support from the federal government for CWB and its current public policy role will not recover to a level that is consistent with a ‘AAA’ rating in the near term and could deteriorate further.

The parliamentary secretary, instead of responding to the accusation of his government's complete and total responsibility for undermining the credit rating of the CWB, stated that one of the reasons for the credit rating's reduction was the presence of “radicals on the board”. That kind of McCarthyist smear tactic only serves to further diminish those making the charge than to anyone connected with the Wheat Board.

I would simply ask the parliamentary secretary to indicate where Standard & Poor's made the allegation about radicals. The radicals that he seems to imply are the farmers who were duly elected to that board, 80% of whom were pro-single desk selling. The parliamentary secretary has the gall to call them radicals. I think the parliamentary secretary should apologize to them and to this House for his drive-by smear.

On a second point, the parliamentary secretary continued in his effort to avoid responding to the question relating to Standard & Poor's condemnation of the government's actions by alleging a story out of Algeria concerning the Wheat Board underselling in order to gain access to the Algerian market. That was--

[Agriculture, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the results since he stayed at that luxury hotel.

We now know that Standard & Poor's has lowered the credit rating of the Canadian Wheat Board, naming the government as responsible. We know border fees and Canadian exports will increase in March. We know the Minister of International Trade has since acknowledged that supply management may be traded away.

The United States may be overjoyed, but Canadian taxpayers got the bill. Canadian farmers got the shaft. Americans got value for the minister's trip. Why did Canadians not get any value at all?

[Agriculture, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for killing the Wheat Board said it was a pleasure to fly to Washington to meet the U.S. secretary of agriculture.

When farmers desperately need income support, which hotel do members think the high flying agriculture minister checked himself into? It was no less than the luxurious Ritz-Carlton Hotel, that would cost $540 a night, but one does get a complimentary shoeshine.

How does the minister justify this expense? How does he justify bringing along no less than four lucky Conservative staffers?

[Criminal Code, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is not only in downtown Winnipeg where banks have withdrawn services and centralized their banking operations. I have had the opportunity to travel a lot in rural Canada and I have seen a lot of that happening there as well.

I actually think it could be a factor because people do need to go somewhere to cash their cheques. At one time banks were a very important part of many rural communities. They have withdrawn their services at a time when we see their profits going through the roof. They not only charge high enough interest rates but their fees are absolutely ridiculous. I do not think many Canadians recognize how much the fees stacked on top of fees have escalated within the banking sector.

I see the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food over there. If the government continues it moves on the Canadian Wheat Board, we may see farmers themselves using payday loans. The government is withdrawing dollars right out of farmers' pockets with its attack on and undermining of the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Criminal Code, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any concrete evidence to prove the point that the job is being handled well in Quebec. We know they are not being used as much in Quebec but we do not know the underlying reasons for that. It would require a lot more research than the typical Bloc Québécois approach, which is that it is basically due to the issues as they exist in that province. Some national research needs to be done in that area and that can be done with this bill in place. With some provincial jurisdictions operating a little differently than others, there would be the foundation to do that research in the future to get concrete results.

[Criminal Code, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).

The bill was reported back to the House from committee on December 13. It very seldom happens that a bill is reported back without amendments. That shows what can happen when there is strong cooperation between the parties. Actually this is one of six bills the official opposition has called upon the government to work with all parties to pass as soon as possible.

We believe with just a little more cooperation, especially from the government, that in addition to Bill C-26, the following bills could be reported back to the House: Bill C-9, which would restrict the use of conditional sentences; Bill C-18, which would strengthen the DNA data bank; Bill C-19, which would amend the Criminal Code on street racing; Bill C-23, which would amend the Criminal Code and criminal procedure in languages of the accused and sentencing, in other words, update Canada's Criminal Code; and Bill C-22, which would amend the Criminal Code with respect to age of protection, with the importance of protecting children. We believe with a little more cooperation from the government, we could in fact be getting those six bills approved in the House.

In summary, Bill C-26 amends the Criminal Code of Canada to exempt payday lenders who operate in provinces and territories having measures in place to protect borrowers from the application of section 347 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and require jurisdictions that regulate the industry to place limits on the cost to consumers of payday borrowing.

To a great extent a lot of work was done on this bill by previous ministers of industry and justice. A lot of work has gone on with the provinces and territories to get the kind of collaboration needed to put forward this bill in the House of Commons. I congratulate all the folks, including members of the government, who were involved in those discussions to get us where we are at today.

There is certainly a need to ensure consumers that usury interest rates are not allowed in this country. There is no question that there is a lot of authority in the Criminal Code of Canada under section 347 to lay criminal charges for usurious interest rates. Section 347 makes it a criminal offence to charge more than 60% per annum.

As we all know, some payday loan companies have charged far in excess of that rate. In fact, we have heard of outrageous interest charges, when compounded and fees are added, in excess of 1,200% per annum, yet no charges under section 347 to payday loan companies have been made.

Yes, the concern is there, but the payday loan business is a little more complicated jurisdictionally, and I would say on an individual need basis, more than meets the eye. Jurisdictionally payday loan operations are considered to be commercial businesses. They are not banks, although I think many people believe they are. As commercial businesses, to a great extent they fall under provincial jurisdiction.

My colleague, the MP for Scarborough—Rouge River, explained it. I want to quote from his remarks in the House because he gave best explanation on this point:

We are going to keep a Criminal Code provision, but we are going to allow an exemption for a lawful business that lends money using this payday loan mechanism. The exemption will be based on the premise that a province or a territory is regulating the commercial operation.

He went on to say:

Placing this amendment with section 347, will allow the provinces to assume their proper jurisdiction in the regulation of the commercial affairs of their citizens. However, at the same time, we maintain the criminal prohibition with the 60% per annum cap where there is no provincial regulation. We are assuming that a province will provide a form of regulation that will essentially keep the same level of protection the consumers have had up to now.

It is important to mention that because it explains the jurisdictional problem and the difference between the commercialization as a business.

Therefore, the bill does cover off the jurisdictional question under clause 2 by the person being licensed by the province to enter into the agreement, and second, the province has been designated by the governor in council or cabinet under the proposed new section 347.1.3.

On an individual need basis, it is obvious from the demand for transactions, estimated to be $1.3 billion or more, and in fact the parliamentary secretary said it is as high as $2 billion now, and also the increase of payday loan companies that are estimated to be over 1,300. It is obvious from these shocking figures that individual Canadians have an urgent need for short term cash for whatever reason.

Yes, I recognize the amounts are in the low hundreds of dollars, but the cost, as others have said before me, are very high.

Mr. Jenkin with the Department of Industry, who was a witness before committee, indicated:

It's a form of short-term lending through which the consumer typically borrows several hundred dollars for 10 days to two weeks. The borrowing costs are very high, as you probably know. They are usually in the range of, for example, $40 to $75 for a $300 loan for two weeks or less.

I must emphasize that while I support the bill as a way to improve the situation for people who are in need of immediate cash, I still am worried about the impact of the financial strain on individuals. There is no question in my mind that the individuals who are basically forced to use these services are the ones who can least afford to pay these high fees. Maybe they need the dollars to provide food, buy groceries for the family. Maybe they need the dollars for a medical bill or maybe they even need the dollars to pay the minimum payment on a high interest bearing credit card.

Whatever the reason, there is clearly a problem out there that needs to be addressed beyond this bill. I certainly would advise the government and others that we really need to be doing as a country, both at the provincial and federal level, some research into the social or economic reason why people think they are forced to go to these services for those kinds of money. They are the people who can least afford it and I believe that needs to be looks into and addressed.

The bottom line is that we are in favour of this bill. We do believe it is a step in the right direction However, there are other underlying causes that we need to recognize are out there in a social and economic sense and issues that really affect people in their daily lives that forces them to use these services. That is the worrisome point.

The bill is good but I believe the House and the government need to look at the underlying causes of the need to use these services more so.

[Points of Order, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary, in his answer to my question, failed to provide proper information to the House on an organization that he has responsibility over.

He quoted from an article in the French press that has been since clarified by the CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board, an appointment of theirs, and I will quote into the record what he said:

Mr. Kacem has advised us that some of his comments in the original article in the French daily were not properly interpreted by the journalist...A review of the original press article in French clearly shows that at no point does Mr. Kacem say that they enjoy 'very low prices'. The main message in the—

[Canadian Wheat Board, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Standard & Poor's rating agency identified, not once, not twice but eleven times, the federal government as directly responsible for the reduced credit rating of the Wheat Board.

The Prime Minister and his ministers stand accused of wilfully harming the economic viability of the board, not its directors, nor farmers, but the government.

Does the minister deny this statement of facts by Standard & Poor's, “Standard & Poor's expects that government support of CWB will continue to deteriorate as long as this government lasts”?

Does the minister deny that statement?

[Bobby Clow, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to honour the life of and pay tribute to one of Prince Edward Island's favourite sons, Bobby Clow.

Since 1964, Bobby and his wife Verna operated Clows Red & White in Hampshire, PEI, one of the island's best known country stores.

Bobby was one of a kind, with a passion for and immense pride in his community. He was an active volunteer in too many activities to name. But it was with his humour and fun-loving ribbing that he left a lasting impression on everyone he met. As one friend put it, “If laughter is the best medicine, then he dished out an awful lot of medicine”. As another said, “Kids just loved him, not one didn't idolize him”.

Yes, Bobby Clow was one of a kind, a true character, a true citizen of his community and Canada. Passed from this life much too soon, the world needs more Bobby Clows.

We wish the best for his family and thank them for sharing Bobby with us.