Wayne Easter

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot of rambling from the parliamentary secretary but nothing of substance, especially as it relates to the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would ask him to answer this question, if he could, directly. Did I hear the member correctly when he said that it was absolutely unanimous among western farmers that access to information should apply to the Canadian Wheat Board?

If he did not, I ask him to be very careful in his answer, because I know that not to be true. The Canadian Wheat Board is probably the most transparent organization in the country. He may have never been there. He may never have visited its offices. He is obviously listening to the propaganda from the international grain trade which wants access to information to the Canadian Wheat Board, not necessarily on the commerciality of the operation but clearly to be a nuisance factor.

The fact of the matter is that the Canadian Wheat Board has an annual report audited. The Canadian Wheat Board is not a crown corporation and the government knows that. It says that specifically in the act. The Canadian Wheat Board holds district meetings in every one of its districts with officials of the Canadian Wheat Board there to answer any questions, financial or otherwise. It is very transparent. It has a department within the operation which answers calls 24 hours a day, so it is very transparent.

The parliamentary secretary said that farmers unanimously wanted access to information to apply. Most farmers do not. I wonder what concrete evidence does the member have to make that statement in the House of Commons or is he just trying to mislead the Canadian people.

[Agriculture, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives promised immediate cash for farmers' spring planting. No cash has been received, another broken promise. They promised to open the aged cattle market to the United States. Nothing has been accomplished. They promised dual marketing, which the minister's hand-picked task force now states, “This is not possible”. This destructive proposal alone will take $655 million out of the pockets of farmers pockets.

They are broken promises, manipulation and deception. Why can the government not just be honest with primary producers?

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I might say at the beginning, as one of the ones you tuned up for shouting across the floor earlier, that you are to be congratulated for the non-partisan and fair approach you take to your occupancy of the Chair. You treat both sides the same.

I have a question to the member who spoke, and it spins off what the new government member said a minute ago when he outlined a serious crime and indeed it is a serious crime. However, when we are looking at these bills, the key question is, will it work? That is what is fundamental. We all know there are crimes out there and there needs to be penalties for them, but the key question in terms of the whole new approach the Conservatives are taking to law and order is, will it work?

I attended the justice committee the other day. There was no evidence nor concrete facts. The Conservatives are basically bringing in an Americanization of our justice system. Which country do we feel safer in walking the streets, this one or south of the border? So I ask the member--

[Parks Canada, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express concerns about Parks Canada's intent to destroy a perfectly sound tennis court at Green Gables golf course when other options are available.

While I agree that renovations are needed to improve the course, the planned demolition of the tennis court to accommodate a new practice putting green is absolutely unacceptable. Parks Canada made its decisions without consultation with either the community or users. A government agency has a responsibility to respect community views.

The existing courts are low maintenance and offer the only public space to play tennis in the Cavendish area. With all the available acres on the golf course, there is no need for this irresponsible destruction. To destroy tennis courts that are in superior condition is unnecessary government waste and improper use of taxpayers' dollars and shows a belligerent attitude by a government agency to the people it purports to represent.

I ask the minister to stop this destruction today.

[Canada Elections Act, November 6th, 2006]

It needs it. It needs it.

[Canada Elections Act, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key points raised by the government is that this would improve voter turnout. We see fixed elections of four years in the United States and that is where voter turnout is among the lowest, so I really do not believe it has merit. I think it has more to do with cynicism about broken promises. We have seen that just recently on the income trust issue.

On the issue of Elections Canada, on this point I have heard some fairly serious allegations about electoral lists, not in my own riding but elsewhere in the country. There are concerns about election day, when people can show a piece of ID and vote, the concern being whether or not they really do live in the riding.

Does the member see changes in this bill which will ensure that there cannot be a manipulation of the voters list during the last days of an election campaign? That is a serious issue. I personally see no reason why the list cannot be firmed up five or six days prior to the election so that parties have time to double-check the list. Is there anything in this bill which would ensure that there is no way there can be election fraud based on the electoral lists themselves?

[Canada Elections Act, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member's discussion. In theory it sounds like the Conservatives are really interested in improving democracy. They certainly support democracy, but what we have seen from the new government so far is that it does not practise it. We have seen that in quite a number of areas, the Canadian Wheat Board and others.

My question is similar to that of my colleague, the problem in a pre-writ period. What is the impact going to be on third party advertising? Although the member in promoting the bill talked about there being productivity in the House, is it not true that election campaigns, rather than being 38 or 40 days long, would be 365 days long? A year in advance of an election, some people would be out there, nominated, running in the riding and current members would have to leave the House to defend themselves in their ridings. That could impact on the productivity of the House.

Has the government considered all those factors, or is it just moving ahead with a popular ploy, like it has done so often since it has been elected?

[Points of Order, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was merely referring to how democracy worked in Russia. In Stalin's day in communist Russia, people who did not agree simply disappeared. It became known as a purge in the historic context.

A little over a week ago, one of the appointed directors to the Canadian Wheat Board by the name of Ross Keith wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture disagreeing with his position on the Canadian Wheat Board. What happened last weekend? He basically disappeared. He was fired from the job and replaced by an anti-Wheat Board activist just yesterday, so in effect it is a purge.

If the governing party is upset with the word Stalinist, then I will withdraw that word, but the fact of the matter is that it is a purge and that is what it was.

[Canadian Wheat Board, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the only farmers the minister is listening to live in North Dakota, Kansas and Nebraska. In giving the United States its way, the minister's undemocratic acts are getting worse. Now he is initiating a Stalinist purge, firing a pro-board director and inserting an anti-Wheat Board activist.

How can he expect such a director to act in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation and farmers, or is he just attempting to destroy the board from the inside?

[Canadian Wheat Board, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's discredited task force has failed by every measure, except that it will give the corporate U.S. grain sector what it wants: more economic power at our farmers' expense. Look at the report. There is not a single reference to gains for farmers, absolutely none.

How can the minister defend an action that has its strongest support in the U.S.? Popping champagne in U.S. boardrooms, heartbreak for Canadian farm families. Does the Prime Minister just not care about Canadian farmers?