Wayne Easter

[Government Appointments, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the rest of the story. The husband of the new lieutenant governor admits he has close ties to the Conservatives and especially the Prime Minister. He worked on the Prime Minister's campaign for leader and was part of the first executive of the new party. In fact, they are so close that the Prime Minister spent last year's Canada Day on Mr. Hagerman's boat.

Is this appointment a political reward? Will the Prime Minister curb his appetite for patronage pork? What about ethics? What about accountability?

[Government Appointments, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, after promising Canadians they would be squeaky clean, the government has been anything but. Provincial Conservative operatives seem free to belly up to the patronage trough. The regional minister's office is rife with party insiders. However, the Prime Minister's partisan fingerprints are all over the appointment of the lieutenant governor, the wife of an influential party insider. The post represents the Queen, not a reward for political services.

How can the Prime Minister explain this growing list of partisan political appointments?

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that street racing is a serious issue. The previous government also brought forward legislation.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary's description of the penalties. He emphasized a moment ago the deterrent aspect of the penalties. The biggest area we have to deal with is not only on the penalty and deterrent side, it is on the whole issue of prevention.

Yes, more police officers will help, but when an individual has been arrested and charged on a first offence, is there anything from an educational aspect to talk about prevention? I do not see it specifically named in the bill and it may be a regulatory matter, but the best safety aspect of all is to prevent the crime from happening in the first place. I do not think we want to go to the United States' system of three strikes and you are out, and building more jails. The best approach is education through our schools and through public endeavours to do as much as we can on the preventive side on the danger, the injury to others and to the individuals themselves that can happen through street racing.

Could the parliamentary secretary inform us as to what the government has in mind in the broader sense of prevention?

[Petitions, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to table a petition today on behalf of quite a number of constituents in the riding of Malpeque and across Prince Edward Island who ask the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to stop the destruction of the Green Gables tennis courts, which are designated for a new golf course and a putting green in their place. It makes no sense at all to tear down a perfectly good tennis court when there is all kinds of available space. On behalf of my constituents, I have the honour to present this petition.

[Agriculture, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, grain producers will not be impressed by that answer.

My question is for the acting prime minister. This minister, adding to yesterday's $20 million cut, is proposing to undermine the Wheat Board which will reduce collectively western grain incomes by $265 million a year. It is another attack on Canadian farmers.

Worse is using fake letters, manipulating the media, stacked government task forces and circumventing the laws of Canada. Is this the Prime Minister's definition of ethics and democracy?

[Agriculture, September 27th, 2006]

On Monday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food attempted to deny knowledge of a fake letter-writing propaganda campaign on behalf of government and government MPs for the purpose of undermining the Canadian Wheat Board.

Will the minister come clean today and inform the House of which government MPs and officials and whether he or his parliamentary secretary were involved in this blatant and unscrupulous effort to manipulate public opinion and, in the process, violate the laws of Canada?

[DNA Identification Act, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the work the member and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands have done on this issue.

I cannot understand why the intent of this bill has not already been accomplished. The process was set in place. The RCMP admitted in 2003 or 2004 that it did have the technology to deal with this. Yes, we hear about the issue of privacy from Department of Justice officials. Privacy should not be the issue. There are ways around that, because the permission of the families is in fact required under the proposal from the member opposite.

I agree that we should be using DNA as the tremendous tool it is to bring closure to the families of missing people. They were deeply involved in the bill. I personally met with Ms. Peterson and support her request for this legislation.

The member in closing said “as soon as possible”. Is he working with the ministry on that side of the House? Is there any way possible that the government could bring this forward as a government bill? There is no excuse not to.

I think we on this side would be supportive to a great extent on that move because he is right that this should be implemented as soon as possible, and as soon as possible really was about two years ago.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed many of the member's remarks, but I was interested in his comments on the Canadian Wheat Board. This is similar to what has happened under the softwood lumber agreement, where we have won all the legal challenges but the government has decided that even though we have won it wants to go to a negotiated settlement. The Americans are basically operating in a way where they are saying they know we have won by the rules, but now they do not like the rules and so they want to change them. And the Government of Canada caves in.

The same situation is really true for the Canadian Wheat Board. We have won 11 challenges, I believe, from the United States as they relate to the Canadian Wheat Board, but what the government is proposing to do by doing away with single desk selling is basically to sell out to American interests that have, since time eternal, tried to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board through the legal process. They have never been successful in doing so.

Could the hon. member explain to us whether he sees that there would be advantages to the Americans as a result of the government proposal to take away single desk selling? What would be the loss to Canadian farmers as a result?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister, as does his boss, continues to play the politics of deception. He knows full well that the Conservatives, even in the budget, have not got anywhere close to where the Liberals were in terms of supporting farmers.

Farmers are concerned. In fact, a farm rally at the farm of one of the Prime Minister's former supporters was headlined “Prime Minister Betrays Farmers”.

Will the minister just do the right thing and live up to the promises that the party had made during the campaign and put--

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minority government continues to fail the farmers of Canada.

It has failed to provide immediate cash to farmers as promised. It has failed to hold the U.S. to account in terms of BSE. It has failed to implement a GATT article XXVIII dairy tariff line as mandated by the House. It has failed through its options program to address commodity price shortfalls and it has failed at the WTO.

Will the minister live up to his responsibilities and provide the needed cash assistance that farmers so dearly need?