Wayne Easter

[Witness Protection Program Act, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-286. The intent of it may be admirable. We all know of spouses who need protection in one form or another. Many organizations across the country and in my own province assist spouses who are having difficulty and need protection. Most of these cases involve women, but not all the cases with which we end up dealing.

As the individual before me said, the purpose of the bill is to extend the scope of the witness protection program to include persons whose lives are in danger because of acts committed by their spouses. Somebody can correct me if I am wrong, but in my reading of the bill it does not indicate if the acts are criminal or not. The wording of the bill is very broad and that gets legislation in difficulty from time to time.

The Bloc critic said that the approach was basically the wrong vehicle to do what was intended here. I agree with that criticism. That member also mentioned the cost of implementing this kind of protection. We are looking at anywhere in the range of $400,000 to $500,000 per individual. I believe those kinds of dollars could be used in better ways than what has been proposed in the bill.

This is a poorly thought out proposal. Beyond that, there is the issue of the human resources that would be required to manage this kind of protection. Personnel are involved. I realize dollars are available, but what will the impact be on the RCMP? The government opposite has gone to great lengths to talk about increasing the number of police officers, and that is a good thing. It is following on what we did previously. The way the bill is currently designed could in fact draw down those numbers and the human resources originally intended would not be there.

Others have spoken of the difficulty of qualifying to get into the witness protection program itself. This bill would change the thrust of the program from the way it was originally designed to operate. In my former capacity as a minister, I looked at this program fairly closely. There have been lots of complaints about its operations, everything from not enough funding to the lack of support to build a new life and a new identity. That also is one of the difficulties in the design of the bill.

First and foremost, individuals suffer the trauma of facing the abusing spouses and needing protection from that abuse. Fear and intimidation goes along with that abuse. Then they are put into a program where they lose, to a great extent, their former identity. Where is the counselling that will be needed? It is not in the bill. Moneys would be far better spent in that area, although the government opposite seems to be more comfortable building jails and that kind of stuff rather than building infrastructure to deal with some of these problems. The government does not seem willing to put infrastructure in place that would assist those people who need counselling, protection and support.

One of the great criticisms of the current witness protection program is that individuals lose that typical history that they have with their identity. There is the inability to get a job because they have changed to a great extent their life. There is also the difficulty in terms of getting references. They do not have the history to get an identification.

[Agriculture, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed the minister did not mention protecting state trading enterprises.

The government is intent on destroying the Canadian Wheat Board as the single desk selling agency for western wheat and barley. This is a system that maximizes returns back to primary producers rather than to the multinational grain trade.

Will the minister assure us that any proposed changes to the mandate of the board will be a decision of western grain farmers, by plebiscite, on a clear and honest question?

[Agriculture, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that in fact is what is happening by statements from members opposite, one sector is being pitted against the other.

We will give the minister another opportunity to clear the confusion. Will he commit clearly today that he will put forward the balanced position, the Canadian position, that all producers can benefit?

Second, will he direct our negotiator to stand firm on achieving a sensitive products category, so that supply management is in fact maintained?

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was worried that the member for Acadie—Bathurst fell off the wharf for a minute, but obviously he did not. The bottom line is that there needs to be more money.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do feel that it is a proper discussion when we are dealing with the concerns of rural Canada. The government business that has been set aside is a proposal that is basically finding ways of going with minimum mandatory sentencing, the net effect of which will be to build more jails and cost more money. Maybe the reason the government wants to take $20 million out of the fishery is to build more jails, which is what is in Bill C-10, while not dealing effectively with crime.

The government wants to Americanize the Canadian justice system, which is what Bill C-10 is all about.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake raised a good point. I have had the opportunity to look at the Lake Winnipeg fishery and it is a good one. Previous fisheries committees have made some recommendations and I will admit that there needs to be more dredging done in that area.

I would ask the member for Selkirk—Interlake to look closely at the motion and to listen to the words of the chair of the fisheries committee. He was kind of floating around all over the place and basically just looking at considering the advisability of raising the funding.

I say strenuously to the member for Selkirk—Interlake that what needs to happen here to deal with his problem and with our problem is to eliminate the cut that the Minister of Finance implemented and implement the increase that the Liberal member for Cardigan proposed. That is what needs to happen and that will go some distance to deal with the problem on Lake Winnipeg.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that was a great question from the member for Chatham-Kent--Essex, but it is too bad the government will not commit to doing the job.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Cape Breton--Canso.

I am pleased to speak in support of the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I am pleased that my colleague from Cardigan has pushed this issue so strenuously. We are calling on the government to stand by fishermen and put the necessary funding for small craft harbours under DFO.

I was pleased when I heard the chair of the fisheries committee say that the government would be supporting this motion. Upon listening to him discuss it further, it seems the government's support is really all smoke and mirrors. He was playing with words. If the government is only going to sit around over a beer or over a glass of wine and consider what they are going to do about the cut, then they are not really doing anything at all.

It is easy for the chair of the fisheries committee and the parliamentary secretary to get up in the House and say that they support the motion, but I would like to know what concrete action they will take to deal with the problem. To concretely deal with it, the government needs to eliminate the cut and implement the increase. Unless the government does that, then the actions about which the chair of the fisheries committee talked are really mute. They are just words.

I have had the opportunity to serve both as chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and as a parliamentary secretary in the past. Fishermen look to the funding of small craft harbours as absolutely crucial to their future. It is shocking to think that the new government wants to cut $20 million from funding. That sounds like what it has done with farmers as well.

While the government left the impression in the budget that it would pay out more money, it is actually paid out less. Government backbenchers left the impression that the government would have immediate cash for farmers this spring, it never came through.

Now the government is eliminating another $20 million from our fisheries, another industry in rural Canada. This is not what we would expect from a government that has a fairly strong rural backbench. Maybe the PMO does not listen to its own backbench. Clearly, the Prime Minister seems to run everything and his word is final. The government seems to be cutting back.

The Conservative government was left in the best fiscal position of any government in Canadian history. A surplus is available to deal with the problems in rural Canada. A surplus is available to increase funding for small craft harbours and for farmers as well. The government has the surplus to do this, but has neglected to do so because it has to give little tax credits to the rich and to the oil industry, which is doing well. What about ordinary people in rural communities in Atlantic Canada and across the country?

The previous government made massive improvements to fishing harbours during its term and it took on the infrastructure issue. However, there is no question that much more needs to be done. Key to the livelihoods of fishermen is the ability to work at their industry. To do that, they need good infrastructure. Wharves are extremely important. Breakwaters are important as part of that wharf, set up to protect fishermen from the high seas and the winds.

Dredging is extremely important in some of areas of the country. The member for Chatham-Kent—Essex mentioned how important dredging was in his area.

Lighting along those wharves, winches to lift the fish out of the boats and boat sheds are important infrastructure. Safe harbour access is extremely important. The wharf has to be in good repair. There has to be protection from the high seas.

I know in a lot of my area and in Atlantic Canada dredging the sand is extremely important. It is not just getting out of the harbour to do the fishing; it is a key safety area. A lot of people in our country probably do not realize that the tides rise and fall. Often in many harbours, fishermen cannot come in at low tide, even with what we have tried to do. They have to time it so the tide is higher in order to get over the sand bars.

I will give an example of a harbour in my area. It is the harbour of Malpeque. It is a very nice little harbour. It has both mussel and lobster fishermen there. We tried to get a commitment with the bureaucracy, under the previous government, I must admit, and the new government. The fishermen of that port and I as an MP felt we had a commitment last fall that small craft harbours would dredge the harbour come spring. It sanded in last fall and the mussel fishermen, who were still operating, had to unload at other harbours. They could come in and go out empty, but they could not come in loaded.

It was going to cost a considerable amount of money to dredge. They accepted that fisheries would not dredge last fall. It was going to sand in, in the wintertime, anyway. However, it was to be done as soon as ice was out this spring. When the ice was gone, DFO did not come through like it was supposed to.

It is not the fault of the staff in Charlottetown. Somebody higher up the line decided that there was a little more sand than expected and it was $10,000 over the limit. Eventually we did get it dredged, but I believe it was public works in the end that did it because it could spend a little more money.

When public works dredged it, instead of widening the channel 60 feet like it ought to have been, it only dredged it 30 feet wide. It did not want to spend the extra $20,000 to do it right. By not doing it right in the first instance, in effect DFO has to re-tender and has to spend all that money over again because it was not done right the first time. That should not happen.

Not only do we have to put more money in small craft harbours, but we have to bring some common sense to the system. If we have to go over a little to do the dredging properly, then somebody should use that common sense. I know people are scared of the new government in terms of having to watch their shadow and accountability, but they should act. That did not happen in this case.

I want to point out another problem with dredging. Every time we go to dredge, the cost of an environmental study is phenomenal. I believe we have a permit for the north side of the island at the moment. That is in place for some time. The amount of money that is spent on environmental studies, doing the same thing over and over again as the years go by, is ridiculous. There should be ways and means, through the bureaucracy in this town and at 200 Kent Street, to overcome that. Rather than give consultants and legal people money, those dollars need to be spent to get the sand out of the harbours and to make the wharves safe.

In terms of the motion, the bottom line is that it is just words from the government unless it eliminates the cut and implements the increase.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about rhetoric and we heard a fair bit of that when he was talking about the previous government.

The fact is that the previous Liberal government took over the financial mess that the previous government left of a $42 billion annual deficit and it turned the country around. The previous government turned over the best fiscal position to the present government than any government has received in Canadian history. The government has the funding to do the right thing for Fisheries and Oceans and small craft harbours and the member opposite knows it.

I hope the member opposite is not just playing with words. He said that they would be supporting the motion. The motion reads, “--consider the advisability of raising the current budget--”, and then it goes to the numbers.

Is the chair of the fisheries committee, the member for South Shore--St. Margaret's, telling us today that the government is committing itself to eliminating the cut that was proposed and implementing the increase? Or, is he saying that the government, the Conservative Party opposite, will just sit around and consider a number of things?

We need to know the facts and we need the facts on the table. Will the government eliminate the cut or implement the increase that is mentioned in the motion?

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member opposite has been a long term member of the fisheries committee and indeed a good member. I know that he is very concerned about the fishery. The member mentioned in his remarks the tremendous surplus that the current government was left with. Would the member agree with me that the spending requirements and needs of small craft harbours are in fact greater than they have ever been?

On the shores of Prince Edward Island there have been worse storms in recent years. We are getting more damage on the wharves. We are having to put in more armourstone to protect the wharves. Would the member answer in terms of the needs for fishermen in his area how the wharves compare with years ago? Does the member believe that the Government of Canada should be spending more money on small craft harbours instead of cutting back, spending less and basically saving the money for their friends in wealthy places?

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the chirping from the member for South Shore--St. Margaret's on this issue.

My question really relates to the amount of funding for small craft harbours. I want to be clear. Is he saying that there was $86.6 million and that is going to be reduced by $20 million under the Conservative government's plan?

The fact of the matter is that in recent years in Atlantic Canada, whether or not it is due to global warming, which the government opposite does not seem to want to deal with, we are getting more storm damage. Small craft harbours are requiring more dredging. They are requiring more infrastructure repair. What really should be happening is that the Government of Canada should be increasing the funding for small craft harbours.

I wonder if the member for Cardigan can give me the figures we are talking about here. We have to be able to tell our fishermen what is really going to happen in the future and whether their needs are going to be met, or whether the government is going to sell them down the river, so to speak.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate him on the policy that the government finally implemented on capital gains. He worked at that for a number of years.