Wayne Easter

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there a question coming? We have heard the member speak before and we would like there to be a question and answer period for this member.

[Income Tax Act, April 10th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service).

Mr. Speaker, this bill would provide for a deduction to volunteer emergency workers of $1,000 if they perform at least 100 hours but less than 200 hours of volunteer service as an emergency worker, and $2,000 if they provide 200 hours or more of service. In other words, it would provide equity to all those who volunteer in their communities to assist their neighbours in a time of emergency. It would also give recognition to firefighters.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Agricultural Supply Management Recognition and Promotion Act, April 10th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-218, An Act for the recognition and promotion of agricultural supply management.

Mr. Speaker, it does indeed give me pleasure to bring forward this bill. The intent of this bill is to further support our successful supply management sector and to ensure that the support, which all political parties in the House agree with, is provided for within a legal framework.

There has been some confusion on whether the government really does support supply management. This gives the members of the government the opportunity to show support in this House through a piece of legislation indicating that all parties do indeed support this successful system of marketing.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, we agreed earlier that we would allow a Bloc speaker. We would agree to two or three minutes from another speaker from the government, but we definitely want to abide by the agreement that there be one more speaker from the Bloc.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks. It is a pleasure to have worked with him on the agriculture committee.

I do want to make this point because of what has been said several times tonight. The Prime Minister said in his remarks tonight, with a bit of a preamble, that the government will ensure that it properly addresses “the costs of production, market revenue, and inventory evaluation”. If we are moving to a real cost of production formula, plus a fair return on labour and investment in terms of safety net programming, members can be assured that we will be there, but we want to see costs of production plus a return on labour and investment. Members can be assured of that: we will be there. That will be a huge step forward.

But that is for the longer term, and as the member said, we have an immediate problem. He said we are stuck with CAIS. That member used to quote the provinces, saying that the provinces were asking us for more money and asking why the federal government would not come through.

We know it is not all roses and sunshine, but the previous minister got ad hoc funding above and beyond the CAIS program. That is what we are trying to get from this government tonight. We are trying to get a commitment from the government to at least come up to that and then add a little more because there is a further 16% decline in income, to at least come up with cash before seeding in terms of ad hoc programming over and above the CAIS program. I ask the government not to use the excuse of CAIS and the provinces. We got ad hoc funding and the government should be able to do the same--only it should make it a little more money.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. I recognize that you are new in the chair, but it is common practice in these kinds of debates to allow all parties a question. The government has had two and its questions tend to be soft. This is just to inform you that is the practice.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, tonight there were a lot of words missing from those we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, that is for sure. On the Canadian Wheat Board issue he talked about marketing choice, but what he is really talking about is that we cannot have single-desk selling when we are doing other things, when are dual marketing.

There will be another time to debate that, but what those members are really doing if they do away with single-desk selling is disempowering farmers, taking power away from farmers, taking $160 million out of farmers' pockets and transferring it to the grain companies. That is exactly what they would do.

There will be other times to debate that issue, I hope, but what I want to know on that point is this. Will the parliamentary secretary assure us tonight that before there are any changes to the Canadian Wheat Board they will be debated in this House by way of legislation?

Secondly, what we are trying to do here tonight in this debate is force the government to deal with the immediate problem of putting cash in farmers' pockets prior to spring seeding, and what the parliamentary secretary said does not cut it. The Prime Minister never said there would be. The Minister of Agriculture never said there would be, and the parliamentary secretary, to basically cut through what he said, has said that there would be $500 million more than current safety net programs. The current safety net programs are the programs that he claims do not work.

The previous government paid ad hoc funding over and above those safety net programs to the tune of $1.7 billion. Is he willing to commit here tonight to at least match, prior to spring, that funding which the previous government put in place for farmers so they could get a crop in the ground in the spring?

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his support in the report. I wish to say that really it was not my report. It was the report from farmers because that is what they told me. I thank him for his support.

Even I would recognize that all those recommendations cannot be put in place overnight. The recommendations will take time. I hope the government commits itself to doing that. I know the member opposite is concerned and I know as well that he talked with primary producers who were on the Hill yesterday and no doubt they spoke of an immediate need.

We need to send a message to the Minister of Finance that farmers need help in the short term until some of these other programs are in place. Maybe the Minister of Finance could take a little of that surplus that we left him, about $3 billion or so. I believe the Federation of Agriculture said that there is a $6 billion shortage. Perhaps the minister could come up with at least half of that prior to spring planting, so that farmers get a crop in the ground.

I would like to know what the view is of the member opposite. He talked with the farmers yesterday. How immediate is the problem? Do the farmers need the money right now?

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, let me put the five seconds this way. We admitted that CAIS was not doing all it should do and we put in place ad hoc funding of nearly $2 billion last year and nearly $2 billion the year before. The government can do the same with the surpluses we left and put cash in farmers' pockets now before spring planting.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, the member's question would probably be better asked of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food because the report came down in June and it went to a federal-provincial meeting of ministers and deputy ministers who at that time set up a committee to study it and look at ways of implementing some of those recommendations.

I know for a fact that those were federal and provincial Ministers of Agriculture who were looking for ways to implement those recommendations. As it happened, however, an election intervened. I know the Department of Agriculture over at the Sir John Carling building were not too enamoured with the report but I sometimes wonder if they know there is a farm crisis.

I would have to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether or not that committee of ministers and deputy ministers reported back to the next meeting of ministers and deputies and indicated the road map that they would follow to implement that report. I would expect the government opposite is now putting in process that plan of how it will implement some of those 40 recommendations?