Wayne Easter

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost in my remarks I want to thank the voters of Malpeque for their confidence in me in returning me to the House of Commons. I might add as well how proud I have been to have served the riding of Malpeque, under two prime ministers, in a party that turned the finances of the country around and turned the government over in extremely good shape to the new government entering the House. I also am looking forward to this time period of holding the government to account as the member of Parliament for the riding of Malpeque.

The Speech from the Throne sets out the government's general direction, but this speech fails completely. As much as the Prime Minister may want the country and Canadians to have only five key priorities, that is not how a country as complex as Canada functions, nor how a federal government should respond.

The minister who best revealed how the Prime Minister intends to function was the Minister of Agriculture. He told the CBC that if he brought forward legislation this spring “The Prime Minister would look at him as if he were from Mars”, meaning basically that if the issue brought forward were not in the Prime Minister's five key areas, then do not bring it forward this spring. I can tell the House clearly that farmers on the Hill yesterday do not want the minister or the government to be from Mars. They want the minister and the government to act on their concerns, whether they meet with the Prime Minister's five key issues or not.

The message from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of Agriculture was clear to farmers and any Canadian: the Prime Minister does not consider it worthy of attention. If this issue does not meet with the five priorities of the Prime Minister, they are out of luck. The Prime Minister has decided that only his agenda matters and those other issues, whether related to trade, or related to rural Canada in terms of the agriculture crisis and farm income, or the future of the fishery, or issues related to transportation and infrastructure, or the needs such as in Atlantic Canada in terms of economic development, will just have to wait.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention at the beginning that I am splitting my time with the member for Laval--Les Îles.

Let me turn to the issue of agriculture. I want to congratulate the new Minister of Agriculture in his position and his responsibility. As agriculture critic for the official opposition, the Speech from the Throne is a failure as it relates to agriculture. Yes, there was a paragraph in the speech, but it basically looks like it was almost an afterthought.

Let us begin with this one fact. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in February of this year, stated that farm income across Canada would decline in 2006 by a further 16%. In the previous year, 2005, the farm income crisis situation was evident and responded to in five specific areas.

First was the ongoing support for income support programs such as CAIS. The government committed itself to working cooperatively with all stakeholders on improving the program. While the Prime Minister said during the election campaign that he was going to scrap the CAIS, he has now at least changed his mind and said that it will be in place for a year to give some stability. However, the lending community as it relates to primary producers has been taking action, in part because of the uncertainty caused by the Prime Minister himself.

Last year as well there was the direct infusion over the year with support going primarily to grains and oilseed producers, beginning in March of 2005, of close to $1 billion in ad hoc payments to assist with spring planting and other needs of producers.

In October an additional commitment, through supplementary estimates, of $348 million was lost to farmers due to the efforts of the other three parties causing an election.

There was an additional announcement of $755 million in November of 2005. This money was booked in November and the new government has only managed to get $400 million of that out to farmers as yet, according to the Minister of Agriculture recently. What is the holdup with the government?

Last year a comprehensive report on farm income entitled “Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Marketplace” was tabled with the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture. It has some 46 recommendations and provides strong support for the farm community. The government should be acting on those recommendations and moving forward so it empowers primary producers in the farm community.

That was the direct action taken by an activist government in response to the needs of Canadian farmers. That is what the previous minister of agriculture and agri-food did as part of his responsibility to those he represented at the cabinet table, the farmers of Canada. His job was to fight for additional assistance and he received it.

Ministers should not stand before audiences of desperate people and say that they would like to do something, but they do not want to disturb the Prime Minister's timetable or disrupt his plans. We need to see some leadership from the government as a whole on the farm crisis before us.

Also during the election the Prime Minister left the impression that there would be $500 million for producers. However, we find out now that it is not $500 million more for producers. It is $500 million over and above the safety net programs, which means it is about $1.2 billion short of what was actually funded over the last two years by the previous government. That is unacceptable. As farmers said on the Hill yesterday, they need cash and they need it now.

I see the member for Essex sitting opposite. I was surprised last night by his comments. While he said during the election campaign that the government would give immediate assistance to primary producers, he did not mention the word agriculture in his speech last night. He did not mention farmers. We have not seen a dime come forward from the government as yet. All we have seen is part of the money that the previous government put in place.

The Minister of Agriculture is either prepared to defend the interests of farmers in Canada in need or he is not. The Minister of Agriculture is a good person and a great individual. By reading the throne speech and seeing practically nothing in it in terms of the agriculture portfolio, I can only assume that the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board and the Prime Minister himself have their own priorities in agriculture, and primary producers do not seem to be a part of it.

Yesterday close to 10,000 farmers from across Canada were on the Hill. They outlined their concerns about the inaction of the government and the fact that it had not put forward an ad hoc program for producers this spring. That is what the Minister of Agriculture has indicated thus far. Farmers are demanding cash and they need it now. The Minister of Agriculture called a press conference and basically said not to look to him because the problem relative to CAIS lay with the provinces. They support CAIS but it is not the only program.

Members across the way now make up the Government of Canada. They cannot sit there and just complain any more. The throne speech should spell out clearly what they are going to do for those rural communities many of them represent. We need to see some action. That is what producers yesterday were telling members opposite. That is what they were telling the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture. They want to see some action, not just hear words. It is not enough to say the problem is with the provinces. The members opposite are in a position of responsibility. What we need to see from the Prime Minister and the new government is leadership and leadership is going to require dealing with the farm crisis, putting money out there, or at least catching up to the kind of financial commitments that the previous government put in place.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the rural members on the other side are yelling, “Show me the money”. Yes, that is what they should do. They are probably ashamed to go home this weekend with the performance of the government so far.

I listened intently to the Prime Minister's speech. Like the throne speech itself it was very light and very short on substance. That party over there has come into government when the treasury and the fiscal balance are in surplus like never before, a surplus that it should be using to put programs in place for people.

The Prime Minister himself claimed that farmers deserve help. The only help his government has provided so far is the money that the Minister of Finance of the former government booked and put in place. The government has not put a dime toward farmers thus far.

Farmers are rallying on the Hill today because they are in trouble.The Prime Minister left the impression during the election that he would pay more money out to the farm community, yet his Minister of Agriculture in a press conference said today, “Don't talk to me. Talk to the provinces”.

The government has a responsibility to put cash into farmers' hands and to put it into their hands prior to spring planting. When is the Prime Minister going to live up to the intention he left with farmers during the election and put the cash in their hands prior to spring planting, and how is he going to do it?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 5th, 2006]

Those are cheap words. Let us see the money.

[Requests for Emergency Debates, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 52, I am seeking to call for an emergency debate in order to discuss the growing farm crisis across this country. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada itself has confirmed a further decline in farm incomes of 16% this year.

The uncertainty in the farming community is only increased by the government's announced intention of scrapping the CAIS program in spite of provincial government support and by the government's failure to provide the necessary resources for this spring.

The matter of the collapse of farm incomes and the need for federal government action is urgent. Farmers on the Hill today are further evidence of the serious crisis facing the farm community. I am therefore seeking under Standing Order 52 to call for an emergency debate to discuss this farm income crisis and the government's position on it.

[Agriculture, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that record government payments were paid out in the last two years by the previous government. When the minister lives up to that record, if he can do that, then he will be able to brag. However, he is $1 billion short at the moment.

Is he willing to come to the House tonight to debate the issue so the farmers can see where that minister and that government really are in terms of shortchanging the farm community?

[Agriculture, April 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today thousands of farmers have come to Ottawa to call for action from the government. They need cash and they need it now.

The Prime Minister knows that the $755 million booked by the previous government was for last year. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has stated there will be no money this spring.

Will the minister and the government consent to having a debate tonight to explain to farmers here today why the government refuses to act and put cash on the table?

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what a ridiculous rant and so far off today's motion. Talking about standing up for Canadian farmers, this government and this minister have stood up for Canadian farmers consistently inclusive of supply management.

That is why the payments to Canadian farmers have never been higher in Canadian history. The member opposite knows full well that the real reason why commodity prices remain so low is as a result of the global situation that exists out there. Both the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have negotiated extensively and put Canada on the map. In fact, they punched far above their weight in terms of those negotiations.

However, the party opposite talks about undermining the credibility of a government and its members are trying to defeat the government in the House when the most important international trade negotiations ever are taking place. We would not have a minister there with the confidence of the Canadian people. That party is undermining our ability to do our job at the WTO.

I have a question on the specifics of the motion today. This was the policy of the party opposite in May 2002. It stated:

We will ensure that any agreement which impacts Supply Management gives our producers guaranteed access to foreign markets, and that there will be a significant transition period in any move towards a market-driven environment.

That was the policy as of May 2002. Is that still that party's position?

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the hon. member's remarks I would like to put on the record the fact that the Liberal Party, the governing party, has been the party of supply management. We introduced the system some 30 years ago.

While the separatists continually talk about what they would do if they were to have a separate country, the fact of the matter is that ours is the party that put in the supply management system. Ours is the party that has constantly supported supply management at negotiations. Ours is the party that makes sure primary producers in Quebec in the supply management commodities can in fact have decent incomes. We were the makers of the supply management system.

I take the member's motion to mean that our negotiators should be absolutely inflexible, or in other words, that we really not negotiate. Through the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the UPA, the farm organization in Quebec, has taken a balanced position. It has put forward to the Government of Canada that yes, we do have a number of different commodities in the country and we need to take a balanced position at the WTO negotiations. In terms of that, there already is a motion in the House that in negotiations the negotiators support and uphold the supply management system.

Let us talk about the reality of the world and being absolutely inflexible at those negotiations. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has fought hard for this industry. He has been one of the leading people at the negotiations. He put forward a proposal whereby each country would have the right to protect its sensitive commodities. That would in fact protect their supply management system. We might have to open up a wee bit of access, but for doing that we move to the balanced position for all commodities so that all farmers in Canada can benefit.

If the member's position by this motion is that we be absolutely inflexible and do not move at all, then I believe that kind of position would be shooting our industry in the foot and would lead to a lose-lose situation. I believe we have to go forward with the position that the Minister of Agriculture put forward.

Is the member saying that we should be absolutely inflexible with no movement at all in terms of these negotiations?

[Remembrance Day Train, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the organizers and to the veterans throughout Canada who ventured to Ottawa on board the VIA Rail Remembrance Day train.

As young men and women, they took a similar train in the opposite direction. The train of their youth took them into harm's way. It took them away from family and homes in response to a call to duty and to face combat, injury and death.

Veterans and their families, including a contingent of some 20 veterans from Prince Edward Island, boarded train No. 15, the Ocean , in Halifax and Moncton for the journey to the national Remembrance Day observance in Ottawa last week.

I want to extend the appreciation of all members of the House to VIA Rail for providing the train of remembrance, to Atlantic Superstores for providing the meals and to the other contributors and volunteers who helped make this a memorable national event.

I thank them and congratulate them.

[Mark Arendz, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge a very courageous and generous young man, 15-year-old Mark Arendz of North Wiltshire, P.E.I. In 1997 Mark lost his left arm in a farm accident. Since that time, Mark has demonstrated a phenomenal will to both recover and make a valued contribution to his community.

With the assistance of the War Amps CHAMP organization, Mark has become a junior counsellor, acting as a role model for other young people in similar circumstances.

Mark, though, has taken his message further. With the help of Marilyn Affleck, coordinator with the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture's farm health and safety program, Mark has been meeting with school students to talk about the program's “be careful” message, which is, when working on the farm, to be careful and aware of farm hazards.

Agriculture is the backbone of P.E.I.'s economy. Our farmers, farm workers and farm families are essential to the prosperity of this industry. Through the effort and example of people like Mark Arendz, the message of working safely is reaching future generations.