Wayne Easter

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the member is greatly mistaken in saying that the government does not support the farm community. It does. It supports the farm community extensively.

I agree with the hon. member's point in terms of the difficulties the farm community is facing. There is no question about that, but keep in mind that government payments have never been higher than over the past two years: $4.8 billion federally and provincially in 2003 and $4.9 billion in 2004.

The member said that agriculture was not mentioned extensively in the budget. The reason is that most of it is regular programming, for example, the CAIS program, which can make up to $5 billion available, the cash advance program and the supply management system. The member said he would like to see some successful industries. The commodities in the supply management system are successful because they have taken charge of their own industries and have matched production to meet domestic demand. As a result of coming up with those kinds of programs they do receive a fair return on their labour and investment.

Yes, there are difficulties in the other industries. As the member knows, we have been looking at the reason for the long term decline in farm income at the farm gate. There are many reasons. We are trying to propose solutions.

At the end of March the minister announced a $1 billion farm improvement program. The member talked about that program. Farmers did not even have to apply for that program. If they had applied for the program two years ago, the same calculations were used to send out cheques automatically. I agree that some of the cheques were for small amounts but if farmers are basing it on inventories of cattle, they cannot go over the amount of cattle they have. Money is getting out to the farmers.

I know that $1 billion sounds like a lot to the consuming public, but when it is spread across the agriculture industry I admit it is not going to be huge. The bottom line is that $4.9 billion last year went to the agriculture community. Does more need to be done? Yes, it does.

I agree the industry is in considerable difficulty but the government has been standing with farmers. Whether it is BST, financial payments, support for the Wheat Board or the supply management system, the government is there and will continue to be there.

[Herring Fishery, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, serious concerns over herring stocks off the shores of Prince Edward Island are continually being raised by fishermen and the general public.

This past weekend, I met with fishermen on the North Shore and they presented evidence of a spring herring fishery which is failing. One fisherman indicated that in five days he managed to catch five individual herring, nothing more.

This follows on independent scientific opinion, in contradiction to DFO science and expressed at a province-wide meeting, that local herring stocks are affected by large herring seiners fishing fall migratory stocks.

The fundamental principle upon which DFO manages fisheries resources is that of conservation first and foremost: the precautionary principle. Therefore, I am calling upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to exercise that precautionary principle and put in place a full moratorium on the large herring seiner fleet, preventing it from fishing off Prince Edward Island.

[Agriculture, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is clearly our position to get the border open as soon as possible and not play legal games like the party opposite wants to do.

We have taken the best advice available in the best interests of Canadian producers and we have acted on it. On top of that, we have assisted producers in their time of difficult financial trouble. The government is acting, not playing legal games like members on that side want to do.

[Agriculture, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Canada has been defending Canadian beef producers' interests. We have taken strong action with the Americans. We have taken strong action in the defence of producers in terms of helping them in their financial trouble as a result of the border closure. We have listened to the expert advice of Canadian lawyers and American lawyers and we put forward an amicus brief to the court.

We have been taking action, not playing politics as members are trying to do on that side.

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The information that the member tabled is wrong. The Prime Minister called for the public inquiry--

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to smile over such a serious issue but what a great little rant we had at the beginning. What is unbelievable is the member of the NDP.

I am pleased that we now know where the amendment really came from. I was actually surprised to think that it might have come from the Conservatives, but the amendment came from the NDP because it is not beyond that party to want to do a little more study instead of taking action.

Recommendation one would do exactly that: not bother with action, just waste financial and human resources and do another study or have a public inquiry. Maybe we could spend more money in a public inquiry than the $63 million that we spent compensating producers. The producers in B.C. are asking us to look at the Health of Animals Act to try to increase the compensation but the member wants to waste a little more money when three studies have already been done and one by the parliamentary committee itself.

Does the member think it will do any good? He quoted some of the stuff that happened. That is already known. It is in the report. However his attitude is that we should go out and hear it all again.

I outlined 10 points of action that the CFIA has taken to address the very concerns that the member is talking about. One of the members on this side of the House, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, has outlined the steps that CFIA and the government have taken in terms of already moving ahead with action on those recommendations from the committee.

Would action rather than more study and the waste of human and financial resources not make more sense than what he is proposing to do?

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree fully with the member's amendment because what it really deals with is action versus study and being responsible versus being irresponsible in going to a study that has already been studied three times.

Clearly there is justification for going with the member's amendment. I believe I outlined in my remarks 10 points where CFIA has already been moving forward with a number of recommendations from the three studies that have been done.

In his remarks, the member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River went through each of the good recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and he outlined in each of those recommendations where the CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or the Government of Canada is moving ahead on actions on those various points. That is taking action.

What the amendment is really doing, if people over yonder would listen to it instead of playing politics as they tend to do, is referring it back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to rethink this, to maybe just look at the action that is taking place; it is not preempting if it becomes necessary to call for another study down the road. But let us call in the CFIA, see what it is doing and make sure that it is acting on what it said it would act upon. That makes better sense.

I certainly agree with the member and his remarks. I wonder if he would agree that this is a good strategy: to take some time and see that we are taking action and not waste human and financial resources by doing another study.

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate a lot of the remarks made by the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, especially his comments that there needs to be response team personnel in place who need to be proactive. He laid out a number of needs.

If he would go back to the remarks I made earlier, he would see that all the needs he outlined have now been met. Why should there be another study to meet the needs that have already been met in terms of the action plan outlined by the CFIA? Another study would take human and financial resources away from doing what needs to be done. It would go over old history.

The member said that it is not an issue of playing politics when looking at the past. However, it is an issue of politics when one fails to recognize what has been done to rectify the mistakes of the past and one continues to talk about those things for which there is already an action plan to overcome. It is politics when a study is called for on an issue which has already been studied three times and one fails to recognize the action plan that has been put in place to address the points raised by those studies. That is playing politics.

As I said earlier in my remarks, this is a different Parliament. This is a Parliament in which the minority parties themselves have to accept some responsibility for the decisions made. The parties over there do not want to recognize what has been done. They want to continue to rehash old ground. They want to talk about all the bad things of the past even though recommendations have been put in place to overcome them. That is not being responsible on the part of minority parties. That is being irresponsible. It is costly to the Canadian public and the farm communities because of the financial and human resources that would be taken up by conducting another study on an issue which the parliamentary committee itself studied.

The member said that we did not have a management plan in place, that we took a long time and procrastinated. Let us put the facts on the table. A provincial lab said there was a problem on February 15. On February 16 it went to a federal lab. The virus was an H7 virus subtype and that was known on February 18. The flock was destroyed on February 19. That was under the old plan.

As a result of some of the complaints, new plans are now in place. Any suspicion will be acted on within 48 hours. The farm will be frozen down. A pre-emptive cull agreement is in place. That is the action plan that is in place. Let us at least put some of the facts on the table.

The member quoted from the report and went through the old history. My point is that the government and the agency have recognized those problems. I laid out 10 points earlier which address those problems. All I am saying is that this is a good report from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, but for heaven's sake, let us be responsible and not conduct another study. Let us review this in a year's time and make sure that the plan laid out by the CFIA has been followed through on. Let us not rehash the past, which the party opposite continually wants to do.

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite worked hard on this very good report. I know she was here for part of my earlier remarks when I outlined eight to ten points where the agency and the government have been very proactive in terms of acting quickly and creating an action plan on how to deal with some of the concerns that were expressed in all three studies that have already been done.

Recommendation No. 1 suggests doing another study which, there is no question about it, will draw away from human and financial resources, and rehash old ground, by going over the work that the parliamentary committee has already done. This would be repetitive and unnecessary work.

Does the member not feel that this recommendation in the report is really unnecessary? Would it not be better to let the other recommendations, plus the ones I mentioned earlier, be acted upon. Perhaps the committee could call the CFIA and the feather industry in a year's time to see how they are getting along in terms of those recommendations and if they are moving fast enough?

However, it is ridiculous to do another repetitive study, even by parliamentarians themselves. This would take human and financial resources and would repeat what has already been done,.

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I outlined earlier that the international markets have confidence in our product, that they in fact continued to take poultry and poultry products after we had avian influenza. They could have just as easily closed their markets, but they showed some confidence in our health and inspection systems. There was still good confidence within the domestic industry even as a result of all the bad publicity that came out from other countries as a result of avian influenza.

The member opposite wonders why we would be opposed to the second part of the recommendation. The second part of the recommendation says this:

To prevent the reoccurrence of outbreaks, the commission must review the effectiveness of the emergency preparedness and implementation strategies that were deployed in British Columbia, regarding zoonotic diseases.

My point to the member and the party opposite is that has already been done by three studies: one, the agency review; two, the lessons learned; and three, the standing committee itself held hearings in Abbotsford. The CFIA itself outlined 8 to 10 recommendations on which the agency is already moving.

All another inquiry would do is rehash what has already been rehashed and for which recommendations have already been made. All it would do is cost more money. All it would do is tie up agency personnel who should be acting on recommendations instead of shuffling paper around. The members over there want to do that for political reasons, and so they can talk about hockey sticks and curling stones instead of the good health of the Canadian industry and producer concerns.