Wayne Easter

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, when it comes to the decriminalization of marijuana, the member's comments are absolutely wrong.

The fact of the matter is that the current law is not working. It is not being enforced uniformally across the country. There is no question that the bill would decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. The member must recognize it would not legalize marijuana, but it would impose fines and penalties on people caught with small amounts of marijuana. In terms of that process, young people should recognize the fact that what they are doing is against the law. The fact they had to pay a fine or a penalty is proof of that. I realize they will not get a criminal record.

If people are caught with marijuana in downtown Toronto, they will get a slap on the wrist, but if they are caught in my community in North Wiltshire, P.E.I., they would probably have a criminal record which would affect them for life. That is not a uniform law across the country. We need to recognize that as the reality.

Moving to the second step in terms of marijuana grow operations and the courts, this is still open for debate. Is 15 grams too high? I personally believe it is. I think we should be down to five grams. Are the penalties strong enough? I think they are close. In terms of marijuana grow operations, it does not get us to what the member is asking regarding minimum sentencing, but it is getting pretty close.

The bill sets up a system where judges must justify why they are not imposing sentences as intended by this Parliament. This will lead to stronger sentences for marijuana grow operations. I do not favour minimum sentences, but so help me if judges do not start imposing the law as intended by this Parliament, then we will have to move. Some of us who are now opposed to minimum sentences would be willing to move to minimum sentences if judges in this country do not impose the penalties intended by this Parliament.

I see the so-called marijuana legislation as changing things substantially. First, clearly outlining through an education program that smoking marijuana is wrong. Second, it is against the law. Third, marijuana grow operations are a clear violation of the laws of this land. It is better outlined in legislation in terms of what those more serious sentences should be. At the end of the day we will be moving people away from smoking marijuana, and damper down and kill the scourge of marijuana grow operations which are much too prominent in this country right now.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the RCMP and law enforcement. I take special privilege, appreciation and pride for the period of time when I served as solicitor general responsible for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I had the opportunity to work with all levels of the force: the commissioner, senior management and the rank and file. While as solicitor general one does not get into specific operations as related to investigation and cases, the government through the minister is ultimately responsible for policing and the RCMP in the country.

I expect that it has been mentioned earlier in the debate, but I do want to review the fact that the RCMP is really unique in the world since it is a national, federal, provincial and municipal policing body in the country. We provide a total policing service to all Canadians and policing services under contract to 3 territories, 6 provinces, except Quebec and Ontario, and approximately 198 municipalities and, under 172 individual agreements, to 192 first nations communities.

I think all of us can say that when we go to an event and we see the red serge that the RCMP wears, we feel that pride in our hearts.

The RCMP is involved in five strategic priorities, the first one being organized crime and the second being terrorism. In both those areas I think we have made significant progress in recent years. We have set up the integrated border enforcement teams. I have had the opportunity to be at some of those sites. What an integrated border enforcement team really does is integrates the local police forces, both in the United States and Canada, and many of the other organizations that are involved in emergency response. As a result of that integration and really sitting down to develop some understanding between forces, which are often for the wrong reasons competitive with each other, we actually do a better job of policing.

I can say that of the ones that I have been able to visit, and after looking at our standards in Canada through the RCMP and the standards south of the border, we can actually see and feel the respect that there is for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in how they do their job. Their training comes through.

On the terrorism side specifically, we have set up the IBETs and the INSETs, the integrated national security enforcement teams, and they too are doing an exceptional job as they coordinate with all the departments that are involved, with other intelligence agencies across North America and, in some cases, beyond in terms of doing a good job of protecting not only Canada but our neighbour to the south as well.

In terms of working with the youth, which is a fairly major priority of the RCMP, the RCMP go out to schools, where they are so highly respected and trusted, and educate and try to prevent young people from becoming involved in crime. They try to gain some understanding in what this really means.

As well, now through the Department of Public Security, which was previously the solicitor general and the Department of Justice, we have set up the national crime prevention strategy which is also, in many instances, designed to work with youth, whether it is carjacking or whatever, in terms of working at the prevention level to prevent incidents of crime happening.

The RCMP is involved in the international policing perspective which involves the RCMP going elsewhere around the world, working with other police forces in local jurisdictions and in other areas and training them in the techniques and the kinds of policies that we use in this country that will assist them in doing better policing. I was talking to an officer on the weekend in my own community who will be going to Jordan to train the Iraqi police force in terms of doing better policing from their perspective.

As has been mentioned here a number of times this evening, the RCMP works extensively in the aboriginal community in terms of policing in that area. We have aboriginal police officers who understand the community, can work with the community and at the end of the day do a better job of preventing criminal activity from happening and, if necessary, enforce the laws of the land.

We may, if we like, question the laws established by Parliament or we may question the sentencing provisions as imposed by the judges and the courts but we absolutely cannot question the dedication and the efforts made by the rank and file of the RCMP or, in my view, the senior management in carrying out the policies and the laws as established by Parliament.

The area on which I want to take a moment to speak to, based on my experience and my time as solicitor general, is an area in which I believe we and especially the courts must do a better job. As solicitor general I made it my job to go out and visit as many detachments as I could. I do not have a lot of time so I will just mention one.

I can remember vividly a meeting with the detachment in Surrey, B.C. Members opposite raised the question earlier of marijuana grow operations. In the room that day when I met with the detachment in Surrey were probably 28 or 30 RCMP officers. I remember two officers vividly: one was probably 28 and the other was probably 29. One had been out of Depot a year and a half. They sat in the corner to my right and they were almost in tears talking about their concern in terms of taking down marijuana grow operations and the fact that before they were back to the office the next day, the people were out on the streets.

As the solicitor general I spoke out against this, although we are not supposed to criticize the judiciary, but the judiciary has to come to its senses in terms of exercising the full intent of the law in terms of marijuana grow operations. What those RCMP officers clearly told me when I met with them on site in the Surrey detachment was that they put their lives on the line and they see the devastation that marijuana grow operations cost. Anyone who visits Vancouver's east side can see that devastation personally, as a number of us in the House have. I would suggest maybe some of the judges should do that.

I want to come back to the two young RCMP officers who were basically asking me as solicitor general why they should put their lives on the line to take down a marijuana grow operation, which causes devastation, only to find out that before they get back to work the next day the suspects are out on the street.

What I am trying to express here on behalf of those RCMP officers who talked to me is that the courts, especially the judges in B.C., have to clearly enforce the intent of the law which is to penalize those people who are involved in marijuana grow operations to the full extent of the law.

On behalf of the RCMP officers who are trying to enforce the laws that Parliament adopts and puts in place, I would suggest to the judiciary that they take those laws seriously and, in terms of marijuana grow operations and the people who operate that criminal activity, that they enforce those laws to the full extent of the law as intended by Parliament and not on the lenient side.

We can at least do that for the RCMP officers who went into the occupation, who did the training and who want to exercise their responsibilities and activities for the benefit of all Canadians.

We are so fortunate in this country to have a police force like the RCMP and the RCMP make us all proud as Canadians of the work they do as law enforcement officers across this nation.

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are we not debating the amendment?

[Canada Labour Code, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, again let us look at some facts. Thank goodness the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was successful in terms of the most recent farm income program, a billion dollars to the industry. That is not to be sneezed at and that certainly is going out.

On the CAIS program, in terms of it not working, it should be said that some 88,600 producers received more than $1.2 billion in the first 15 months of the program. We know that is not solving all the problems. That is why we are doing other things and other reviews. It is why we have the farm income program in place.

The bottom line in terms of this debate tonight is about the CAIS deposit requirement. The minister has made it clear. He has moved the deposit requirement forward to March 31, 2006 so that we can deal with that problem. The Minister of Agriculture and the Government of Canada are clearly showing leadership on this issue in producers' interests.

[Canada Labour Code, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the member's family here tonight. I know the member is concerned about these issues but his facts are substantially wrong. I will try to explain it.

The fact is that federal, provincial and territorial governments have been working on the CAIS deposit requirement issue for quite some time. In the summer of 2004 consultations were held with the industry right across the country. Yes, as the member says, industry wanted a complete and immediate elimination of the CAIS deposit requirement.

On the farm, income hearings that I held in January, it was basically the same thing. Producers were saying that we should eliminate the CAIS deposit requirement.

However, agriculture is a joint jurisdiction between the federal, provincial and territorial governments and both levels of government are involved. In terms of making a change, the approval of eight of the provinces is required. The federal government cannot do it unilaterally on its own.

If we were to move unilaterally on our own, the opposition would be standing up criticizing the government for having done that. However we have done the best that we could do. Certainly through the budget the Minister of Finance has outlined our intent.

Provincial and territorial ministers have expressed their agreement with two core principles of the CAIS deposit requirement, which is also an important part: that producers share in the cost of management of business risk under CAIS, and that an alternative to the deposit requirement that satisfies those core principles must be developed to replace the current deposit requirement.

The Minister of Agriculture has therefore tasked government officials to work with industry to develop alternatives to the deposit based on the two principles. Ministers have also agreed that the alternative must be ready for implementation for the 2006 CAIS program year.

The budget announcement made it clear that the federal government agrees with Canadian farmers, in that producers should not be required to put funds on deposit annually in order to be eligible for the CAIS program. The budget made the point that the federal government is committed to working with its provincial partners and with industry to find a better means of effectively engaging producers in the joint management of business risk under CAIS.

The Minister of Agriculture and his provincial and territorial colleagues were well aware that the March 31, 2005 deadline for deposits was quickly approaching. On March 23, the federal and provincial governments announced interim measures for CAIS, while governments worked toward an alternative for the deposit. Those interim measures included: extending the deposit deadline for the 2003, 2004 and 2005 program years to March 2006; and allowing producers who had more than their required one-third deposit in their CAIS accounts to withdraw those excess funds.

Clearly, we are showing that we are moving toward eliminating that deposit and finding other alternatives to doing it. Alternatives to the deposit requirement will be presented to the federal, provincial and territorial ministers at their annual meeting in July.

The bottom line is that we want to move ahead and do it and the hon. member should know that and recognize it.

[Message from the Senate, March 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I think the member knows that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food were in western Canada last week and talking to producers about the very concerns that the member has raised. The Prime Minister has made it clear as well as the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that we will stand with producers in their time of need. Those issues have certainly been looked at.

However, let us look at a couple of facts specifically on BSE. There has been a BSE repositioning in the livestock industry in September 2004 in the amount of $488 million from the federal government; $995 million in March 2004 for the transitional industry support program; and in June 2003, there was $475 million for the cull animal program. Two weeks ago on March 10 the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced an additional $50 million to help aggressively market beef products around the world.

Therefore, we are standing with the producers and we will continue to do so to support them in their time of need.

[Message from the Senate, March 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Souris--Moose Mountain for his question because I know that he is deeply concerned about this issue as we are. Certainly, all of us in the House were disappointed on the decision that was made relative to the March 7 border opening because based on science that border should have been opened.

However, I want to put the issue into perspective. First, the hon. member said that the USDA failed to provide the specific basis and why Canada was not there. The fact of the matter is that the Canadian government did ask to present an amicus brief which would have outlined the scientific details of what we are doing relative to BSE in this country. If the judge would have heard that, then he could have made a decision on the facts, but the judge refused to allow Canada to present that amicus brief.

I think it is important that I outline a few other specific points. First, the Government of Canada's approach has achieved some very considerable results, but not all that we wanted. We would have preferred the border to be opened totally on March 7.

The fact of the matter is that the interventions with President Bush and other American officials made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and others have resulted in the border being reopened for boneless beef from animals under 30 months of age in August 2003.

That is the first time that ever happened to a country that had BSE. In fact, our exports of beef products, not cattle, to the United States are over 300,000 tonnes and that is at levels above in terms of the beef side prior to the BSE issue.

President Bush, as the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has said in the House a number of times, and Secretary Johanns have repeatedly expressed their commitment to further opening the border as soon as possible based on science. It is disappointing that a U.S. district court judge in Montana has managed to keep the border closed by taking the presentation made by R-CALF and preventing us from getting products in based on science.

We believe there were compelling reasons for the court to allow us to participate in an amicus brief in order to shed light on a number of factual issues raised in the litigation, but we were refused from doing so. However, we are pleased to note that the USDA is now appealing the March 2 preliminary injunction.

The Government of Canada intends to seek permission to file an amicus brief with the appellate court that would allow us to set out the facts about Canada's system for protecting human and animal health and food safety. We believe, if given that opportunity to raise the facts with the court, that the judge, if he is fair at all in terms of addressing the issue, would in fact allow the U.S. law to proceed. This would allow Canadian beef under 30 months into the United States and we would work on the other issues following that date.

[Easter Seals Campaign, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward Islanders have a long and proud history of generosity and when the need arises Islanders are prepared to contribute. Last Monday night was a good example. During the three-hour Easter Seals telethon, $132,000 was pledged.

I want to pay a special tribute to this year's Easter Seals ambassador, 12 year old Carolyn Gallant, and to the students and staff of her school, Ecole François-Buote, which raised $1,200. A lighthearted moment occurred when an autographed golf ball and hat donated by former prime minister Jean Chrétien were auctioned off for $720.

The Easter Seals Society of P.E.I. has a proud history of raising funds to assist young people with disabilities. Easter Seals Ambassador Gallant will continue to tour Island schools until Easter.

On behalf of all members I want to express my thanks to all those who have contributed their time and money to make this year's Easter Seals campaign a success.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a lot of positive comments in terms of the need to work together. However, members of his party seem to go on at great lengths claiming that we voted against doing away with the CAIS deposit on this side of the House. We voted against the motion that was brought forward by the opposition party. It did not seem to realize the reality that this was a federal-provincial agreement and under our Constitution, we did not have the authority to drop the CAIS deposit ourselves.

It is something that we talked about within the government. The Minister of Finance came forward with the budget. The minister has been talking to the provinces to try to move in that direction. That is the reality. It was not voting against producers. In my hearings with producers, they have said we should drop the CAIS deposit. The minister has taken the initiative. The Minister of Finance has put it in his budget, and it has been brought forward. However, it has to be done in a negotiated way with a federal-provincial agreement. I just wish members opposite would recognize that because we do want to move forward on it in a coordinated way with the provinces.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and indeed for her concern. I have spent a lot of time in Saskatchewan myself over the years. I agree that it seems to be one thing after another, the August 23 frost, the border closure, and low grain prices.

In terms of government programming, CAIS is not the only government program. There is crop insurance, PFRA, interim cash advances, spring and fall cash advances, and the Canadian Wheat Board that maximizes the returns that are in the marketplace back to primary producers.There is the supply management system in some industries. There is a gamut of programs that are designed to assist producers. There has been some of the ad hoc funding that the minister mentioned earlier in terms of the BSE crisis.

There were a lot of things in my farm income hearings across the country that were certainly stated clearly. One of them was the lack of market power that producers have in the marketplace.

I want to quote a rural sociologist, William Heffernan. He summarized from his point of view what is becoming all too evident to a number of primary producers. He said, “Economic power, not efficiency predicts survival in the system”.

I raise it because Canadian farmers are among the most efficient and most productive in the world. Yet, as a result of all our productivity, their efficiencies have been drained off by someone somewhere. They are not receiving their cost of production and return on labour investment even though they are efficient and productive. Why? Is it because they do not have that economic power?

I think this statement is realistic. We must find ways together to ensure that they do have more power in the marketplace and they get a fair share of that consumer and export dollar.

I raise that challenge with opposition members. Let us work together in terms of trying to achieve ways and means for farmers, for primary producers who are efficient and productive in this country, the backbone of the economy in rural Canada, to receive a fair return on labour investment. How do we find ways to give them some of that market power so that they can get that share of consumer and export dollars?