Wayne Easter

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the word “double-talk” is allowed in the House. However, since the member used it, let me be very clear that there is no double-talk on this side of the House. The double-talk is coming from that side of the House. We just had an example of it. That member has stood up as if the federal government on its own can do away with the CAIS deposit. The member knows, or if he does not know he should, that it cannot. It is by federal provincial agreement.

Why did the government vote against the motion? Because the Conservative motion was one of misrepresentation of the facts. The government does not have the authority on its own to do away with the CAIS deposit.

However, we have made a commitment in the budget, which I outlined earlier in my remarks. We will move to do away with the CAIS deposit. We will be in discussions with the provinces to do that. The member has the government's commitment. That is what farmers asked for and that is what we are committed to do. We have seen a lot of smoke and mirrors from over there.

The member talked about money going to Newfoundland and Labrador or to Atlantic Canada. If the member had listened to my remarks, he would have heard that the largest commitment ever in the history of Canada to the primary producers came from the federal government; $4.8 billion in 2003. It is probably $4.9 billion in 2004. That is the kind of commitment the government has given. The problem and the reality is, although the other side does not want to admit it, the marketplace is not working for producers. We have to try to work together to change that, and we will.

For heavens sake, do not say we are not committed. The biggest financial commitment ever made to the farming community was by this government.

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the debate. I have been here since 1993 and this has been one of the best budgets we have seen in Canada. It is as a result of the hard decisions we made in the 1995 budget by the current Prime Minister, then minister of finance.

The budget has demonstrated the commitments that were made during the last federal election. On the weekend the Prime Minister's key line was “promises made, promises kept”, and that is absolutely evident. It can be seen at every stage in the budget. The budget builds on a long record of success, in the long history of the government having to make tough and at times difficult decisions to get the financial conditions of the country in order.

Over the years we have achieved that, and we have been able to begin the reinvestment so critically necessary in the areas of health care, infrastructure, the farming community devastated by the closure of the U.S. borders and other endeavours.

The federal budget goes further in fulfilling commitments in key areas, and I will name a few.

We have committed a $12 billion investment in national defence over the next five years, a support that is critical to the modernization of our armed forces. There will be a $3.4 billion investment over the next five years in international assistance, a hallmark of Canada's role in the world and something we are well recognized for around the world.

As promised, the federal government will contribute $5 billion to early child care and learning initiatives. To assist our seniors, we have committed to providing an additional $2.7 billion through the guaranteed income supplement for low income seniors. For Prince Edward Island, that is an especially important endeavour because we have such a high proportion of seniors in our province. They actually move back when they turn 55 or so because Prince Edward Island is a little paradise within Canada.

For the low and middle income earning Canadians, we are providing direct tax relief by increasing the amount of income which can be earned before federal taxes are applied to $10,000 annually. This will ensure that 860,000 Canadians are removed from the tax rolls.

For Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada, there are some direct benefits in the budget. The budget marks once again the efforts of the federal government to meet the recommendations of the report of the Liberal Atlantic caucus report called “Rising Tides” by bringing forward a $700 million investment for economic development, which includes an additional $300 million in the Atlantic investment fund. That fund has proven to be successful in creating business and economic spin-offs to those businesses. Within the $700 million, an allocation of close to $290 million will support a new innovative community program to assist in the diversification of vulnerable communities to strengthen human capital, trade and tourism.

There will be an increase toward the wind energy initiative of $200 million over the next five years. That is being futuristic in terms of lessening our dependence on fossil fuels and using some of those alternative energy capacities out there.

In terms of fisheries, the budget has announced the commitment of a total of $276 million for the Coast Guard to procure, operate and maintain six new patrol vessels. There will be a $15 million infusion into efforts to address the problem of overfishing in the NAFO area off our east coast. Overfishing in the Atlantic fishery has been a concern for years. The government is acting on that concern and moving forward with the necessary moneys to deal with it.

There will be a one time investment of $30 million to establish an Atlantic salmon endowment fund to assist in improving the sustainability of the salmon stock. That has been another long term request in moving forward and strengthening the salmon industry within our province.

I neglected to mention in the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Centre.

Another important area in the budget is the changes which will be brought forward in employment insurance, changes that tremendously will assist my region and all rural areas in Canada.

I want to turn for a moment to the area of farming and rural Canada. There is no question that primary producers have faced tremendous financial difficulty over the last number of years. However, I want to point out a couple of positive statistics, and that is how valuable the farming sector is to our country and the fact that it is one of the economic backbones of Canada in our production potential as a nation.

The agriculture and agrifood sector provides one in eight jobs in Canada. It accounts for 8.2% of our GDP. Agriculture and agrifood exports have increased from approximately $10 billion in 1990 to approximately $26 billion in 2002. In other words, farmers are not only creating economy within Canada, they are attracting foreign exchange back to the country because they have increased their exports, which governments have asked them to do. The sad part and the reality is the marketplace itself is not returning to those primary producers a fair return on their labour and investment. We have set up a consultation to target and focus on the farm income problem from the market itself.

Canada currently, our producers, is the fourth largest exporter of agriculture and agrifood products after the United States, the EU and Brazil. Sadly, farm debt has almost doubled between 1994 and 2003, going from $24.4 billion to $47.6 billion. The farm income data tells us a sad story as well. In 1997 dollars, farm income has declined from over $3 billion annually in 1989 to below zero in 2003. That is the reality and we recognize it. However, I have to underline that this is the return to producers from the marketplace itself without government payments included. As a result, the government has stood with farmers in their time of need. In the BSE situation, when the Americans unnecessarily closed the border as a result of BSE, we stood there with producers and we paid out moneys to assist them in their time of need. We will continue to do so as we look at the problem down the road.

Direct farm support to farmers in 2003 is an estimated $4.8 billion. Sadly, that accounted for almost all the total cash farm income received by farmers. The marketplace has not responded with the kind of returns that producers need so much. As recently as 2000, 73% of total average farm family income came from sources off the farm. I am raising that point to say specifically that farmers are doing their part to stay on the land and to force the issue.

I would have liked to get into some of the measures in the budget but my time is almost up. However, let me point this out because it is something I heard in my farm consultations consistently. Farmers want the CAIS deposit dropped. In the budget, the Minister of Finance clearly stated the position of the government. The federal government agrees with Canada's farmers that producers should not be required to put funds on deposit annually in order to be eligible for CAIS. That is a clear commitment by the federal government. We have to negotiate that with the province to ensure that farmers do not have to pay out a deposit before the CAIS program kicks in.

I would ask members to turn to the budget plan 2005 and they will see the kinds of measures we are taking to assist the farm community in their time of need. We will continue to stand with them in their time of need. We will do everything we can to try to push up prices from the marketplace and have the safety net program in place that meets their needs

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-273 which is a private member's bill that is basically similar to one that I had proposed in the last Parliament. After consultations and the approval of all parties in the House, this legislation has been very much improved.

I congratulate the member for Cape Breton--Canso, the member for Lethbridge, and the member for Sackville--Eastern Shore for their efforts in terms of improving this bill. These amendments have modernized this bill by ensuring that the level of compensation through the deductions permitted is increased to a more appropriate level.

The purpose of the bill is to provide some direct financial compensation for those who have made a commitment to sacrifice their time away from their families and their businesses to assist others in their communities in an emergency.

The provisions in Bill C-273 are about ensuring equity through the extension of tax benefits for those in a large number of rural communities who volunteer their time as firefighters or other emergency services and receive no honorarium for the time they have committed to those services or for the risks they have taken.

Currently, the federal government will provide, through the tax system, a benefit to volunteer firefighters or other emergency volunteers on the basis of an honorarium received; however, those who receive no such benefit or no such honorarium are not given that recognition through the tax system.

In fact, previously, when the current measure, that is given to those who have an honorarium, was brought in by the now Prime Minister and former minister of finance, many of us were under the belief that it would apply to all firefighters and emergency workers whether or not they received an honorarium, but that was not the case. This bill is designed to remedy that inequity. It is extremely important that this inequity is in fact straightened out.

Bill C-273 would amend the Income Tax Act to ensure that volunteer emergency firefighters and workers are able to deduct from their taxable income up to $1,000 for 100 hours of service and $2,000 for 200 hours of service. The intent of the legislation is to begin by ensuring a level of equity with all those who provide emergency volunteer services with a view to improving the system in the future.

There are some who would argue that this should apply to all volunteers, whether it is a Boy Scout leader or some other situation. The reason this bill does not go that far is because those volunteer emergency workers and firefighters are on call at the buzz of a beeper. They cannot organize their time around a family event or around their work. These individuals, who are involved as emergency firefighters, carry a beeper on them 24 hours a day. When the call comes, they go. They do their work to ensure that they assist their communities to put out a fire, assist in terms of an accident, or whatever.

Beyond that, they have training that they must go to, which they can schedule and it is not at the drop of a hat. They have equipment to purchase and it is a substantial financial burden to those individuals. This measure would certainly recognize them for those efforts and give them some assistance in terms of their taxes in order not to draw on the incomes of families as a result of the efforts they are making for their communities.

There is no question that the Department of Finance is concerned about the process by which tax measures such as this are addressed. It is being debated in the House. The department does not dispute the merits of what is contained in this bill or the merits of other private members' legislation that are concerned about this process. According to the Department of Finance, the proper procedure for tax changes to be made is in the budget.

I explained a moment ago that we thought we had this measure in the 1996-97 budget, somewhere along there. Somehow someone within the Department of Finance changed it, so that it only applied to volunteers with honorariums.

I come from a rural area and we consider volunteers to be real volunteers. Those people do the same kind of work as others who receive an honorarium. The only difference is that they do it at greater costs to themselves personally.

I would say to the Department of Finance that, yes, we are in this process in this House now because the Department of Finance failed to address the measure when we asked it to previously. We have all party support. The House of Commons is basically demanding that this goes through. We are demanding that the Department of Finance recognize that this is a serious matter. It is serious to volunteer firefighters. It needs to be addressed by the Department of Finance in a way that those people have that tax benefit as well. If there were a commitment by the Department of Finance to accept the provisions of the legislation as proposed, we would not have to go this route today.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food with responsibilities for Rural Development, I strongly support this effort. Those who volunteer are on 24 hour notice. They are committed to leaving family and business to assist neighbours in trouble and they are prepared to take risks in doing so.

I have had some personal experience with firefighters. It is almost 20 years ago that I had a major fire. There were three volunteer fire departments at the fire. Most of those people were farmers or small businessmen. At the drop of a hat, they had to leave on a nice spring morning, when they were trying to get a crop in the ground the same as I was, and some of them spent 30 hours on site. There were three volunteer fire departments dealing with what was for me personally a major fire.

They drew away from their business and their time to assist me and my family in terms of our difficulties. They do it quite often to assist others in the communities in terms of the tragedies that often occur. They absolutely deserve to be recognized for their efforts. They also need the tax measures to assist them in terms of the extreme costs that some of them face in terms of their efforts as voluntary firefighters.

Bill C-273 has received unanimous support in the House. Members supported amending the bill on the floor of this chamber to ensure that voluntary firefighters will be able to have their service recognized. We have expanded the number of hours from 50 to 100 hours and from 100 to 200 hours, and have replaced the amount of $500 with $1,000 and the amount of $1,000 with $2,000.

One of the most critical components of rural communities is the volunteerism which supports some of the most important activities vital to community life. It is incumbent upon politicians of all political parties to look carefully at measures which can assist those residing in rural communities, to be able to provide the necessary services similar to the level of service which urban communities take for granted.

This bill meets that commitment. I appeal to all in the House and I especially appeal to the Department of Finance to take the direction from this House in ensuring that what is proposed in Bill C-273 becomes the law of the land, so that those volunteer emergency workers and volunteer firefighters are treated with recognition, honour, and respect, and that they be given the benefits in the tax system that they are absolutely entitled to.

[Huntley Dingwell, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the passing of Mr. Huntley Dingwell of New Glasgow, P.E.I.

Huntley defined what being a citizen of a community means, being active in business as well as the volunteer sector. Many will recall his dedication to his work with the New Glasgow Fire Department.

Huntley held the positions of deputy fire chief as well as treasurer. In recognition of his service, the New Glasgow Fire Department made him an honorary deputy fire chief in 1987 and honoured him for 50 years of service in 1999.

Key among his many awards are the Certificate of Merit from the Government of Canada and the Prince Edward Island Firefighters long service medal.

Huntley was an active member of the New Glasgow United Church, as well as a longstanding member of the Prince of Wales Masonic Lodge where he held an outstanding record of 35 years of perfect attendance. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, 35 years of perfect attendance.

On behalf of all members, I extend my condolences to Huntley's wife, Giena, and daughter, Heather.

[Alzheimer's Disease, February 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I can only shake my head. The member knows full well that when it comes to BSE, when we look at some of the other countries around the world that had BSE, they never moved into markets nearly as fast as Canada has moved into markets. It is as a result of the hard work of the minister, the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, backbenchers on this side of the House and indeed some members on the other side of the House who worked strenuously to get that border open.

This is what I cannot understand about members on that side. Instead of talking about what the reality is in terms of what we are doing and trying to keep the focus on getting the border open, they continue to get into this rhetoric of trying to make the situation look worse than it is. The fact is we do have a timeline in place now for the reopening of the border. That underscores the reasons we have undertaken the kind of cooperative approach that we have as the Government of Canada, including the Prime Minister's relationship with President Bush.

We are making progress. On this side of the House we are proud of that process and we will continue to keep the pressure on.

[Alzheimer's Disease, February 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I certainly am pleased to respond on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The member's question was when the border would open, but regarding the member's remarks in terms of strategy and plans, the member knows full well that we have had a strategy and a plan in place for a long time. We have worked aggressively in terms of getting the U.S. border open. In fact we are the only country, the first country which had BSE that moved back into a market. That is a first in the world. It shows the forward planning of the Government of Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in terms of our traceability, our identification system, and our good system of record keeping so that when we get into the science and making science based decisions, we have the evidence and we can move ahead.

In terms of strategy, the member knew when he previously asked the question that the minister made an announcement on September 10 which looked at six basic points. One of the key ones was that we needed to work with the industry to increase our slaughter capacity within this country. We are seeing some movement in that direction now.

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of the U.S. market to Canadian producers. In fact the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food along with a number of his provincial counterparts and the industry went down to the U.S. capital last week. They made representations again not only on behalf of the cattle and beef sectors but also on behalf of all exporters of animal and meat affected by the border closure, including sheep, goat, bison, elk and the other ruminant industries. It is important to mention that.

I want to emphasize that Canada became the first country affected by BSE to regain access to the United States market. As a result of forward planning and forward looking by the Government of Canada, that partial reopening of the border meant that Canada exported over 300,000 tonnes of beef to the United States in 2004.

As the member knows full well, the Prime Minister got a commitment from President Bush on several occasions to reopen the border as soon as possible. That is extremely important with the process we are involved in now. That commitment bore fruit when the United States department of agriculture published the U.S. BSE minimal risk rule in the Federal Register on January 4. The hon. member must be aware that this rule is scheduled to take effect on March 7 this year.

When implemented the final rule will provide access to the United States for a range of live animals in beef and ruminant products. In particular the rule will once again allow for the importation into the United States of live cattle under 30 months of age for slaughter. That represents significant progress.

The Government of Canada will continue to work closely with the United States to see that the border is opened fully.

[Alzheimer's Disease, February 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of my colleague, the member for Thornhill, in terms of the motion to develop a national strategy on Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. I also want to congratulate the member for pushing the issue in the House. We can see by some of the debate tonight that there is very strong support for pushing ahead and calling on the Minister of Health and the cabinet to move forward with a national strategy on Alzheimer's.

As mentioned by the member for Thornhill earlier, a report released in 2004 by the National Advisory Council on Aging called for the development of such a strategy involving not only the provinces but all stakeholders involved in addressing this serious issue.

The report put forward some 28 recommendations and a couple of key recommendations relate to my own province of Prince Edward Island. I want to go to that report for a moment because this is one of the key recommendations in the report.

The report recommended that the federal government ensure that the catastrophic drug coverage plan include coverage of people with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. According to the report, P.E.I. is one of four provinces where “Medications approved by Health Canada to treat Alzheimer's disease are not available”. The other provinces are British Columbia, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

It is essential that, as advances are made in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and effective medications are approved by the federal government, all provinces make these medications available through their drug benefit plans. We have experienced that before in my province of Prince Edward Island with other drugs that are covered by other provinces. It really puts the citizens in that province at an even worse disadvantage.

It further recommended that the federal government collaborate with provincial and territorial governments through the common drug review to make approved medications for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias accessible to all Canadians in all provinces by ensuring these drugs are part of provincial drug formularies and that the criteria to assess them are appropriate and consistent, meaning from hospitals, long term care institutions and home care, et cetera. That is a strong recommendation that leadership in my own province needs to take into consideration.

The other recommendation, on a more positive note as it relates to Prince Edward Island, is that the federal and provincial governments work to establish a common national definition of a set of home care services and that those services be fully insured under the Canada Health Act.

One of the areas where we are making progress in Prince Edward Island on Alzheimer's is with the Alzheimer's Society of Prince Edward Island. It is a leader, not only nationally but internationally, in the area of elder care medication. This is a pioneering and innovative program designed in Prince Edward Island and provided to families with Alzheimer's victims free of charge which, through the assistance of a mediator for the family, assists families through the difficult experience of caring for a member of the family suffering from Alzheimer's. This is the kind of initiative that we believe should be incorporated within a national strategy.

I congratulate the Alzheimer's Society of Prince Edward Island for that move because it is an appropriate move. As was mentioned by numerous speakers here tonight, the difficulty with Alzheimer's disease is not only for the individual with the disease, but the stress and the effects on the family as well.

To conclude, the member for Thornhill spoke of her personal experience when the disease hit close to home. Others have spoken about that here tonight as well. I am fully supportive of the endeavour and encourage all members to support the member in developing and pushing for this national strategy.

[Agriculture, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I really cannot understand where that member is coming from.

A delegation, with a member from that party, went to Washington to talk to United States congressmen and senators, as well as the secretary of agriculture, Mr. Johanns. It was a successful mission.

They met with a lot of congressmen and senators to keep the pressure on. In fact, Secretary Johanns is committed to the March 7 opening for live animals under 30 months, and that is progress.

[Tobacco Farming, February 11th, 2005]

Again, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada takes into account the interests of all producers in the country, including those in the province of Quebec as well as those in Ontario. The bottom line at the end of the day is that we want to do the right thing for producers in terms of protecting their interests into the future for their efforts they have put into that industry.

[Tobacco Farming, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is not very hard to explain. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in discussions and through the department with industry, wants to do the right thing by producers and that is what we are trying to do: to continue to hold those kinds of discussions and at the end of the day meet our obligations and protect the needs of producers.