Wayne Easter

[Fisheries, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, safety is a primary concern to the Canadian coast guard.

The initiative my hon. colleague talks about is about saving lives. Current research indicates that many people when they are in the water and boating do not wear PFDs because of their bulkiness. The new devices will differ from current devices in that they are lighter and more comfortable to wear and it is assumed people will use them.

[Division No. 96, March 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I wonder where this member has been for the last while. On February 23 I answered this very same question for the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

In any event the resignation of Mr. Yves Fortier as Canada's chief negotiator in Pacific salmon is a matter that we on this side admit is of great regret.

Since 1993 he has worked tirelessly to achieve an agreement with the United States to implement fully the provisions of the Pacific salmon treaty. His negotiating skills, as the member has mentioned and I agree with him on this point, and his dedication to the task have earned him admiration and the respect of ministers, government officials and, most important, Canadian fishermen.

Given the high regard in which Mr. Fortier is held, he is being done a disservice by those who have attempted to use out of context excerpts from his letter of resignation and put a negative spin on his views.

Mr. Fortier's letter to Ministers Axworthy and Anderson describes his experience as chief negotiator over the past five years. He assesses the current situation and he provides advice on the direction we should go. All Canadians share his frustrations on this point.

Mr. Fortier explains why an agreement was not attainable. Primarily it was the reluctance of the United States federal administration to insist that the United States regional interests honour obligations toward Canada under the treaty. This point comes as no surprise to anyone who has followed this file over the past five years.

Mr. Fortier's letter cautions that meaningful change in the United States negotiating position is unlikely. This remains to be seen, but no Canadian is under the illusion that we cannot achieve a negotiated—

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, transfer payments and equalization account for 40% of the budgets of the Atlantic provinces. That is pretty good.

Not only has the member a selective memory, but he is also subject to illusion when he talks about the Nova Scotia election.

I have a simple question. The budget the member talks about in terms of reductions was in fact the 1995 budget. We felt we had to make choices. We did not cut as deep as some wanted us to. We had to make the choices to get to where we are today. My question is quite simple for his selective memory.

Does the member support his leader and the member for Saint John when they voted with Reform in the 1995 budget against the budget because it did not cut far enough? That is where his party leader stood. Does he support that position?

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question.

I am not surprised at the political rhetoric of the member for Kings—Hants. We know there is an ongoing election in Nova Scotia. He tried to almost belittle the current premier of Nova Scotia for supposedly not having spoken out on the budget.

Let me tell the hon. member that I was very proud to sit in the last caucus with Russell MacLellan as a member from the province of Nova Scotia. If anyone stood up for Atlantic Canada, Russell MacLellan did. We as a government had to make hard decisions left to us because of the legacy of the former Mulroney Tory government. As the Minister of Finance said the other day, we took over a $42 billion deficit and we have managed to bring it down to what it is today.

Let me say again that Russell MacLellan as a member fought hard in terms of trying to retain an employment insurance program which would be of benefit to the people of Cape Breton and throughout Nova Scotia.

I think the member has to look at the progress which we have made. For heaven's sake, he must admit that we got rid of the 3% surtax which the former Tory government implemented to deal with the deficit but did not. Can he not see that this budget is—

[Business Of The House, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by some of the comments of the member opposite. He should know full well that the government is standing behind B.C. fishermen in their quest for a settlement. However I am little surprised by the slant he is taking in terms of being very selective in the points he picked out of Mr. Fortier's letter.

Read in its entirety, however, the letter is a clear description of the history of the Pacific salmon dispute and what needs to be done in the future.

Throughout the letter Mr. Fortier's sense of dedication and commitment shine through. After five years as chief negotiator on this difficult issue, it is not surprising that he expresses frustration with past experiences. Unfortunately those statements have been taken out of context. It is important to quote some of the other statements made in Mr. Fortier's letter.

He describes Canada's position in past negotiations as “clear and forceful yet flexible and fair” and Canadian demands as “valid, justified, reasonable and practicable”. He describes how Canada only agreed to a stakeholder process after negotiating a formal framework which required a commitment by the United States to resolve through government to government negotiations all issues left unresolved by stakeholders.

Mr. Fortier refers to this as “another significant victory for Canada, one that afforded us certain opportunities”. It is those opportunities that the Government of Canada now hopes to capitalize on.

Mr. Fortier describes the Ruckelshaus-Strangway report as “the most recent positive development for Canada”. He states that we have made progress and the government has been provided the tools with which to achieve the benefits that are its due under the treaty.

Finally it should be pointed out that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are now leading consultations aimed at developing an effective negotiating process. The Government of Canada intends to stand behind B.C. fisherman and ensure that there is a negotiated settlement to this process.

[Harold Godfrey, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today to inform the House of the passing of a truly great Canadian.

On February 11, 1998 Harold Godfrey of Cornwall, P.E.I. passed away. Mr. Godfrey was a leader within the farming community and Canada as a whole.

Harold started farming at the early age of 14. He and his son Donald have a beef and potato farming operation with a cow-calf operation specializing in purebred Simmental cattle.

Harold Godfrey was a strong and active supporter of farm organizations. He served as president of the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture, a director of the CFA and many other maritime organizations, including the P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board.

In addition to these roles, Mr. Godfrey served as a member of the Atlantic Veterinary College Advisory Board. In 1989 his lifelong contribution to agriculture was recognized when he was appointed to the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.

Harold was an active member of his community and his church. We thank Harold for his life's work.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a proposal by the opposition members that they split their time 10 minutes a piece. It is not the government that did that.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Read this report.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to get up on a point of order and I might even have been out of order.

I do seriously believe that the allegation the member made is very serious and very wrong. I believe his heart is certainly in the right place in terms of fighting for farmers in the farm community, and I think he sees some good points in the Canadian Wheat Board as well. Probably he is not as in favour of it as I am, but he knows there are some very good points.

To accuse the Government of Canada of asking the Farm Credit Corporation, a crown corporation which operates with its own mandate, to push a farmer against the wall financially is a wrong allegation. I would ask the member if he has information to back up that allegation to table it. He is seriously wrong on that point.

The member raised the issue of salaries. The Canadian Wheat Board is a major $6 billion operation. It maximizes returns to producers. It is the paramount selling agency for producers around the world. It is a model which we should be emulating in other industries. I would ask the member what he sees as a legitimate level for administration expenses, including the salaries of board members.

The fact of the matter is that in 1995-96 in the pool accounts the administration expenses of the Canadian Wheat Board on $5.8 billion worth of sales were only .7%. That is a very efficiently run operation. To pull out figures like he is doing is absolutely going with the kind of rhetoric which Reform tends to go with.

What level does the member see as being efficient?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a quite an allegation when the member claims that the government asks FCC to send a bill—