Wayne Easter

[Canadian Volunteer Advisers To Business, October 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the special achievements of some of my constituents in the riding of Malpeque.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Gordon and Mrs. Antje MacEachern who spent 13 weeks in Lodge, Guyana at the Convalescent Home for Children, an institute operated by the Red Cross Society. As members of the Canadian Volunteer Advisers to Business, the MacEacherns worked to improve the living standards with others in developing nations.

In Lodge, Guyana Mrs. MacEachern set up a system and trained staff in early childhood development which proved to be a great success. Through lectures, hands-on training, role playing and video feedback, Mrs. MacEachern helped provide an enjoyable setting for children and staff.

I would like to congratulate the MacEacherns for their work and dedication to improving our world one step at a time.

[Petitions, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition that has been signed by over 1,500 individuals from across Canada.

The petition was initiated to confront the problem with snowmobile safety, the cause of many winter deaths.

The petitioners would like to see the establishment of a national snowmobile safe association that would deal with the issues of licences, registration, insurance, driving age, speed limits and regulations pertaining to the design of snowmobiles.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

They voted on the wheat board advisory. They were 100% in favour.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

100% in Ontario.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-4, the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

In essence this bill is a further refinement of the previous Bill C-72 of the last Parliament on which the agriculture committee held extensive hearings across the Canadian Wheat Board area. This new bill encompasses much of what we heard from the farm community during those hearings and tries to establish a balance between the various views within the farm community.

I hold strong views on the Canadian Wheat Board and personally maintain that commissioners appointed for their expertise and marketing still makes a lot of sense but I am, based on views put forward by the farm community during those hearings, willing to accept the approach of the board of directors and the kind of flexibility that Bill C-4 encompasses.

I would express to those strong Canadian Wheat Board supporters that they will have to be extremely vigilant in the election process because big money from the merchants of grain with allies like we have just heard from the Reform Party is really out to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board over time.

I suggest that those strong supporters of the wheat board be very vigilant in terms of seeing that people are elected to that board who are pro-wheat board supporters, as we have shown can happen through the Canadian Wheat Board advisory process through which the majority of pro-board supporters were elected.

The Canadian Wheat Board has shown itself to be a model, an institution second to none in marketing intelligence and ability through its operating structure to maximize returns back to primary producers.

The three pillars of single desk selling, pooling of returns and government guarantees are essential for the Canadian Wheat Board to maximize those returns back to primary producers. Those pillars remain under this legislation.

The role of the Canadian Wheat Board is to sell western Canadian wheat and barley in the international marketplace at the very best possible price. All proceeds from sales less the marketing costs are then passed back to farmers.

With annual revenues of more than $5.8 billion, the Canadian Wheat Board is one of the country's largest exporters and one of the world's largest grain trading organizations. That is very different from the private grain companies that often work on exploitation of primary producers, the kind of system that Reform members opposite seem to support. The wheat board works on farmers' behalf.

Since its founding in 1935, the Canadian Wheat Board has been able to return premiums to farmers through pooling and single desk selling. Its status as a single desk seller of western Canadian wheat and barley exports has given strength and market power to prairie farmers.

Today instead of competing against one another, Canada's 110,000 wheat and barley farmers sell as one and can therefore command a higher price for their product.

Single desk selling also enables the Canadian Wheat Board to take a unique approach to market development. It is both product and consumer oriented in nature, resulting in long term relationships and a better consumer understanding of Canadian grain. Longer term marketing relationships are to the benefit of farmers and all of Canada.

Through the Canadian Wheat Board all sales are deposited in one of four pool accounts, wheat, durum wheat, feed barley or designated barley. This ensures that all farmers benefit equally regardless of when their grain is sold during the crop year. The system of initial in term adjustments and final payment has worked well.

Even that will be improved in this legislation and the government will continue to guarantee the initial price. As well, the government continues to guarantee the Canadian Wheat Board's borrowings. This allows the CWB to finance its operations at lower rates of interest, again to the benefit of farmers and the country as a whole.

The Canadian Wheat Board, without a doubt, has provided exceptional service to western Canadian farmers for more than half a century. The 1995-96 annual report tabled in this House states:

A performance evaluation conducted during the 1995-96 crop year showed Canada ranks highly with its customers in such areas as quality of product, customer service, technical support and dependability of supply. Another study conducted by three economists showed that the CWB's single desk system generates an additional $265 million per year in wheat revenue for farmers, thereby enhancing Canada's competitiveness. It also showed the CWB provides a low cost marketing service to farmers.

Another thing I should mention is what our competitors are saying. To those who want to undermine the ability of the wheat board, let me quote what our competitors are saying in the U.S.

Robert Carlson of the National Farmer's Union said:

From a competing farmer's perspective, we in the U.S. do not have a vehicle like the CWB to create producer marketing power in the international grain trade. We basically sell for the best price among our local elevator companies and lose our interest in our grain after that point.

Our export trade is dominated by a few large corporations who are interested in buying low and selling high to enhance the earnings of their owners, who are not generally the same people.

If we destroy the various institutions that farmers in many countries have built to help themselves survive economically, we will have nothing left but producers standing bare among the ruins of structures that once empowered and protected them in a marketplace dominated by giants.

Our objective through this legislation, Bill C-4, is to continue to empower our farmers and make the Canadian Wheat Board an even better marketing institution. I would show these Reformers opposite the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board, “Marketing for the Future”, and that is what this legislation is all about.

Through this legislation, our government is responding to recommendations made by farmers with concrete action. Under Bill C-4, 10 out 15 Canadian Wheat Board directors will be elected by prairie farmers before the end of 1998. That establishes the two-thirds majority farmers called for.

There will also be changes to the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing mandate and greater empowerment for farmers. There will be changes to allow more flexibility in wheat board operations and improvements in cash flow.

In addition, under Bill C-4 the Canadian Wheat Board will be able to adjust management adjustment payments during any crop year much more quickly by removing the need to first obtain cabinet approval.

The legislation also provides for a contingency fund to manage risk consolidated with cash trading. As the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has said, the operations of the CWB will also be improved by the access it will have to modern risk management tools that would allow a forward contracting system.

I believe that these changes, along with many other important adjustments proposed in Bill C-4, will effectively build on the principle of more direct producer input into the priorities and operations of the Canadian Wheat Board while also enabling the Canadian Wheat Board to become an even more flexible and effective marketing agent for western Canadian grain farmers in the century ahead.

As it says on the cover of the wheat board annual report, “Marketing for the Future”, this government is willing to empower the Canadian Wheat Board while those opposite are wanting to undermine it. We will succeed in the empowerment of the wheat board.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, most of the points raised by the member opposite speak to the need of the government to provide good conservation and management of the fisheries. That is certainly what this minister of fisheries is doing.

With respect to the TAGS issue, first and foremost, the Atlantic groundfish strategy is under the purview of the Minister of Human Resources Development. The prime minister has recently appointed the minister of HRD as the lead on the post-TAGS issue. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be working very closely with Minister of Human Resources Development providing fisheries advice to him and his officials on options as they are developed.

The government announced TAGS in April 1994 and promised $1.9 billion in income support and adjustment measures under the program. The government is living up to that commitment. Unfortunately, because of the larger than expected number of participants, TAGS will end in May 1998.

The government remains very concerned about the impacts of the end of TAGS on individuals and communities and last May promised a post-TAGS review.

Last Friday the Minister of HRD appointed a senior HRDC official to lead this review of the post-TAGS situation, starting immediately. Mr. Harrigan will be looking at the situation as it affects the five eastern provinces.

The review will focus on the impact of the end of TAGS program on clients and help the government and our other partners develop forward looking solutions.

It is very important for us to reflect on the human dimensions of this crisis on individuals and communities. We look forward to working with all our partners, including industry and the province, to address the solution of Atlantic fishers.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I could not answer that charge fully in 30 seconds.

I recognize we cannot do as the NDP always wants to do, which is to write cheques and never find any way of paying the bills. I come from Prince Edward Island and trade is extremely important. We have established some rules whereby we can trade and ensure that our people are treated fairly.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Maybe he needs some down home farm examples so he can understand how annual deficit and accumulated debt really work.

Let me compare it to a farm. In terms of my farm or the farm of any member over there, we have had capital investment in terms of our mortgages, equipment and so on. We pay our interest payments as the year goes by. But what is very important is the operating capital in terms of being able to use that capital to operate so we can pay the interest on our mortgages and remain in business in a very productive and progressive way.

What we have achieved in comparison to that is that we have paid off our operating debt. We have the accumulated debt to pay in the future. On an operating basis we have surpluses of moneys with which we can gradually pay down that debt. As we said in the election campaign we can split it 50:50, put some of it toward debt reduction and tax reductions and with the other 50 percent we will make investments in terms of social and economic programs. That is major progress.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, like others I want to congratulate you and welcome you to the Chair.

I want to thank the constituents of Malpeque for having the confidence to re-elect me to this 36th Parliament.

As my constituents know very well, the last four years were not easy in our thrust to put the country in a secure financial position for the future. The reality is that in Atlantic Canada, where there has been a greater dependency on government programs, we have felt the pain of cuts and program changes more vividly than in other areas of the country.

My constituents have shown their willingness to accept what had to be done. However, they are also telling me that they are at their limit in terms of program elimination and cost recovery. Constituents of Malpeque want us in this term to ensure a balance between our economic and social agenda. They maintain we need a strong central government to carry out such initiatives. They welcome and support the latest initiatives of the government on the unity file.

Our plan during the election set out our values and priorities, a growing economy, a modernized health care system and investing in knowledge to equip Canadians to compete in a changing world. We also offered during the election a workable plan for enhancing the unity of our country and securing our future.

The throne speech begins the task of implementing those commitments in quality care, increasing the cash floor which is of particular importance in Prince Edward Island, education, knowledge, innovation, the commitment of $2 billion for the youth employment strategy and in trade where agriculture, fisheries, tourism and aerospace production are of particular importance to my riding and to Prince Edward Island.

The commitment of the Government of Canada to adopt its programs to reflect the social economic realities of rural Canada is of particular importance. Given these facts, I am still both anxious and optimistic about the future. I am anxious because I have seen the amount of pressure that those with economic power can place on government. We saw that here the other day in the debate on supply as the right-wingers from across the floor argued for tax breaks for the wealthy when we should be investing in programs that meet the needs of ordinary Canadians.

Before long we will have the ability to make decisions based on our people's needs rather than those of the international bankers and bond holders. That gives me optimism for the future. We have regained the ability to address the priorities of Canadians. We did it with a fair bit of pain. We regained that ability, but how will the ultimate decisions be made?

I believe we must recognize as parliamentarians what we are up against in making such decisions. That is the pressure from the economic right and the strategies it employs to undermine our ability as parliamentarians to represent fairly the needs of people. They some how manage to portray the needs of the economy above the needs of people. We need a strong economy but it cannot and should not be the absolute in and of itself.

In one sense I am speaking on the broader issue of democracy, of politics and of the needs of people in society to support and participate in our parliamentary democracy, not just those who have economic power and sway.

In the last decade our various political institutions have come under considerable attack, often very subtly, by those who have much to gain if the political institutions of the land can be undermined. Politicians are attacked as well and not just on their ideas; sometimes the person and the business itself.

As move toward the next millennium both within Canada and globally we are really in a battle of democracy versus the market.

Let me put this as concisely as I can. With all the trade agreements, the linking of the markets in the financial sense, it has caused power to shift. Let me put it this way and compare it to space. The economic space has grown and the political space has narrowed.

I believe if that space is out of balance between economics and politics we are all in trouble in terms of meeting the needs of the people in our nations. In other words, if the market has all the power then all we can really be is a consumer.

This is summed up best by Arthur Shafer in Peter Newman's The Canadian Revolution :

The values of the marketplace have infiltrated every institution in Canada, the family, the church, the legal system. Anti-human, commercial values are dominating every sphere of life. Now that we're coming into economic hard times, the sense of each man for himself, save your own skin, get whatever advantage you can is going to sink public spiritedness and make it much more difficult to preserve our sense of obligation to the community.

This pressure on the essence of government is also explained appropriately by John Ralson Saul in his book The Unconscious Civilization :

People become so obsessed by hating government that they forget it is meant to be their government and is the only powerful public force they have purchase on.

That is what makes the neo-conservative and market force argument so disingenuous. Their remarkably successful demonization of the public sector has turned much of the citizenry against their own mechanism. They have been enrolled in the cause of interests that have no particular concern for citizen's welfare. Instead, the citizen is reduced to the status of a subject at the foot of the throne of the marketplace.

My point is that the individual and the government are linked together by an artery. If we act to sever that artery by replacing or opposing a central role for government, we cease to be individuals and revert to the status of subject.

I have outlined the foregoing to put into context the kind of environment in which we will work in the House and this Parliament. We have to recognize from where and why that pressure comes. I certainly believe in a strong role for government. I believe that the public sector actually creates value in our society through its institutions, its programs, its public services and its workforce.

Part of the reason we see this subtle attack on this institution and government itself is that some in the private sector know that if they can shift that responsibility then they can profit by doing so.

It is the desire of some in the corporate sector to move back to a time when individual problems, regardless of circumstances, were an individual responsibility. We cannot allow that to happen.

As Thomas Jefferson stated, the care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.

The corporate sector recognizes that if government can be moved out of the way there is a profit to be made in the offering of what is now a public service. One of the best ways to achieve its goal is to substitute markets for those public programs now authorized through democratic institutions.

I put these points on the table to show what I believe is one of the greatest pressures on this institution. To protect ourselves from being subverted by that pressure I refer members to page 140 of Hansard and the remarks of my colleague from Hillsborough when he talked about more power being put to members of this assembly. That would certainly lessen the power of the bureaucracies within Ottawa and would also lessen the ability of those with economic clout to pressure cabinet ministers to make decisions. What we really need is real debate in this House and for the decisions to be made here.

I believe we can better achieve our objectives as stated in the throne speech by assuring, as the hon. member for Hillsborough had argued in his remarks, that greater power is put in the hands of the members of House of Commons. I think it is one of the most fundamental things we must do.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, April 24th, 1997]

The member says I did not read it. I will quote to him a section from the act which does show that the board of directors does have extreme control over the Canadian Wheat Board. Section 3.9(2): "The president is the chief executive officer of the corporation and has, on behalf of the board, responsibility for the direction and management of the business in the day to day operations of the corporation with authority to act, subject to a resolution of the board, in all matters that are not by this act or by law specifically reserved to be done by the board of directors or the chairperson".

That shows the kind of power the board has over the chief executive officer and president. This is enabling legislation. I am proud to say as a member of the agriculture committee that we went out and listened to producers and made changes accordingly.

This has been an exercise in consultation and listening to producers. Bill C-72 is about changing the Canadian Wheat Board and giving it the tools to be a better marketing institution for western grain producers.

Since I have been president of the National Farmers Union I have always held strong views on the Canadian Wheat Board. I have had the opportunity to study it, to go to the offices. I have listened to western producers over the past two decades. They have told me of their support for this marketing institution.

The Canadian Wheat Board is an institution that works, that maximizes returns to producers in the international marketplace. It is an institution that sets up a system to allow us to compete with products from other countries in the international market rather than have us compete with ourselves. It does this by using the three pillars of single desk selling, pooling of returns and government guarantees.

I ask Reform members to listen closely to this. I know they do not want to listen to the good facts and the good points this government is moving forward with. I quote Robert Carlson of the National Farmers Union in the United States when he appeared before the House of Representatives agriculture committee. He complained that they do not have a marketing institution of this calibre: "From a competing farmer's perspective, we in the U.S. do not have a vehicle like the Canadian Wheat Board to create producer marketing power in the international grain trade. We

basically sell for the best price among our local elevator companies and lose our interests in our grain after that point.

"Our export trade is dominated by a few large corporations that are interested in buying low and selling high to enhance the earnings of their owners who are not generally the same people who produced the grain traded.

"The stated goal of free trade proponents in agriculture is to have a grain trade without national borders, without internal subsidies, without quotas or tariffs and without pooling price enhanced mechanisms like the STEs. That would be a great world for grain buyers but a grim world for producers who would be fully at risk economically".

He added that often producers in various countries tend to attack each other in the name of free trade when they feel producers elsewhere have an advantage. He concluded: "If we destroy the various institutions that farmers in many countries have built to help themselves survive economically, we will have nothing left but producers standing bare among the ruins of structures that once empowered and protected them in a marketplace dominated by giants".

Mr. Carlson has said it all. He talked about this structure, the Canadian Wheat Board, which empowers producers. As a government we are looking at the tools to make that board more flexible. I believe the commissioner approach is the best one. This involves the appointment of commissioners for their expertise in marketing. I conceded on that point after I heard from producers that they want to elect a majority of producers to the board so they can control their own affairs with this enabling legislation. We have conceded and 10 producers will be elected to that board.

It is clear when we look at this legislation that we have listened to and accommodated the wishes of producers. I recommend to Reform members opposite who constantly attack the board that they read this document, the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board, which table after table shows clearly how the Canadian Wheat Board lays out all the information. No international grain trader lays out information like that. It talks about where the markets are. It talks about the final prices that are paid and clearly shows that the Canadian Wheat Board compared to any other marketing institution in the world is clearly able to maximize returns to Canadian producers.

What this legislation is all about is ensuring that the Canadian Wheat Board is able to do that into the next century, giving more power through enabling legislation to those producers in order that they may control their own destiny with the guarantee and the back-up of the Canadian government supporting them in their efforts to build the kind of economy and prosperity which producers can build in this great country.