Wayne Easter

[Broadcasting Act, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-216.

I congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton for bringing forward this private member's bill. He did so in response to consumer reaction as a result of the negative billing by cable companies in January 1995.

The bill in its initial stages was widely supported and went to committee and now we have the amended version before us. It seems a lot has happened over the summer and some people are expressing concerns. My colleague for Ottawa-Vanier outlined some of those concerns and I really have to ask why.

First, let us look at some facts. In committee on May 30, 1996 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage moved an amendment to Bill C-216. The amendment was adopted by the committee and the bill was reported back to the House as amended. The bill now includes a reference to cable companies serving 2,000 or more subscribers. This was added to address concerns from certain small time cable operators who claimed that for technical reasons they would be unable to comply with the bill as originally drafted.

The phrase "non-mandatory pay or speciality service" was added to address concerns expressed by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier who argued that the bill as originally drafted would somehow prevent the CRTC from requiring certain special-

ity services to be carried as part of the basic service offered to all cable subscribers.

Finally, a change was made to allow for the substitution or addition of a new channel when there is no change in the price charged to the consumer.

Bill C-216 applies only to non-mandatory pay or speciality TV services. The CRTC will continue to decide if a channel is mandatory or not. This bill does not affect existing channels such as RDI, CBC, CTV, TSN or MuchMusic. Small cable companies of less than 2,000 subscribers, which are mostly in rural areas, have been exempted from this bill. This bill does not prevent cable companies from substituting one channel for another provided the price does not increase. The facts speak for themselves. This bill should be supported.

My colleague for Ottawa-Vanier talked about the side effects, the debate of lots of discussion this weekend, the side effects and the need for flexibility. An article in the Globe and Mail on the weekend talked a considerable bit about what those perceived side effects might be:

Leading the charge against the bill is André Bureau, a former chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and now president of Astral Communications Inc. of Montreal.

Mr. Bureau argues that passage of the bill would effectively kill the chances for success of any new French language speciality service.

Astral has a stake in two speciality channels that were approved this month by the CRTC.

Those comments by Mr. Bureau are not exactly coming from a non-biased observer. That individual has a special interest in terms of maintaining the power they have at the moment.

I want to outline that on that point of flexibility and concern for the speciality channels, especially in the area of language, it is not a concern that I have ruled out of hand. I have thought seriously about it over the weekend. I agree with many others that there is a need for those speciality channels. There is a need for those issues to be cabled into the livingrooms of people so that they can see, listen, debate and learn more from those kinds of channels.

After serious thought I believe that concern can be addressed in other ways. There is still room for flexibility as a result of Bill C-216. I have only thought about it for a couple of days but one such way would be by offering a package inclusive of that speciality channel that may be required by the country. A package could be offered, the package could be priced and that channel could be part of the package. That way that service could be provided.

I am suggesting that the facts speak for themselves. The concern raised by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier in terms of flexibility is not a legitimate concern. I encourage all members of the House to protect the consumers' interests and support Bill C-216.

[Point Of Order, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie alleged that because Prince Edward Island happens to be smaller than some of the ridings in Quebec it should not be entitled to the same rights and privileges as other provinces in this country. That clearly demonstrates an ignorance of what constitutes Canada-

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased earlier to hear the member for Frontenac talk about the objective of the Canadian Wheat Board which is to maximize the sale of Canadian wheat and the return to producers. It is good to hear one of the opposition parties talk in a positive way about a couple of the great institutions we have in this country: the Canadian What Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission and hear him put a proposal to build on those institutions rather than destroy them.

Earlier I raised a question with the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster who would in essence destroy the wheat board with this motion and I could not seem to get through to him that the lowest seller sets the price.

I will put the question of the member for Frontenac. When one is selling products and people are competing against one another to bring down the price structure-the member for Frontenac is well aware of the beef industry and how sometimes prices are brought down in that industry by the fact that one producer wants to undermine another-and I wonder if he could tell us if the same thing might happen to wheat growers.

The ultimate impact of this motion would be that we could in essence have greater than 100,000 producers competing against each other and trying to undercut the price structure. The hon. member claims that would not happen. A producer might be in some financial difficulty-and I know the Reform Party does not seem to be concerned about that-who when the option is there for that producer to say to his banker that there will be a final payment in which returns are maximized under the Canadian Wheat Board, but now under this motion he would be forced to sell now and undermine the price structure.

I wonder if the member for Frontenac has any concerns that the negative competition being promoted by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster might undermine the price structure and force farmers into greater financial difficulty?

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

The member says it scares the hell out of me. It scares the devil out of farmers. There is no question about it because they support strongly the Canadian Wheat Board system.

The Reform Party's proposal would destroy the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to work effectively in producers interests. Anybody with any sense in terms of economics knows the lowest seller establishes the price.

Does the Reform Party not realize this motion will destroy the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to operate effectively in producers' interests, thereby undermining farmers as a whole in terms of maximizing returns?

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, we really have to stretch our imagination to come to any kind of conclusion to support this kind of motion. The member talks about if the minister acted on the motion. If the minister acted on the motion we would be irresponsible as a government in terms of what the member is proposing.

The member talked a lot about choice. What Reform is really prepared to do in terms of the choice here is throw an entire industry with a worldwide reputation for reliability and quality into chaos. That is what it is prepared to do with this motion in order to satisfy the short term demands of a few law breakers.

His proposal would not take us forward, as he is proposing. He should learn a little from history. It would move us back to the late 1800s and 1920s when the grain robber barons and the railway monopolies were able to take advantage of farmers. That was why the Canadian Wheat Board was created in the first place. I think the member knows this.

I have have a unique experience in that I am from eastern Canada and when I was president of the National Farmers Union I could not at first understand why western farmers were so enamoured with the Canadian Wheat Board. They were so supportive of it. I examined in detail the Canadian Wheat Board. Perhaps the member should examine in detail the Canadian Wheat Board.

He talked about dual marketing. He talked about moving barley to the United States. Does he not recognize that yes, there was more barley moved but in the final analysis it was shown it was sold at a lower price.

Does the member not recognize the advantage of single desk selling? We cannot have orderly marketing and dual marketing working side by side. It does not work that way.

If we move away from the single desk selling of orderly marketing what we are really allowing is Canadian farmers to compete against each other in terms of driving prices down. The orderly marketing of single desk selling gives strength and marketing power to producers, and the hon. member should recognize that.

Does the member not recognize that the pooling system allows all producers to take advantage of the booms and to limit bad prices when they occur and that the nation as a whole benefits?

I want to table some facts. We did not get many facts from the member in his presentation. I encourage him to read the Kraft, Furtan and Tyrchniewicz report. It concluded based on the analysis of the Canadian Wheat Board performance that additional revenues for wheat sales averaging $265 million per year, or $13.35 per tonne, would be lost if the single desk were replaced by multiple sellers.

It estimated that the Canadian Wheat Board added between $557 million and $690 million per year, or $27.84 per tonne to $34.50 per tonne over what multiple sellers would have realized in wheat marketing between 1985-86 and 1993-94. The member should realize those are some of the facts.

Dual marketing, to which the Reform Party's proposal would lead, would destroy-

[Petitions, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have several petitions which I wish to present. They contain approximately 4,000 signatures from all across Canada. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that Canadian consumers are against the legalization of rBGH for injection into dairy cows.

[Farm Debt Mediation Act, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, before speaking on Bill C-38 I have to respond to a couple of remarks made by the last speaker.

The Reform Party continues to use every opportunity it can to attack the Canadian Wheat Board. It does so using selective facts. I want to underline those selective facts.

Let me say that if one stacks up the record of the Canadian Wheat Board, the orderly marketing system versus the open marketing system, the Canadian Wheat Board over the past 20 years has shone every year. When one takes all the facts and looks over the years, it will be found that the Canadian Wheat Board has maximized returns back to producers like no other agency anywhere in the world.

I want the member to recognize that. I know it is hard for him to admit he is wrong on that point, but eventually he will have to. We will debate the issue at committee and I hope we can clear up his mind on that matter.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-38 which will repeal the Farm Debt Review Act and introduce a new act to facilitate financial arrangements between insolvent farmers and their creditors.

Let me suggest up front, and I agree with my colleague from Lisgar-Marquette on this point, it is a sad commentary that we need such acts as the farm debt mediation act that will help insolvent farmers gain a settlement with their creditors. It implies that there are financial difficulties on the farms at times, and there certainly are.

Some are caused by management difficulties and many others are caused by problems unrelated to the primary producer's ability to manage. It may be international monetary flows. It may be global prices in terms of commodities. It may be rapidly changing interest rates. Many of us, myself included, who are in the farm community have faced those kinds of times in the past.

In debating this bill this evening thus far, very little has been said about the extreme trauma farm families go through when they face insolvency. I raise this point because the reason, in part, to change the act is that there are far fewer hard financial cases coming forward to the Farm Debt Review Board today than there were 10 or 12 years ago, which is a good thing. When we deal with this issue, because times are a little better now, we in this House tend to deal with things in the abstract. Being in farm financial difficulty is very hard to explain. It is something people cannot understand unless they have experienced it.

For each farm family that is involved in a serious farm financial crisis, it is very troublesome and difficult for them, for the man, his wife and their children, in terms of the loss of pride and in many cases in terms of losing their heritage, in terms of loss of faith in oneself, even though it may not have been a management problem. It might have been an international marketing problem or some such thing that has put these people into financial difficulty. It is extremely painful and troublesome. There have been many suicides in the past in the farm community as a result of the farm crisis.

Whatever we do with this bill, we have to ensure that the bottom line is that we protect those farmers, those families and those rural communities that find themselves in financial distress. We have to ensure there are ways and means within this bill to protect the human aspect beyond the dollars and cents from the difficulties caused by the financial problems.

Eleven years ago, as president of the National Farmers Union, I led a farm finance lobby to lobby on this very issue on this very Hill. Yes, we asked for more power. We asked for an appeal process. We went far beyond where this bill takes us. But this bill does move us a step in a positive direction by putting in legislation some of the powers and by establishing an appeal process where formal appeals can be made.

I said earlier that we must strive to ensure that farm returns continue to surpass farm expenses. In all the other legislative matters we pursue in this House we must ensure that marketing agencies, supply management, the Canadian Wheat Board remain strong to ensure that the government through its agencies is working the best it can to maximize prices and returns to producers from the marketplace.

I mentioned that the government cannot knuckle under to a few law breakers who are trying to violate the laws of the land in terms of surpassing the Canadian Wheat Board. We cannot knuckle under to the few Reformers who are speaking out against the good marketing institutions we have in this land.

Allow me to move to Bill C-38 itself. I agree with the general thrust of the bill. I certainly am in favour of this bill moving to committee to be debated further. Many of the points in the bill were outlined in the Liberal Party document "Food Security for Canadians and a Fair Return for Canadian Farmers" in which we talked about the commitments we would make with respect to farm debt review boards.

The original and current role of the Farm Debt Review Board was outlined in the most recent Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada estimates on page 99. It said: "Farm debt review boards were established in 1986 in each province to ensure that farmers in financial difficulty or actually facing a farm foreclosure are afforded an impartial third party review of individual farm circumstances". That is important.

As my colleague from Dauphin-Swan River said earlier, this bill moves us toward focusing on farmers in insolvent situations. It applies through legislation an impartial administrator and opens up an appeal process.

On initial examination of the bill, the provisions would appear to limit rather than to expand access to the farm debt review process. I have concerns about that and I will be talking about this at committee.

One question which should be addressed is that according to the estimates for the department on page 99, since 1986 there have been 24,000 applications to the Farm Debt Review Board. The two sections applied under were section 16, farmers in financial difficulty, and section 20, insolvent farmers.

How many of these would have been excluded from the process had the insolvency rule applied since the inception of the Farm Debt Review Board? According to Agriculture Canada officials, approximately one-half of the applications under the former act were made for insolvency and the other half under the provisions of financial difficulty.

However, some of those in financial difficulty were found to be insolvent. The point is that perhaps one-third of the applications to the Farm Debt Review Board would never have qualified given that they were not insolvent. I maintain that the fact they were able to go before the Farm Debt Review Board and get mediation services and assistance is why many of them were able to keep their farms and are on the land today.

The bottom line as we debate Bill C-38 is it is important to remember that other things have to come into play as well. I believe we have to re-examine-

[Tourism, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Tourism is the key growing economic activity in Canada. In 1995 more than 777,000 people visited the wonderful province of Prince Edward Island, adding $178 million to the province's economy. This is a growth industry.

Given that the Prime Minister committed $50 million to the Canadian Tourism Commission to promote tourism across Canada, can the minister report on the progress of this initiative and how these funds are being spent?

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 28th, 1996]

What agreements, operating or otherwise, exist between the federal government, Canadian National (CN) and Canadian Pacific (CP) with respect to the railways' right of first refusal in terms of any sale of the government's grain hopper car fleet, including but not limited to the agreement signed between the federal government and the railways in 1993?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain was in Prince Edward Island with the committee studying youth last weekend. We were most fortunate to have him with us. When he was there he was also talking to quite a number of islanders. Could he tell us the islanders' views on the new EI legislation? I will give the member a little background. Earlier this morning the hon. member for Lévis left a mistaken impression of what the minister of economic development for P.E.I said at committee.

I quote for the benefit of both the hon. members for Souris-Moose Mountain and Lévis what the minister of economic development for P.E.I. said: "We were never afraid from a Prince Edward Island perspective to change the existing system. We have gone through that a number of times".

He went on to say: "I do hope you have some influence on government members who sit on the committee as well, because I think it is very important that you take the opportunity to hear from some people within the seasonal industry".

He concluded by saying: "We in Prince Edward Island certainly support the government's move to address the situation you identified. You have the support of the Government of Prince Edward Island and, I would assume, of all the political parties in Prince Edward Island".

Based on the hon. member's assessment, does he believe that the people at the meeting in Prince Edward Island view the changes made as being very positive and forward looking, contrary to what the member for Lévis tried to indicate earlier?