Wayne Easter

[Peschisolido Report, September 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the member's main argument was that it would be good to have more time to debate the bills before us. The motion right now is absolutely taking away from that time. As I said in my remarks, why today, why now? That is political gamesmanship and I do not believe the people in the member's riding think this is the issue that we should be dealing with in this House.

Time is important in this House and we need to take time to get all the ideas from everyone, because there are good ideas. I saw that at the finance committee. There are good ideas from all parties. That is what we need to be doing: getting those good ideas to strengthen our economy and look after individuals and businesses. That is what we ought to be doing.

[Peschisolido Report, September 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, there is really no difference in the member then and the member now. I have made it clear that I am not in favour of prorogation, I stand by that, but I do believe that the prorogation then was a little worse than it is now in that it was to prevent a vote that could have brought down the government, and it was a much longer prorogation. I underline this clearly. If a government is going to prorogue to open another session, it should be for a very short number of days. I am not one who is in favour of prorogation.

[Peschisolido Report, September 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the member said that I just did. Yes, I guess I did, but I could go through a heck of a lot more issues that the previous government did that really are not helpful to us today but will not bother doing that because I really believe we need to find a way to work together, especially in the short term.

Let me sum up my thoughts, which will be hard to do in the 25 seconds I have left.

When we all stand in this place in this kind of debate, what do Canadians think of their Parliament and do they think we are doing what they see as a priority? This motion is not what I believe they see as a priority. Let us get on with putting in place the programs and then we can have these kinds of debates in the House, at committee, wherever.

[Peschisolido Report, September 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I was a little late getting to the House this morning and have now reviewed the motion. Why now? Why today?

I remember making a speech in the session just past, the one that was prorogued. I know there is opposition to that and that is fine. That can happen in a democracy. However, I remember saying that Canadians had put in place a minority Parliament and we should take the opportunity as parliamentarians to show we could make this Parliament work. Errors happen, and I am not saying the government is errorless because it is not. However, if Canadians are watching Parliament right now, are they proud of us? I do not think they are.

I have had the opportunity, as the Canada-U.S. chair, to go to the U.S. many times. I have seen how partisan the situation is there. The Democrats are here, the Republicans are there and never shall the two meet. I have always said that I am so proud of us as Canadians that we have not let that happen. However, this motion tells me that it is happening. Yes, this issue needs to be debated. There is nothing wrong with the motion, but today is not the day. Canadians are concerned about the COVID-19 pandemic. Businesses are concerned about where they sit.

I spent a half an hour this morning on the phone with one of the food processors in the country. It believes the government is still continuing to move ahead with new regulations. I personally would oppose on front of pack labelling. Now is not the time for that either. Companies have suggested that other countries have brought in some tax measures that make them non-competitive here. That is one of our main industries. We should be debating issues like that, not this one today. There will be a time and place. That is why we have separate committees. These issues should be at least before a committee first, the ethics committee or some other. There is limited time to have debate on Bill C-2/Bill C-4. We have seen a slice of where this Parliament can work.

The government side came together with the leader of the NDP and made changes to improve the assistance to individuals and for improved sick leave. That is fine. We should debate that issue. Several people in the House were on the finance committee, during which we held hearings in late May, after Parliament shut down due to COVID-19. We heard some 300 witnesses who had a lot of concerns, such as where they would be as we go through this pandemic. We should be talking about those issues.

I am suggesting that for the next couple of months we concentrate on the issues about which Canadians are concerned. This is political theatre in terms of this motion. I have been in opposition and I played these kinds of games. I admit that. However, we are in a pandemic and we need to deal with the issue that is before us.

My request is that we deal with the issue Canadians want us to deal with, specifically for the next six weeks or so. Let us let our committees deal with some of the other issues such as the WE scandal, which needs more work on. We have had hearings at the finance committee. We went through the documents. I know issues will continue to come up, but today in the House is not the place for that to occur.

The tourism industry in my area is gravely concerned about where it finds itself. The airline and transportation industries are gravely concerned about where they find themselves. The airports in my region are down 94% in business. What are we, as parliamentarians, going to propose to those industries so they can survive until next season? Hospitality and tourism industry members are telling me now that while they figured 2021 would be the rebound year, they are now looking at it as the transition year and that hopefully 2022 will be the rebound year. We need to look at what we can do to strengthen the economy.

The debate on Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 is going to be about assistance to individuals, and yes that assistance has to be there, but what are we going to do beyond that to strengthen businesses so they can be there and be the backbone of our economy in the future? Those are some of the things we need to be talking about.

The other thing I heard, more over the summer and not so much at the finance committee, is about whether the chartered banks are pulling their weight. Right now, the bank deferrals are starting to come due. I have been talking to some in the business industry who are saying that they are having a rough ride with the banks in rolling over their operating capital and loans.

The government and Canadian taxpayers have basically backed the big banks such as the Business Development Bank, the Export Development Corporation and Farm Credit Canada with additional liquidity to basically give them a guarantee as they provide monies during this pandemic. I do not believe this place and the banks are pulling their full weight in getting us out of this pandemic. Those are some of the issues we need to be talking about.

Over the summer, we heard a lot of talk from a lot of people on a guaranteed annual income. That is an issue we should be discussing. Personally, I do not think we can go holus-bolus, but I would not mind seeing a few pilot projects across the country to see how it goes. Would those be able to replace some of the other programs we had to quickly bring in as a result of the pandemic? We need to be discussing those issues.

I want to turn to where I come from, the farm community. I am hearing a lot of concern from members of the farm community about the safety nets in place for them at the moment. I strongly believe the business risk management program must be improved. I could go through a litany of things and blame the previous government on that because it cut back the business risk management from 85% to 70%, but let us get it back up there again and work together to do that.

[The Environment, September 24th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago at this time I walked through the P.E.I. National Park in the Cavendish area to witness the damage from post-tropical storm Dorian that happened on September 7 and 8. The damage was shocking. There was 14 feet of erosion along the Cavendish Beach shoreline, and in Cavendish campground 80% of the trees were destroyed and the campsites themselves were annihilated.

What is the government doing to rehabilitate that campground and the P.E.I. National Park; and when is it going to get to it?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, September 24th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, there are some regrets on this side too. I was hoping the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, in his new capacity, would get up and thank this government for the leadership it has provided since COVID first hit in March.

His remarks were full of contradictions. On the one hand, the member and the party opposite are saying we should stop spending and that the government is spending too much. On the other hand, members have said that the government should transfer more money to the provinces, and spend here and spend there.

Does the member not realize that we have already transferred $19 billion to the provinces under the safe restart recovery program? Does he not realize that we have transferred $2 billion to assist the provinces with education? Does the member think that is important? Also, the throne speech outlines so many things for individuals and businesses to get the economy started again and protect individuals and businesses during the second wave.

Could the member get up and just say thanks?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, March 11th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I have sat here and listened to the attack on other industries in this country, and it is just so wrong. I have heard this time and again from the Bloc Québécois. I am just not going to sit here and listen to it anymore. To attack the oil industry is absolutely wrong. I hope the member knows that with respect to equalization, over the last five years, $52 billion went to the Province of Quebec. Where did it come from? It came from higher wages in Alberta, oil in Newfoundland and Labrador, and fossil fuels in B.C. If those industries are healthy, we are all healthy.

I agree we need to do more for forestry, and we have done a lot for forestry over the years. There is the spruce budworm, the pine beetle and other things that need to be dealt with. We need to do that, but for heaven's sake, let us not try to make gains in one industry by attacking another in this House. We are all Canadians. We all need to be healthy with respect to the economy, and we need to do everything we can for all industries in this country so our economy can grow.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I have heard that member talk many times against the Trans Mountain pipeline and the $7.8 billion that the government is spending. The government is spending for many reasons. One is jobs, but it is really to create another export market for Canada's natural resource products.

I want to tell the member the economics behind this spending. There is a thing called the Alberta discount. The oil market discounts Canadian oil because we have no alternative but to sell to the United States. That amounts to 15% to 28% of the price per barrel of oil.

The pipeline would be safer and better for the environment, but if we could get rid of that Alberta discount, it would mean $587 billion per year to Canadians. We lose $1.8 billion a day in this country because of the Alberta discount, yet that member constantly talks against a pipeline that would allow us to get proper market prices for our oil. Come on.

[Committees of the House, February 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance entitled “Canadian Ideas: Leveraging our Strengths”, the pre-budget consultations report prior to the 2020 budget, as ordered by the House.

I first want to thank members of all parties who presented witnesses and who worked strenuously to get this report prepared on time. The report contains some 92 recommendations, and it shows that a minority Parliament can work, with all parties working together.

I also want to thank those who presented submissions prior to the August 2019 deadline and also those who appeared as witnesses in February, presenting their ideas.

I also want to thank the clerk, David Gagnon, and the analysts with the Library of Parliament, who worked long hours and extra hours, Andrew Barton, Brett Capwell, Michaël Lambert-Racine and Sylvain Fleury, for all the work they did.

Finally, I have a point that is beyond the recommendations themselves. I would refer Canadians to appendix A, which includes the many proposals put forward by organizations and individuals across Canada, which is food for thought for future discussions.

[Points of Order, February 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, also on a point of order, I want to remind you that in 2013, the Harper Conservatives completely gutted the farm safety net programs, and for Conservatives—