Wayne Easter

[Fair Elections Act, February 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington had to say. He said at the beginning of his remarks that there are valuable assets in this legislation. No one is denying that.

The problem is that in the broad approach to the legislation, the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer, as we would say in farm terms, is having his or her legs cut out from under them. Their ability to do their job on overall elections concerns is being taken away from them. The good things in the bill are being nullified by the damage that is being done to the Chief Electoral Officer.

If the Commissioner of Elections Canada is no longer appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer, who is appointed and accountable to Parliament, and instead would be a government appointee through the Director of Public Prosecutions, then that kills the whole ability for the Chief Electoral Officer to do the job of finding the many things that have been found in elections since 2006.

That is the problem. The assets are nullified by the broad approach that the government is taking in destroying the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to do his job. Would the member not agree?

[Employment Insurance, February 6th, 2014]

If we want to talk about irresponsibility, Mr. Speaker, it is over on that side of the House. Conservatives do not understand the seasonal economy and how it works.

Let me give another example. A farmer came into my office. He pays an employee $16 an hour. The individual has been with him 18 years. The farmer asked me if he would get in trouble if he paid this person cash. I said that of course he would and asked why he would want to pay him cash. The farmer's response was that he works with the farmer full-time from April 1 to November 30, and the rest of the season he is needed only a day and a half a week. When he works that day and a half a week, the individual is paid $16 an hour, and EI claws $8 off of his employment insurance. If he takes the deductions off, the man is working for about $5.50 an hour.

The consequences are these: the individual is poor, the farmer has trouble getting helpers, and it contributes to an underground economy. Everybody loses, and it is the result of the government's lack of understanding of seasonal industries and how they work. They need skilled workers too, and the government is driving them away from Atlantic Canada.

[Employment Insurance, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I raised a question on the consequences of the government's attack on EI, which, when it was raised on November 27, had already seen some 1,100 islanders leave the province. I asked the minister why she, as the regional minister and Minister for Fisheries and Oceans, thought it was okay for P.E.I. to lose its youth and split families asunder, and why she has minister has championed policies that have forced islanders to leave.

The Minister of Employment and Social Development responded, but clearly his response shows that he does not understand a seasonal economy in any way, shape, or fashion. He said, “Not one person has to leave P.E.I. in order to search for available work to qualify for EI”. That was not the question. We are not talking about qualifying for EI; the question was about the ability to qualify for EI in the future, not the ability to move. The question then was about the consequences of the EI changes, which are forcing many islanders to leave.

It is not only about those who leave, but also about those who, as a result of the changes in the system, are left poorer as a result. The economy in Prince Edward Island, and indeed the Maritimes, has been suffering as well. The impact has been so profound that the Council of Atlantic Premiers has been holding hearings on the issue of employment insurance. It has come out very strenuously against the federal government and these employment insurance changes.

In the hearings, one of the concerns was that too few people were coming forward. Why? They are fearful that if they come out and tell about the situation they are faced with as a result, they will be targeted by the government, audited, and hassled. I know the members opposite are shaking their heads, saying that would not happen. Well, I saw on TV a few minutes ago what happened to the environmental charities. Any of them who have spoken out against the federal government are already being targeted and audited. That is the way the government works; it operates on fear. These people are worried, and they have reason to worry.

Secondly, businesses themselves are not able to obtain workers for part-time work because 50¢ on the dollar is being clawed back. Maybe I can sum it up best with a letter that someone sent to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. This person said that he had moved to P.E.I. from Ottawa in 1986 and had run a successful business from 1988 to 2004. Since then he has been working with various seasonal businesses and most recently with one that shows terrific potential. The changes to the EI guidelines, however, have required him to work for 50¢ on the dollar while drawing EI.

Not only that, in so doing he bears the employment related expenses, such as child care, travel, meals and so on. By his estimation, this results in him working for roughly 35¢ on the dollar.

He asks, “Please tell me how this is helping me, the economy, or anybody else? It's certainly hurting my family and offers no hope of a better future unless I move away”, which is not an option for him.

That is his question.

[Mandatory Disclosure of Drug Shortages Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-523, presented as a private member's bill from the NDP. The Liberals have actually been calling for the Conservative government to implement mandatory reporting of drug shortages since 2011, and with luck, we will finally see this move forward.

This legislation is quite simple in that it mandates that a supplier, be it a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, or importer of drugs, notify the Minister of Health of any planned interruption of the production, distribution, or importation of a drug at least six months in advance. Failure to do this would be punishable via summary conviction and a fine of not more than $1.8 million. Any unexpected interruption would have to be reported to the minister as soon as possible or the supplier would face a summary conviction and fine of not more than $10,000 per day from the day the offence is committed, up to a maximum of $1.8 million.

Moreover, under the terms of this legislation, if a supplier is planning to cease production, distribution, or importation, the minister must be informed at least 12 months in advance or face a summary conviction and fine of not more than $1.8 million.

The minister must develop a plan—and this is important—in conjunction with the provinces and territories to prevent and address drug shortages, inform patients and health care providers, and prepare and implement any emergency response plan to address any shortage of a drug. I said that is important because the record of the government, in terms of doing anything in a co-operative way with the provinces, is that this seems almost foreign to it. This might all sound complicated, but in reality, the bill is simply calling on industry to keep government informed when a specific drug might become scarce, so appropriate planning can be undertaken.

Why was the bill proposed in the first place? Simply put, it was proposed in response to the ongoing shortage of medically necessary drugs across Canada. In the past, the Conservatives have asked drug companies to collect and post information regarding pending shortages on public websites to help health care professionals adjust treatment plans in a timely fashion. However, this is a voluntary reporting system and does not compel drug companies to disclose any information. As the case last year with Sandoz Canada has shown us, this can lead to significant harm to the health of Canadians who depend on necessary medication. We need to address this to prevent problems in the future. Many MPs in their own constituencies have had constituents come in to talk about shortages of drugs, which may have affected their health.

In the fall of 2011, following the Liberal round table on drug shortages, we recommended that Health Canada should establish a team within Health Canada to anticipate, identify, and manage drug shortages, similar to the 11-person team established by U.S. President Obama at the U.S. FDA. The government has not shown any such leadership, however.

Canada's government must institute a mandatory drug shortage reporting system, which would require manufacturers to list unavailable medications and to develop early warning systems that could highlight potential drug shortages, so health ministers, medical professionals, and patients would be notified as soon as possible. It is the responsible and prudent thing to do. Ensuring a safe supply of essential drugs is a key responsibility of the federal government, but it is a responsibility that the Conservative government has not taken seriously.

Shortages of essential drugs needed for common health issues and procedures are not a new problem, nor is the problem limited to Canada. It is a global problem that demands real action. For nearly three years, community hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies across Canada have been experiencing serious shortages in common medications, including those used for cancer care, heart problems, epilepsy, pain control, and surgical procedures. The federal government has had plenty of warning about the situation but has consistently failed to take action.

Members do not have to take my word for it. The Canadian Pharmacists Association sounded the alarm on shortages three years ago. It noted that 90% of pharmacists face drug shortages each week when filling prescriptions and that these shortages have become worse over time. The Canadian Pharmacists Association asked for the health committee to study the issue urgently and to ensure that this issue is on the agenda of the World Health Assembly meeting in May.

For our part, on two separate occasions at the health committee, August 2011 and again in November, the Liberals demanded that an investigation be launched into the shortages. However, all of these warnings yielded nothing but silence from the government. Members know how these committees work. They go in camera, they are basically shut down, government members vote against the motion, and the public does not know what happened.

As I have already mentioned, in the fall of 2011, the Liberals held a round table on drug shortages with drug experts from across the country. The recommendations that emerged from this were clear. Strong federal action was required to address current and future drug shortages.

In the face of these concerns, the Conservatives have done next to nothing. Their wilful disengagement and abandonment of meaningful responsibility for the shortages has worsened the problem. Rather than real action, the Conservatives brought in a toothless, voluntary drug shortage reporting system, which does not force pharmaceutical companies to report drug shortages, as is required in countries like France and the United States. In its first test case with Sandoz Canada, the voluntary system utterly failed to provide provincial health authorities with advance warning of a shortage. The company's drug production problems were known months before, but provinces were only notified in late February, leaving the provinces no time to create contingency plans. The previous minister of health herself admitted that the voluntary reporting system was a flop.

The Liberals believe that a mandatory national drug shortage reporting system is required, and today we are backing up that belief with our votes. This reporting system should require drug manufacturers to list unavailable medications and to develop early warning systems that could highlight potential drug shortages, so that health ministers, medical professionals, and patients are notified as soon as possible. The provinces are asking for this and health stakeholders are asking for this, yet the Conservatives ignore their calls and continue to support a failed system that is putting Canadian lives at risk.

I call on members opposite. The backbench members opposite are not members of the executive council. They can act independently, on their own. They do not need to take direction from the departments and from cabinet. They can stand up for citizens on their own. I hold those backbench members responsible for the fact that some of my constituents are seeing drug shortages. It is because the government failed to act and the backbenchers failed to stand up in their own right for their constituents.

In conclusion, the government's approach has clearly been reckless and shortsighted. However, hope is not lost. If members would stand up and do the right thing and support Bill C-523, we would at least have somewhat of a start in dealing with this problem.

[Fair Elections Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation. Others talked about the closure earlier. I believe that in doing a bill about our democracy and elections and ensuring they are fair, the government has started off on the wrong foot, without any real consultations with Elections Canada. They talked way back when. I just saw the head of Elections Canada on TV a minute ago, complaining about many sections of the bill.

I would ask the member a broad question. When we cut to the chase, is the government not really splitting the commissioner and Elections Canada in such a way as to make it more difficult, maybe even having the commissioner under the thumb of the government, fearful for his job, rather than out there looking at some of the things that have gone wrong in past elections? The government has a record of wrongdoing when it comes to elections.

Does the member think in the next election that we may even have to call in the United Nations as observers to an election in Canada?

[Fair Elections Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, invoking closure on this bill really is the height of hypocrisy.

Here we are, talking about a bill on so-called “democratic reform”, and some of the people we are hearing from are clearly thinking of a way to not get us into debating the bill. Some of the designs of this bill—and we know the government does not like Elections Canada, which has investigated them on many fronts—may be to create less pressure on the government in all the other wrongdoings it has done in every election since 2006.

How can the government invoke closure on a bill about democratic reform? This place is supposed to be about debate and good discussion. The minister is shutting that debate down and, I believe, putting democracy at risk.

[Grain Transport, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the opportunity, in asking a question, to outline another problem. The Conservative member said that the minister is trying to find solutions. However, I think it needs to be noted that the minister was in fact part of the catalyst for problem that we now have, by changing a system without implementing the required protections for producers and implementing some other authorities that could challenge both the railways and grain companies.

There is another problem that farmers have as well right now with grain companies. A lot of the comments tonight have been against the railways, but the fact of the matter is that the railways, in the port of Vancouver, now have to break up their cars and actually move the cars, whereas previously with the Wheat Board they were able to move a paper allocation between companies, which created greater efficiencies.

Does the member not see the way the grain companies are operating at port position as a problem as well, creating inefficiencies and complicating things even further for the railways?

[Grain Transport, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I too know that the remarks from the member from Vegreville were heartfelt, and I know the impact on the farming community. We may disagree on the Canadian Wheat Board. His government really killed the only entity that had the authority and the power to challenge the railways and the grain companies, which was the Canadian Wheat Board; but we will set that aside.

I want to ask the member if he would consider some of these solutions. I would like to outline about five of them. The member for Wascana named a few earlier.

One is certainly doing what can be done immediately, while there is still permafrost in the ground, to get grain movement to the Port of Churchill so it can go from there.

The member for Wascana mentioned making the definition of “service” explicit in the Fair Rail Freight Service Act and making penalties under the law and applying them against the railways, which would compensate for liquidated damages and pay them to the farmers rather than having a fine paid to the government.

I would also suggest that the government re-establish the B.C. Clearance Association, which the government killed in August of 2012. That association was responsible for coordinated ships coming into port six weeks in advance of the delivery of grain to port. That needs to be considered.

The government needs to learn from the logistics operations of the Canadian Wheat Board with respect to collecting the grain inland in a coordinated way and targeting it into the hulls of ships in Vancouver.

Last, would the government consider a grain transportation authority with some power to take charge and, if necessary, order certain things to happen with the grain companies and the railways?

Those are some proposals.

[Grain Transport, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot from the government side tonight about predictions and not much in terms of what it is going to do to deal with the emergency. Maybe something will come five years down the road.

It is important to put on the record where the minister said we would be today. He made this statement on November 2, 2011, when he was talking about getting rid of the Wheat Board. He stated:

To that end, both CN and CP are doing over a billion dollars worth of renovations on their main lines across western Canada, because they know there are going to be demands on them to move more product more quickly than they do now, because we won't be dragging our sales out at...one-twelfth every month, as the Wheat Board does now. There will be a lot more...going to market positions earlier, getting us away from starting our trucks and our augers at minus 40 degrees in January. It used to drive me nuts. I'd wait for a malt car until the coldest, wettest, or muddiest day of the year. Now we'll be able to put that product into market position ahead of time.

That was his prediction. Has that come to pass, or is it just more of the same old, same old of the government? They sold out to the railways and the grain companies and in the process sold out farmers.

[Grain Transport, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I see that they are all speaking from the same blueprint, because they all go on and talk about the 2 million additional acres over last year. Let us put the facts on the record. That is 7 million fewer acres than in 1990.

The member talked about the new open market system. What farmers are beginning to see is whereas we used to have an orderly marketing system, there is now a disorderly marketing system. There is chaos at port in trying to move the rail traffic around to get the grain into the hull of a ship to get it to market.

I wanted to ask a question of the member who is from Red Deer and is himself a farmer. I talked to one of his neighbours tonight. He told me something, and I wonder if the member could confirm these figures under the new system. On the pricing on spring wheat, the farmer said he was getting $3.78 per bushel on January 14. He said that $2.32 per bushel of that $3.78 was taken away for the rip-off by the grain companies and the railways in handling and transportation costs. At the same time, the Minneapolis future price was $6.10. In other words, the new pricing arrangement under this new system means that Canada's price is discounted by 35% to 40% off of the Minneapolis price. Could the member confirm that those figures are relatively right?