Wayne Easter

[Business of the House and its Committees, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North was going to speak, but he is on a panel doing important opposition business, so I will take a few moments to talk about this omnibus bill, which would bring in previous legislation. Some is government legislation and some is private members' bills.

I think my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso, who spoke earlier, really hit on a serious point that we hoped it would be different in this Parliament. That is especially how the chamber works and how committees work.

As I have said in some of my responses to the throne speech and in talking with people in my riding today, I have been a member of this place for somewhere close to 20 years. It will be 20 years next week. I have seen about a dozen speeches from the throne, and I have never seen one with less vision, more misrepresentation of the historical facts, and such a small-minded strategy moving forward as we have seen in this one. I would hope that this chamber has bigger ideas than we have seen in the throne speech. Some of them can come from other bills coming forward. Some can come forward from committees, if we are allowed to operate the way we should.

I would like to talk a little bit about committees in the last session. What we saw was opposition members putting forward amendments that were voted down. Opposition members would put forward a motion to do a study. I do not know about all committees, but I attended four different committees, and in all of them, government members sitting on the committee asked the committee to go in camera, and the motion, surprisingly, was voted down. I guess I cannot say in this place who voted which way, but I think the House can detect that. The government members put the meeting in camera and there was a vote, and the motion was lost. That issue was not discussed, even though it was an issue Canadians were concerned about.

I would actually plead with the backbench members on the government side to change that in this Parliament. Allow Parliament to work the way it is supposed to, where we have pros and cons to ideas, where we debate the ideas, and where we take things that one does not agree with but that we allow to come forward for debate. That is how this place is supposed to work. I think a lot of the members opposite on the government side would like to see that happen.

The parliamentary secretary on the trade committee I was on last session challenged me, just like the member for Burlington did earlier. He challenged me and said that was the way the Liberals used to do it. No, it is not. The parliamentary secretary of trade in the last session was an opposition member when I happened to chair the fisheries committee. I went back and looked at the record. There were 32 motions put to committee. None of them were debated in camera, not one. Of those, 21 motions were from opposition members. They were critical of government policy, and the government of the day allowed the debate to occur. In fact, many of them passed. That is what this place is supposed to be. It is supposed to be a place of debate, ideas, and big vision.

The government opposite just wants to manage it a little bit. Look at the throne speech again. As my colleague said, it is going to unbundle some of the TV channels. Whether they are Vision TV or whatever they might be, the government is going to unbundle them.

I have to say something that one of my constituents said to me today. My constituent has an unemployed youth, 23 years old, who should be out in the workforce.

The government is not doing anything about the highest rate of unemployment among youth we have ever seen in this country, but by golly, as my constituent said, it would give us a little cheaper TV and a little cheaper cellphone so that he can stay home and sit on the couch, and we lose the potential of that youth out there working. The government should be working on the big issues, not trying to sell a new little consumer product for some cellphone company. That is not a vision.

I bring those points up because I am worried. I am worried that what we are going to get in the second session of this Parliament is more of the same, where the government limits debate. It votes down motions coming from citizens, motions that would build a better Canada. They at least should be discussed. If today's performance in question period is how we are going to continue, it was a continuation of the same. I quite honestly sat here pretty disgusted. I can see why Canadians are disgusted. We never had an answer to one question put to the government.

We know that the Prime Minister kind of chickened out and left the country. Obviously, he does not want to be here to answer questions on the Senate scandal, so he used the excuse of going over to sign the CETA deal. He could have signed that tomorrow or Friday. He could have stayed here and answered questions in the first session of this Parliament. He could have done that. He is going to talk about 80,000 jobs created by CETA, but Conservatives cannot prove it. Let them talk. Their record on trade is that they are the first government in 30 years that has had a deficit in trade on an annual basis. Let us look at the numbers. Since December 2011, the government that fails to answer questions every day in the House of Commons has had a deficit every month since December 2011.

In the throne speech, the Conservatives talked about bringing in prosperity through trade. They have been an absolute and utter failure every step of the way on trade thus far. My colleague, the trade critic, said earlier in question period that we know that they are going to sell out the dairy industry. We do not know what they are going to do in terms of adding extra costs for all Canadians on pharmaceutical products. We know that the Europeans are going to have two years of extra patent time for drugs. Is the deal good for Canadians? We do not know. As everything else the government does, it has done it in secret.

Conservatives now lock committees down in secret. They are negotiating the CETA agreement in secret, and we have a whole cabinet that fails to answer questions. They operate like the opposition is supposed to. They fail to answer questions, and in the process, they undermine democracy. This omnibus bill is certainly not going to do anything to--

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 17th, 2013]

With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND), what is the detailed breakdown of: (a) Canadian Armed Forces executives by rank (General, Lieutenant-General, Major-General and Brigadier-General); and (b) DND executives by classification (DM-4, DM-3, DM-2, DM-1, EX-5, EX-4, EX-3, EX-2 and EX-1), on December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2012?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 17th, 2013]

With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces, in each year since 2006 inclusive, what has been the number of: (a) harassment complaints other than that of a sexual nature; (b) sexual harassment complaints; and (c) harassment investigations, broken down by the following locations (i) Department of National Defence (DND)/Canadian Forces (CF) establishments located in the National Capital Region, including NDHQ, (ii) Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Halifax, (iii) CFB Cornwallis, (iv) CFB Gagetown, (v) CFB Valcartier, (vi) CFB Kingston (not including the Royal Military College), (vii) CFB Petawawa, (viii) CFB Borden, (ix) CFB Shilo, (x) CFB Edmonton, (xi) CFB Comox, (xii) CFB Esquimalt, (xiii) Royal Military College (Kingston), (xiv) Royal Military College (St-Jean)?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 17th, 2013]

With regard to the Department of National Defence (DND), what are the details of all contracts for consulting services or advice purchased by the department during fiscal years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, including the name of the consultant, the nature of their services, their location, the amount paid, the file or reference number of the contracts, the file or reference number of any reports prepared by the consultant, and was the consultant a retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces or a former civil servant within DND?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 17th, 2013]

With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, since August 1, 2012, how many access to information requests have been received and of those, how many (i) were completed within 30 days, (ii) were extended for 30 days, (iii) were extended for 60 days, (iv) were extended for 90 days, (v) were extended for more than 90 days, (vi) missed the deadline to provide the requested information?

[Points of Order, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege last night of attending the citizenship and immigration committee while it was studying a private member's bill. Then I came in here today and I heard a backbench Conservative ask the minister a question so that he could answer and misinform the House on what the discussions were, as if somebody was supporting terrorism.

The real issue is the government is hijacking a private member's bill to try and get its way across, and that goes against our very democracy in this institution.

[Erskine Smith, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Erskine Smith, who recently passed away.

Involved in theatre as an actor and director for more than 50 years, he and his wife, Pat, founded the Victoria Playhouse in 1982. His family and the playhouse is the heart of Victoria-by-the-Sea, entertaining tourists from all over the world and locals.

Erskine spent many years touring maritime theatres and festivals and performed at the CBC nationally. In 2012, he was awarded the Diamond Jubilee Medal for his contribution to theatre and the arts.

His lifetime in dedication and self-sacrifice serving the theatre community reflects the exemplary man he was. His humility, integrity and hard work continue to inspire, expressed by many as “how kind, welcoming and generous he was”.

As Erskine moves on, there is no question that he will always be centre stage, from memories of artistic expression to the kindness that was his very being.

On behalf of the House, we recognize and thank Erskine for his dedication and contribution to his community and the arts sector as a whole.

[Persons with Disabilities, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion. I congratulate the member for Brant for putting it forward. There are a lot of points to be considered. I know he has done a lot of work in the disability community, so he is probably the proper one to be putting forward this motion based upon his experience in that area.

As our critic indicated, Liberals will support the motion. However, beyond the motion itself, we want it to be a call to action for the Government of Canada.

The report that came out is entitled “Rethinking Disability in the Private Sector”, and the subtext reads “We all have abilities, some are just more apparent than others”.

That is, I think, a remarkable statement. Everybody has talents that we do not see.

I can remember that during my time in the farm movement, when I used to stay in people's homes night after night, I would always find that people had a second talent that was not visible. One farmer whose place I stayed at was an expert in lead glass. He shipped it all over the world. I never knew that until I happened to stay at his house.

When we see people with disabilities, we do not often see that inner ability and talent. Whether they have a mental disability or a physical disability, given the opportunity, those inner abilities and those talents will come out.

There are a couple of things that should be mentioned about that report.

Number one is that there is a business case for employing people with disabilities. It states that there are 795,000 working-age Canadians in that category and that 340,000 of them have post-secondary education.

We hear in this House and we hear in our communities all the time that there is a shortage of skilled workers, a shortage of all kinds of workers, and although we are looking at the business sector being involved in this area, there is a real opportunity to give people with disabilities an incentive so that they have a better quality of life for themselves and can take pride in the work they do.

The other side of the coin is that they can be productive in a job and in the Canadian economy. That potential is pretty good when we look at 795,000 people, with 340,000 of them having a post-secondary education.

The report states clearly that there are myths and misconceptions in the business community about the costs and risks associated with hiring people with disabilities. It claims there are no costs at all in half the cases—I am going from the study—to accommodate a person with disabilities, but that on average the cost is $500. That is a pretty small down payment to get a loyal and engaged employee, as the report talks about.

I have seen people with disabilities in my riding. I know people who, if they could get a job and have the atmosphere and the technology they need to do a job in a productive way, would turn out to be the most faithful and loyal employees any employer could have, as they would appreciate the employer working with them so that they could have the opportunity to work with that employer.

The report, “Rethinking Disability in the Private Sector”, provides a good basis, a good foundation for moving forward.

The motion itself has five sections, and due to time I will concentrate on the last one. It says:

(e) strengthening efforts to identify existing innovative approaches to increasing the employment of persons with disabilities occurring in communities across Canada and ensuring that programs have the flexibility to help replicate such approaches.

There is so much we can do with new technologies. Investments have to be made in many areas to assist the people in the disability community, not only in terms of getting to work but also in terms of having the technology at work to be able to do whatever it is they may be doing.

How do we make this technology work for people with disabilities? I think we have all seen examples. I know one of the bankers I have dealt with was legally blind, but he was still a banker doing productive work every day. He had a computer program that would either talk to him or adjust the print so he could see it.

Just imagine how many people in North America would be helped by technology that assists people who are legally blind. It would help them to be gainfully employed and to be productive in their lives.

I am sure there are other technologies out there that could assist people with other kinds of disabilities. As MPs we go out into the schools, to high school classrooms and others. There is one thing that always amazes me in those classrooms, and that is the personnel who work with the people with disabilities, as well as how the education system, at least in the schools I have been in, utilizes technologies to assist young people with either a mental or a physical disability to learn and to gain their education.

It may take extra personnel, but the technology is improving all the time for these people so that they can gain their education.

The problem is that sometimes that effort, in terms of helping those people with disabilities, stops when they graduate from the school system.

I think the last point in the motion by the member for Brant really goes to that point, that more effort needs to be made to find a way to transfer that technology and to encourage the business sector to utilize that technology so that these people can be productive in their lives.

Let me close with a quote from the title of the report: “We All Have Abilities, Some Are Just More Apparent Than Others”.

This motion gives us the opportunity to work with people to find those abilities that are not so apparent on the surface, and to utilize the technologies so that those people can add to our economy, assist the business community and find a quality of life in their own livelihoods. This motion could give us that opportunity.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a somewhat different question before the member for York Centre asked who we should be consulting and said that the official opposition would be suggesting that we should be consulting with the smugglers.

That is what is wrong with this place. This was, until that time, a fairly sensible debate. I have been here pretty near 20 years. I have never sat through a question period as embarrassed for every one of us as I was today. It is because of the kinds of remarks from the member for York Centre. The government sets the tone in here, and the tone is spiralling down so much that we are all embarrassed by what happens in this House. That question just shows the kind of attitude government members have to sensible debate in this House.

My question to the member on the legislation, the key point, is whether it will work. The government comes forward, in every bill, with minimum sentences. Minimum sentences, I submit, we will see in ten years' time are not the answer. There is much more than minimum sentences required.

Why do we appoint judges? Why do we instill experience in judges so that they can make decisions for extenuating circumstances? That has to be taken into consideration as well. Minimum sentences in themselves will not do the job.

We will be supporting sending this legislation to committee in the hope that proper discussion can take place there.

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, is this the 46th time allocation, is it the 47th, is it the 45th? It almost sounds like a farm auction. Will it be 47? Will it be 48? Will it be 50? When are the Conservatives going to hit 50?

This the most secretive, debate-reluctant government that the country has ever seen. We could have a little contest here. We could all make offers and bets on what day and what hour they hit 50. It is getting pretty close. Yesterday was 44 and 45, I believe. This one is 46.

This is not only about what is happening in this chamber. Because of the votes on time allocation, the committee that I sit on, which is the international trade committee, has had its meetings cancelled five or six times, so it is shutting down. There are other issues that need to be dealt with, and the way the current government operates prevents us from dealing with real issues at committee. That is a serious issue, because the Conservatives are such an undemocratic bunch.

I had a motion today that I wanted to give notice on at committee. It was to ask the government to table the human rights report under the Canada-Colombia trade agreement, which is an obligation on the government and which it has not tabled as yet, and now I cannot debate that motion at committee. No doubt the committee would have gone in camera anyway, into more secrecy, and an open debate would not have been allowed.

My point is this: the government is not only preventing business and debate in this chamber, but its actions and the way it is handling closure are hurting the ability of committees to do their work.