Wayne Easter

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Welland has travelled widely in western Canada and knows how important the pool movement was in western Canada. At one time farmers actually owned all the elevator infrastructure in western Canada with no debt. Those elevators were part of the community. For whatever reason, that has all been lost now and there are none of those pools left. Worse yet, the last protection that grain producers had in western Canada was the Canadian Wheat Board and the authority for it to work effectively has been taken away by the Government of Canada.

The co-op movement in the west came out strenuously against the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in his move to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board. We know the Government of Canada attacks charities that go against the government. The government has done away with KAIROS.

Does the member for Welland think there is any possibility that having CDI under the minister's department, there is a sense of vindictiveness here? Does he think it is a matter of getting even with the co-op movement for having spoken against him, regardless of the consequences in rural communities?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a question because the parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Industry tried to make it sound like other agencies, like federal development agencies, are covering off for the cuts to the CDI. I know in Atlantic Canada they are not because 10 days ago the minister in charge of ACOA cut every regional economic development organization in Atlantic Canada, though they were responsible for 130 jobs last year and one of them manages $9 million worth of assets.

We have to look at the whole picture in terms of the government's strategy. I believe there is a real attack by this government on rural Canada. It is cutting back on economic development agencies. It is cutting the CDI, which is important, while it is giving big business all the advantages, such as reducing corporate taxes and so forth.

Could the member tell us, in terms of the big picture not only of co-operatives but of other areas, where there is federal government involvement that is undermining the ability of rural communities and co-operatives in rural Canada to survive and prosper along with the rest of the country? This is not a country that is just based on oil. It is a country that should be based on community.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is wrong in his last response. Last week the ACOA minister cut all the economic development—

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on the question just raised, I would like to point out to the House what the CDI really is. Government documents state, “The co-operative development initiative managed by the Co-operatives Secretariat is the first federal program specifically designed to research and test the co-operative model and to assist in the development of co-operatives”.

Those are wonderful words from the other side, wonderful words in terms of its support of co-operatives and everything they do, but the government is undermining those very co-operatives by cutting the program 75%. Co-operatives, as has been said by all speakers today, are an important part of the rural economy. It is because of those co-operatives that jobs are being created.

Again, would the government be willing to reconsider the CDI program and not cut it? If it really means what it says in terms of improving the economy, then that program should be left in place so that co-operatives can grow and build and have community support to see that the economy survives in rural Canada as well?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is trying to get to a consultation through this motion. He mentioned the question he raised with the minister and that the minister basically said that they were on their own.

My question for the member is this: what will the impact of the budget cuts be on co-operatives? The rural co-operative development program has been cut from $20 million to $5.2 million, and the Rural Secretariat has been cut in staffing from 92 to 15. Those are serious cuts. Does the member foresee see a negative impact on the development of future co-operatives and on the maintenance of some that need community assistance now?

[Employment, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, not only are the government's employment insurance changes an attack on the seasonal industries in the workforce that depend on those jobs, new rules around foreign workers, especially in the farm sector, would make the government the big boss.

Government officials would in effect determine whom employers may or may not hire. Farmers claim this would impact their productivity and jeopardize their harvest and their businesses.

Why would the minister take Mike Harris's failed and discredited workfare program and impose it on the entire country?

[Public Safety, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member goes on a great attack against the Liberal Party, but she fails to answer our question.

The Conservatives have not done serious consultations with Canadians to see what they need on this particular issue, whether it be Internet surveillance or whatever. It is the same with every other bill.

What I said in my remarks is absolutely true. This is a government that operates on the politics of division. It is a government that operates on the politics of fear. We are seeing that everywhere.

Canadians should be worried about the Internet surveillance bill because, as it said in the bill, which I quoted earlier, not only can the government go in and look at what has been on the Internet; it can actually copy it. That is the serious risk.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary if the Conservatives are going to withdraw those sections of the bill and do proper consultations.

[Public Safety, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on February 17, I asked the government the following question.

Madam Speaker, my question is for the government's chief spymaster who is so intent on snooping into Canadians' private emails and the laptops of the nation. However, Conservatives are not stopping at emails. The minister's bill would allow government agents to enter on an Internet service provider when they wanted, without a warrant and demand to see absolutely everything and even to copy it all.

My question was:

Why does the government see every Canadian as an enemy of the state and why has the minister given Conservative agents absolute power to pry?

As one might imagine, I received a non-answer from the government, in fact from a senior minister. Instead of getting an answer, I received a rant and an attack against the NDP.

The question really was in relation to the provisions of Bill C-30, which was introduced with much fanfare in February of this year and now seems to have disappeared from the order paper.

The concerns expressed by Canadians across the country were consistent. This legislation was designed to enable the government to gain a level of surveillance that has not been seen in this country ever.

However, the government's clear view is that anyone who criticizes its actions, questions them in any way, is described as an enemy, as a radical, as being un-Canadian. Members may remember the Minister of Public Safety's ludicrous remark that one is either with the government or with the child pornographers. These are the kinds of intemperate, belligerent and disgraceful characterizations the government uses against Canadians who raise even legitimate and appropriate questions against the government.

Although this legislation is off the order paper, the Minister of Public Safety seems to have made it clear recently that it will be coming up again in the fall.

This legislation and the elements of intrusion, which have nothing to do with the real issues, should have been the end result of serious consultations, a process the Conservative government seems to know nothing about. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development the other day in her comments on employment insurance said she consulted. Premiers have come out and said they have not been consulted. As far as we know the unemployed have not been consulted.

Do ministers think consultation means sitting down with a business partner or a friend and having a glass of wine? That is not consultation. If the government is going to do consultations, they have to be wide open, transparent and public. That is not what the government has done.

The government is not just using surveillance and basically spying on people as an attack on democracy. The government monitors and cuts funding to organizations that disagree with it. We just need to look at the KAIROS funding. That organization has done tremendous work internationally. There have been cuts to peace and development. The public service has expressed fear, with public servants scared to even use their own personal email and Facebook as a result of the government's tactics.

Instead of acting like a legitimate democracy, the Conservative government is instilling fear in people with the kind of attitude it is portraying toward Canadian citizens.

[Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, sitting on the international trade committee, I actually thought the NDP was starting to come around on some of these trade issues. However, listening to the remarks made here this afternoon, obviously not.

There is no question that there are some problems in Panama in terms of money laundering and tax havens. Does the NDP really believe that by slamming the door shut the situation will be improved? It is our biggest trading partner in Central America. There are opportunities for the continued export of seafood, potatoes, et cetera that we are exporting there now. I think there is a huge opportunity, if we can get in the door, in terms of the new canal being built, in terms of the infrastructure. I know there are some restrictions on that infrastructure because of agreements with the United States.

Does the member not think that we should at least be trying to get in the door, signing an agreement? I believe if it is a partner with another country, it will have a better chance of overcoming some of the labour abuses and other things happening in its system, because the economies do become more linked.

How can the NDP say we should just slam the door shut, as if that is going to do anything for Canada or the workers in Panama?

[Canada Pension Plan, May 18th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am most pleased to rise and support Bill C-326, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (biweekly payment of benefits).

It has been put forward by the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, and I support my colleague.

Basically, in summary the bill enacts and amends the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act to

...provide that any benefits that are required to be paid on a periodic basis under those Acts shall, on the request of the beneficiary, be paid on a biweekly basis.

In order to do that, it amends the Canada Pension Plan such that any benefits that are required to be paid on a periodic basis under this act shall be paid on a biweekly basis if the beneficiary submits a written request to the minister that the benefits be paid on a biweekly basis.

It basically states the same thing in the amendment to the Old Age Security Act.

Simply put, as my colleague, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor said, this bill is unique, it is not complicated, and it basically allows pensioners and seniors the freedom and flexibility to budget on their own.

To back up concerns on costs, my colleague did a fair bit of research. He ran the bill by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who said that the costs of administration of this bill are “not fiscally significant”. However, with even such a simple change such as this and with costs not fiscally significant, the government did not do its own cost analysis but came out quite strongly against this bill.

I will quote what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour had to say:

Mr. Speaker, I will start by underscoring our government's commitment to improving the well-being of seniors and our continued efforts to address their needs now and into the future.

After making that statement, she went on to say:

However, our government's priority is reducing administrative costs to ensure the maximum amount of seniors benefits.

Then comes the kicker. She said:

As a result, the government cannot support a bill that would increase the administrative costs of government by tens of millions of dollars in this time of fiscal restraint.

The fact of the matter is that the government did not do an analysis to come up with that figure of tens of millions of dollars. It is opposing this bill before it even gets to committee to be discussed properly. Let us find out what those costs are.

Can the bill be amended in such a way that it would only be utilized by those who want the payment to be made biweekly? There are many who would, but in some cases it is not that they want to but that they need to.

Many seniors are living in poverty in this country. Some of them are getting old age security, some get the supplement, and some get the CPP. When we talked to them, they told us that when they get their cheque, they know they have to try to budget that cheque for the next 30 days.

These are mostly people who are between the ages of 65 and 80. Many of those who are over that age are in retirement homes, and the monthly payment works fine. However, those who are living in their own homes, which is where we want them to stay, have to take out money for their rent, electricity, telephone and maybe Internet for a computer, if they have one. They try to take enough money to purchase their drugs for the month. Then they allocate the rest for groceries. Some are very low in terms of what they can get for groceries.

Then something happens two weeks in, and they have no emergency money to buy medicine for a cold or a flu or whatever because they have run low on funds by that time.

Going to a biweekly basis for those who need it and are willing to apply for it would make a huge difference in terms of insecurity and worry in their lives for several days or weeks.

I know people on the government side do not like the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis, because he tells the truth. He lays it out before them. He has laid out the cost of many of the issues that the government has not been willing to inform us on; as a result, the government is not too enamoured of any analysis done by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, although his analyses have been proven to be quite accurate time after time.

That said, the government, without having done a cost analysis, opposes a bill that could make a significant difference in some seniors' lives at practically no cost, and it will not even allow it to go to committee to be discussed. That is pretty sad.

If we talk to seniors, maybe they would accept that this be done only for those who use direct deposit. I understand mailing cheques costs money. There is no question. There is the postage, the service fee at the bank, and so on. However, if it was done by direct deposit, the cost would be very minimal. It would make a huge difference in people's lives, but the government seems to be rejecting this proposal out of hand.

As I mentioned, the parliamentary secretary said:

As a result, the government cannot support a bill that would increase the administrative costs of government by tens of millions of dollars in this time of fiscal restraint.

We just heard in the House today, in answer to a question on the gun registration issue, that the government is not going to require those registrations. It is going to have another amnesty. That money probably would have paid more than the administration costs for doing something for seniors, but the government operates on the basis of ideology, not on the basis of care and concern for the people of this country.

To put it quite simply, it is unbelievably sad that a government would be so uncaring as to not even allow a proper hearing on a simple proposal in a private member's bill to help seniors who may not just want but need biweekly payments.

Can the government just not accept to help, even just a little, seniors who request some help?

If the parliamentary secretary was speaking on behalf of the PMO, as she was, then I say to the other members in the party at least that it is time to stand up. It is a private member's bill. It is time to stand up and allow this issue to be discussed without being a puppet on a string for the PMO. It is time for those members to represent the constituents and the seniors in their ridings and allow the bill to be debated at committee.

We know the government has done a lot of damage to new seniors coming into the system. By changing the age requirement from 65 years of age to 67, it has basically stolen $30,000 from the new seniors coming on. Conservative members can at least help out by allowing the bill to go to committee to be analyzed properly, to be debated, and hopefully, at the end of the day, to help those seniors who want this to be done in their interest.