House of Commons Hansard #3 of the 40th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.

Topics

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member have consent to table the emails?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have just as many emails on the incompetence of the chair in that committee, but I will not ask to table them. What I will tell the House is what I will not do.

As the member knows full well, he never supported any of the budgets to increase research and technology in this country. In the best economic decade of this country, the Liberals cut funding to research and development. They cut funding to science and technology. They cut funding to the National Research Council. That was during the best economic times.

I will not take any lessons from that member of the House.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with another Atlantic Canadian, the member for Halifax West.

As a new member of Parliament it is not only a privilege but an honour to have this opportunity today to respond to the Speech from the Throne.

I am able to be here to do so because of many people, especially my family, who have supported me unconditionally. I served for 11 years in provincial politics, both in government and opposition, so they know only too well how chaotic things can get. I am grateful to the hundreds of volunteers who worked tirelessly on my behalf. I am sure we all recognize that without our volunteers none of us would be here.

The decision by the people of Random--Burin--St. George's to elect me as their member of Parliament is something for which I will always be grateful. I represent one of the largest ridings in the country. There are 185 communities in the riding, eight of which are isolated, and to drive from one end of the riding to the other takes nine hours. The people of Random--Burin--St. George's have placed their confidence in me to not only represent their interests but to make sure their concerns will not be ignored.

I heard what was in the Speech from the Throne yesterday and today I am going to talk about, regrettably, what was not in the speech.

Canadians are in a state of turmoil and nowhere is this more evident than in the riding I represent. For many, trying to contend with the high cost of heating fuel and gasoline has become a burden, yet there was no acknowledgement in the Speech from the Throne that this situation has to be addressed.

When we see seniors congregating in shopping malls in order to keep warm, there is a problem in this country. When they have to choose between food and fuel in order to heat their homes, we are doing an injustice by our seniors who have contributed so much to our country.

The irony in this is that as the price of oil dropped, oil companies did not drop the prices they charged to consumers proportionately. Only when it became really obvious that consumers were being gouged did the companies act, and then reluctantly.

Our seniors need help and, as hard as it is to believe, the word “senior” does not even appear in the throne speech. The very people who built this great country were simply ignored.

It is obvious from the Speech from the Throne that despite the position taken by the Prime Minister on CTV's Question Period a little over a month ago when he said that we are not going into a deficit, that is exactly where we are heading. The throne speech makes that very clear.

Why would a government put the country in such a circumstance? Money was flowing like water prior to the election and now just a month later the government is singing a different tune using the global economic crisis as the explanation for what is to come.

The reality is that if the Conservative government had acted responsibly, spent wisely, and had continued with the buffer that previous Liberal governments had in place in the event of an economic crisis, we would be the envy of those countries that, through no fault of their own, are finding themselves in a difficult position.

We all know that it is a common practice, where possible, to put savings aside for a rainy day. Why is it such a difficult concept for the government to grasp?

The people from my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, like Canadians everywhere, are hard-working and when faced with adversity rise to the occasion. When the Speech from the Throne says, “In the face of this uncertainty, just as when faced with difficulties before, Canadians will prevail”, I agree. The question is: Why make it difficult for them? Why put them in that situation needlessly?

Nearly three years of irresponsible spending and economic mismanagement is what led us to this deficit and now Canadians will have to suffer as a result of it. In just two short years the government oversaw the disappearance of a $12 billion surplus. Again it begs the question: Why?

Those seniors who are on fixed incomes, who cannot tighten their belts any further, and who need a government to recognize their plight is but one group in our society who will be a casualty of the Conservative government's mismanagement, and that is a tragedy.

Another omission in the Speech from the Throne is the need to recognize those individuals who have worked tirelessly in industries that really take their toll on people and, if given the resources, would be able to retire with dignity and while doing so, create jobs for others.

While I am sure there are other industries where the work is extremely difficult, I am sure there is nothing that takes its toll on a body more than working day in and day out in a fish plant or as a crew member on a fishing boat. Those of us who represent rural communities where fishing is the main industry know only too well how hard people in the industry work.

The fishery is a major employer in the riding I represent, but measures need to be taken to ensure the industry continues to be viable, and one way of doing that is to bring young people into the industry. To do this, however, there has to be an opportunity for people to retire from the industry with dignity.

I know of men and women who have worked in a fish plant for 40 years, standing for hours on a concrete floor. They had no choice but to work under these conditions for years in order to provide for their families. In small rural communities opportunities for employment are limited.

The humane thing for a government to do would be to help fund a retirement program which would see the older workers retire and young workers enter the industry.

While governments cut taxes for businesses as a means of helping them compete and create jobs, this is another way to create employment for Canadians while recognizing the contribution made by others. As I said earlier, I am sure there are other industries in the country that would benefit from such an initiative.

Another omission in the throne speech was any kind of detailed mention of the need to provide for our children, especially those who live in poverty. Today is National Child Day and we are all wearing a ribbon to show the significance of that day. The government missed an opportunity to highlight the importance of providing for our children. One obvious way of doing so would be to initiate a plan to lift families out of poverty.

Our children are our future and so many of them fall through the cracks because there is no concerted effort to make sure that they receive every opportunity to not only survive, but excel. When I look at how and what the government will spend money on, it is obvious that the most vulnerable in our society are shortchanged.

One of the speakers yesterday, in responding to the Speech from the Throne and talking about our great country, made reference to “from coast to coast”. There is a third coast. When those of us in Newfoundland and Labrador hear commentary that refers to the country as, “from Victoria to Halifax” or “from coast to coast”, we like to give a friendly reminder that there is another coast and a province of which we are very proud.

I conclude my remarks today by congratulating, first, those who, like me, were elected for the first time on October 14. No matter what political party we represent, we will always have something in common. I am so grateful to those who have gone out of their way to share their knowledge and the benefit of their experience in the federal parliamentary system with me.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about making child poverty history This is an area that New Democrats have long been pushing for.

In the throne speech there is no money to create affordable child care. There is no money to expand the child benefits up to $400 per child per month. There is no money to build new affordable housing to help the thousands of Canadians who are desperately waiting for affordable housing. There is hardly any mention of employment insurance or raising workers' living wages to $10 an hour. There are absolutely no new things in the throne speech.

Instead, we have really something of the past, the past commitment of the infrastructure funds, past commitments on the homelessness funds, and past commitments to deal with the settlement of immigrants. Given that the throne speech offers no bold solutions to the economic situation that is facing us, how can it possibly be that the Liberal Party is supporting--

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, clearly, that is a question that needs to be put to the current minority government. The fact that there are no initiatives in the throne speech to deal with issues of poverty and homelessness is exactly why we are here today and making a point of that.

I would ask the hon. member whether or not her party would support the government. At this point in time, we are in a position where bringing down the government would put us back into another election, yet another costly venture for Canadians. I would much rather see that money go into supporting children and homeless people who need our support.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Random—Burin—St. George's for her excellent maiden speech in the House, but it is clear that she is certainly not new to politics nor being in a legislature. As she said, she served for nine years in the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we are improved by her presence here, although it does not mean her predecessor was not also an excellent member of the House, as she would know.

During the nine years she served in provincial politics she worked extensively with fishing communities and I think she would probably like to speak more. I know she could elaborate more in terms of the kinds of problems she sees the people in those communities facing now.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, it is only when we have an opportunity to actually live and work with people who live and work in fishing communities that we have a truer appreciation for how difficult the circumstances are under which they have to survive. When we talk about people in rural communities, in a lot of cases, the only opportunity they have for employment is, in fact, in the fishing industry.

As I said in my remarks, I have seen individuals who have worked day in and day out, people who are now in their late fifties and sixties, who really do need to be able to retire from the industry. But retire to what? That is the problem we are facing today. We have so many people who, if we could, in fact, take them out of the industry, would be able to live comfortably through other resources.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague. Indeed, she has spent quite a bit of time in provincial politics. Her riding neighbour is also mine, and the people of Harbour Breton are very proud. They are particularly close to me, and I meet a lot of them.

I want to ask her about a situation not so much in the fishery but in the forestry industry. I want to talk about the issue of dignity. One of the things that came up in the campaign was how people ease out of employment with a great deal of dignity. Early retirement is a major issue in her riding as well as mine. I would like for her to talk about the situations she was faced with. She touched on it in her speech very eloquently. She talked about the fact that when people achieve early retirement, they are doing it at the ages between 60 and 65 in an industry that is very tough, not only in the fishery but also the forestry. I would like her to comment.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, when we work alongside and know how difficult it is to work in an industry like the forestry or fishery, then we know only too well the toil it takes on those individuals. They do need an opportunity to be able to retire with dignity, to get out of working in an environment that has been really difficult on them. Many of them want just that. They want to be able to retire and live a comfortable life, after a life that has been very difficult on them for the past 30 or 40 years.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the former member for Random—Burin—St. George's, Bill Matthews, is watching today because he will see that the excellent tradition that he carried on while he was here is being continued by the new member for that riding. I am so glad that I mentioned the fact that he was also the member because otherwise I would be hearing from him for sure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to congratulate you on your re-election. I would also like to congratulate all members who, thanks to their election, hold a seat in the House of Commons. I would like to congratulate all new and returning members. It is an honour for us to sit in this place. It is a privilege and with it comes considerable responsibility.

I also want to thank my wife Kelly and my children, as well as my parents, for their support and guidance every day, and all those who supported me and worked for me in the last campaign, but it is of course my responsibility to serve all of my constituents.

Winston Churchill once said, “It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required”. The people of Halifax West sent me back here for a fifth time to do just that, to do what is required. I am grateful and deeply honoured to have this responsibility. We must do what is required for the future of our country.

Today is National Child Day, as has been mentioned. What we do in the next few weeks and the next few years will have a profound impact on the next generation. In these tough economic times, those children and all Canadians deserve a Parliament that will do what is required, that will put people ahead of petty partisan ideology. Yet it is our responsibility on this side of the House to hold the government to account and cause it to face up to reality, to face up to the facts before us.

Unfortunately, Canada has entered the escalating economic crisis that is gripping the globe with a lot fewer options than we should have. We are on the cusp of a deficit because of the actions, or lack of action, by the government over the past two years. Canadians know we have seen two years of mismanagement and that the government has put us in a very difficult position.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have demonstrated gross incompetence over and over again. They squandered a $12 billion surplus that they inherited from the previous Liberal government. They abandoned the $3 billion contingency reserve, which was a hallmark of fiscal prudence, a cushion that made sure governments did not fall into deficit. They abandoned that idea entirely. They recklessly became the biggest spending government in this country's history.

Who is paying the price for this fiscal incompetence, this economic mismanagement? It is Canadians, Canadian families, Canadian seniors, Canadian forestry workers, Canadian auto workers, poor people and pensioners. What is the government's solution? Its solution is a broken promise on deficits.

A month ago the Prime Minister was saying it was a ridiculous notion to think that the government would go into deficit. Now he is talking about it as if it is an ordinary thing. We are talking about a garage sale of crown assets and a Speech from the Throne that has little new and much that has gone unmentioned.

It is time for the Prime Minister and his finance minister to own up to their fiscal incompetence and economic mismanagement.

Some in the country are opening the door. We are hearing some people saying that it is actually maybe not so bad having a deficit. They are letting the government off the hook. How soon they forget. They should ask Michael Wilson if it is easy to get rid of a deficit, as his boss Brian Mulroney promised back in 1984. What did he do? Instead he doubled the debt over that period and left the country with the highest deficit in history of $42 billion. How soon they forget.

Once deficits have started, it is obviously very hard to remove them. They could ask, if he were here, and unfortunately and regrettably John Savage is not here today to tell us, what it was like to deal with the debt that he inherited in my province of Nova Scotia from the Buchanan government, which started with a debt of less than half a billion dollars. In only 10 years it increased by 700%.

It is not easy for governments. Once they are in deficit, once that borrowing habit is started, it is a hard habit to kick and a very dangerous one.

The American philosopher George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. The government was left with a $12 billion surplus. It cannot point the finger at the previous government because whatever investments were made by the previous government, it still left behind a $12 billion surplus.

The government arrived in government with the best fiscal conditions of any government in the country's history and it is trying to blame the world economy for the fact that it is already falling into deficit. Previous governments before this one would have given their eye teeth for such fiscal conditions, for such ability to spend and to keep the economy in good shape, but the government squandered it.

They ran a deficit for three months this year. The government is heading for a deficit, and current economic conditions will lead it further into deficit. They did not have to fall into such a serious deficit situation, but their choices created their current situation. And that is certainly a deficit.

As a country we will have much less ability to respond to what is happening in the world economy and in our country and its economy. As a result, the country will be left in a much worse situation than it would be otherwise because of the steps the government took over the past two years. It is really the result of reckless pride and profligacy. The government ignored the advice of economists on how to handle its finances. It ridiculed the opposition and its suggestions and its concerns about where the government was going, where it was heading into deficit. It even said the notion of going into deficit was ridiculous. Suddenly it has become reals; it is no longer ridiculous at all. The government frittered away the surplus with promises and programs targeted to gain votes.

This is not the time for more retail politics aimed at various groups with whom the government wants to curry favour. People who are anxious about their pensions or who have lost their jobs, whether they are in my riding of Halifax West, or in Quebec City, or Windsor or Vancouver, do not care on what side of the aisle we sit in here. They want us to do what is required, which is to protect their homes and jobs, secure their pensions, support their families and, of course, help those who need it most. That does not mean executives with fat bonuses or large corporations.

Many are concerned about what has happened on Wall Street for the past few months and the fact that there was a system of compensation which encouraged short-term thinking, that there was this deregulation in the U.S., the kind of deregulation that we have seen that party advocate for so many years. Thank goodness the Conservatives did not have a majority. Thank goodness they did not have their way with our financial institutions. Imagine the mess we would be in today if they had.

I sat down a few days ago with people who provide services to those who are struggling with poverty, new immigrants facing barriers to employment, seniors, people with disabilities and people who are losing their jobs. This meeting of groups that are serving these people was organized by health workers because these things impact people's health. When the economy is strong as we have seen, as Statistics Canada showed a couple of years ago, between 1996 and 2005 poverty actually declined in the country and there was less domestic violence. With a strong economy, good things happen. However, when we have problems, the government has to respond.

I look forward to having the opportunity to continue with questions and comments.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his re-election to the House.

Part of his party's election platform advocated $12 billion in spending cuts. I also remember that in the previous Parliament his party criticized the cuts to the GST.

My two-part question for the hon. member is very short and fairly simple.

First, does he still stand by his party's position that the GST is too low and should go back up to 7% to solve the fiscal stresses we have now?

Second, what specific programs does he suggest for the $12 billion in cuts that his leader campaigned for in the last federal election?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, what my hon. friend is actually trying to do is to evade responsibility for the problems of the day. His party is the government. The Conservatives have formed the government once again. I congratulate him on his re-election and his party. However, the problem is that the Conservatives are the ones who have put the country in this dire situation. For two months at the beginning of the fiscal year and for the month of August, the country has been in deficit. How soon they forget.

Imagine that 10 years after we managed to climb out of deficit we would actually consider it would be so soon that a government would come and put us in deficit even before the economy got into trouble, not because of economic recession but because of recklessness and carelessness about the future.

It is up to the government to propose solutions. We will work with the Conservatives if they are reasonable. That is important. We want to have co-operation across the House. However, we will also hold them to account and hold them responsible for their activities and their mismanagement.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:30 p.m.

NDP

John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened to those fine words. I heard about the deficit. Earlier one of the member's colleagues spoke about $13 billion in surpluses. The House well knows from where that $13 billion surplus came. It came on the backs of workers and employers in our country. It came from EI money.

I would like to ask the member of the greatly reduced caucus what happened to the other $40 billion which was taken out of EI.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his election. It does not seem to be that he is one of those who is inclined to reduce the pettiness in the House, although I would encourage him to consider doing so.

The question of the deficit and how it was removed is one in which the NDP failed to play a positive role. In fact, every time there were measures in the House to get the economy of the country back in shape to reduce the deficit, to strengthen our economy, that party voted against them. The new member needs to do a little research and a little history. He needs to know a bit about the past of our country and what happened over the past years. When the economy strengthened, when the Liberal government got our finances in order, interest rates came down. The economy flourished. It created jobs. Poverty was reduced. People were better off.

In that situation real people benefited. Ordinary Canadian families were better off. If that is not what we are here for, then why are we here? We are here to serve people and to try to provide better conditions for every family in our country. If members fail to recognize this, they ought to reconsider why they are here.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Mr. Speaker, it has been since 1785 when New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were one. We have had many rivalries as provinces, but there is one thing I am sure the member will agree with and that is shipbuilding is a current industry very well thought of in both provinces and Atlantic Canada in general.

I ask my friend to refer to page 7 of the Speech from the Throne which speaks about the Canadian manufacturing sector and the automotive and aerospace industries, not shipbuilding. It talks about traditional industries and does not mention shipbuilding. Does he think the government has given up on shipbuilding? Does the government think that shipbuilding is a sunset industry?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is very disturbing. When the government talks about industries, about high-tech industries, it fails to comprehend that shipbuilding should be listed among them. If one understood the kind of technology that goes into a modern ship these days, one would recognize this is cutting edge technology.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start today by thanking my constituents from the bottom of my heart for their support in the past election. More than 77% chose to support me and I sincerely thank them. I appreciate the great honour they have bestowed on me once again.

I also want to thank all of those who came out to vote for other political parties, because I am concerned, as are many of us in the House, with the declining voter turnout in our country. It is an important issue for all of us. I feel somewhat embarrassed that the electorate turnout percentage in the United States was higher than it was in Canada. I am sure it is not something Canadians are proud of, and I know they will change that in the next election. I am looking forward to that, certainly.

I am in the House of Commons not only because this is an exciting and interesting job, which it certainly is, but also because there are certain things I want to do.

I am a member of the Conservative Party because I believe it represents those things better than any other political party.

Many others in the House believe in a different agenda and in approaching things differently. I am sure every member of every party believes their party can best represent what is good for this country, and I respect that. I also respect the fact that voters chose to elect each of us in the House, and I congratulate all members of the House for winning their elections. It is truly a great honour, and we have important work to do.

I know there has been a lot of talk since the last Parliament about decorum in the House and about working together. The interesting thing is that in committees and in many areas we do work together quite well. Maybe the divisions and the undesirable comments that go back and forth are not as frequent as the general public believes. It is important for us to get that message out as well.

And it is important to work together. We have been given our third minority government, and Canadians expect us to work together to make this government work. I know that the Prime Minister and the Conservative members of Parliament understand that, and I know other members do too.

We are truly blessed to live in this wonderful country of Canada. It is important to remember that the freedoms we have exist because our fathers, mothers, grandparents, great-grandparents, and the generations before them sacrificed and took initiative beyond what we can only imagine to build and develop the country we have today. It is a truly remarkable country. As Canadians we share remarkable freedoms that are shared by very few other people on the face of the earth.

We are in a time when we have to show a level of leadership and a wisdom in leadership that we have needed at very few times in history. The situations we are facing, especially in the financial markets and the economy, are very serious and will require united action. I encourage every member of the House to be a part of that and to make things work.

In my constituency the two main industries are the oil and gas sector and the agriculture sector, and they are what I want to talk about in my remaining time today.

Both of these sectors are the sources of thousands of jobs in my constituency, and both of them create jobs for others right across the country as well.

The oil and gas industry has been a driving force in providing wealth for communities in my constituency and for workers in all provinces across this country. This industry is a vibrant one. It can, has, and will continue to meet and to exceed the environmental standards expected of it.

Agriculture is the most important long-term and renewable industry in my constituency and in Canada. No industry is more important.

I was raised on a mixed farm and I am still involved in a grain farm on a crop share basis. Many of my friends and neighbours are farmers.

Our party cares deeply about farmers because our party has deep roots in rural communities right across Canada. I am proud of that. I am proud of what our government has done to date on agriculture over the past two and a half years. I want to talk about that.

As the member of Parliament for Vegreville—Wainwright, I have provided substantial input into many issues to do with agriculture. In our party and in our caucus we are free to do that, and many of my colleagues have provided a lot of input.

On the broader issues, of course, decisions are made by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board in cooperation with some of our incredibly capable public servants in the department.

However, many members in the House take on particular issues. These are not large issues nationally, but they are very important to individual groups and to people in certain constituencies. I want to talk a little about some of these issues.

My colleagues and I have been successful in providing control for gophers, which are one of the most devastating pests to crops and pastures in the prairie provinces in particular. Returning 2% liquid strychnine to farmers probably saves them over $200 million a year. When we are talking about billions of dollars all the time, sometimes $200 million does not sound like a lot, but to my friends and my neighbours and my colleagues it is important. Our government has done that because a small group of us have taken it on as an issue and lobbied for it.

We have also lobbied to extend the own-use imports program for glyphosate and expanded it to a number of other products. Under the replacement program for own-use imports, the GROU program, farmers can now import these products from the United States in particular, again saving farmers tens of millions of dollars each and every year.

We have ensured that our cattlemen can continue to bring IVOMEC across the border from the United States, saving them tens of millions of dollars a year.

Why not talk about the billions of dollars all the time and about the tens of billions of dollars that we spend on other programs? We certainly do talk about that a lot, but it is important to look at these so-called smaller issues that are critically important to a particular group of people.

I want to talk a little about what we have done over the past two years in terms of larger programs. On June 29, 2007, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of agriculture agreed in principle on growing forward, the new policy framework for Canada's agriculture, agrifood and agri-based products industry. The vision of growing forward is a profitable and innovative agriculture, agrifood and agri-based products industry that seizes opportunities in responding to market demands and contributes to the health and well-being of Canadians.

On November 17, 2007, ministers agreed to seek the authorities to continue the APF programs for up to an additional year, starting April 1, 2008. This has made and will continue to make for a smooth transition to the growing forward program. It will provide certainty to farmers and enable them to have the voice they deserve in program design.

The first business risk management program under the new package is available under the growing forward program. It responds to farmers' demands for programs that are simple, responsive, predictable and bankable. We all know that too many of the farm programs in the past have been none of those things.

In December 2007 federal, provincial and territorial governments signed agreements to launch a new suite of business risk management programs to replace the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, the CAIS program. The CAIS program simply did not work well. The replacement programs will come into effect for 2009. They are much better programs in many ways.

Based on input from farmers, part of the growing forward program that sets the new policy framework for Canada's agriculture, agrifood and agri-based products industry includes the AgriInvest farmer accounts; AgriStability, an improved margin-based program; AgriInsurance, which includes crop insurance and production insurance and is being expanded to include more commodities; and AgriRecovery, which is a new disaster relief framework.

AgriInvest accounts began for the 2007 program year with a $600 million initiation program on the part of the federal government. That is being delivered as we speak today.

I want to talk about some of the other programs our government has put in place to help farmers build a stronger agriculture sector for the future.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced that 233 research projects across Canada would receive over $22 million in federal funding as a result of an external peer review of research proposals for 2007-08. Four review panels dealt with plant science, animal science, environment and ecology, and food science. The panels, composed of 38 expert scientists from organizations outside Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, used preliminary evaluations from 330 external experts.

These are some of the things our party has done in the first two and a half years.

When it comes to the livestock sector, in particular the cattle, hog, and elk industries, there are some serious problems today. Our government and our party have done a lot in these areas as well. I am not going to go through the list, because I can see that I am not going to have the time to do that, but these industries have certainly been affected in a very positive way by the programs we have put in place.

In spite of that, it has been a very difficult time. Since 2003, when the BSE problem led to closed borders, the cattle industry has been having serious problems. Other sectors as well have been having serious problems over a long period.

I want to talk about one program that is both an agricultural and an environmental program. That is the biofuels program.

Only six months ago people around the world were saying that we should not be investing money in the ethanol and biodiesel sectors. They were saying we should not be investing money in research to help these sectors develop because food is simply too expensive.

It is true that food is expensive at the supermarket, but the cost of the food supply in Canada is lower than the cost in any other country on earth. Only about 13% of what Canadians spend is on food.

That is a remarkable achievement, but we have seen food prices and commodity prices in agriculture drop quite dramatically over the past couple of months. They have been affected directly by the financial and economic crisis we are in today. Farmers have probably felt this crisis as much as, or more than, anybody else. For example, just six months ago farmers could have contracted canola for $17 a bushel. Right now they are lucky to get $9 a bushel, so we can understand the hit that farmers have taken because of the economic crisis. That is one example.

It spills over to every sector of the economy, and I recognize that. It has made things more difficult, although the grain sector is still very profitable in spite of that.

The high input cost is of great concern. One thing we have to watch in the House is that those input prices for fertilizer, pesticides, and that type of thing go down in response to the pressure on the economy, because they certainly should.

Those prices should drop along with the prices of natural gas and oil. They should drop, but we have not seen much of a drop yet. I am certainly hoping we will see further declines before spring. With declining prices and with those commodity prices at the level they have been this year, that is critical. Farmers simply are not going to make a go of it under those circumstances.

I will mention one final thing in relation to agriculture, the Canadian Wheat Board. I was delighted to see it mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.

The agriculture industry has been a consistent driver of the economy. It has created jobs on the Prairies and elsewhere across this country. Our farmers have worked tirelessly to develop a truly remarkable industry that is competitive with agriculture industries anywhere in the world. They have done remarkable things to make it work.

However, governments of the past have put in place roadblocks that really hamper the ability of certain farmers to make a profit and to make the marketing decisions they expect to make.

The Canadian Wheat Board monopoly is one of those roadblocks. It was put in place during the war under the War Measures Act, not to get a better price for farmers, just the opposite, but to drive the price down so government could buy grain from farmers for the war effort. Farmers accepted it at that time. Some kind of restitution was to be made but it never was and a lot of farmers at the time were upset. However, this is 2008 and we still have that monopoly in place.

Our government has committed to give farmers choice. I want to make it clear that our government has always believed in a strong Canadian Wheat Board, and we still do, but we believe that farmers deserve the same type of choices in marketing that everyone else deserves and enjoys. We simply want to give farmers the choice to market through the Wheat Board, if they so choose, or to market without going through the Wheat Board monopoly.

I am looking forward to the day when I have that option. I sell wheat, barley, canola, peas, lentils and other types of commodities. Other farmers produce them for me because, as a member of Parliament, I certainly do not have time to do that. However, I pay my portion of the inputs and I get my portion of the returns. I am looking forward next year, hopefully, to being able to choose to market through the Wheat Board or not. I believe I will continue to market some of my wheat through the Wheat Board but I at least want the choice and I may well choose to market some outside of the Wheat Board monopoly as well. That is all we are talking about.

I want to mention one other thing that affects not only agriculture but a lot of other sectors as well, and that is internal trade. I want to talk about Alberta's premier, Ed Stelmach, who has done a remarkable job in getting together, first, with the premier of British Columbia, and most recently with Brad Wall, the premier of Saskatchewan. They made great progress on eliminating those barriers to internal trade.

I want to mention that I probably was the only critic for internal trade in the history of the Canadian Parliament. I asked Preston Manning, leader of the Reform Party back in 1996, to take on the role of dealing with internal trade. At the time, the Liberal government was putting legislation through the House that was supposed to remove the barriers to internal trade. It is very weak legislation but it did pass. It was a first step. However, not enough has happened since, I am so delighted that our government, with the provinces, has taken on removing the trade barriers, which is something that must be done primarily by the provinces.

However, good leadership from the federal government can help remarkably and that is what our government has provided, along with premiers like Brad Wall, Ed Stelmach and the premier of British Columbia. This will move across the country and we will all be better off for that.

When I was trade critic, I heard from more than half a dozen businesses that because of barriers to trade between provinces they were going to move their head offices to the United States because if they operated out of the United States they would have easier access to all of the Canadians provinces. That is a remarkable type of situation, unbelievable in a country that has signed up internationally to the free trade agreement and to NAFTA.

I again thank my constituents and the hundreds of volunteers who helped out during the campaign. Their contribution is a service to our country. They do a remarkable amount of work and are to be commended.

Finally, I want to thank my wife and my five children for helping me and for sticking with me through 15 years in federal politics. It has been a truly great honour but, as you know, Mr. Speaker, it is not a job that is easy on our families. From the bottom of my heart, I thank my wife Linda and our five children for the commitment they have made to my job as well. This is not only a commitment made by members of Parliament but our families as well.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank the voters of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who elected me to the House for the fifth time in the October 14 election. I will take my first opportunity in this House to thank the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I would like to draw attention to the speech made today by my colleague opposite, who promoted the program the government announced a few months back to help farmers who produce biofuels.

My colleague seemed to forget that although we are experiencing a financial crisis in 2008, we are also experiencing a food crisis. And this crisis is being felt around the world because of programs just like the one announced by the Conservative government a few months ago.

There was speculation on the food markets. There was also a moratorium on the production of corn-based ethanol, which I think is necessary, and which was called for by the UN.

Does my colleague agree that one of the main causes of the 2008 food crisis is the type of measure put forth by the Conservative government a few months ago, which is creating economic, financial and environmental problems?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite on his victory during the election campaign.

This is one issue on which we disagree completely and wholeheartedly. This program would require that 5% of the gasoline sold in the country and 2% of diesel will be ethanol and biodiesel, which is a small portion indeed. It does give a little boost to farmers in terms of increasing their market.

I apologize not at all and never will for doing something that improves the environment and improves the situation of our farmers and our farming communities.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to add my voice to the comment that we want to ensure we develop agricultural policies that benefit our farmers. We are not here to develop cheap food policies. We are here to ensure our farmers, our rural society, are strong and healthy and we will do that by doing things that are great for our environment, like biofuels.

The member talked at length about how important agriculture is to his riding, as it is to mine. We know that for 13 long years trade deals were not getting done in this country. We were not reaching out and developing bilaterals to ensure our agriculture producers had opportunities to sell on a competitive basis against the Americans, the Australians and Europeans and to ensure that our products were getting into the most lucrative markets with the least amount of barriers.

The hon. member was the chair of the standing committee on trade for some time. In a matter of a couple of short years we finally had some trade deals going ahead that will benefit agriculture across the country. We also have some concerns with what is happening with the Americans right now with its COOL legislation and how that will impact our red meat industry quite negatively. Would the member comment on what his cattle and hog producers in Alberta are saying?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member and a lot of members sitting around me today for all the hard work they have done on agriculture. Our trade minister in the last Parliament did an awful lot to negotiate deals with countries like Russia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Egypt and so on.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government made its intention very clear to expand and improve markets to the Americas, to the European Union and to Asia. Our most important trade partner is still the United States, with over 80% of our exports going to the United States. It does not like to hear rumblings of further market disruptions, which it has suffered from.

Fortunately, NAFTA works very well but, unfortunately, certain sectors do not work that well and they seem to be mostly agricultural. The softwood lumber problem, which we solved in the last Parliament, was another, but most of these are agricultural. Our farmers have been hurt dramatically and we are looking at and carefully monitoring what the new president-elect of the United States will do.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

There will be five minutes remaining after question period for further questions and comments.

Aboriginal AffairsStatements by Members

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House to acknowledge the award recently given to the Government of Canada by the Search for Common Ground organization in Washington.

This prestigious award recognizes, in an international forum, the progress Canada has made on the road to reconciliation and, in particular, the Prime Minister's historic apology to survivors of Indian residential schools in June of this year.

We are committed to advancing reconciliation in all matters of aboriginal policy. Across the country, the Conservative government is working with provincial and territorial governments and aboriginal groups to craft new partnerships.

Although the government recognizes that the apology will not take away the sad legacy of residential schools, it does mark a new beginning, founded on renewed hope, mutual respect and trust. The apology brings aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians closer together with a new understanding of our shared past.