Debates of May 6th, 2002

Supply

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

It is hardly studies, Madam Speaker. There has been $2 billion for strategic infrastructure; $2 billion in terms of provincial-federal infrastructure programs; $90 million for the community futures program; and several hundreds of millions dollars into Service Canada. Also money has been put into connecting and giving public Internet access to all of Canada.

These are tangible real things that are to the benefit of rural Canadians. They work for rural Canadians. I know the hon. member is a passionate advocate of both Atlantic Canada and rural Canada. I look forward to working with him and not simply on committees and studies.

The government, unlike the previous Tory government, has appointed a particular individual in the ministry responsible for rural Canada. That is important. We have had some real programs that have been put forward and I enunciated them. I look forward to working with the hon. member to move the agenda of rural Canada forward into the future.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address today's motion presented by the Canadian Alliance.

This motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should cease and desist its sustained legislative and political attacks on the lives and livelihoods of rural Canadians and the communities where they live.

Instead of using the term “attacks”, I would rather talk about a “lack of policies” on the part of the Canadian government. My definition of rural areas is much different from the one being discussed today. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will have to make up his mind and decide how to manage the agricultural sector and how to harmonize rural areas with the decisions that will be made regarding agriculture.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is slow to release Canada's broad policy thrusts in the context of globalization. Meanwhile, the Americans are drafting their U.S. farm bill.

We also do not know what will be the place of the rural world, which is confronted daily with massive industrialization in the agricultural sector. This government likes to consult. I have been a member of parliament for almost five years now and whenever I hear the Liberal government, it talks about consulting. I just took part in one of these consultations across Canada regarding the mood of farmers. I can say that few people are pleased with the Canadian agricultural policy.

I also took part in two conferences on rural development. At the first conference, we talked about the importance for people to have access to the Internet. We talked about the Internet at a time when, in my riding and in several other ones in Canada, it is still possible to see five customers sharing the same telephone line. Just imagine: they wanted to hook them up to the Internet.

At the second conference, they talked about networking. They said “We have to talk to each other, we have to communicate”. From what I can see on the other side, they have a great deal of difficulty communicating between departments.

The federal government's famous tour, three years ago, resulted in the income support program. They used a very positive expression, namely the “Disaster Program”. This is the positive work done by the government when farmers are confronted with economic problems.

The Canadian government asked the standing committee to do another cross-Canada tour. By far the majority of agricultural stakeholders came to tell us that Canadian agriculture was in an impasse, if not a total crisis. Generations of them had devoted their lives to building a rural environment that was a pleasant place to live. Now, with agriculture becoming increasingly industrialized, the efforts they have expended are disappearing.

Everywhere in Canada, we heard one stakeholder after another speak of their concerns. This past weekend, the president of the UPA, Laurent Pellerin, used some clear language in La Terre de chez nous “Either we move ahead or we repeat history”. I will use an even more Quebecois expression, not advancing, not repeating ourselves, but “stuck like a broken record”. That means nothing is being done.

I share the concerns of the Quebec agricultural sector when the federal government, in yet another strategy document, does not directly address questions of supply and demand and collective marketing. The first step is to really determine what this government's orientation is as far as agriculture is concerned. Then we can start negotiations, so that we can find out how to manage our rural areas.

This government is trying to draft Canada-wide national standards in order to bind the entire agricultural sector with some great principles which will not meet provincial and regional aspirations. The agricultural sector throughout Canada is demanding more flexibility than that, in Quebec in particular.

There have been four rounds of consultations and two conferences on the rural problem, and there is still no sign of an agricultural policy. The Hill Times recently reported the minister of agriculture as saying that he was still prepared to consider other studies before releasing his policy.

What is the minister waiting for? While the government is consulting right and left, the Americans have almost finished drafting a national agricultural policy which will further add to market distortions. Once again, the Americans are getting ready to inject several billions of dollars in subsidies.

Again last week, members of the standing committee on agriculture put this question to four of the minister of agriculture's top officials, who are supposedly experts on strategy. They said they knew nothing about this upcoming American legislation, which will have a negative impact on all aspects of the agricultural market.

While we are getting nowhere, the Americans are drafting their next piece of legislation, the famous farm bill, which will increase financial assistance to farmers by close to $5 billion annually over six years.

Many countries are outraged at this increase, which is inconsistent with the U.S. support for the principle of reducing subsidies expressed at the last meeting of the World Trade Organization in November.

Nor does this bill have unanimous approval within the United States. Americans producing items which are not massively subsidized and those calling for a more equitable share of government support feel that this legislation is a disgraceful waste, which may well further depopulate American farm land. People are critical of the bill because they say it will make the rich richer, cause prices to drop, and eliminate even more small farmers. This looks a lot like what the Canadian government has been doing in recent years.

In Canada, the proposed U.S. legislation has caused a number of people to sit up and take note, including Saskatchewan's minister of agriculture who was critical of the farm bill for the negative impact it may have on Canadian farming. Provincial ministers are opposed to the bill. La Terre de chez nous still has much to say about it, as do the main farming associations, but the minister keeps saying that he knows nothing.

Yet this bill runs counter to the WTO rules on subsidies. It will mean that our farmers will no longer be able to compete on the market. The Americans have still not even complied with the GATT agreements, and now they are compounding this by announcing major subsidies for the near future. They are going to continue to target Quebec's agricultural policy.

Let us talk about this government's consultations. There is a more partisan group, the Liberal Party task force, set up by the Prime Minister to find out what was really happening in the world of agriculture. There are processes, parliamentary committees, and every one of us in our ridings is listening to farmers, and the Prime Minister created another committee to find out farmer's real needs. What a revelation.

This group recommended that the government invest more in agriculture to counteract the negative impact of inclement weather, the markets and income fluctuations. This sounds a lot like all of the demands that I have heard.

Again, we absolutely must settle Canada's agricultural policy first, before trying to deal with rural development, because whatever the government decides, in terms of types of agriculture it will support, will determine the future, or lack thereof, of rural areas.

I would like to broach another subject that was raised during the cross-country tour, that is labelling of GMOs. This worries people in rural areas. In the past, people pinned their hopes on organic farming. They made a great effort to get accredited. When another farmer uses genetically modified seeds or other genetically modified products, they can end up watching their crops being destroyed.

During this trip, I met an organic seed producer who told me that because of the carelessness of another farmer who had used genetically modified seeds, he lost $37,000. He lost it because there was no legislation for obligatory labelling of GMOs, whether it be seeds or products for consumption. But consumers should have a right to know what they are eating.

This, despite the fact that there have been two attempts in the House to solve this problem. The last time was in October 2001, when Bill C-287 was voted down. Yet it was a bill that was sponsored by a Liberal member. Fifteen Liberals from Quebec voted against this legislation, yet all of the consumers associations and rural populations were calling for it.

The true debate on the future of the rural sector ought to address protection of water and the environment, the emergence of agrotourism, and seeking to strike a balance among the various agricultural concerns. We know that, with the protection of farm activities and the advent of the right of production, agriculture is assuming a vital role in our rural areas. The countryside must not become exclusive to agriculture. It must also protect our irreplaceable collective heritage such as our lakes and woods. The debate that should take place on rural development must also address this aspect.

I would like to come back to the tour in order to show how I was approached about our the future of our rural areas. A number of groups and organizations came to express their grave concerns on the growth of agribusiness and all its potential consequences for the environment. Our rural areas have been totally ruined by the burgeoning giant pig operations in all provinces, Quebec in particular. Land prices, on which there is heavy speculation by those involved in vertical integration, have increased so much that in the very near future it will become more and more difficult for dairy and beef farmers to buy any land at a reasonable price, if they want to expand. Not only that, but young farmers wanting to start up an operation will face major obstacles in the increased land and production costs.

The rural communities understand all of this. In fact, in the past 10 to 15 years, agriculture has taken a turn toward agribusiness. The various levels of government have focused their assistance on that sector, abandoning the small farm operations. The famous U.S. bill is being criticized. If it gets enacted, there will no longer be any room for small operations, in Quebec or in Ontario. I have heard the positions of the associations on this. I asked them directly, “If the various levels of government continue to favour agribusiness almost exclusively, what do you see happening to our rural areas in the future?”

Their unanimous opinion is, “Our countryside as we know it will disappear. There will be nothing but giant farm operations managed by big agribusinesses, often even U.S. ones, which will replace us and do things their way”.

What many generations in Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces have built up will be lost. And this is where the focus needs to be when it comes to rural development.

The secretary of state is trying hard. He has even met with many well-intentioned stakeholders, especially in Charlottetown. However, his government is not giving him enough money to show the leadership needed to save rural areas.

Rural areas are also affected by all the efforts which have been made to implement farm tourism. Those who use our charming bike trails will quickly abandon them if they come up against the increasing affront to the nose from industrial farming operations.

A recent ad campaign by Quebec's federation of hog producers used the line “Spring is in the air”. When I was young, the air smelled good when you stepped outside. Now, if you put your nose out the door and the hog megaproducers have spread the liquid manure, the slogan “Spring is in the air” takes on quite a different meaning from the delightful one that would have occurred to me in the spring way back when.

The time has come to stop imitating the United States. I have spoken at length about the woes of the rural world. However, I have seen what is happening elsewhere. It is important for members of the House to get out and see what is being done elsewhere. It is as though we are obsessed with solely looking at what is happening in the United States.

Let me give the example of a country called Switzerland, where small producers practice farming to supply food, of course, but while protecting the environment at the same time. The environment must play a central role in the debate over rural development.

Nearly 80% of all Swiss farmers have switched to green practices, which were promoted in the early 1990s. In a referendum held in June 1996, 77% of the Swiss population supported a concept of agriculture that incorporated multiple functions to promote sustainable development. Canada is a long way from this reality.

In addition to the obligation to feed the population—close to two thirds of the food consumed in Switzerland is produced in the country—the agricultural sector has become a partner in implementing a sustainable development policy. Consequently, it works to ensure the protection of biological diversity by providing the necessary land for animal and vegetable species. This is a far cry from what we see in documentary footage on the treatment of animals here in our craze for mass production. Animals virtually never go outside, yet the land belongs to them.

There is also a connection between farming and tourism. Farms must be laid out in a decentralized manner, and must not spoil the landscape.

In closing, the Government of Canada must announce its policy direction regarding the agricultural model that it wants to pursue. More importantly, it must reflect on rural development as a whole and try to rationalize the industrial model with the family model and try to come up with policies that will meet the needs of our communities.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, as we know, the U.S. farm bill will be passed in the next few weeks. Interestingly enough, the Americans will be throwing another $73 billion into their farm subsidization programs with about $45 billion of that going directly to producers. They have also brought in other onerous provisions which we object to, in particular country of origin labelling on such products as beef.

I live just across the border from Montana. I have found it interesting, as I have watched over the last 10 or 15 years, to see that the massive amounts of money Montana spends on its farm programs does not seem to be restoring its rural areas. Many of the small towns in Montana are in far worse shape than the towns in western Canada. The city of Havre, which is the main trading area south of us, a city of between 10,000 and 15,000 people, has a very difficult time even keeping a mall open.

It is obvious that money is not the only answer to the problems facing rural areas. Does the member have any ideas about how we should go about passing the rural lifestyle, the agricultural land and the farms on to our children in order to preserve our rural lifestyle given that throwing more money at it does not seem to be the total answer?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I share the concerns of the hon. member from Saskatchewan. When it comes to markets, the U.S. government should begin by respecting the agreements it has signed, such as the recent GATT agreements. A reply has not even been provided yet to the negotiated demand.

The Americans often tell us that Canada is a privileged partner. I would like to know their definition of the term partner. We are concerned about everything along our border with the United States.

The Canadian government will have to react quickly. We know how the Americans operate. When they table their bill, it will be too late. Why are they slow in releasing it? It is because they are also preparing all the regulations that will go with it. We Canadians and Quebecers will have to try to find a way around all these regulations.

The situation of our agricultural sector and rural areas will continue to deteriorate if this government does not make the necessary efforts to assume true leadership to save our agriculture, which is currently in a state of crisis.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments made by the member.

We see little or no response from the government on these trade issues, things like country of origin labelling and the introduction of pulses into the farm bill which were not there before.

I would like the member's opinion on whether we should be pursuing the issue directly at the NAFTA and WTO or, as the government has done with so many other issues, should we just wait until we have a major confrontation before we choose to do anything about the issue.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will have to send a message to the Minister for International Trade and indicate to him that agriculture is a priority. The government will have to show that agriculture is important to this country.

In April 1998, I attended a Cairns Group meeting. Guess who New Zealand's Minister for International Trade was? It was its Minister of Agriculture. This means that New Zealand realizes the importance of providing leadership for the agricultural sector.

Here, while the Minister for International Trade is trying to achieve certain consensuses with the Americans, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food keeps consulting again and again. The time for consultation is over. It is now time to act and to draft a policy that will reassure our farmers.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words on this very important debate before the House today about the vision we have for rural Canada and the lack thereof by the federal government.

I have been around the House for a while and have seen various government policies over the years and there has been a real lack of national vision regarding rural Canada and what will happen to the rural part of our country.

It is getting worse all the time. Recent evidence of that is the American farm bill which is in its last week of winding its way through the American government process and will give a subsidy of $171 billion to American farmers. That will be absolutely devastating to the farmers of this country. That is $171 billion over 10 years. They have already had a massive subsidy. The Canadian farmer now gets about 9¢ on the dollar from the federal government, while the American farmer has been receiving about 35¢ on the dollar from Washington. Of course when it gets to Europe it gets even worse. The European farmer receives about 55¢ on the dollar from Brussels.

On top of those things, we get the American farm bill, which is another $171 billion. I do not know what the calculation of that will be but it will certainly be very devastating to the farmers of our country. It is a national farm bill. It applies to British Columbia right through to Newfoundland. Pulse crops will be included for the first time now.

I was on a plane on Friday with a Saskatchewan farmer who said that the American subsidy now for a bushel of peas was about $5.95. It is just absolutely incredible in terms of having any of our producers even survive this kind of devastation that is hitting our country. Therefore I consider this a very important debate here in the House today.

When I look at the prairies and at my own province of Saskatchewan I worry about another problem, the problem of drought. The year 2001 was Saskatchewan's driest year in recorded history. It was dryer than the 1930s. I think the driest years in the 1930s were 1936, 1937 and maybe 1938. The devastation to rural Saskatchewan, the rural prairies and rural Canada has been incredible. We had very little snow during the winter and very little rain this spring. When I fly over the prairies it is brown. A disaster is coming down the chute and obviously the minister across the way is aware of it.

We have drought and we have low international prices caused by massive subsidies in Europe and in the United States compounded now by the ever increasing subsidies by the Americans under the American farm bill. Those are recipes for an absolute disaster.

This is a human tragedy. One just has to look at the census results across the rural prairies. Even in the province of Alberta, which has tremendous revenues because of oil, gas and bigger cities like Edmonton and Calgary, many of the smaller towns and villages in the rural areas are disappearing. Since 1995 almost every single riding in Saskatchewan has suffered a population loss and that is before the American farm bill has even been passed.

It is a strange situation when we hear George W. Bush and the Americans talk about the importance of free trade and how they are champions of free trade and yet we have greater protectionism by the government of the United States than we have seen since the 1930s with the American farm bill, softwood lumber in British Columbia in particular and the subsidies now in the American steel industry. It goes on and on.

It is a very important economic issue for Canada that our federal government take a very strong stand with the Americans. This is not just an economic issue for the prairie farmers or the rural people in the small towns and villages, it is a national economic issue of great importance to our country. We must stand up and fight as hard as we can to make sure we protect the farmers of Canada.

The second thing that is very important is that farmers need help. The federal-provincial agriculture ministers from across Canada are meeting today and tomorrow at the Marriott Hotel in Ottawa. I am sure the federal minister will hear from all the provincial ministers about the need for help particularly on the prairies. The federal government has reduced price support programs since 1993. It has cut back on price support programs in accordance with the WTO.

[An hon. member]

The deputy premier is over there, so do not worry.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Of course our deputy premier is over there right now.

The government has cut back on farm support programs since 1993. It has done that to a much greater degree than it had to.

Once again there is a huge surplus in the federal treasury. The finance minister tabled a budget a couple of months ago and talked about a surplus of $1.5 billion. Now we hear from the Department of Finance that there is likely to be a surplus of between $7 billion and $10 billion. The money is there for a couple of billion dollars for an emergency farm program to help the farmers.

I would like to see the Liberal members across the way get up on their feet and join the debate in a call for an emergency farm bill to help keep some of our farmers on the land. The Liberal Party has a rural task force which has been around the country. The agriculture committee has been around the country. They have been to Saskatchewan and right across Canada. I am sure they have seen firsthand the problems the farmers are having.

If farmers continue to go bankrupt it will hurt the country very badly. It is a very big economic issue. It is extremely important that the House unite and make this one of its priorities. There is nothing more important than the economic well-being of the country in terms of having a society that is happy and healthy. Now we see more and more people in the rural areas suffering from all kinds of problems. We see an increase in suicides. We see an increase in frustration. There is an increase in family violence, bankruptcies and the dislocation of family life in small towns and villages. Driving through the countryside, people can see the towns that were once thriving are thriving no more.

Where is the vision? We in this country have a surplus of $7 billion to $10 billion in fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 with a projection of a bigger surplus next year. Let us channel some of that surplus back to the farmers.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

We just gave $1 billion to Saskatchewan.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

That is a wonderful idea across the way. I hope the member from rural Ontario gets up and makes that public in the House of Commons, that Saskatchewan needs $1 billion.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

That is what it got last year.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

What the federal government has taken out of Saskatchewan since 1993 is absolutely incredible.

There has been the abolition of the Crow rate and all the money has gone out of the province of Saskatchewan. The highways are being destroyed. The farmers are not moving their grain by rail. All across the prairies there are thin membrane paved highways. When big trucks are put on those thin membrane highways the highways are destroyed. Those highways have been destroyed by the big trucks as farmers truck grain into the towns instead of by rail. Now hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to build thick membrane highways that can carry the big trucks.

That is what has happened in the 1990s. There has been a lack of vision by the government across the way. That is why there are very few rural members from western Canada sitting on the government side of the House. There are very few because of the total negligence by the government to rural Canadians that live in the western part of our country.

I am asking members today to vote with us. I am asking the Liberal members across the way to stand with us in asking for some real money for a real vision. Where is the vision the country is supposed to have, a national vision of building a stronger country and a stronger foundation?

If the farmers are better off, then we all will be better off. If the farmer spends the money, it will stimulate the economy in the towns and the cities and there will be a job for every Canadian right across the country.

That is one of the problems in rural Canada. When we lose our rural infrastructure, we lose our rural hospitals and the rural health clinics. The post offices are pulling out. The small towns are losing their stores and shops. The whole thing is falling by the wayside because of the lack of leadership and the lack of vision.

I also turn to rural Canada when I think of softwood lumber. I think of many parts of my province.

People think of Saskatchewan as a flat prairie province but over half of its land area is full of trees. Softwood lumber is a very important industry to our province and to British Columbia, yet the American government has put a duty of some 27% on softwood lumber. It is the same American government that expects us to co-operate fully in the war on terrorism, to co-operate fully in Afghanistan and to support it all the way in the so-called northern command and to have a joint customs union. However the Liberals across the way are not even talking about a common currency because they do not want to upset Uncle Sam.

Why are we being boy scouts in these dealings with the Americans? The Americans would not be doing this to themselves, yet the Liberal government across the way seems to be afraid of its own shadow when it comes to speaking up about what is good for Canadians and Canada.

We need a farm support program. It is very ironic that today the Alliance Party is talking about additional aid for farmers. It is the same party that spoke against government support for farmers and farm support programs years ago. There are many quotes in the House where the Alliance opposed farm support programs. There are many cases in the House of Commons where the Alliance Party has talked about government being too big, having too many programs, too many grants, too many subsidies and too much money going out, and the Alliance has wanted to cut back on spending and on programs. We already have the smallest government spending in terms of GDP since 1949. That is what the Alliance Party is doing but it should go exactly the opposite way of what the Alliance is doing.

The Alliance once again today is calling for the weakening of the Canadian Wheat Board. We do not need a weaker Canadian Wheat Board. We need a strong Canadian Wheat Board, a single purchasing agent on behalf of all Canadians.

It is very strange. The Alliance Party talked about grassroots democracy, referenda and plebiscites. Every time there is a referendum or a plebiscite on supporting the Canadian Wheat Board, the farmers of our country and my province overwhelmingly want a Canadian Wheat Board that is strong and which is there on behalf of all farmers of the country. Every survey seen among the farmers of my province show that people want a very strong Canadian Wheat Board.

The Alliance Party wants to throw it open to the so-called open market, to the Cargills of the world and to the big multinational grain companies that are based in the United States. The Alliance pretends it is speaking up for the ordinary farmer of Saskatchewan. That is total rubbish. It is exactly the opposite direction to where we have to go.

It is about time we had a rural vision, a vision that would put money into the rural infrastructure, into the hands of the Canadian farmers, a vision that would have strong marketing boards for our products and a strong Canadian Wheat Board that would fight on behalf of the Canadian farmer. We need a Canadian government that will fight against the Americans' new national farm bill. We need a Canadian government that will take a strong stand in support of our softwood lumber producers.

A lot of things need to be done for rural Canada. I was in Newfoundland just a few days ago. There is a byelection going on in Gander. My friend from Pictou was in Newfoundland the day after I was there. We can see the rural devastation when it comes to the outports and small communities of Newfoundland. They have been devastated by a lack of vision by federal governments over the years. The fishery has been gutted, again because of a lack of vision and a lack of planning by governments over the years. It goes back well before 1993.

Year after year we in the House of Commons are ignoring the important issues that face rural Canada. I also think of the unemployed. In Canada there is a tendency to have more unemployed in rural areas than in the larger cities. I think of places like Bathurst and the Acadian peninsula in New Brunswick. There is a large number of unemployed people in that part of the world. Yet the government across the way is cutting back on employment insurance benefits and making it more difficult for legitimately unemployed people to qualify for benefits.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

You are a few years behind on that one.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

No wonder the Liberal from rural Ontario is hanging his head in shame. The federal government has an accumulated surplus of some $43 billion in the EI fund, yet the majority of people do not even qualify for employment insurance. That is the Liberal vision. No wonder people are becoming alienated with the political process.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It is a nightmare, not a vision.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

As my friend from Vancouver East has said, it is a nightmare that ordinary people are facing.

Let us get our priorities straight. The country needs a vision by a strong federal government, a national vision that includes all Canadians, including rural Canadians. We need a strong federal government that will take on the Americans in terms of their trade policy. We need a strong national government with a national farm support program to make sure that farmers get back their costs of production as a minimum plus a decent income on which to live. That is the kind of vision we need.

We need a federal government that is committed to use some of the national surplus to help the farmers and rural people. Yet the federal government was so spooked before the last election campaign by the Alliance and by the brand new leader of the Alliance Party that it made a commitment to the biggest tax cut in the history of our country, some $100 billion over five years, at the cost of cutbacks to the farmers, at the cost of cutbacks to our national health care system, and at the cost of cutbacks to transfers to the provinces for public education.

Where is the Liberal Party of old? Where is the Liberal Party of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau? Where has that party gone? Sitting across the way is the most conservative government in the last 40 years.

As I said before, program spending now by the government is the lowest it has been since 1949, when comparing program spending to the GDP. That is not the Liberal Party of old which would pick up ideas from the CCF and the NDP, such as national medicare, social programs, a mixed economy, the CBC, the Canadian Wheat Board. Where is that old Liberal Party? The old Liberal Party is gone.

Hopefully some Liberals will get up in the House of Commons today and give us a national vision of where we should be going. If we do not do that we will lose rural Canada and the farmers.

I see another friend of mine across the way from New Brunswick. I hope he also gets up in the House. He represents a rural riding and talks about the devastation of the economy in rural New Brunswick and what has happened there since the Liberal Party has come to power.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Regina--Qu'Appelle talked about vision. Perhaps it is because he is getting a little older but his vision seems to be going.

We can talk a little about our party. He knows better than to insult us because he knows full well that we have very strong support in western Canada and for good reason. When we talk about rural Saskatchewan dying, one of the main reasons there are problems in rural Saskatchewan has been his government and the philosophy of the NDP in Saskatchewan.

In the 1930s Saskatchewan was the third most populous province in Canada. Unfortunately that population has been stable for almost seven decades, coinciding with the NDP being fairly strong in our province. We have seen great prosperity across the border. Many of us have had to watch that with dismay. Hopefully we can change that over the next few years. Alberta and Saskatchewan have had similar resources. At one time we had similar populations but we have not been able to experience that same prosperity.

My friend mentioned the Canadian Wheat Board. I was amazed that he would insist we stick with the same antiquated system we have had for decades now. We need prosperity in rural areas. Perhaps one of the reasons he said what he said is that he has a mainly urban riding and does not understand what is going on in rural Saskatchewan.

Within our smaller communities we need value added. We need processing. One of the ways we can do that is to take the product we grow the most and do the best job at it, which is to take wheat and begin to process it. Interestingly enough the pulse industry has grown exponentially in our province partially because it has not had government interference in its development. It has grown 3,000% in the last 10 years.

We need the same thing in our wheat industry. Unfortunately because of the restrictions on western Canadian farmers, we have watched the wheat acreage actually go down in western Canada. Not only is the wheat board a hindrance to farmers but it is actually working against itself by keeping these restrictions on people.

I assume the member supports the provincial NDPs in Saskatchewan. Could he tell us a little about what they have done to counter the aggressive federal Liberal government that has worked to destroy so much of our rural culture in the last 10 years?

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, the NDP in Saskatchewan has done an awful lot. Otherwise it would not get re-elected. I am sure the member across the way will respect the wisdom of the voters of Saskatchewan. The NDP has been in government there for most of the time since 1944 and we have had to fight this very far right wing tendency in our province over the years. We have usually been victorious in fighting that tendency.

Here again we have a far right wing party that wants to cut back on all kinds of government support. It is against any kind of subsidy or support coming from the federal government. It is against the Canadian Wheat Board, or at least the member across the way made it very clear that he wants to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. He wants the wheat board off the backs of Saskatchewan farmers. I can tell him that about 80% or 90% of Saskatchewan farmers would disagree very strongly with the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands. The Canadian Wheat Board is an institution that has been supported very strongly by Saskatchewan farmers over the years. The member knows that. His party is supposed to be a democratic party, a party based on the grassroots and input from ordinary citizens, yet it does not listen to the ordinary people.

The farmers want the wheat board. The farmers have supported the wheat board. My riding, which is half rural, is extremely supportive of the Canadian Wheat Board, supportive by adding more crops under the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the position of most of the producers in the province of Saskatchewan.

It is parties like his that say there should be smaller government, fewer government programs, fewer government supports and fewer government subsidies. Now of course this is happening in terms of the federal government. That party is getting its wish because part of its agenda is being implemented and it is devastating rural Saskatchewan and devastating rural Canada.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle for his very powerful comments about what really is a sense of betrayal on the part of people who live in rural Canada about what has happened in terms of the demise of federal programs. The irony is that it is not as though the government has somehow shifted all of its supports and resources into urban Canada, because the same picture emerges there.

I also was glad that the member referred to the situation with EI because I know that in small rural communities people are particularly hard hit by changes to EI. One of the most shocking revelations in research done by the Canadian Labour Congress is that two-thirds of the EI surplus, the $40 billion the member spoke about, actually came from people who made less than $20,000 a year. We are talking about part time workers.

In reference to the softwood lumber fiasco and how that will hit rural communities, I would ask the hon. member if he could comment further on what we need to do to provide support and assistance to the workers and those small rural communities that are hit, for sure in British Columbia where I am from, but also across the country.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, softwood lumber is a very important issue for the whole country and particularly for rural Canada. There are all kinds of small communities being hit very hard with layoffs in the softwood lumber industry. Again the government has not been very aggressive with the United States in terms of fighting the duties that the Americans are imposing. We should look at a national government program to help the workers who are laid off and to help some of the small companies that are laying off people.

There should be changes to the unemployment insurance plan whereby more people would be eligible to qualify for EI benefits. We should make sure that the qualification period is easier to obtain, that there is a longer qualification period. There was a time when a majority of workers qualified for EI. Now a lot of them do not. These are the changes that have to be made. The EI fund now has a surplus of approximately $43 billion. The member for Vancouver East has pointed out that a lot of the money going into EI comes from low income people. These are the very same people who do not qualify for unemployment insurance assistance.

What we need is a program to protect the workers, to make sure that if they cannot keep their jobs in the softwood lumber industry they get the training and skills needed to find employment elsewhere. There is a whole package in terms of education and training that we need to be pursuing in this country.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have two short questions.

First, do the member and his party oppose the current Bill C-15B before the House, the cruelty to animals legislation amendments to the criminal code? They are negative not only toward farmers but toward rural Canada. This is a big issue in rural Canada. It would also hurt Canadians in small towns and cities, because if that bill is passed we will end up with fewer jobs as the livestock industry deteriorates.

Second, in regard to the PMRA, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the member's health critic would like to have virtually every pesticide removed from the shelves and from Canadian farmers. Does he support that?

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member is talking about the cruelty to animals act, Bill C-15B. We have said that there should be adequate compensation for any farmer who will be disadvantaged economically in terms of implementation of the bill. I think there is a fair consensus in the House of Commons that there should be some amendments to that effect.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, in reply to my colleague from Cypress--Grasslands the hon. member made a statement earlier in regard to the percentage of farmers who want the freedom to market on their own the products that they work so hard to grow, exclusive of the dictatorial powers that the Canadian Wheat Board has placed on our farmers. The member from Saskatchewan said he did not know what survey my colleague from Cypress--Grasslands was looking at but that 90% of the farmers want to continue to embrace the wheat board. In fact, a recent survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business disputes that number and shows that there is a full 80% of farmers who want a voluntary way to market their products, either by themselves or through some sort of wheat board. Also what is interesting is that an internal survey done by the Canadian Wheat Board itself clearly showed that 66% to 70% of the farmers want the freedom to market the products themselves, exclusive of the wheat board.

That flies in the face of that 90% “rally round and hug the wheat board” number that the member from Saskatchewan just put forward in the House. It is wrong.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, what I said was that 80% or 90% of the farmers in Saskatchewan support the wheat board. That is an historical fact. Every time we have had a vote there has been overwhelming support for the Canadian Wheat Board. If the hon. member wants to come out to my riding and knock on the doors of farmers he will find that 80% or 90% of the farmers support the Canadian Wheat Board, a strong single desk marketing system, which will stay if we listen to the farmers of the country.

I know Alliance members do not believe in that. They want great big companies that take over everything. They want to sell out our country and they do not want any farm support programs, but that is not the vision that Canadian people are buying. That is why their party is going down in poll after poll.