Debates of May 6th, 2002

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Prince George--Bulkley Valley.

The government is failing agriculture and rural Canada. We are debating rural issues including agriculture. Being the chief agriculture critic for the Canadian Alliance, I have a lot to say about the agriculture aspect of rural Canada.

The policies are being lived by people in my own riding. Albert Strick, a farmer in my area, has done a lot to develop the community in our area. He sees clearly that a lot of the policies are not in the best interest of farmers. I appreciate constituents like him who try to move the debate along and accomplish something that the government has not.

The government does not seem to understand the importance of agriculture. The direct result of this misunderstanding is indifference and insufficient support for farmers who are fighting against foreign subsidies that are of course beyond their control.

The U.S. farm bill is dumping $180 billion into the U.S. subsidy program. U.S. politicians are using their subsidies to close the gap with Europeans. The real effect will be to push Canadian farm income even down further. What does our agriculture minister have to say about the issue of subsidies? He has said that the government cannot match it, that it has to do is find ways to mitigate it and that it will be seeking ways to do that.

I have outlined, and my party has outlined in report after report some of which were tabled in the House, many ways to help farmers without the direct subsidy route if that is what he feels he needs to be done. All he needs to do is read up on those. I will even send him another letter to ensure that he fully understands what those are. We will mention many of those in our speeches today.

The minister's department has identified a 25% decline in prices due to these foreign subsidies. That is why I have repeatedly asked questions of the minister and the parliamentary secretary in the House about the trade injury compensation program. All the farm associations like Keystone Agriculture Producers, Wild Rose Agricultural Producers in Alberta and the grain companies like Agricore United, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and Canadian Federation of Agriculture know that we need to have a trade injury compensation program but the government refuses to deliver it.

Individual farmers are taking the bull by the horns. I will mention two individuals in Manitoba who are doing just that on an individual farmer basis, over and above the farm organizations, because the minister does not seem to listen to farm organizations like he should.

Mr. Murray Downing of Reston, Manitoba and Joe Dusik of Oakbluff sent a letter to the right hon. Prime Minister, the Ministers of Finance and Agriculture and Agri-Food and to the leader of the official opposition. They said:

I am a Canadian Grains and Oilseed producer and/or a concerned citizen of Canada.

According to information from the department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, foreign subsidies are removing $1.3 Billion each year from the income of the grains and oilseed sector in Canada.

Our industry cannot fight against foreign treasuries alone. I am joining with all agriculture groups across Canada in requesting that you immediately implement a $1.3 Billion trade Injury Compensation Program in the form of an immediate cash payment to be directed at grains and oilseed farmers.

This payment would generate a $9 billion spin-off to the Canadian economy. This is not an expense but an investment in your future.

These two gentlemen and their families are farmers who are living the life of desperation in a lot of ways because the agricultural policies of the government and its lack of support make them very uncompetitive with our U.S. neighbours just across the border a few miles south.

The minister has to answer these questions. Yes or no. Does he support our farmers? Is he going to put this trade injury compensation program in place or not?

The other ministers who have a big impact on agriculture should not escape unscathed from the debate today.

The current Minister of Health for instance has had a record of being anti-farmer. She was formerly the justice minister who brought in the cruelty to animals legislation, Bill C-15B. In that bill the minister and the government have refused to provide the protection for farmers that is necessary for their livestock production. The protection is needed to prevent harassment type prosecution by animal rights groups. The present minister could fix that right now by adding in the legal protection that we had in the criminal code before this time.

In addition the Pest Management Regulatory Agency is virtually non-functioning at this time and I do not think that the new amendments under the pest products control act will do anything to alleviate the problem with getting full use of newer and safer pesticides inside Canada.

This can only be corrected by the minister taking responsibility and a leadership role in telling the bureaucrats that they will make the agency work and that they will serve the client, the farmer and the pest products people who produce the pesticides needed for agriculture.

There is another major issue which could be effective in helping rural Canada. The thrust of my speech is on all these minister who could do something for rural Canada but will not.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is going to Manitoba, the prairies and across the country enforcing subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act. That act is designed to protect the habitat of fish in our streams and lakes. Nobody is against that. However the department is using this subsection of the Fisheries Act to obstruct the reclamation and the improvement of agricultural land. It is saying that until a study is done on a particular drainage project, drainage cannot be done and existing drains cannot be used or cleaned. From the time drains were built by the municipality, minnows have got into them and as a result, fisheries and oceans has stopped the drainage improvements which directly impacts on farmers in a negative way.

The province of Manitoba believes that the cost of drainage projects has increased by 25% to 30% to comply with the new fisheries enforcement act.

In my riding of Selkirk--Interlake where Mr. Strick lives, about 10,000 acres in the RM of Armstrong, along with Coldwell, Woodlands and St. Laurent are currently being flooded because we cannot get the drainage put in. Part of that is fisheries and oceans but also part of it is the lack of infrastructure spending by the government in rural Canada, which is the topic of the debate today.

If that money were forthcoming to Selkirk--Interlake to be used on North Shoal Lake, where I ranch, we would have a much larger agriculture sector there. We would have more production, creating more jobs for more Canadians. The commodities that we produce are exportable and as a result we would bring in a lot of foreign currency.

Mr. Strict is a councillor from our local community of Armstrong who has done a lot of hard work to try to mitigate these circumstances that have been so negatively impacting on agriculture in my riding.

We can talk about other ministers. The revenue minister could quite easily today get rid of the 4¢ federal excise tax on diesel fuel and gasoline.

Farmers could come under the wheat board voluntarily. I do not understand why the government and the minister want to give Ontario, Quebec and the provinces outside of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan a big marketing advantage and the option to decide what is best for their farmers but yet our prairie farmers come under the thumb of the board. Farmers have been told that the only way they can market some wheat or barley is by delivering it strictly to the wheat board. However Ontario and Quebec get whatever they want. They can market whatever they want but not prairie farmers.

Rural issues are big and we have a lot of good solutions and I have mentioned a few of them here.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, years ago when we had a government that cared, particularly about agriculture and western Canada, it passed an act known by western farmers as the Crow rate. It persuaded farmers to get rid of that and there would be no more subsidies.

I would like to ask the member who has just spoken a question. The last year that we had the Crow rate, this government paid out $760 million in benefits that went directly into the pockets of farmers. Does the member realize that less than 10% of what the government receives in road taxes goes toward grain road improvement in western Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Crow rate was eliminated in western Canada, the Reform Party of the day had agricultural policies written in our policy book. The Canadian Alliance has those same policies. We would not lower subsidies except in conjunction with those lowered in other countries. While the U.S. and the Europeans were building up their domestic subsidies, the Liberal government was getting rid of all our farm support for western Canadian farmers. That was a direct punishment by this government on our Canadian agriculture, particularly on western farmers.

The other issue he brings up is about roads. We know that some $4 billion to $5 billion a year is sent to Ottawa in road taxes. Of that amount, I think a few hundred million is spent on roads. I know there was a special program that the government put in place in regard to rail line closures, which would put some extra money into roads in the west. However it was very insufficient. I have driven on roads in the member's riding. The infrastructure money needed there has not been forthcoming from the government and it should be. We need to press the government to get that infrastructure money.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his remarks. I know he has long been a defender of rural Canada and his part of the world.

He spoke recently about a government that cares. The previous speaker who asked him a question alluded to a time when there was a government that cared for western Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada cared for western Canada. It did not engage in cutting back subsidies that hurt rural Canada. It did not engage in severe cuts to transfer payments to provinces like Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, provinces that needed assistance. They need these subsidies now because of decisions that were made to build this country from the centre.

I would like to ask the hon. member a specific question about aid to farmers, and he is very knowledgeable on the issue. He referenced the fact that there was a need because of drought and conditions over which farmers had no control and because of decisions the government made which took the rug out from under farmers affecting their ability to deal with crops and to get their product to market.

Is he talking about an aid program similar to what we saw with the TAGS program? That program, which was well intended and aimed toward helping fishermen was abused. Surely he would agree that, with the record of HRDC and the government in ensuring the money gets into the hands of the people who need it most, there has to be stringent application of the principles for which one is eligible. There also has to be enforcement and follow up to ensure that the process in place is not being abused.

Is that the type of program for which he is looking for farmers in his riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, the trade injury compensation program which farmers and farm organizations are talking about is directly related to grains and oilseed production. We know from government statistics that that has been hurt. Between 1995 and 2000, each year it was $1.3 billion. That $1.3 billion was directly related to each of those bushels of production. As a result, any program that the government would come up with or should come up with, would be targeted to the point that there would be no possibility of misuse or abuse of it because the statistics are there as to who produces the grain and how much.

The government of the past, which kept the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, cannot be credited with too much in that regard. I know that Charlie Meyer, a former agricultural minister, tried to bring in a voluntary barley market to take the barley out from under the wheat board, but I think the prime minister shot him down. That was really too bad at that time.

I guess we get a little partisan here at times, but it was Kim Campbell who brought us the great firearms bill. She initiated it by saying that we had to figure out how to take firearms away from Canadians. That is the Tory legacy that I remember.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion put forward by my hon. colleague.

We have been debating in the House today the request and demand that the government cease and desist its direct attacks on rural Canadians and rural Canada in general. Those attacks can take place either through action, bad legislation that is aimed to benefit the large urban areas at the expense of the less populated smaller rural areas, or no action at all where rural areas of Canada can suffer economically and socially for whatever reason. Because the Liberals do not see the massive amount of votes that they do in Toronto, for example, they simply choose to ignore the problems that are happening in parts of rural Canada.

I only need to speak to two issues to make my case on this. The first issue of course is the government's gross mismanagement of the softwood lumber issue. In 1996 the government entered into a softwood lumber agreement with the United States. We find that it had no action plan ready when the five year plan was to expire.

We discovered last Friday that the government signed and entered into a five year agreement, in a sector of international trade with the United States that produces the largest balance of payment benefit to Canada of any other industry in Canada, without doing a cost benefit analysis to ascertain whether or not it would be good for Canada.

The member for Okanagan--Shuswap and I went through access to information and asked for all the documents that showed a cost benefit analysis done by the government before signing the softwood lumber agreement. There was not one. On top of that there was no plan on how Canadian softwood lumber producers would carry on after the softwood lumber agreement expired in 2001.

The government watched the SLA merrily go along, oblivious to the warnings of this party. Our members spoke constantly over the last five years about the dangers of the SLA and what to expect at the end. The government walked blindfolded through the cemetery whistling while the SLA was about to expire and the Americans were rattling their sabres. We knew our softwood lumber people were in trouble, but the government did not do a single thing until it was crisis time and then there was a knee-jerk reaction trying to put a band-aid on a massive wound that started five years earlier.

We have talked about how the government can discriminate against rural Canada. This has caused massive layoffs in the forest industry, primarily people who work in rural Canada, in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, parts of Ontario and the maritimes where they have softwood logs. The government has virtually paralyzed many communities in rural Canada that depend on the forest industry for their livelihood because of its inaction.

This inaction displays nothing more than the contempt that the government has for rural Canadians. Why? Because the government considers anything out of the big, mass voting areas as simply not important. The Liberals have looked at rural Canada and seen no fertile ground for votes out there so why give them a hand?

It is so funny. Every election the candidates from the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party say if constituents vote for them, they will make sure that the area of Prince George--Bulkley Valley is well looked after. Both parties had their chance and neither one of them has given any type of recognition to Prince George--Bulkley Valley. That is why the residents in my riding do not really believe the nonsense and the out and out lies that come from the candidates--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would ask the hon. member for Prince George--Bulkley Valley to remove the word lies.

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

I will, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize. That is why the constituents of Prince George--Bulkley Valley do not believe the hollow promises that come from Liberal and Tory candidates at election time.

Another example of how the government holds in contempt rural Canada, particularly British Columbia, is by ignoring the massive pine beetle infestation in central British Columbia. This could be consider equal to a natural disaster and the government knows that. The government of British Columbia has made a formal request for help with its five year plan to try and salvage whatever wood it can from this mega area of British Columbia. The area of infestation is three times the size of Vancouver Island.

The government has done nothing. It has stood by and ignored this problem despite requests in the House from myself and the members for Cariboo--Chilcotin, Prince George--Peace River, Skeena, North Vancouver and my colleague from Kamloops. The government has ignored requests from the province of British Columbia itself. Billions of dollars in taxes have gone into the federal coffers from the forest industry in British Columbia and the government has simply not responded to the plea for help from the province and the people who depend on the forest industry for their livelihood. That is another example of the contempt the government has for rural Canadians.

The Minister for International Trade has called the tariff duty slapped on us by the softwood lumber people in the United States obscene. He blamed the breakdown of talks on cynical U.S. lobbyists. The Prime Minister said that he is disappointed that the softwood lumber talks have failed. They are using words like obscene, cynical and disappointed, but let me use those same words. It is obscene the contempt that the government has for rural Canadians. I am disappointed it has treated rural Canadians this way. I am very cynical in any belief that it will recognize the importance of rural Canadians and the contribution they have made to this country.

The government has brought in the endangered species bill. This bill would put rural Canadians at risk of being charged with perhaps accidentally stepping on a wild seed plant that has grown onto their territory. They are apt to have land seized by the government and quarantined without compensation.

The government has brought in Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals bill. This bill will put farmers, dairy people, horse breeders and medical researchers at risk of harassment charges brought forward by some of the more wacko animal rights groups that run around this country.

All of this flies in the face of rural Canadians. If this government were ever to expect to have any type of respect from rural Canadians, it would have to start recognizing that rural Canada is an important part of this country. It should not throw all of its eggs into the baskets of Metro Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal or Vancouver.

It is unfortunate that our party's motion is not votable because it would be supported by large numbers in the House. It would also be supported by massive numbers of rural Canadians who refuse to believe the hollow promises of the Liberal government. Rural Canadians have demonstrated their refusal to believe those hollow promises by their lack of support at the polls and the support will continue to fall for that party.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the rather fiery, freewheeling and somewhat frivolous rhetoric coming from the hon. member.

We had seen a lot of this mean-spirited, mealy-mouthed attack throughout the debate but I have yet to hear anything productive from the hon. member. It is the same old Reform wrecking ball approach, tar everyone with the same brush, and throw in some snide references to the Conservatives and previous governments. He will be the last person to be intellectually honest and admit that there were previous governments that did good things for rural Canada.

The Progressive Conservative Party did a lot to help the west. It brought in free trade, put in infrastructure such as the Confederation Bridge, put in projects such as the frigate project in Saint John, New Brunswick. It helped people in regions who needed the government's help.

What are we hearing from this member and from his party to help build a targeted strategy for rural Canada? What are we hearing from him? We are hearing some vague references to everything that is wrong in the country and the fact that his party brought up questions of this for the past five or ten years.

Thankfully it has never been in government where it had to make hard decisions, where it had to spend political capital to get things done, as did the previous Progressive Conservative government.

It is all about besmirching people's names, tarring the record and repeating baseless allegations about people's reputations. That is what we get from this member constantly.

Why do we not hear something productive about what we can do for regions that need help? Regions like his own. What will we do in terms of improving relations between the provinces and the federal government to do away with things like clawbacks from provinces such as Nova Scotia, which has its offshore oil and gas revenues clawed back by the federal government? What will we do about fuel tax money that is being taken out roads instead of being put in or the ways in which we can improve upon legislation, improve upon the tax regimes that hurt students and entrepreneurs? What sort of positive initiatives could we hear from this member?

I fully expect that he will ignore the question. He will get up and make some other snide comment about a previous government. Let us hear something positive from his mouth for a change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has become the latest apologist for the Liberal government. I am sure it will welcome him with open arms.

Obviously he was not listening because I did talk about the requests that the province of B.C. had made to the federal government to assist with its plan to fight the mountain pine beetle. It is a $500 million five year plan that would include salvaging whatever wood is salvageable in that infested area, and cleaning out and trimming old growth pines, which are the most attractive tree for pine beetles.

The federal government has received billions of dollars in tax money from the forest industry over the last several decades. Yet now in a time of need when the forest industry is suffering, workers are out of work and families are suffering, and despite the fact that we have the senior minister from British Columbia here who knows well the beetle infestation problem in British Columbia, the federal government has not lifted a finger to respond to the request that the B.C. government has made for assistance in fighting the mountain pine beetle.

Earlier I talked about the need for the federal government to have people negotiating with the Americans who actually knew what they were talking about and who knew the severity of the crisis that the softwood lumber impasse was causing working Canadians. The member down there did not hear that as well.

I talked about the 30,000 British Columbia forest workers and workers in related industries who are out of work. I talked about the fact that the Minister for International Trade has failed to recognize this problem and has instead simply said that is the way it goes.

There are a number of ways the government could address the problems of rural Canadians. It simply has not done it, and that is too bad.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to my colleague from northern British Columbia who spoke a moment ago. I am interested, of course, as to why the Alliance has brought forward this motion at this time. It is very clear that if you analyze the questions that have been asked in the House over the last period, and we can pick any period we like, six months, one year, two years, we will find that the Alliance has not been doing its job for rural Canada. It is quite understandable what those members have decided to do now: suddenly have a whole day's debate on the issue of rural Canada.

However, I can understand why, with them having dropped the ball so badly in support of the people who are their constituents while they rushed off to find imaginary scandals here and imaginary scandals there. They did all of this stuff while ignoring the constituents, ignoring the people of northern British Columbia and ignoring the people in the softwood lumber industry. They did all that, sure, and now they recognize that they are being severely criticized by the people out there in rural Canada and they are trying to recover.

It is a pretty shabby performance so far. It is the usual over the top rhetoric, which we heard from the hon. member, and of course the usual appeal to divisions in rural Canada and urban Canada. It is the usual approach, which has nothing to do with any of the problems of rural Canada.

Let me pick up on the hon. member's comment with respect to the pine beetle infestation in northern B.C. which he mentioned--

[An hon. member]

Are you really from British Columbia?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Now of course he is shouting to prevent me from talking about it.

He is right, it is an area of twice the size of Vancouver Island. What is the cause? The cause is the change in climatic conditions, which is leading to less cold weather in winter and more snow, resulting in these beetles' overwintering and survival. Does he know that? He apparently does not because he is shouting at this time in his usual way, talking about something, but not talking about the issue in front of the House.

The reason for that is of course climate change, and rural Canada is suffering from climate change far more than urban Canada and it is suffering far faster than other countries such as the United States, which this party regards of course as the sine qua non which we must always follow in every respect.

Those members are wrong, because rural Canada is suffering. We have, as I mentioned, the problem of the pine beetle in northern British Columbia. We have the problem of drought year after year in southern Alberta. The problems we are facing simply cannot be papered over with yet another spending program, which that party keeps insisting is the solution for every ill: spend more money. Whenever the Alliance comes to any detailed problem, it is “spend more money”. Of course they are against it in general, but when it comes down to winning proposals, “spend more money” is the only thing they have to offer, as the hon. member has just done.

With respect to southern Alberta it is the same thing. With respect to areas such as the fisheries of British Columbia we are seeing the Pacific salmon move out of the Pacific and into the Bering Sea because of water temperature changes. We are seeing the same types of effects on the Atlantic coast. We are seeing problems such as the Red River flood and the Saguenay River flood and the ice storm here in eastern Canada in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. We are seeing all these extreme weather events hitting rural Canada and the Alliance has not bothered to pick up on it. Those members have not made the connection between the climate change problem on the one hand and the problems of rural Canada on the other.

In fact, when questioned recently, on April 4, just about a month ago, the hon. member for Red Deer, the Alliance's environment critic called the Alliance position opposing Kyoto “a political advantage” that “will help our fundraising”.

This is the approach the Alliance members take to the problems of rural Canada: ignore them so that they can improve their fundraising. That is the approach they take and that is the approach they think the government should follow. No way will we follow the lead of those people when it comes to rural Canada or indeed any other part of Canada, because it is a wrongheaded approach, it is a selfish approach and it ignores the interests of rural Canada.

My hon. friend from northern British Columbia who spoke earlier talked about the species at risk bill. We have consistently worked with rural people on this legislation. We had 155 consultative sessions, the majority of which were in rural Canada. They talked and we listened. We adjusted our policies. We changed our approaches. We deleted and altered sections of the bill because we listened to rural Canada.

Bill C-5 on species at risk is rural friendly, because if it were not I would not be here presenting it. I said last year before committee, before the House and everywhere I have spoken throughout the country that if the bill is not accepted by rural people, by people who are farmers, who are ranchers, who work in the woods or who are trappers or fishermen, then the bill is a failure. The reason is straightforward: those people live where the endangered species are. All these lawyers and professors are in classrooms and courtrooms and there are very few endangered species in classrooms and courtrooms, very few indeed. Out there where the rural people are is where the species are and that is why the legislation has been tailored to be rural friendly to the very people I have mentioned.

There is a balance here between the rights of landowners and land users and of course the species at risk. It is based upon co-operation, not coercion. It is based upon building trust, not just looking tough, as some have proposed. It is a part of the overall strategy to assist rural Canadians. In fact, at the present time we are spending some $10 million in rural Canada, right now, before the legislation has even come in, on about 108 recovery programs for species at risk. We are working with the rural people and creating stewardship programs, working to make sure that they are comfortable with what we are doing to protect endangered species. We have 160 habitat stewardship programs, currently engaging more than 400 individuals and organizations across the country. I have many examples here, but I will skip them because of course we are pressed for time. However, I will point out that this is what we are doing. We are getting out there with rural people to do what they do very well. I reject and will continue to reject the concept that we need to use the whip or a coercive law to get rural people to do the right thing. Instead, we will use incentives.

The issue of compensation has come up a number of times. There are compensation provisions in the bill, as I have replied to members here, but if we try in anticipation to write out every single possible eventuality whereby we think rural people might get assistance, then we will undoubtedly write laws which will exclude some because we have not had experience with the legislation. We have tried. We have had some very detailed work done by experts in this area. We have tried but failed to write that kind of legislation, so we will get three or four years of experience working under this legislation, whereby we will provide compensation where it is appropriate, on an ex gratia basis, and then we will write the regulations because we will then have the experience that we do not have now.

I would just like to end on this note. I have in my hand an editorial from the Edmonton Journal , which states, look, we have discussed the bill and discussed the bill, and it is high time now to simply get on with it, get it passed and get it working, and we can make the changes that we may need four our five years hence. I think it is really important to do that. I would suggest to the hon. members opposite that if they have the slightest interest in rural Canada that is what they should do too.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it pretty hard to sit here and listen to the minister, having had so much to do with him over the last year and a half, and really believe that he thinks any farmer out there, anyone in rural Canada, those he calls the frontline soldiers, would trust that tirade that he just went through in telling them that the whole thing is coming down, the sky is falling, and saying to look at the science.

The science does not confirm that. We have just had the coldest April and the second coldest March in history. Is that climate change? Maybe we have climate cooling occurring. We had two feet of snow this past weekend. Maybe that is climate cooling. Maybe an ice age is coming.

This is the kind of garbage that we have to listen to from this minister. He puts everything onto Kyoto. If we have an ice storm, if we have a flood, it is Kyoto right now. The reality is that there are better ways. There are alternative fuels. There is alternative energy. There are all kinds of transitional fuels out there.

However, the government has no dedication. It is sitting on its hands and kowtowing to the Europeans. Meanwhile, it could be doing something. It could be doing something to really make a difference for the agricultural community of the country. This government does not care about farmers.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I gather you cut me off because my time is being shared with the member for Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, but I would like to respond to the hon. member.

He talks about the science being bad. What he forgets to point out is that scientific opinion on a ratio of about 1,000:10 has confirmed that the general feeling of scientists is that these extreme weather events are linked to climate change. He has forgotten that 110 of the living winners of the Nobel science prize agree that science shows climate change is a cause for these extreme events and we are suffering climate change now.

It is easy for him to get up and shout in the House that the science is wrong, but the other side never provides any science that suggests it is wrong. It just provides the usual Alliance rhetoric, which is so much like all the rest of the rhetoric it produces that it really does not add up to a sensible statement.

Furthermore, it is fine for him to say that no people in rural Canada support the government on species at risk. I can assure him he is quite wrong. We have substantial support and the reason is that we have written the bill and we have protected the bill from people who would change it to be coercive. We have written it to support rural people. He should know that. He is the very member who said that the his party's Kyoto position would help its fundraising. Now he stands in the House to say the government is all wrong and the Alliance is okay. No. The Alliance sacrificed the rights and the interests of rural people to its fundraising campaign.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very straightforward question for the Minister of the Environment. He knows that the Americans have put an extra $73 billion in their farm bill, and now it is $180 billion. It is devastating for our farmers and devastating for our economy.

We now have a surplus in the federal budget estimated at being between $7 billion and $10 billion. Would the minister be in favour of spending $1.3 billion of that, as the ministers at the provincial level are asking for, in order to help farmers in this time of crisis? I ask the minister that, not the parliamentary secretary.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that I am being followed by an expert in the area of agricultural financing, so I will defer to the member from Hastings on this question.

I know, as he said to the House so eloquently and effectively today, that last year we put $3.7 billion into farm support. That shows that we on this side are willing to listen to a good case being made by people who may be suffering or who are in difficulty. It is clear from our record that we are willing to do that.

I will put the question regarding details of any further expenditures in the hands of my hon. colleague, who is more knowledgeable than I am.

[The Deputy Speaker]

A brief question, please, from the member for Wild Rose.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Brief, Mr. Speaker? It is too bad that it has to be brief. This minister deserves more than that.

For about half of my life I lived in the United States and for the other half I have lived in Canada. During my time in the United States I saw the effect of the laws brought in regarding endangered species. They have been proven over and over again to be a dismal failure in the United States. I have relatives who have lost land, with no compensation. I have friends who have lost land, with no compensation. Along with all that, we have examples down there of endangered species that were destroyed because of foolish legislation that is very similar to what this minister is attempting to bring into this country. Why can he not be smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others and fix this document before he dares to bring it in as legislation?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is one of those times that I am delighted to agree with virtually everything the member for Wild Rose has said. I have consistently said we do not want American style legislation because it does not work. That is why we have made this legislation rural friendly. That is why we have avoided the stick and talked about the carrot instead.

I entirely agree with him. I have had experience with that American legislation on the west coast with regard to coho salmon. The American legislation was not worth anything in protecting coho while the Canadian Fisheries Act was quite successful. On the east coast it was the same situation with Atlantic salmon. Indeed, I read something in the paper not too long ago about the right whale off the southern coast of Nova Scotia, and the hon. member from Nova Scotia will know this, where the Americans are asking why it is that the Canadians are so much more successful in their programs to protect this animal than the Americans when Canadians are using the Fisheries Act and the Americans are using endangered species legislation.

I agree with the hon. member entirely. We do not want American legislation here in Canada.

[An hon. member]

Get rid of it. It's worse.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is obviously a lot of global warming going on in here.

I have a very straightforward question for the hon. member who comes from the province of British Columbia. He has talked a great deal about his policies and his government's enactments. Could he tell the House and Canadians what one meaningful legislative change in almost a decade has his government brought in? What meaningful legislation has his government produced in almost a decade to protect the environment? We know that the Kyoto position was made up in the back of a cab on the way to the conference, but when will his government actually deliver a piece of legislation that will help protect the environment?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed the member would ask that question when his party is holding up the species at risk legislation which is in the House and should be passed right now. It is not the time to join with his cousins in the Alliance who seem to think it should be cancelled.

It is time for the Tories to take a wake-up call and do the right thing.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a very rare occasion when we have an opportunity to ask a minister questions. It does not happen very often in the House. I wonder if he would consent to allowing us to ask him a few more questions.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington who is more knowledgeable about some of the questions being asked.