House of Commons Hansard #183 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is there unanimous consent to give the hon. Minister of the Environment five more minutes to answer questions? This will not encroach on the time of the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Larry McCormick LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who brought forth the motion today. The wording of the motion was not exactly what we would have agreed to but any time we get to talk about rural Canada in the House is very important.
As someone mentioned earlier today, for rural Canada to be healthy we also need a healthy urban Canada. Guess who the consumers are in the country? They also live in urban Canada.
We are concerned about the U.S. farm bill and yet 75%, 85% or 87% of everything we produce goes to the United States. After we argue we have to work together. I do appreciate this opportunity to work together on behalf of rural Canada.
I appreciate the opportunity today to talk about how the policies of our government support the lives and livelihoods of rural Canadians and the communities in which they live.
The Government of Canada has confidence in the future, unlike my hon. colleagues across the floor. More specifically, the Government of Canada has confidence in the future and confidence in our rural communities.
The drought situation and the U.S. farm bill only underline the importance of the work we are doing to move the sector beyond crisis management. That is why the government is working with the provincial and territorial governments, the industry and Canadian citizens on an action plan to put in place an agricultural policy framework.
This policy is about the future. It is designed to improve the long term livelihood and the profitability of Canadian farmers. I say improve because we already have various measures in place to help Canadian farmers be successful in the face of adversities such as drought.
The Government of Canada knows the serious impact drought can have on producers and on their businesses. Accordingly, we are actively engaged in helping farmers mitigate the effects of drought in both the short term and the long term.
The 2,400 projects approved through the Canada--Saskatchewan livestock farm water program, for example, will be available to help alleviate the impact of drought on Saskatchewan livestock producers for the year 2002. The federal government has provided an additional $1.1 million to this program to help producers for the current crop year.
The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration delivers numerous programs that assist producers in adapting and mitigating the effects of drought. This work builds on the $1.1 billion we have invested so far this year in agriculture to help our farmers manage the short term and the income losses due to perils such as drought.
We are dealing with today's challenges but there are a lot more challenges coming at us. For farming to survive and thrive as a modern industry in the 21st century, we must be ready to meet the challenges they hold. This industry has always adapted to the face of challenges. We did it through innovation, adaptation and change. Challenges have taught what works and what does not work. We know what does not work and, first and foremost, it is subsidies.
The Americans have said that their farm bill is about trade liberalization. Well they are wrong. It is about protectionism. They say that the farm bill is market driven. It is not. The U.S. farm bill is mailbox driven. Instead of encouraging American producers to reap the rewards of trade liberalization, the new farm bill will encourage many to harvest handouts from the American treasury, handouts that often go to the landowners rather than to the producers.
I certainly share the frustration felt by our producer groups over the outrageous action being taken by the Americans to heavily subsidize their industry. These subsidies are not only harmful to the U.S. farmers in the long run but they have a serious effect on our Canadian farmers. American agricultural policy distorts food prices, frustrates innovation, limits product diversity and subsidizes a select group of farmers at enormous public cost.
Its inherent protectionism qualities confound American efforts to reduce protectionism abroad and gain access to new markets. By the way, those are not my words. They are directly from an American legislator.
This spiraling of subsidies discourages adaptation, diversification and profitable business growth and expansion. It saps creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship.
In Saskatchewan, for example, farmers have adapted to new market demands by tripling production of non-wheat crops. Now the U.S. has shown its brut strength by flexing its farm bill muscles.
Canada cannot compete on equal terms but we must fight smarter, and that we will do. We must get away from farm policies that merely prop up the past, as the U.S. has chosen to do. Rather, we must adopt policies that work toward building the future.
We need to guarantee Canadian farmers success for the future. We need a comprehensive, integrated approach to help our industry adapt to the demand of consumers and take advantage of the opportunities in the global marketplace without production and trade distorting subsidies.
The proposed agricultural policy framework aims to promote innovation among producers so that we can better focus on the concerns and demands of consumers who are the ultimate clients, whether they happen to live above, below or beyond our common borders.
We recognize, however, that our policy decisions in agriculture impact not only farmers. These decisions must also meet the needs and expectations of all citizens. Benefits, such as healthy and safe food, a clean environment, vibrant rural communities and responsible use of taxpayer money, all enhance the quality of life of all citizens.
We are working together, governments and industry, to increase the profitability of the agriculture sector by branding Canada as the world leader in food safety and quality, innovation and environmental protection, and providing the tools for Canadians to thrive and prosper in the 21st century.
The agriculture policy framework has five components that are integrated with each other: risk management for farm businesses; on farm food safety; protection of the environment; renewal for the sector; and innovation through research and science.
Business risk management is critical to the agriculture policy framework. We are working with farmers to develop a risk management approach that rewards the use of best practices in food safety and environmental protection, the adoption of innovations to expand and diversify the farm business, and the improvement of managerial and strategic planning skills acquired through the renewal activities.
We recognize that farmers face unique risks. We also recognize that we need to move away from an approach based on past performance to one based on the future potential, an approach that will encourage farmers to take action to address risk.
Combined with the other elements of the policy framework, this approach would put us in a position to address new challenges and capture new opportunities.
We want to build on Canada's reputation as a producer of safe food by strengthening our on farm food safety systems. Safety runs through the entire food chain, including on the farm. That is why many sectors in Canada are well on their way to implementing comprehensive systems such as HACCP based programs. These programs help prevent hazards that could cause food borne illnesses by applying science based controls throughout the production chain, from raw materials to finished products.
In addition to improving food safety, these additional systems, which may include product tracking and tracing, can be a valuable tool for non-food safety reasons when suppliers and producers align their systems to meet the needs of buyers, such as product identity preservation.
Consumers' concerns about food safety are matched by their concerns about the health of the environment. Canadian farmers are good stewards of the land but new farming production techniques and a shift toward larger, more intensive operations can sometimes mean greater risk to the environment if we do not do it properly.
Governments and industry are working together to develop a comprehensive system in which every farm in Canada is taking the best steps to ensure that its practices strengthen our stewardship of water, soil and air quality, and foster compatibility between agriculture and biodiversity.
That is why science and innovation are such an important part of the new policy framework.
Science has tremendous potential to help us deliver on farm food safety, strengthen environmental stewardship and create new products for the benefit of farmers and the public. It is imperative, though, that we have the confidence of the public and that we are seen to be applying sound science responsibly and with environmental benefits.
Innovation is certainly the key to unlocking the door to success in the 21st century. By being innovative we can develop new products that meet consumer choices and we can capture new markets. All the elements of the agriculture policy framework: business management; actions on food safety; measures to enhance environmental performance; better use of science and innovation; and more opportunities to enhance business management through renewal skills; all these components are integrated to help ensure the success of the sector.
The agricultural policy framework is the agricultural sector's muscle. It needs to be strong and it needs to have all of us working together. That is how we will build a successful and thriving agricultural sector which is the best contribution we can make to rural Canada.
Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, I just realized I will not have to do much in the way of fertilizing this year. I will just scatter the member's Hansard record on the field and I will have a bounteous crop with the fertilizer he just spread.
He went on and on about how the Liberals are taking their time to come up with sound policy that will benefit the future of farming and that farmers will be better off in the future because of the sound policy. What about the present? These folks have to get through this year. They have come through three or four bad years.
There are programs that the government did implement and AIDA and CFIP, the son of AIDA. The member talked glowingly about the $1 billion that went in. Of the farmers in Saskatchewan that I represent, nobody qualified. Most of it was eaten up in administration. The problem we are running into now is that the people who did qualify for a few nickels and dimes in 1998 are having it clawed back because the rules were changed arbitrarily. It is being clawed back plus interest and penalties.
I would like the member to explain to my farmers why when they finally received a few nickels and dimes from the government, the rules were changed arbitrarily, retroactively. It is being clawed back plus interest and penalties. Anywhere else that would be called loansharking.
Larry McCormick Liberal Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the exact riding of my hon. colleague, but I have been to Saskatchewan quite a few times since September. I have met with many farmers.
Our previous programs have not always been the best but in the last three years, $2 billion went to producers in Saskatchewan. It was not enough and yes, last year more than $1 billion went directly to the producers. We are not like the United States. It did not go to all the landowners. It did not go to all the business people. It did not go to all the people in the cities. It went to the farmers.
At the moment, the federal minister of agriculture and Clay Serby, your minister of agriculture--
Larry McCormick Liberal Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON
Yes he is your minister. He is the deputy leader.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I would caution members to address their comments through the Chair. It would be helpful from time to time. Besides, I kind of like it up here and I do not want to be left out.
Larry McCormick Liberal Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we would not want to leave you out because I know you work very hard on behalf of your producers. I know that your producers were here in town the other day.
That is why our ministers are meeting across the street. The new minister from Ontario and all the provincial ministers are there.
We are all on the same side of the issue. We have to get all the available resources possible. That is why a week ago Friday I congratulated the member from western Ontario and the Prime Minister's task force. I also thanked my colleagues in the Alliance for the good work they did on the standing committee for agriculture, along with my colleague from Miramichi, New Brunswick.
It is unfortunate that we happen to have a person here today who wants to be very political with his question and say that nickels went to Saskatchewan. Not enough money went to Saskatchewan but in the throne speech we had to move beyond crisis management. That is why we are working together.
The minister from Saskatchewan has asked for more money. Whether there is going to be $1.3 billion more, I do know that but more than $1 billion has already gone out this year. I happen to have the figures here. I would be glad to show my friend who just spoke how much money has gone to Saskatchewan. It is more than $1 billion.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's remarks. He has a great deal of compassion for the struggles of rural Canada and for farmers in particular. I ask the hon. member, how is it that he lives with the policies that his government has been producing? They are not consistent with being empathetic and sympathetic toward the plight of rural Canada.
He knows that in the species at risk bill, it is not the species that are at risk, it is the property owners. They are the people in rural Canada who might have their property seized or may have to foot the bill for the relocation of an endangered species. How does the member live with the fact that the government has brought in legislation that hurts rural landowners and farmers in particular with respect to the cruelty to animals legislation?
Bill C-15B and Bill C-5 are two perfect recent examples of his government's attack on rural Canada, not to mention the ill-fated useless gun registry that is still being perpetrated at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. These are concrete examples of his government's policies.
The hon. member from Miramichi is shaking his head because it is good for his riding but it comes at a huge cost to the rights and privileges of farmers, fishermen and people who legitimately use guns.
How is it that the member can defend that record and say that he stands for rural Canada?
Larry McCormick Liberal Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON
Mr. Speaker, representing rural Canada in the House is sometimes a challenge because many people live in urban Canada.
I am happy about the progress we are making with many of the bills in the House. With regard to the species at risk legislation, the government is not seizing land. It is a partnership and we are working with farmers and ranchers. I have met with many ranchers and farmers in western Canada.
I am not sure the previous Conservative government should have started up the firearms registry the way it did. I am not sure that was handled well.
There is a difference between rural and urban Canada. To have a wealthy rural Canada and for our farmers to get the best prices for their products, we also need a good, vital, rich urban Canada. We have to work together in the House on behalf of rural Canadians.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Provencher.
I represent a riding that is both urban and rural. My riding has a lot of farmers. The endangered species in my riding certainly are the Liberals, because no one who is a farmer would vote Liberal. Farmers know what the government is like. They know what a lack of concern the Liberals have for agriculture.
We had to listen to the minister talk about the sky is falling and all the bad weather with not signing Kyoto. In actual fact if he were to admit it, it is a flawed agreement. There are much better ways to handle global warming. Yes, we should deal with it but certainly not through that flawed Kyoto agreement.
When farmers in my area hear about Kyoto they understand they will lose 30% of their jobs because most of them have to work off the farm. When national energy program one came along, 30% of them lost their houses, their land and their jobs. They know that Kyoto will cost at least that and more.
I want to talk primarily about Bill C-5 and the assault on rural property owners that it represents. We sat in committee for nine months. The minister talked about the farmers, the ranchers, the foresters, the oil and gas workers, the miners all being frontline soldiers. He said here again today that they were the people who had to co-operate if we were to protect species at risk.
We as a party want to protect species at risk. We want legislation that will work. That is the key difference.
Witnesses appeared before the environment committee month after month. We came up with over 300 amendments. We worked as a team on the environment committee to build something we all felt would work.
When the bill came back to the House the government turned back 138 of those amendments. It reversed them and went back to legislation that is exactly the same as legislation we would find in the United States which for 28 years has been nothing but a failure and has resulted in litigation instead of any kind of conservation.
That is what the government really stands for. Obviously it has not worked and it really does not care. The Liberals do not care about environmentalists. They do not care about business. They do not care about farmers. That is what the bill tells us. There is no habitat protection. There is no compensation. There is no mens rea.
There are horrendous penalties. Even though a farmer does not know that he has an endangered species on his land, and the government will not tell him, the farmer could get a $250,000 fine, five years in jail and a criminal record. There are not a lot of other offences with those kinds of penalties, except maybe gun control, as has been mentioned. Those kinds of penalties do not say the government wants to co-operate with rural landowners. They certainly are not farmer friendly.
There is no money budgeted for compensation. The minister says that the government is going to see how it works and in special cases it will give money. There is no money budgeted. Yes, there is $45 million to handle the administration, but that is for the administration. We have found what happens when the government talks about the administration of things. It said that Bill C-68 would never cost more than $85 million and now we know it is $1 billion and growing. That is the kind of shell game and misrepresentation we have seen.
There is not a farmer in the country who would believe the government is really going to give them compensation.
Clause 64 of the bill states “The minister shall”--it was “may” but now it is going to be “shall”, because that means everything--“in accordance with the regulations provide fair and reasonable compensation”.
What is fair and reasonable compensation and what does it mean to have it in the regulations? What it really means is that if there were no regulations there would be no compensation. There is no money budgeted for compensation. How can the government stand in this place and say there would be compensation?
Fair and reasonable is just that, whatever that means to whomever is making that decision. Some would say the Pearse report. It said if people suffer under a 10% loss they should get 50% compensation. Farmers and ranchers are not a bunch of greedy people waiting to sell their land. All they want, if they lose their piece of land, is to get fair market value. I have talked with a lot of people about what the difference is. Fair and reasonable is anything. It could be the Pearse report or whatever the government dreams up. But fair market value is taken by the sale of land around and an appraisal. This is a shell game.
The chairman of the rural caucus stated there were serious flaws pertaining to land compensation. He said:
Landowners must be compensated for loss of property enjoyment that results from compliance with the provisions of the act.Farmers tell me that any coercive approach to species protection will inevitably lead to many cases, with farmers and others faced with taking land out of production, resorting to a three S scenario — shoot, shovel, shut up.
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association seemed to have bought into the government's shell game, but it said there were problems with: lack of certainty regarding availability and scope of compensation, use of strict liability offence as opposed to mens rea , and lack of species notification. It also found fault with it even though it was told to follow the government line.
Farmers are saying the legislation will not work. Why did the government put forward the legislation? Why does it keep saying there is compensation? It is saying that because in actual fact the Minister of the Environment lost the battle at the cabinet table. In fact, one cabinet minister stated:
Removing compensation from C-5 altogether would be the ideal case from my point of view, but this is unlikely given the expectations of resource users.
That is what we have. Rural Canadians out there have no compensation. It might be in the regulations, but we will not draw them up. It will be fair and reasonable, but we will not define what that is. So in actual fact, when Canadians want to save a species, they will not contribute to the saving of that species. That is all that rural people in this country want. It is simply to be dealt with fairly.
Obviously there would be no regulations and no compensation. The government should stand up and honestly say we need this piece of legislation because we agreed to it in 1992 in a biodiversity convention. That is why it is putting it in. It is not going to enforce it. It has no money to enforce it. It has no money for compensation and so this piece of legislation is on the books, but it is really of little use. It will not save habitat. It will not save species at risk. It will not help farmers and is a total failure to rural Canadians.
Karen Redman LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is a valuable member of a committee that has worked very hard, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I sometimes hear his colleagues who are anxious to speak on this piece of legislation and I have been prompted to suggest to my good friend that he could perhaps read the legislation to some of his colleagues.
I hear a bit of a theme in his comments. I must say that it puzzles me somewhat. Members opposite talk about Kyoto, the fact that the science is flawed and that we should not continue down the road of consulting with Canadians so that we have the figures. We have a framework in place so that there is some surety, when we do ratify, about where we are going with this. This would seem to me and to the government as a sound way to go about bringing in good public legislation.
Members opposite talk about species at risk. Again, they want something in the legislation that is devoid of the kind of consultation and experience that we feel is necessary. Compensation is one of the tools that needs to be in the kit for species at risk because the government realizes that there is a continuum.
I am a little puzzled at the $45 million that my hon. colleague mentioned. That money has been put in and is being spent as we speak in stewardship programs to invite the very rural people to whom he is referring: ranchers, fishers, farmers and trappers. We have active programs where people are building nesting boxes for the burrowing owl and great programs in Ontario protecting the loggerhead shrike in its habitat. This year alone we have spent $10 million. The government is showing its good intent and is putting its money where its mouth is.
We need experience on the ground because the framework of the species at risk legislation is one of co-operation and voluntary partnership. There is no intent to have side door expropriation. I am a little bit disconcerted that Alliance members continue to talk about species at risk as if the government were looking for a side door entrance into expropriation. We have a regime of expropriation if that was the intent of the government, however we are looking at partnerships with people on the land.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of issues to deal with there and the first is the Kyoto issue. Government members say how wonderful Kyoto will be and how much it will accomplish. The reality is emissions trading for example. When we have a dirty company and a clean company, the dirty company pays the clean company by emissions credits, but we still have the same amount of CO
2
in the air. Internationally, a country that is producing CO
2
buys from some poor country that does not have any industry. Do we really expect that will help clean the air? We are still releasing the same amount of emissions. We are just transferring wealth. Kyoto is politics.
Let us get into something that will really help the environment. Let us get on with alternate energy and transitional fuels. That is what it is about. It is common sense, not anything to do with this game the government wants to play. Emissions trading equals bureaucracy.
The member just confirmed there is no money for compensation because $10 million of the money we thought might be there for helping the environment is already spent. Members should wait until the court actions start. We want compensation but not just in dollars.
There are wolves in Yellowstone. A private trust has been set up so anybody who suffers a wolf kill in that area is paid full market value for the cow, the calf or whatever. That works. Wolves are there and we are happy to have them there, but the landowner has been compensated. It does not have to be compensation from the government. It can be private trusts or all kinds of things but the government refuses to look at that. The government will just not listen to common sense.
The hon. member mentioned the committee. The committee worked very hard and then had 138 amendments turned back after all the work it did. That is an embarrassment to the House.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for South Shore, Fisheries and Oceans.
Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of today's Canadian Alliance motion that calls on the Liberal government to stop its legislative and political attacks on the lives and livelihoods of rural Canadians and their communities. I believe we have heard enough patronizing and naive comments from the other side in respect of this serious issue. We must look at the issues before us and look at ways to resolve some of these difficult concerns.
As the member of parliament for the primarily rural riding of Provencher in southeastern Manitoba I am proud to represent a large population of farmers and other rural Canadians who are some of the hardest working, honest and law-abiding citizens in this country.
However they are faced with an unholy trinity of legislation, some of which is still under consideration by the House. I fear that this legislative package would put our farmers into an unworkable situation. Time and again we have seen the government implement ineffective and costly legislation that pits rural Canadians against urban Canadians.
The legislation I am referring to is Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation and Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation. They have been on the House agenda for over a year, but it is only because of sustained opposition efforts that public awareness about the true nature and anti-rural character of these bills is finally being understood. Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, has been in place since 1995 and every year the price tag increases while crime is getting worse.
The new species at risk bill, if passed, would give the federal government the right to expropriate land from farmers and other rural individuals without any obligation to compensate for losses.
Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation, introduces the risk of harassment to farmers from private legal prosecutions funded by radical urban based animal rights organizations who are claiming the debt that they claim the former justice minister owes them for supporting her during the last federal election.
Even if prosecutions by these radical animal rights groups were not successful, the legal process involved would impose a financial burden that few could afford. In addition, we also have the Kyoto agreement that threatens to dramatically push up costs without any substantive evidence that it will improve our global environment. The member for Red Deer stated that all we are doing is playing a shell game. The earth is a global entity. We cannot simply push off dirty air in exchange for clean air and think somehow the dirty air is being reduced in the process.
The third bill, Bill C-68, has targeted primarily rural Canadians for owning long guns and yet these individuals have been law-abiding families for generations. We heard today from one of the Canadian Alliance members that while farmers are being harassed and prosecuted for not registering long guns, the government is busy handing out licences and registrations to leaders of criminal organizations in Canada. This is at a cost of $700 million and climbing at a cost of $100 million a year. Last year's estimates showed that the registry would cost $35 million. The true numbers came in at $149 million in direct costs.
I do not believe that the government is against rural Canadians. It is indifferent to rural Canadians. It is banking on passing legislation that will build support in urban areas at the cost of rural Canada. Instead of looking at Canada as a whole whereby we should be working together, the government takes advantage of a smaller population to impose politically expedient but ineffective programs.
By calling for discretionary compensation in Bill C-5 the environment minister is asking Canadians to trust the government with their land and livelihood. He says compensation should not be such a big issue because the government is willing to pay landowners dollar for dollar for any losses they would face. If this is truly the case why does he not make the commitment explicit in the legislation? Why does he not say in the legislation that farmers and landowners would be compensated dollar for dollar at fair market value?
The government is trying to get the legislation through the House by offering vague assurances that regulations would be formulated to compensate landowners. Such regulations would be drafted in the secrecy of cabinet meetings. Even the government's own backbenchers would have no input into them. There may well be Liberal backbenchers here today who say we should trust the government. However they do not realize that the regulations would be passed in the same secretive way in which the government acts on matters crucial to the integrity and effectiveness of our rural economy and the larger Canadian economy.
Our farmers are unable to take any more financial blows. While some landowners in the past have voluntarily co-operated in species recovery programs without full, fair or, in some cases, any compensation the large majority of farmers and landowners today are not financially able to make such sacrifices in the name of the public good.
If a species at risk is important and worth saving why should it be done on the backs of rural Canadians? Why could we not all share in the cost? If it is good for the country we should let the country as a whole pay for it. We should not take it out of the livelihood and land of our rural people.
Bill C-5 sets out some scary criminal provisions. Its low requirement for mens rea or guilty mind would enable prosecutors at the direction of the minister to prosecute farmers for even inadvertent destruction of habitat. This kind of legislation is not worthy of the dignity of the House. If we are to make people criminally responsible for their actions let us make sure they are criminals. Let us not convict people simply because we want to terrorize rural people into not doing anything with their land and for their livelihoods. The government's heavy handed approach would lead to uncertainty and confusion for land and resource owners including the majority of rural Canadians who in good faith tried to comply with the law.
Bill C-15B is poorly drafted. Had it not been for the perseverance of the Canadian Alliance Party, Liberal backbenchers would not have woken up to the dangers posed by the bill. Finally they are waking up. They are saying it is their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their constituents that would be affected. I am happy the Liberal backbenchers have finally woken up. However when will they take a real stand? When will they stand and say they have had enough of the government's abuse of rural Canada? When will they stand with the people who are concerned about the country as a whole?
I am profoundly concerned about the direction of the government. There is some optimism now that Liberal backbenchers are finally waking up. However it will not be until the Liberal cabinet is gone that rural Canadians can be equal partners with their urban cousins.
I urge hon. members to think carefully about the legislation before the House before they do anything untoward and damage rural Canada any further. Let us think carefully about Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B. Let us remember the lessons of Bill C-68
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I agree with what he said. It is true. They say that in relationships the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. If we want to drive people away we show them indifference. We do not need to be malicious.
I will run through four examples of how the Liberals have failed us in their rural policies either through benign neglect or outright indifference. First, they have failed us with respect to the fisheries. The east coast cod fishery is an example how the government has driven an industry completely into the ground and out of business. The west coast coho salmon fishery has also been a disaster.
Second, farmers have experienced falling incomes. We have seen the reports and heard the statistics. However statistics cannot possibly show the anguish of what is happening in Saskatchewan where the province is being depopulated. It seems rural Canada and the farm sector is being targeted for continued low incomes and problems.
Third, the government has mismanaged the forestry industry. It has shown a complete failure to manage the softwood lumber issue. I do not know what to suggest any more because it is now in the hands of U.S. producers. We had five years to plan a better approach with regard to the softwood issue. The government has shown a complete and utter failure in its handling of the softwood industry and the forestry workers who have been displaced as a result.
Fourth, the government seems to have a complete and utter disconnect with reality when it comes to rural development plans and the patronage ridden mess it calls regional development. If the regional development programs the government champions were effective for rural Canada, Atlantic Canada, northern Canada and the people they are supposed to help, every worker would have two jobs rather than one, or none as is often the case. It is a complete failure.
Does the hon. member think this is due to benign neglect or outright malicious legislative attack? I do not know which is worse. However the net effect is that rural Canada has taken it on the chin on the east coast, the west coast and in the middle of the country. Is it due to indifference or does the government have it in for rural Canada?
Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is an issue of malice on the part of the Liberals. They want to do whatever they can to remain in power even if it means being indifferent to the people of rural Canada and ignoring their needs. The government would avoid making any decision that could affect its ability to stay in power. If there is one thing we have learned about the Liberal government in the last nine years it is that it desires to stay in power.
When we look at the government's performance with respect to rural and western economic development we see disaster after disaster. Members and ministers across the way can point to certain programs that have worked. I will not dismiss all the programs nor the hard work of some good public servants in trying to administer them. However in most situations it is more a matter of luck that programs work or a dedicated public servant makes a difference in the community he or she lives in.
The issue is one of indifference to rural Canada. It is motivated by the desire to stay in power. That is why there is no accountability for the moneys spent. The Liberal government could not be responsible for the money.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, many members may recall when I stood in the House several months ago to talk about the various programs for rural Canada the government had embarked on. I said it was important that all members from rural Canada support the programs and work together because we in rural Canada are outnumbered. Rural ridings have fewer people and members of parliament than the rest of Canada so we must work together on these things. I am therefore glad the Alliance has brought up the topic and joined us in supporting programs for rural Canada and championing rural Canadians. It is important to my riding.
There may be thoughtful members on all sides of the House who can add to the debate in a positive way, as the secretary of state has mentioned. Most of my speech will be devoted to this. However it is hard to be positive when a member of the loyal opposition uses the words obscene and cynical. The hon. member is not here now. The comment was made much earlier in the afternoon.
What is obscene and cynical is the way the Alliance last year referred to people from Atlantic Canada and their work ethic. Apologies were made, the person resigned and it is over. I would not have raised the issue because I thought attacks on regions of Canada were over. However in Saturday's Financial Post the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition said the government was only interested in Quebec based industries and had failed to protect hard-working Canadian families. Why would the Alliance Party attack another region by saying Quebecers were not hard workers?
The opposition leader went on to say if it had been Bombardier and not hard-working families the government might have taken action. That is pretty sad. The Alliance is almost working its way back west. The leader of the Alliance must be happy to the point of rolling over because the Alliance is working its way back west behind its firewall. However it will not work because, as we have heard in the speeches of a number of its members, the Alliance wants to cancel Western Economic Diversification Canada. Even in its home base of western Canada the Alliance is turning a blind eye.
Let us look at some of the projects this would cancel. The Tumour Tissue Repository at the B.C. Cancer Agency would be cancelled and its many employees would be out of work. What about Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba? All are onside in contributing to the telecommunications resource laboratories in Edmonton. Along with 30 small and large companies and $10 million from Western Economic Diversification Canada, all would be partners in putting westerners on the cutting edge of research and technology. However the Alliance Party is not in favour of this. What about the Brando strategic plan for Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals in Winnipeg which could employ 90 researchers in western Canada? What about the Canada/Saskatchewan Film, Video, Production and Education Centre?
I will not talk about the negative comments of the Alliance. The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough lit into the Alliance for being negative but then went on to talk about corruption. Before he gets into that line of attack I would be interested in hearing his comments on the many charges of Stevie Cameron which have never been challenged in court. It is ironic that a member of his party would go into such unfounded allegations.
Before I speak to the rural initiatives I will comment on a couple of questions asked during debate. I commented about expenditures. We were talking about debt and tax reduction to help rural Canadians and all Canadians. It was mentioned that the Alliance members had come up with perhaps $30 billion worth of things they wanted money for yet they were still promoting tax and debt reduction. It was said that figure had come from out of the air but that figure came from Hansard . Members can look it up.
Earlier in the debate both the Tories and the Bloc mentioned administration and HRDC. We had a debate about that last year. I have been getting comments from NGOs, those groups that help other people and which depend on those grants. They say that because there is so much inspection of the process, it has almost gone too far the other way. It is not very helpful to the people who are helping those in need when the groups cannot get the money for the excess bureaucracy in continuing to make comments such as those.
I would also like to ensure that the press caught a comment made earlier this afternoon. It was something to the effect that it is cold out today so maybe we have climate cooling. I hope the scientists send in letters responding to that, especially considering that later on members suggested it was just politics. It would be good to hear the reaction from scientists.
I want to read from an e-mail I received about two weeks ago from two of my constituents, Sylvie and David, relating to Kyoto. It states:
Canada has a responsibility to protect the environment, control and regulate its use of fossil fuels and look into using far more renewable energy resources in order to sustain our quality of life.
Another comment that was made earlier in regard to expenditures was that we provide funds from Indian affairs to first nations bands and poof, it is gone, that it vanishes and is a big waste of money. In my riding and in other parts of the country more and more we have been moving toward self-government of first nations. We have been moving toward transferring programs to the first nations so that they can deliver the programs and services they need to themselves and be responsible for taking care of those programs. It is working very effectively. If we look at first nations that have these powers, there is a world of difference in the confidence and effectiveness compared to those who have not moved that far ahead.
The member who made such a statement should look at the audits. All of these bands and organizations are audited and have an exceptionally high positive audit record. Only a few have had negative consequences. If the member is suggesting that Indian affairs take those programs back and deliver them, I appreciate his confidence in Indian affairs but that is not the way to successfully govern first nations.
There was also a comment about rural and urban task forces. I definitely agree that urban and rural people have different lives, different opinions and different outlooks on certain things. In my riding, like many other ridings, people are quite frustrated with a lot of urban people who think that people with guns are criminals just because they have guns. We could understand that perhaps living in a big city. It is very frustrating to people in rural ridings who use guns in their daily lives and first nations people who have guns in their cabins for hunting and protection in the wild. Urban people think that they are criminals just for carrying on their lives as they always have.
The member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough said that we had set up rural and urban task forces in conflict to build differences. That is not true. We have an urban task force and we also have a task force relating only to farming. It is a special task force. Many of the members in today's debate have mentioned how important farming is. I would think that they would applaud such a task force.
Members have been mentioning two bills today, one being the species at risk bill. There were simple statements that there is no habitat protection and no compensation. We have discussed this at length in debating the bill. Both of those items are included in the bill. There are provisions that will allow habitat protection, remembering that most of the habitat protection and species protection will be done by the provinces and territories and that the federal government will be the last safety net. There are provisions for habitat protection and compensation. If they do not work down the road, I fully expect the opposition to bring that case forward.
I want to refer to a number of areas where things have been done. I am not sure if these have been covered today.
The rural secretariat was created by the Government of Canada. I have said a number of times, even before I was elected, that it has been tremendous for rural Canada. Rural deputies and members of parliament from all sides should ensure it is well supported. There are three elements of the rural secretariat initiative of the Government of Canada that I want to remind Canadians of as they may not be aware of them.
The first was to find out the needs of rural Canada and to discuss solutions to fill those needs and the government felt it was important to go to rural Canadians themselves. There was a dialogue across all of rural Canada for a number of years. A number of rural conferences were held. People from rural Canada were brought together to create action plans.
The Secretary of State for Rural Development has worked on those action plans and has implemented a number of solutions coming out of those conferences. In fact, there was going to be an entire debate on the last conference tomorrow night because so many positive things came out of it, including much input from rural Canada on ideas of what all levels of government could do by working together to help them.
The second element of the rural secretariat I want to comment on relates to the rural lens. This is a lens that the federal government has implemented. All departments, when creating new programs or legislation, subject them to a rural lens to see how they will affect rural Canada. I am sure that every rural member of parliament appreciates that. They want to make sure that when the Government of Canada originates something in Ottawa that it is looked at from the rural perspective to see that it is effective for rural Canadians. It improves the legislation in that respect.
The rural pilot projects are something I have been championing for many years. They are part of the rural secretariat. There are hundreds and hundreds of pilot projects that the federal government has done on new ways of doing things, for solutions in rural Canada that are unique. A number of these projects could be transferrable. As an example, once a pilot project is implemented, then hopefully it will carry across the country. There have been a number of successful projects. I am only talking about the ones in my riding but if we multiplied this by the number of ridings in the country, we can imagine how many that might be.
In my area two exciting megaprojects that will help rural Canada are on the verge of happening. In the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories a pipeline will be installed that is financially feasible. It will carry Delta gas to that area. It will help out with the oil sands. It will be a great boon to people in some of the most remote and rural regions in Canada. The pipeline will be a great benefit to Canada in jobs and training, in input to the gross domestic product and of course in tariff revenues and royalties.
The second project is yet another pipeline. Alaska gas would come down the Alaska Highway, which is the Canadian route for Alaska gas. The most disastrous thing would be if it went directly through Alaska without touching Canada, but the Canadian route comes down the Alaska Highway and through Alberta and B.C.
That would provide 108,000 person years for Canada and $13 billion in expenditures, over half of which would be in Canada. It would be a massive influx to that area of the country. It is so tremendous that even the United States congress is in the process of passing a bill that may even help that pipeline go through with all of these benefits to Canada, which include $1.2 billion in tariff revenues every year and over 1,000 jobs in my riding.
The American assistance to provide all of these benefits to Canada would include possibly a $10 billion loan guarantee and also a guarantee on the floor price of natural gas at $3.25. That would be in repayable tax credits. It is not a subsidy. They have to pay it back as soon as gas goes over $4.85.
These exciting projects are on the verge of helping a number of people in my area in rural Canada. The federal government has been working very hard to make sure that they will be the regulator to approve these projects because that is their role. They have to date fulfilled their responsibilities in that area.
I will close by mentioning some of the projects funded under the rural pilot project. I am sure all members will remember the ones in their own ridings. I will mention the ones in my riding.
There is the Yukon lodgepole pine wood attributes study. It came up with the commercial attributes of one of our two major species of wood. It was totally different from what was originally anticipated. It provided valuable input for those companies that were trying to market and produce products in that part of the timber industry.
The Yukon reading readiness project relates to literacy. I am sure all the parties in the House are on side in supporting literacy, which is especially essential to our modern economy. Years ago some jobs would be for life; people learned the skills and that was it. Now people need continuous learning throughout their lives. They need a high degree of literacy and numeracy because jobs are so technical these days.
Another project is the identification de l'état de santé de la communauté franco-yukonnaise. Another is the rural Yukon first nation P.C. technician project. I do not think anyone is opposed to training first nations people in remote villages to fix their computers and technical equipment. Some of these places are so far away in my riding that it would cost as much as a new computer to get a technician from an urban centre to fix the equipment.
There is also Yukon River watershed assessment and awareness project. The Yukon River is one of the biggest watersheds in Canada. The rural people living along its shores in Yukon learn what they can do to protect that watershed.
Another project which I am particularly excited about is the Yukon volunteer bureau. Most parts of Canada have such centres, but in small rural areas as rural MPs can appreciate, there just are not the funds to start them up. There is a transient population and volunteers can register and go to all the organizations. There are several hundred in Yukon that help people which is a great benefit.
I will read the others because I am running short of time. These include the Yukon work information network, the Yukon rural business mentorship service, the Yukon CHR peer monitoring pilot project, the farming enterprise, the first nations furbearer monitoring project, and the building healthy communities and capacity building through partnerships project.
I am sorry if that was not very descriptive. However I want to mention them to show that in just one riding many things are being done for rural Canada. If we multiply that by the 301 ridings, certainly a lot of positive work is being done in Canada to find solutions to the special characteristics under which rural Canadians live.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Madam Speaker, the member talked about compensation being in the bill. I have heard that from other members. What do they not understand when it says that it shall be in the regulations if the minister chooses to do up the regulations and that it will be fair and reasonable without any definition of what that means? It does not say fair market value but fair and reasonable.
He talked about building trust. How can trust be built when all Canadians are not prepared to share in helping those people to preserve that species. Environmental groups, industry, farmers and ranchers know it will not work on the ground. How can the member stand and say that he really cares about the rural members or that he really thinks this thing will work on the ground to save a single species?
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Madam Speaker, the member just made my point. It is in the bill and I expect him to call us to task if it does not work. As he said, the regulations are there and the regulations will be made. If it does not work I expect the members opposite in great numbers to be up in question period asking why we are not putting it into place and why it is not working as we said it would when we made the legislation.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Madam Speaker, one of the things the government has done that has affected the remote regions of the country, like Yukon, which the member represents so well, has been to put every elementary school, high school, college, university and virtually every library on the Internet through the Schoolnet program. That program began in the rural areas and moved to the cities which was very symbolic. That is the way it should have been.
I would like the member for Yukon to talk about that, in particular with respect to Yukon College. I understand that in the last year another initiative of the government has been to put our colleges in remote regions in touch with the new University of the Arctic. Yukon College has taken advantage of that through the Internet and is one of the success stories of the international University of the Arctic.
I do not know whether it is fair to ask the member but could he tell us something about the government putting our educational institutions on the Internet?
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Madam Speaker, that was a great question because I forgot to say something in my speech.
The connection is definitely far more important for rural Canada. Our schools and communities are all connected. Being able to obtain different information and information on health care through these networks means a lot to the people who cannot drive to a government office or to obtain other services.
As the member suggested, the Yukon College is a leader in what is now being called the University of the Arctic. We could never have an international university north of 60 because of the numbers and the expertise but by putting them all together through a virtual method like the Internet such a university was made possible.
I meant to begin my speech today talking about how disappointed I was with the unprecedented attack--and I apologize to my colleagues for being so negative today because I enjoy them all and they are very thoughtful and care for their constituents--that some members, not all, from the Alliance made in November and December on connecting rural Canadians to the Internet.
It was not just a small, shy statement saying that they thought that fiscally the Internet was not the best positive choice. It was a vitriolic, on TV attack saying that connecting rural Canadians to the Internet was a boondoggle.
We definitely needed that connection to rural Canada, and it included the phones and computers, so we could have the same access as the rest of the country. I cannot believe they would not support rural Canada and not support connecting rural Canadians to the Internet.
Philip Mayfield Canadian Alliance Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC
Madam Speaker, one of the things I hope comes out of this debate is that people from urban areas realize how much interdependence there is between urban and rural areas and how uncomfortable many rural people feel.
It is hard not to be cynical when a constituent phoned me recently from Bella Coola on the west coast telling me that after spending tens of thousands of dollars for the fishing licences he needed for his boat, the fishery closed and he did not even have the opportunity to recover the money he spent for the fishing licences.
Another issue that troubles me terribly is the issue of the mountain pine beetle. This bug problem has gone on for many years starting with the fir bark beetle. Many discussions were held with the Department of National Defence because this beetle infestation took place on federal lands for which the federal government was entirely responsible. The government did nothing about it after repeated consultations and commitments indicating that it would do something. The same thing has happened with the mountain pine beetle. After at least two consultations with me and after debate in the House, the federal government has twice said that the provincial government had not even applied to it. This comment was absolutely false. It is this negligence that makes it frustrating.
The mountain pine beetle infestation has cost approximately $3.4 billion worth of wood and another $12.5 billion is at risk. The Minister of the Environment said that this was a natural thing and that nothing could be done about it. What he did not mention was that we put out the fires that normally kill the pine beetle. He also did not say that the wood was not being cut and that nothing was being done to retrieve the money that will be lost as a result of the wood rotting and going to waste.
I cannot understand why the federal government does not heed the concerns of rural Canadians when so much value and wealth is at risk, not only to the government but to the urban centres of Canada. Could the member comment on that please?