Debates of June 22nd, 2005

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I have made suggestions that perhaps the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam could sit with the member for Ottawa South and carry on the discussions over there in relative quiet, because we are now on to questions and comments and we have to be able to hear the person who has the floor. It is the hon. member for Charlottetown who has the floor and everyone will want to hear his question, particularly the member for Vegreville—Wainwright.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative argument that I am hearing tonight is that the allocation of $4.5 billion over two years is fiscally irresponsible, but when we look at the record of the government, by all external measurements under the international indices, everything seems to be good.

We have had eight consecutive surpluses and low inflation, which in turn have led to low interest rates. We have had a $100 billion tax reduction. There is strong employment in that 280,000 jobs have been created in the last 14 months. There is a vast growth in GDP. Canada is the only G-7 country to have been in surplus over the last two years. The debt to GDP ratio has decreased from 73% to 31%. All the external indicators are good, despite what we are hearing tonight.

Let us compare that with when the Conservative Party was in power. There was a $43 billion deficit. Interest rates were at 12%. Unemployment was at 11%. The debt to GDP ratio was 73%. All the external measurements were at the bottom of the heap.

We have to put aside all our partisanship tonight and ask ourselves a couple of questions. My first question for the member is, how did the Conservative Party go so wrong? Second, what collectively can we do as members of Parliament to make sure that the programs, the policies and the thinking of the Conservative Party are never visited on Canadians again?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made an interesting comment before his question. He said that everything seems to be good. He referred to all of these factors that seemed to be good but the fact is that the financial outlook is not nearly that good.

Sadly, Canada has become a non-player in the world. It is not the fault of the Canadian people because they are great people. It is the fault of the Canadian government.

When I attended a meeting of the NATO parliamentarians in February, I went to Paris to a meeting of the OECD, one of the most respected think tanks and research groups in the world. We received an economic forecast from them for the next couple of years. The forecast itself was not that positive. In fact, we have been on a declining schedule for some time when it comes to the economic forecast, but something was even more disturbing than that. In all of the information that was given to the NATO parliamentarians who attended the meeting, the numbers presented were for the G-6, not the G-7 and not the G-8.

The G-7 still includes Canada but we have become such a non-player that all of the numbers were for the G-6 with Canada not included. That is a sad commentary of what the government has done to our country over the past many years. I do not think the members across the floor should be laughing at what they have done to our country because it is not the people of the country, it is the government that has done that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I found it difficult to follow the very circular argumentation of the member and his colleague, the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam who said, “Wait, it will make sense eventually”.

Unfortunately, I waited until the end and it never made sense. It never made sense that the hon. member was questioning his colleagues when he said that voting for Bill C-43 was akin to voting for Bill C-38, which means that not only was he condemning Liberal members of the House but he was also condemning his own colleagues who voted for Bill C-43. However I should say that at least that time they voted because in a previous manifestation of the very same bill, with the $4.6 billion in tax cuts, Conservative members cashed their pay cheques, did not show up for work and did not bother to vote.

Despite all those circular arguments, what I found most surprising about the member's presentation was when he talked about children. We know that 1.1 million children are living in poverty and that housing programs need to address that but he ignores that. It is in Bill C-48 and I hope he will read the bill.

We know there is a crisis in post-secondary education and training. The NDP's better balanced bill deals with that in investing more money in education and lowering tuition fees.

We have invested in the environment. It is our children in communities across the country who will benefit from the additional moneys put into the environment to make a better environment. That is the NDP's better balanced budget bill.

What about the families of workers, let alone children internationally? We know we need to put money into international development to support those children living in poverty around the world.

I guess it is not surprising because when we see the Conservative Party's past, we have seen bloated deficits. Last year it had the most expensive political platform in Canadian history, $86 billion, and that was even before they included the HMCS Mulroney, the aircraft carrier, for which we were never given a budget estimate.

Given the member's circular arguments, I would like to understand his opinion on his leader's statement this week that it is okay to bribe or to offer bribes but that it is not okay to accept them. How does that member square that circle that it is okay to offer bribes but not okay to accept them?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. I realize I did make a statement during my presentation which was inaccurate. It is very confusing when there are two or three budgets. One kind of forgets which is which.

The member asked how it was that voting for Bill C-43 would be voting for Bill C-38. I meant to say, and it was an error on my part, that voting for Bill C-48, which the Liberal members across the floor did at second reading, is like voting for Bill C-38. That is what I meant to say. It is not that complicated for the member to figure out.

If any one of them had voted against Bill C-48 at second reading, Bill C-38 would have been killed. We would have been in an election and we would have a Conservative government, which would mean the end of the same sex marriage bill. That is what I meant to say. If I was not clear on that or if I made an error, I appreciate the opportunity to correct it.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Jean Brault is forced under duress to give donations to the Liberal Party. We call that extortion. A Prime Minister, to consolidate his slipping grip on power, in a backroom is forced to give up a bag of goodies to that other party. What does the hon. member think Canadians should call that?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit of a difficult question to answer because I cannot say there were any brown envelopes changing hands in the no-tell motel or that there were any suitcases full of money or anything like that. I am not saying that at all.

I suggest that there were shenanigans going on in the no-tell motel that were every bit as serious as those brown envelopes and suitcases full of money. Some $4.5 billion was being shuffled about among the three people in bed at the no-tell motel. There they were in bed together moving about $4.5 billion. The Prime Minister, being one of them, agreed to that. Do not forget that the former finance minister, the gentleman from Wascana, was pushed into a side room. He was not allowed to be in the room where all the action was taking place.

I wonder if the NDP member who just asked a question was not there, maybe hiding in a corner watching what was going on.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this question that was raised a few days ago. I raised the question of the closure of the Nappan Experimental Farm and also the farm at Kentville. Based on documents we received through access to information, even the one at Bouctouche is now a potential victim.

Earlier today I spoke to the former manager of the Nappan Experimental Farm, a really well respected gentleman by the name of Frank Calder. He served there for decades. He was well respected. He ran a great operation. The farm provided services to the agricultural and farming community for years.

I asked him about this whole thing. He is now retired. He said that what the government is doing in moving all this research to universities and laboratories cannot work. This is the manager of the Nappan Experimental Farm talking. He was very clear. He said that we must have the fields and have the cattle in the fields. We must be able to raise them from birth to slaughter. We must be able to judge them and grade them and follow them every single step of the way. We cannot do that in a laboratory.

That is exactly what the Department of Agriculture is proposing to do with the closure of the Nappan Experimental Farm and, speculatively, the closure of Kentville and Bouctouche and so many other experimental farms.

Mr. Calder was very helpful in this debate. I am so lucky to have so much help from people like Mr. Calder. Even his son, Paul Calder, a very well respected RCMP officer now in the town of Amherst, has been very active in this.

Mr. Speaker will remember very clearly that today I tabled a petition of 2,667 names, including those of MLAs from the province of Nova Scotia. Almost 30 MLAs, including Premier John Hamm, signed this petition asking the government to maintain the facility at Nappan. It was signed by many MPs, including the hon. Minister of Human Resources. All the MPs in Nova Scotia signed, the Conservative MPs and the NDP MPs; the Liberals were not able to sign it and I can understand that because it is a government policy to close these farms. In any case, this petition had wide support. Even the warden for Cumberland County, the very distinguished Keith Hunter, signed it.

It has been an incredible effort by the Cumberland County Federation of Agriculture and their president Frank Foster, their secretary Marilyn Carter, and board members like Leon Smith, Carl Woodworth and Kurt Sherman. There has been such an effort to try to stop the government from making this terrible mistake of closing down this farm and losing this tremendous asset forever.

I asked a question about this. Let me quote the minister's answer from Hansard . Incredibly, he said:

The minister in this particular case has made a commitment there will be no diminishment of the research capacity in the province.

That turns out to be not quite true, because in seven or eight places in the access to information papers that I have received it is noted that the government is going to move the research out of the province. I will read to members from these documents. Research on 4-H diets and meat quality currently at Nappan could move to Lacombe, Alberta. The government is spending $7 million there to upgrade it.

At another place in the documents it is stated:

Nappan is one of the four original experimental farms created by legislation in the 1880s. Research here could be shifted to Lacombe, Alberta.

It also states that the beef research from Nappan would move to the University of Guelph at New Liskeard. On and on it goes, talking about how the government is going to shift research out of the province.

It states about Kentville that the research site at Kentville would be phased out and the facility donated. The food quality safety program would be moved to Charlottetown, horticulture would be moved to Quebec and plant breeding would just simply end.

This answer the government gave about how there will be no diminishment in scientific research for agriculture is absolutely 100% wrong. It is misleading and it is harmful to the whole agricultural industry when the government gives us this wrong information. This is the information it is using to justify closing Nappan. I would like to know how the government can give us this wrong information and I would like the government to correct it.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, as we said before in the House, there are no plans to close the Atlantic Food and Horticulture Research Centre in Kentville or to move its research activities to Prince Edward Island or to Quebec.

The member opposite has been referring to documents that relate to options, analysis and possible scenarios that were developed to explore possible directions for the department's science activities, but they do not represent final decisions to be made by this department.

The department announced in February, as part of the expenditure review initiative, that it would be closing four research locations: Nappan, Nova Scotia; St. John's, Newfoundland; Kapuskasing, Ontario; and Winnipeg, Manitoba. Review committees were formed in each of these communities to look at possible partnerships with the provinces, the universities and the various stakeholders.

I want to reiterate that the government is committed to ensuring that Canada is a world-class leader in agriculture. To achieve that goal we must be a world leader in science and in innovation. We cannot maintain our current levels of excellence if we are forced to spend research funds in repairing and maintaining aging structures and research facilities.

That is why we are examining other opportunities, including giving our excellent scientists the opportunity to conduct research at more modern facilities, perhaps in partnership with the provinces, universities and private sector. If the wheel has already been invented, we should not be trying to reinvent it again.

By pooling our resources with other research partners, we can produce better results for the same investment by making world-class equipment and world-class scientists available to all partners.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with him wholeheartedly. There is a plan to close these facilities. Now maybe they will not go through with it after we have raised it, but there is a plan.

First, the plan says that in Nova Scotia, “The field site at Nappan would not be needed and would be divested by 2006”. That is a plan and it is happening. They have already fired the people so they cannot say it is a figment of someone's imagination. They cannot say it is just a memo. It has happened.

Step two is to close the Kentville facility, but on another page it says, “the Nappan closure would initiate the Department of Agriculture's implementation of the science strategy. Further site closures and staff reductions are planned under the strategy”.

I am tired of the Liberals saying that there is no plan to close these plants because there is. The parliamentary secretary has said that they do not want to spend the money on facilities, but yet there is a plan to spend $232 million on new facilities in places like Ottawa, $75 million and Saint-Hyacinthe, $60 million, so--

[The Speaker]

The time has expired. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite correct. We have identified a plan. Four locations are being phased out, there is no question about that. However, the money must be spent wisely. We cannot continue to spend money, which should be going to science and research, on repairing and maintaining buildings that no longer meet research standards. That is a simple statement.

I want to reiterate that contrary to what the member opposite has said, there are no plans to close the Kentville facility or to move any of its research activities to Quebec or to Prince Edward Island or to anywhere else. The money has to be spent wisely.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest not being present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later today at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:08 a.m.)