Gar Knutson

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the previous speaker and I congratulate him on the fine job he did. I also want to pick up on a theme of my hon. opponent from the New Democratic Party.

It is repetitive because the facts in the matter are not very complicated. The whole issue turns on very simple facts. We debated those facts during the election campaign. Why in heavens name would the opposition want to bring up an issue that was discussed very thoroughly? It did what opposition parties do in a campaign, which is to try to make the Liberals and its leader look bad.

Canadians heard that the Prime Minister called a bank manager about getting a loan for a business in his own riding. The Prime Minister explained that was a normal function of what a member of parliament does. They intervene with businesses like the Business Development Bank. I have called the Business Development Bank on behalf of constituents in my riding.

While Canadians may have felt some unease about the power of the Prime Minister's office, they acknowledged that he is a member of parliament, that he sits as an ordinary MP and that he plays by the rules. They knew he had constituents to represent the same way all of us do. They made a judgment and re-elected the Prime Minister with a bigger majority than he had in the previous election.

However the opposition feel that there is some tiny nugget or some huge scandal. Talking to the people in my riding, Canadians are sick of this issue and sick of the opposition tactics. They do not understand why we are not discussing issues of significant merit.

Do members remember the debate we had on free trade years ago and how that was a huge issue for parliamentarians? There was a big debate across the country. We will have an extension of that in a few weeks time with the negotiations in Quebec City. Do we hear about that from the opposition? I agree that we hear about it from the fourth party. The New Democrats are making an issue of it but the remaining parliamentarians are relatively silent on this.

I, like the rest of my Liberal colleagues, will not support the motion. We see it as cheap political theatrics. It is not doing parliament nor the opposition any good, and the polling numbers will show that. If we were to have an election today I think we would come back with even a stronger majority, but I agree that is speculative.

I oppose the motion because we have all the relevant documents. The ethics counsellor has confirmed that there is no conflict of interest. Did the Prime Minister do anything wrong? Most certainly not. He had no personal interest in the hotel. The opposition has tried to string together the business of the hotel with the business of the golf course to say that he did but that just does not wash.

After the Prime Minister sold his shares in 1993 he had an outstanding debt owed to him. Any changes in the value of the golf course had no effect on the value of the debt. That is basic to any contract.

If the opposition members wanted to they could probably make an argument that the Prime Minister had an interest in all Mr. Prince's affairs. What do we want to do? Do we want to look at everything that Mr. Prince owned and see if the Prime Minister was involved in trying to make Mr. Prince more able to pay back the debt? That would be a huge fishing expedition.

The member for Edmonton North said that the Prime Minister could get over this in a heartbeat by just tabling the bill of sale for those shares in 1993. The Prime Minister tabled the bill of sale though he did not have to do so. When he tabled it the opposition then said that it did not mean anything. That has been typical of the whole scenario.

If we were to have a judicial inquiry and it cleared the Prime Minister or said that he did not do anything wrong, that he acted as a normal parliamentarian, I am sure the opposition would then slam the judicial inquiry. It would then ask who the judges were and say that they were appointed by the Prime Minister and that they were biased. It would go on and on.

Members opposite made a lot of fuss about the bill of sale. The members for Roberval, Edmonton North, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, and Calgary Centre said that all the Prime Minister had to do was present the bill of sale to the House and the matter would be over. It is now two weeks since he presented the bill of sale in the House. Is the matter over? No, because the opposition wants to keep grinding at it.

This raises the analogy of beating a dead horse. The opposition got the bill of sale and it is not happy because it shows that the Prime Minister did not have a personal interest in the whole affair. His interest was for a constituent and he did what any of us would do as members of parliament. He intervened on behalf of his riding. That is what members of parliament do. That is what the opposition does.

Did the Prime Minister do anything wrong? I ask members in the House who have made representations on behalf of their constituents if they have done anything wrong. This issue of calling the bank came up at all candidates debates during the election. It probably came up in the campaigns of my colleagues. It was an issue that needed some explaining during the campaign and Canadians have spoken.

I came back with a bigger majority and a greater margin of victory than in the last election. Canadians understand it even if the opposition does not.

I hope the opposition will be honest enough to say that in our constitutional system one of the most important responsibilities of members of parliament is to represent the interests of their constituents. It is a fundamental part of our form of democracy. We are elected out of communities and we are supposed to represent those communities.

Did the Prime Minister do anything wrong? We can ask the ethics counsellor who has already told both the official and the unofficial opposition leaders:

—the Prime Minister had no personal financial interest in play. He was dealing as an MP on behalf of a constituent.

In his statement on March 1 he said:

The legal debt owed the Prime Minister was unaffected by the value of the golf course. If the value increased, the Prime Minister had no claims for a higher payment. If the value of the course were to decrease, the debt owed to the Prime Minister remained the same.

The opposition tried to discredit the ethics counsellor, a respected public servant who has only done his job. I wish to say that I believe what he told us when he said:

—it would be unfair and inappropriate to the interest of a minister's constituents to extend to crown corporations the rules which apply in the case of a quasi-judicial tribunal and which limit the capacity of a minister to represent his or her constituents.

In other words, do we want to put constituents of the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister at a disadvantage because they elected people who are qualified and honoured to serve in cabinet? I do not believe so. Does the opposition actually think that the constituents of Saint-Maurice have less a right to the service of their MP than the constituents of another MP?

The Auberge Grand-Mère received a loan from the BDC, the caisse populaire and the Fonds de solidarité. The BDC was not the only group to consider the Auberge Grand-Mère a worthwhile investment.

Did the Prime Minister influence those other organizations? Was there something untoward in that? Of course not. To suggest it would be ridiculous. Did the Prime Minister do anything wrong? We can ask the people for whom the expansion of the hotel created some 20 new jobs. We can ask the people in the region of relatively high unemployment who have a source of work today because the hotel has been able to stay open for business.

Did the Prime Minister do anything wrong? We can ask the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who looked into the matter at the request of the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

The RCMP found that there were no grounds to launch a criminal investigation. Therefore on what grounds should we have an inquiry? Judicial inquiries should not be created to satisfy the political interests of the opposition. There was no hard evidence of criminal activity. There was none and the RCMP has told us as much.

What would be the point of such an inquiry? The opposition referred the issue to the ethics counsellor and it did not like what he said. It referred it to the RCMP that found no grounds for investigation, but it did not want to hear that either.

The Prime Minister has been subjected to unthinkable scrutiny and questioning and has taken the unprecedented step of tabling in the House the private documents the opposition asked to see. It is still not satisfied. The opposition wants us to spend thousands and millions of taxpayer dollars so that maybe it can dig up something on which to attack the Prime Minister. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to be found. The opposition still would not be satisfied.

The government was not elected to waste time and money on this kind of nonsense. The government and all members of parliament were elected to devote time, energy and resources to what matters to Canadians: the environment, health care, international trade, and the well-being of the agricultural sector. Canadians are more interested in having their time and money spent on those kinds of public inquiries.

We are ready to get on with the business of Canada whenever the opposition gets over this and turns to what matters to Canadians. I ask all hon. members to oppose the motion.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I do not have a detailed understanding of the pasta plant in southern Saskatchewan, but off the top, if in fact the wheat board prevented that plant from developing, that was a mistake in policy. We need more pasta plants and food processing plants and any regulation that gets in the way of that should be abolished.

However, it comes as no surprise to hear the member quoting a U.S. president. That party is trying to make an argument for more subsidies—

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that I have no idea how much the advertising campaign cost.

As question period will start in about 25 minutes, that question would probably be better put directly to the minister who, I am sure, would be happy to answer it.

As for the comment about it being an anti-farmer campaign, the opposition likes to make the point that Canadians have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that because the government is explaining how we spend roughly $1.7 billion in terms of annual farm support programs to Canadians that it is somehow anti-farmer.

We are telling Canadians how we spend the money. Is it not implicit in that argument that we need to spend the money and that our farm sector is important?

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to discuss the very serious issue of the agricultural crisis. Let me begin by commending the opposition for bringing it to the attention of the House and for using one of its opposition days to discuss the issue.

As hon. members know, my riding in southwestern Ontario is one of the richest farm areas in the country. The counties of Elgin and Middlesex have a vast array of agricultural producers, whether in wheat, corn, soybeans, livestock or supply management. The health of the agricultural industry and its livelihood is a very critical issue to my riding, to my community and, as such, to me as well.

It is important when we define the problem, and it is a very real and serious problem, that we acknowledge that not all of agriculture is suffering. Certainly areas involved with supply management, whether dairy production, the feather industry or the production of eggs, continue to do reasonably well. That is because they are protected from the games foreign countries play in terms of increasing subsidies at a rapid rate. They know when they go to the marketplace that they will get a reasonable return for their production and one that will cover their production costs and allow them to feed their families and make a good living.

The other part of the farm sector that is doing well right now is the whole area of cattle. Hog production is also doing well because the prices those producers are enjoying are reasonably high.

Again, not all parts of the farm economy are in a crisis. It is a particular part of the farm economy. If we look at the numbers in Ontario we see that farm incomes went up last year, which is not what one would expect given world prices for grains and oilseeds and the awful weather we had in terms of a very wet spring.

Let me turn my comments to the issue at hand, which is the farm income crisis in the grains and oilseeds business. I will provide some statistics.

The Ontario average for the price of grain corn has dropped from $4.65 a bushel in 1995-96 to $2.85 a bushel. That is a huge drop in a very short period of time and farmers cannot make money at that price.

The Ontario average for the cash price of soybeans has dropped from $9.66 in 1995-96 to $6.90, which is more than a 30% drop in the space of about four to five years. At the same time, the cost of production has risen through the roof. Farmers are facing the lowest prices for their product, in nominal terms, for the last 27 years while incurring an increase in the cost of fertilizer. Fertilizer costs have gone up primarily due to the cost of oil that goes into making it.

Costs have increased for things like drying expenses. When harvest corn is taken from the field and shipped to market, it must be dried to prevent it from moulding on the way to market. Because of the high input costs involved in that and the low revenue, the farmers are suffering and going broke. They incur high costs for the rental of land and a variety of other costs.

The average cost of production for corn is estimated in Ontario at $3.50 per bushel. If one compares that with the number I gave previously, we see that the price farmers get for corn is $2.85 per bushel. The breakeven for soybeans is estimated to be $8 per bushel compared to the $6.90 per bushel. These numbers, as well as any, highlight the difficult times farmers are having. The worst part is the source of the problem: The Americans have increased subsidies to farmers fourfold over the last few years. They are paying their farmers to produce at a level that distorts the marketplace both in Canada and abroad.

The Americans have a policy of not giving up market share around the world, and they have gotten into the business of paying their farmers to produce without getting a normal price from the marketplace. For example, when Ontario corn farmers go to the marketplace they sell corn at a certain price. When American farmers go to the same marketplace they get a certain price plus a very high subsidy.

The market is not signalling to U.S. farmers or to European farmers that they should cut back production because the market is being distorted by high subsidies. Ontario farmers are extremely frustrated by this and by the fact that they have no hope or optimism that it will change.

A number of people have talked about signing new trade agreements that would bring in new rules so that subsidies would go down. Even if we did that, farmers in Europe or the U.S. would go through a period of adjustment, some say from five to ten years, but the Ontario corn and soybean farmers would get no immediate relief.

That highlights the level of frustration and how difficult the situation is. It indicates that the federal and provincial governments need to be cognizant that the situation has changed dramatically since 1993-94 when the Liberals first came into office. Our support for agriculture at the time, in terms of safety nets, was roughly $600 million. We did not hear squawking or complaints that it was too little money because the price farmers got from the marketplace compensated for the fact that they did not get subsidies.

They now find that when they go to the marketplace they cannot get a fair price so they are looking to the federal and provincial governments for help, as is their right.

I am happy to say that the federal government has responded. It may not have responded as aggressively or as generously as some farmers and farm organizations would have liked, but it moved the $600 million in safety net programs from the 1994-95 budget year and increased it by $500 million to what was then called AIDA.

AIDA was designed to deal with sudden and quick dramatic drops in price. It played an important role two or three years ago in maintaining a hog industry in my riding when the price of hogs fell through the floor and a number of livestock farmers were facing very difficult times. They made good use of AIDA, and I was pleased to see a government safety net program come into play. It was virtually put in as a permanent program. It is now a multi-year commitment that farmers can rely on for the next few years.

The minister just announced an increase of $500 million. One of the two debates surrounding that $500 million is whether it should be higher. As someone who represents a farm riding, I would have liked to have seen it higher, but I understand the government has a lot of competing calls on resources and it came up with $500 million.

However, if we go back to 1994-95, when we went from $600 million of total safety net programs, we added roughly $500 million to AIDA. We also increased our $600 million bottom line safety net programs by another $85 million. We have now increased it by another $500 million. In my view, that is not bad. We have almost tripled the support for agriculture and the safety net since I have been in office.

Other than the amount of money that we should be putting into agriculture, we also need to call on the government to make a multi-year commitment. The $500 million we have is a one year commitment. I will have an opportunity in a take note budget debate to talk about this, but if the Minister of Finance is taking note tonight I would tell him privately or publicly that we need to be more generous in our multi-year commitment to agriculture.

I understand the difficulties in making a decision now. We do not know where the economy is going. We do not know what resources the government will have in six, eight or nine months from now. However, I call on the government to be as generous as possible.

While I commend the opposition for what it has brought forward today, I should point out that it did not mention a word about increasing support to farmers during the campaign. The only party that had a coherent platform in terms of increasing cash support for farmers during the campaign was the Progressive Conservative Party. Its leader came down to my area in Woodstock and spoke about how we need to do more to support our farmers and he talked about increasing the budget. I never heard—

[Species At Risk Act, February 28th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's facts are a little off. What was part and parcel of Bill C-65 was a referral to committee before second reading. This was toward the end of the 1993 parliament. From my memory, automatic listing was never agreed on or never passed.

[Species At Risk Act, February 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the simpler question first which is the issue of federal jurisdiction. I have been quite clear that we should have a section in the bill that says that the government or the minister is required to pass regulations that the protect habitat within areas of federal jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, when the Fathers of Confederation wrote the constitution in 1867, environmental concerns were not part of the decisions on which level of government, federal or provincial, had jurisdiction.

There is some debate in the country, on a legal level in the courts and on political levels in Ottawa and provincial capitals, as to who actually has jurisdiction. That is something the committee needs to turn its mind to before making a final decision on this. It is something I have an opinion on but it is not a universal opinion. The committee needs to look at where federal jurisdiction ends and provincial jurisdiction begins.

Regarding the other issue of who makes the final decision, the question is not as simple as it may seem at first. If we are going to give blank cheques to scientists and ask them to tell us what is on the verge of extinction, which on a certain level sounds quite attractive, and if politicians are not part of that decision, they need to follow a close second behind that and question the consequences of the listing.

For example, what recovery plans or socioeconomic costs are we prepared to endure in order that a species might be protected? Is it practical that a particular species be protected? Those are questions that need to be answered as part of a recovery plan or part of a process.

Certainly scientists should be given the opportunity to tell us, from a scientific basis, what should be listed. There is a proposal floating around calling for a reverse onus. Species would be listed and the government would have 90 days, or a similar time period, to take them off the list with an explanation as to why. Perhaps that is a better way to go at it.

Again, this is one of the things the committee needs to turn its mind to, listen to the debate and the various views from the government and others, and make a recommendation either by passing an amendment at committee stage or some other form, depending on what the committee's views are.

[Species At Risk Act, February 28th, 2001]

Her name is Christine. She has had to deal with the challenges of being married to a member of parliament over the last seven years and I appreciate her support.

Last, if I may be allowed to stay with the personal issues for a minute, I would also like to thank my parents for their support and, in particular, my father for his guidance. Unfortunately, he passed away just after the election.

As I turn now to the issues of today's debate, we should ask ourselves the question, why should we care? Does it matter in effect that the loggerhead shrike is on the verge of extinction? Does it matter that the passenger pigeon has become extinct? We all know that extinction exists in nature. The dinosaurs have become extinct. In effect, why is this an issue?

The issue of extinction is not the natural rate of extinction, but we should concern ourselves when species, whether they are plants or animals, are becoming extinct at a rate far faster than they would under normal evolutionary circumstances. We should care at a most basic level because extinction of plants and animals may be an early warning of our extinction, that is the extinction of the human race. If not of our extinction, it should at least be an early warning of threats to our well-being.

Endangered species can play the role of a canary in the mine shaft. If all of a sudden our frog population is declining because of changes in the atmosphere which can be a signal that we need to change our ways. It can be a signal that there is tremendous damage being done to the environment, to the ecosystems, to the plants, to the animals and to human beings, which depend on those ecosystems. It is important that we pay attention to these issues.

We should also care because of the importance of biodiversity. By that I mean, having the widest possible variety of plants and animals on the planet earth. We should care for medical reasons. Oftentimes, unthought of medical solutions, whether they are pharmaceuticals or whatever, come from plants that probably have not even yet been discovered or categorized.

We should not only care for practical reasons in terms of our own self-interest, but I believe that we should also care for more basic spiritual or religious reasons. While I do not share an animal rights point of view of the world, I believe our natural world deserves our respect. The unnecessary extinction of plant or animal species is akin to a crime.

I would also like to suggest that Canada has a particular responsibility to deal with this issue. With so much of our population concentrated in a relatively small part of our land mass, habitat protection, which is fundamental to species protection, is relatively easy for us when compared to other countries with larger populations or perhaps fewer resources. If Canadians cannot protect habitat and the species that depend on them, how can we expect other countries to do it? I think it is our responsibility to take a lead on this.

Talking about habitat protection and more specifically, protecting wilderness, His Royal Highness, Prince Philip, stated:

The sorry story of the almost absent-minded degradation and destruction of so much of the world's biosphere is becoming only too well known to millions of people. Every other day there are disturbing stories about the burning of tropical forests, reclaimed wetlands, polluted rivers, lakes and oceans and the growing list of species of animals and plants becoming extinct.

Canada has an almost unique opportunity to ensure that future generations will be able to see examples of the state their land was in before the rush for development and exploitation began. The task is to conserve a whole range of viable ecosystems and habitats covering all the country's natural regions. It is also necessary to ensure that those human activities that impinge directly on the natural environment, such as forestry, farming and commercial fishing, adopt sound conservation practices.

That was in the forward to a book put out by the World Wildlife Fund called Endangered Spaces .

In the same book, William Francis Butler is quoted upon visiting the western plains shortly after confederation. As he stood in an ocean of grass and solitude he said “One sees here the world as it has taken shape and form from the hands of the creator”. He had a profound respect for the land in its natural state.

Before I turn to the details of the bill, let me also just say that a concern for extinction is part and parcel of a more general concern about the environment. It would make no sense at all to concern ourselves with endangered species while not concerning ourselves with, for example, climate change. Any work we do on habitat protection can be wiped out in a matter of months, if not days, by damage from our weather systems. Fundamental to any activity is an appropriate humbleness as we look out upon the world and respect for nature.

On that same theme, again taking a particularly Canadian view, writing in 1944 on a wilderness canoe voyage, Pierre Trudeau said,“I know a man whose school could never teach him the patriotism but who acquired that virtue when he felt in his bones the vastness of his land and the greatness of those who founded it”.

We have it from the great Prime Minister Trudeau himself about respect for nature and respect for the Canadian wilderness. It is part and parcel of respect for habitat which is fundamental to protecting endangered species.

In my remaining time let me comment directly on the bill that is in front of us. The government should be applauded for making some improvements on its previous legislation. Specifically, the compensation part of the bill is going to be essential for having the bill accepted in various parts of the country. It is clear that the cost of changing behaviour should not be borne simply by the landowners. There is a public good at large. Consequently, the public should be prepared to pay for land conservation or habitat protection. I do not foresee this being a tremendous amount of money. It would be money well spent.

However I share with some of my colleagues in the opposition and my Liberal colleagues concerns about the bill. The legislation needs to go further in terms of protecting habitat, particularly in the area of federal jurisdiction. I have concerns about who actually does the listing. I look forward to exploring that issue further in committee.

I also have concerns about the rollover of the list. Currently we have identified some 300 plus plants and animals that are on the verge of extension or are threatened. Most, if not all of the scientific work, has been done. We can make this list part of the legislation itself rather than making it the subject of cabinet regulation.

Those are my initial concerns. I look forward to working with the opposition on this very critical issue. It is part of a broader issue of concern for the environment. As we look forward, the environment will be the issue of the next period of time. This is only one small part of proper environmental stewardship and I am happy to play a role in it.

[Species At Risk Act, February 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying I intend to split my time with the member for Yukon. Other than a few comments I made in last evening's debate, this is really my maiden speech. As such, I would like to begin by thanking the constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London for honouring me as their third term MP.

I know hon. members will agree that obviously the highest professional honour anyone could ever have is to be elected to parliament. It is simply a tremendous overwhelming honour that they have elected me three times and I am very grateful for that privilege.

I would also like to thank my family for their support and in particular, my wife.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise and make my maiden speech in this 37th parliament.

Before I get into the gist of what I want to say, I want to commend the previous speaker. I think he articulates a point of view very logically and very forcefully. I agree that the opposition certainly should be concerned about the powers of the government.

We work in a system that gives tremendous power to the Prime Minister and to the government. If my colleagues across the way had bothered at some point to take a first year political science course, they would know that is part of our system. We should have a debate as to whether it is an appropriate system. It is not a function of the Prime Minister's personality. It is not a function of this particular Prime Minister. It is a function of our rules. There are certain advantages to those rules.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague reminds me that I am splitting my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

I point out to my hon. friends across the way that we should have a debate about whether our parliament, our rules and our system are serving the needs of the country in the 21st century.

I was scheduled today to speak on the endangered species bill. That was scheduled to be my maiden speech. I much would have preferred to be talking about a substantive issue like endangered species or the environment. As well, I watched the news tonight and we have bad economic news. I would much rather be debating the economy or a variety of other issues that are pressing on Canadians.

Instead we are talking about the rights of a Speaker to enforce the rules. We are talking about whether it is appropriate for opposition parties to tie up the House of Commons for three, four, five or six days by debating whether to move a comma to another line or change a period into a semicolon. We are talking about the most trivial, vexatious and frivolous amendments. This is the right that the opposition wants to hold on to.

If we read the motion that is put forth it says:

For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature—

Nothing in the wording of this motion will prevent the opposition from putting forward hundreds of substantive amendments. However, they are going to have to be substantive amendments, not the silly amendments we had in the last parliament. They will have to be about ideas. We could have a debate about ideas, not about personalities. We could have a serious debate over the coming months about parliamentary reform.

Let us leave the accusations about whether we are puppets or they are puppets. Let us talk about how we make the system work. We are in the 21st century. Let us talk about how we make it better for Canadians. That does not include, I am sorry to say, three, four, five or six days or longer of simply debating whether a comma should be moved. I am sorry, but that is not what Canadians sent us here to do. It is not why I was elected.

My constituents want me to concentrate on substantive issues. They want me to concentrate on issues that matter to them, such as whether the air they breathe is clean or whether their jobs will be safe. They do not want us to concentrate on this nonsense.

I think this is a perfectly legitimate motion. All it does is tell the Speaker to enforce the rules. If we want to have a debate about changing the rules, then let us do that as well.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Seventeen thousand bucks an hour.