Rick Borotsik

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, April 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments from the previous speaker. We have gone off in a different direction with respect to the bill before us right now, the bill dealing with the Farm Credit Corporation. However I will touch on that other direction just for a moment.

As members are well aware, I am the Progressive Conservative Party critic for agriculture. I have obviously had a lot of dealings not only with members on this side but with members on the government side as well as producers. In my constituency, agriculture is the backbone of our economy and therefore I deal with this issue on a daily basis.

As for the dollars that were earmarked for the agricultural economy, dollars that were to go back to producers, the $500 million, different provinces are providing those dollars in different fashions. In Manitoba we call it CMAP 2, the second program. With provincial and federal contributions, it will come to about $92 million. That has been capped at about $11,000 for each producer. To the member for Toronto—Danforth, $11,000 might sound like an awful lot. However, currently it is costing the average producer somewhere in the neighbourhood of $120,000 to $150,000 to put a crop in the ground. Input costs such as those for fertilizer, gas and pesticides are included. Therefore the $11,000 is not a substantial amount of money.

The member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore was right when he indicated that there was an additional requirement for $400 million. That would have brought it up to what we consider to be a reasonable limit of $900 million at that time.

I do not want to get into a debate, but every member on that side of the House stood and voted against an additional $400 million. It was not a non-confidence motion. It was just not meant to be. The amount of dollars that were necessary at the time were not forthcoming.

For producers who will receive their portion of the $500 million, it is not sufficient to keep most of them on the land, on the farms this year. A long term well thought out safety net policy is necessary and must come forward, a policy that would allow farmers some glimmer of hope they can produce crops that pay a fair price for a commodity and that they can continue farming not only in their lifetimes but hopefully into the lifetimes of their children and their grandchildren.

We are here not only to talk about agriculture but a component of agriculture, the Farm Credit Corporation. As we have seen in the debate, agriculture has changed over the last number of years. It has changed effectively from last year. The Farm Credit Corporation has to maintain its ability to compete in that world of change in agriculture.

The Farm Credit Corporation was created on October 5, 1959 by the Diefenbaker Conservative government when the Farm Credit Act was proclaimed into Canadian law to provide a consistent source of lending services that farmers could rely on through all economic cycles. At that time the corporation was mandated to provide one product at a fixed rate, that is first mortgage loans to farmers to a maximum $20,000.

I mention that because we have come a long way from 1959 to today, and the Farm Credit Corporation has to move with that change within the agricultural industry.

During the first 34 years the Farm Credit Corporation and the Farm Credit Act went through many evolutions to keep step with the agriculture industry. In 1968 farming corporations became eligible for FCC loans. Loan limits increased to $150,000 in 1975. In 1982 amendments to the act led to the introduction of more loan products and the FCC made its debut on the capital markets.

In 1993 the Farm Credit Act was replaced with the Farm Credit Corporation Act, which expanded the mandate of the FCC to better respond to the needs of the agricultural sector. The FCC could now offer products such as financing to purchase or improve farmland and buildings, buying personal property for farming purposes and consolidating debts. It enabled the corporation to support value added production by providing financing for diversified enterprises on or off the farm.

The act has helped bring the FCC in sync with the changing marketplace. The Farm Credit Corporation loan portfolio has grown from $3.4 billion in 1993 when the act was introduced to $6 billion today. At present the crown corporation serves 44,000 customers with 900 employees in 100 offices across Canada.

The Farm Credit Corporation is a good corporate citizen. It is there for a purpose. Back in 1959 the purpose was identified, the need was identified and the Farm Credit Corporation was born. It is a good crown corporation that provides a very valuable service to many farm customers across the country.

It is a bank. Let us make no mistake about that. I can go out and find people anywhere who do not like dealing with banks of any sort.

Sometimes people who borrow money do not like paying it back and therefore the bank is at fault. The FCC is a good bank. It does its business properly. It puts money into the agricultural sector. It gets the money back from producers and puts it back into the sector again. It is self-sufficient and self-supporting.

Last year the FCC put record amounts of dollars back into the farm economy. A record amount of $1.7 billion was lent to agriculture producers. We recognize that there are some difficulties in the farm economy right now. Why is it that banks are lending a record amount of $1.7 billion? Is most of it rewriting old notes and old loans? The answer I was given was no.

About $200 million of it was rewriting old notes, but $1.5 billion was new money going back to people to expand their farm operations, to put in different types of operations, agriculture operating practices and value added processing units. It is good money and good business.

The bank must expand its abilities to be able to compete in a world where agriculture needs new and innovative measures and programs. It has done that since 1959 when it started with a maximum $20,000 mortgage loan at one rate. It has gone the whole gambit now. The act would allow the Farm Credit Corporation to put forward new products to producers that would help them continue their operations.

The Progressive Conservative government improved the way FCC was managed. We brought in the FCC equity building plan in 1990 to allow farmers to extend their leases and buy back land once they were on firmer financial ground.

The Progressive Conservatives moved the head office of FCC to Regina so that it could be closer to those who it serviced the most, namely the majority of customers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta.

We passed a bill to expand the role of FCC allowing it to make loans to farmers who wanted to diversify their operations. The bank was able to and allowed to put more dollars into the pockets of farmers who wanted to diversify their operations and become better at what they did.

There are a number of components in Bill C-25 that I would like to speak to and in some cases I wish to question. In every legislation one wants to hear from the people whom it will affect. We also want to hear the ups and downs or the pros and cons of amendments to the bill.

I would like to mention another point. The president of the FCC appeared before the agriculture committee last week. I stood in the House about a week ago on a piece of private member's business and suggested having crown corporations including the Canadian Wheat Board open to access to information guidelines.

Members of the government argued against me quite vehemently. They suggested it was my backdoor way of trying to get at the Canadian Wheat Board, which in fact it was not. It was simply a matter of trying to have transparency and accountability in a crown corporation.

The FCC is a crown corporation. I asked the president if the FCC was eligible under the Access to Information Act and he said that it was. I can file an access to information request with respect to the FCC and I would then have access to that information.

I asked the president if it was a real deterrent in a very competitive business like banking. He explained to us that it was not the case, that he did have the ability under the act to withhold some very sensitive information that would be a detriment to the competitiveness of the business, but he said in general terms that having to deal under the Access to Information Act was not an impediment to its operation. I say to the government side that here is one crown corporation, which is in a very competitive business with banks, credit unions and other financial lending institutions, that can work under those circumstances and still have access to information available in its crown corporation.

The bill is a step in the right direction. The PC Party will be supporting reference of the bill to committee after second reading. We look forward to asking specific questions of stakeholders who will come before the committee to give their impressions of the legislation.

The first thing the bill would do is change the name from Farm Credit Corporation, the name which I grew up with and know very well, to Farm Credit Canada. There is not much differentiation between Farm Credit Canada and the Farm Credit Corporation.

We all recognize FCC as a federal institution. I am told that the only reason this is to happen is so that more credit can be given to the federal government. When customers go to farm credit Canada as a crown corporation, they will recognize it as a Canadian federal institution as opposed to a provincial institution.

To me there is much in a name. Perhaps there are reasons that can be explained to me as to why this is absolutely necessary. I would also like to know what the costs are in changing the name from Farm Credit Corporation to Farm Credit Canada. Changes in the letterhead, operating tools, all the documents and required legal changes in a name change may well have a huge cost associated with them. Perhaps it would be better to use those dollars to give producers a lesser rate, or perhaps even more support systems to producers, than simply to change the name. We would have to debate that.

The mandate of the FCC would be expanded from financial services to farming operations and businesses related to farming, to business services and products to such enterprises. That in itself is broadening the mandate of the FCC, of which our party approves.

Farming is changing quite dramatically. In my constituency alone the majority of the economy is either directly or indirectly related to agriculture. We have often said that we cannot simply sell the raw material at the farm gate and expect an income generated that would allow people to stay on the farm. We have to value add. We have to add to the product. We have to make sure that those businesses are set up to take a raw material and make it into something more than just simply a bushel of wheat or a bushel of barley going some place else.

That means a number of opportunities. In my area in particular we have a state of the art hog processing plant which means that more raw material must be produced. That raw material requires a lot of investment in hog farms, cattle operations and chicken farms. The FCC must have the ability to be able to finance those types of operations to allow for diversification in the agricultural community.

Beyond that, looking into the production services and processing services of other businesses can now go forward. We have around my area an isoboard plant that produces strawboard. FCC should, does and would have the ability to fund those operations so that straw taken from agricultural production could go into the production of another commodity that has value.

The FCC should also have the ability to do equity deals, another opportunity in expansion of the services that it would be able to provide.

The FCC would have the authority to provide loans to businesses related to farming in both cases where the business is majority owned by farmers and where it is not. Currently it has to be owned by farmers. Now it can go outside those guidelines, outside the box, and allow dollars to go to loans given to corporations which do not have any direct farmer impact. That is good as it expands the services available from the FCC.

The FCC would be given authority to incorporate, amalgamate and dissolve subsidiaries. It would be able to provide lease financing for assets to be used in a farming operation or a business related to farming. This again is a change in the FCC mandate where there could be lease financing for assets. This would allow operations to free up cashflows to go into the operation or expansion of their businesses.

The FCC would be given the authority to acquire and dispose of equity interests in farming operations or in businesses related to farming. The president of the FCC would be designated as its CEO. A provision would be made for the appointment of an acting president and an acting chairperson where necessary. This is just good business.

As I mentioned earlier, the FCC is a well run and self-sufficient corporation. It has $6 billion outstanding in loans, but it must get with the program of today's 21st century operations of business.

There are potential questions and criticisms. I mentioned the name change and the cost. The bill has the potential to unnecessarily compete directly with credit unions and banks. The purpose of the FCC is to provide loans to farmers and not to equipment dealers and wheat pools.

I say that we must question this, not necessarily disagree with it. It must expand its opportunities to compete. Competition in the banking industry is not so terrible, and neither is competition in grain marketing. Banks and credit unions can compete effectively with the FCC. I do not believe the rules have unfair advantages for the FCC and I am sure banking institutions see it the same way.

Although the bill expands the lending powers of the FCC, farmers do not need more debt. That is one of my concerns. Extending more credit to farmers is perhaps not the best thing for farmers who already have substantial debt. Unfortunately banking institutions too often are more the problem than the solution. Where there is equity in the land moneys will be given to farmers, and that is not necessarily the best thing. However I have faith in the FCC to know what is best for it, for its customers and for the industry.

We have not heard a lot from other members, stakeholders or industry groups, but that is what the committee is all about. Perhaps when witnesses appear we will have a chance to examine the bill more thoroughly and get their input into what is good or bad about the legislation.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party we will be supporting this piece of legislation. I agree in all sincerity with the mandate of the Farm Credit Corporation. It does an exceptional job, considering that it is a bank and that people have as much respect for bankers as they do for politicians. However as a banking facility it does, in my opinion, provide the services that are needed in the agricultural community.

I look forward to coming back to the House after committee and perhaps putting forth amendments. I certainly look forward to coming back at third reading and suggesting that some of the stakeholders proposed good changes to what I consider a good piece of legislation.

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, April 30th, 2001]

Bring lobsters.

[Canada Elections Act, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much if I will take the full 20 minutes, therefore leaving time for members of the government side or opposition benches.

I am very pleased to be able to put forward our party's position on the third reading of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

I would also like to commend and congratulate my colleague, the House leader of the Conservative Party and the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, who has the carriage of this piece of legislation. In my opinion he does yeoman's duty in making sure that positions are put forward. In fact maybe even the government could take notice of the quality of the suggestions put forward.

Perhaps it could even accept some of those suggestions for the future because, as was mentioned earlier by the previous speaker, the government has a part to play in this piece of legislation. The part that it has to play is to look at the process used to put forward Bill C-2 prior to the last surprise election called in October 2000. Bill C-2 came forward and there were many problems with that piece of legislation, as we have now identified. There were many difficulties with that legislation.

Had the government listened to opposition members and looked at the very valid amendments that were put forward, it would not have had to rush through a very bad piece of legislation that now has to come back with another amendment, Bill C-9, to be able to fix the myriad of problems that it faced.

I will deal specifically with Bill C-9 as it is before us. The bill reduces from 50 to 12 the number of candidates a party would have to field for purposes of having its candidates' party affiliation indicated on the ballot. It also clarifies and harmonizes certain provisions in the act and proposes one amendment to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

I should also say that we in the Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting the legislation for any number of reasons, one of which is that the Senate still has the opportunity of reviewing it and perhaps making some clean up changes that are necessary.

Also, despite the work accomplished by parliamentarians in a very short period of time when Bill C-2 was under consideration, the government admits that certain translation and concordance errors between the English and French versions slipped through into the new elections act. It was sloppy workmanship and I am sure the government will accept its full responsibility for that.

When Bill C-9 was debated at second reading, the government House leader said that the application of the new legislation had revealed a number of irregularities that had to be rectified. That is in Hansard at page 1053. Some of these could have caused problems because, as we see further on, they went beyond a simple act of concordance between the English and French versions.

A member of the government said that the government did not have to worry about that because it was not its job. Well it is the government's job to make sure that legislation is in fact the right legislation for Canadians, particularly when it deals with the Canada Elections Act. This is what is at the heart of our democracy and at the heart of what we as parliamentarians in the House should be dealing with, where the electorate, the public of the country, have the right to put the people who they want in the House for a particular time.

The legislation is too important to simply say that it was not the government's fault. It was the government's fault and we are trying to fix it now.

The integrity of the electoral system is important to Canadians. There is no doubt that errors could have been avoided if the Liberal government had given parliament more time to consider the provisions of the new Canada Elections Act with greater care.

I would like to spend a few minutes outlining some of the specific amendments that are dealt with in Bill C-9. As has been mentioned before, and I am sure I will repeat some of the comments that were made, I will touch briefly on some of the areas that are of particular concern to me and certainly to my colleague for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

The first part that we heard about earlier was party affiliation on the ballot. When Canadians go into a polling booth and look at the ballot they know that my name is associated with a particular political party, as are other names of people sitting in the House. The amendments proposed in Bill C-9 are due in large part to the court ruling in the Figueroa case.

In response to the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling, clause 12 of Bill C-9 would amend subsections 117(2) of the act reducing from 50 to 12 the number of candidates required for their party affiliation to be indicated on the ballot. This new provision would apply only if the nomination of the 12 candidates had been confirmed for the general election or, as in the case of a byelection, in the immediately preceding general election.

While the Lortie commission report recommended 15 candidates as the minimum, the Liberals have chosen 12 because that is the number of members of parliament that a political party requires to be officially recognized in the House of Commons.

The fact that this legislation deals with 12 as being the number for party affiliation is accepted by our party. Certainly most of the parties in the House have been represented by substantially more candidates than have run in previous elections. The fact is that we do have party affiliations. I am very proud of my party affiliation with the Progressive Conservative Party.

Therefore, I believe, and my party accepts the fact, that the affiliation should be identified on a ballot so that when Canadians go to the polling booth they will know exactly who and what party they are voting for to sit in the House of Commons.

Currently section 18(1) of the act currently provides that the CEO may carry out studies on voting, in particular with respect to alternative voting means, and devising and testing an electronic voting process for use in a future general election or byelection.

The use of such a process must be approved in advance by a committee of the House of Commons that normally considers electoral matters. This is an accepted part of the legislation but I do put a caveat on that. We must be very careful when dealing with any type of alternate way of counting ballots. As we have seen just recently in the United States election, there are a number of different processes used and some of them are not quite as competent as perhaps others. We should be very careful when suggesting that an improvement to the system will make it better because in some cases it does not necessarily do that.

During the consideration of Bill C-2 by the Senate, a number of senators, both Progressive Conservative and Liberal, said that they were disturbed to see that the Senate was excluded from this process.

Pursuant to the commitment made by the government to members of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during the consideration of Bill C-2 in May 2000, Bill C-9 would amend section 18(1) to include in the approval process the Senate committee that considers electoral matters. Normally such matters are referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The input from our colleagues in the other place is an important aspect of this process and one which I am pleased to see included in Bill C-9.

We heard comments from my colleague from the Bloc who suggested that his party will put forward an amendment or subamendment to change this particular clause. Our party agrees with what has been put forward in Bill C-9 which was not put forward in Bill C-2. We can sit in the House and debate the legitimacy and the necessity of the other House but I am not prepared to do that right now. What I would like to say is that there must be a backstop when a majority government puts forward legislation in this House. There must be a second opinion of the legislation.

A perfect example of that particular situation was when Bill C-2 came forward. It was pushed through with very little discussion, if any, and no changes were made to a very bad piece of legislation. It has now come forward again because of that. This is a prime example of why the Senate must have an influence on this legislation. Bill C-9 speaks to that and we are very pleased that the government has corrected this very glaring error.

Another part of the bill deals with the registration of the electors themselves. Subsection 44(1) of the Canada Elections Act requires the CEO to keep a register of electors, in other words, a permanent voting list containing the names of all Canadians qualified to vote.

Under subsection (2) of the act, the list shall contain each elector's family and given names, sex, date of birth and civic and mailing addresses, as well as any other information that the CEO may require under section 55 of the act. Section 55 allows the CEO to communicate information in the register to a province when it decides to establish a list similar to the federal one.

Information compiled by the CEO under section 195 of the act, statement of ordinary residence by an elector belonging to the Canadian forces, may not be communicated to the provinces because the wrong provision is cited in subsection 44(2).

Clause 4 of Bill C-9 would amend subsection 44(2) to correct that error, an error that should not have gone forward but did. It is subsection 195(7) and not subsection 195(3) that allows the CEO to communicate to a province information about the ordinary residence and members of the military.

A substantial amount of Bill C-9 deals with third party spending reports. Subsection 353(1) of the act requires third parties to register with Elections Canada once they have incurred election expenses of more than $500.

Subsection 359(1) requires third parties to file a report documenting the value of expenses and advertising, as well as their funding sources during the campaign and for the six month period prior to the issuing of the writ.

Clause 20 of Bill C-9 would amend subsection 359(1) to specify that only third parties required to be registered with the CEO must file such a report.

When Bill C-9 was tabled, several observers thought that the government would propose amendments dealing with the ceiling on expenses imposed on third parties during election campaigns.

Under section 349 of the act, a third party is defined as “a person or a group other than a candidate, registered party or riding association of a registered party. It could mean an unincorporated trade union, trade association or any other group of persons acting together by mutual consent for a common purpose.

The Canada Elections Act passed in May 2000 provides that, during a general election, the ceiling on third party election spending is $150,000 at the national level and $3,000 for each electoral district. In a byelection a third party may spend $3,000.

On October 23, 2000, Mr. Justice Cairns of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted an injunction prohibiting Elections Canada from enforcing the third party election advertising spending limits in the Canada Elections Act.

Originally the injunction was to be in effect until Judge Cairns handed down his ruling on the main matter before him, that is, the constitutionality of provisions relating to third parties in the new elections act. The injunction was upheld shortly afterward by the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The injunction was granted in response to legal action undertaken by the National Citizens' Coalition led by a former Reform Party member, Stephen Harper. The coalition is currently contesting the new provisions.

However, on November 10, 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada lifted the injunction in its ruling in Canada vs. Stephen Joseph Harper. Eight of the nine justices were in favour of staying the injunction until the constitutionality of the contested provisions could be ruled on or by the courts. Only Mr. Justice John Major opposed this decision.

In paragraph 11 of the judgment, the majority opinion of the court held that:

—the public interest in maintaining in place the duly enacted legislation on spending limits pending complete constitutional review outweighs the detriment to freedom of expression caused by those limits.

In response, Elections Canada announced that the provisions regarding third party spending would not be enforced for the period from October 22, 2000, the date that the writs were issued for the general election, to November 10, 2000. They would however be enforced after that up to November 27, 2000 which was polling day.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has still not ruled on the constitutionality of the Canada Elections Act provisions with regard to third parties.

While we welcome legislation, perhaps this should have been avoided if the government had not done such sloppy work on Bill C-2.

We will be supporting the legislation going forward for a number of reasons, as I have tried to indicate in this dissertation. We would also suggest very strongly that one of the reasons we support it is that it will have an opportunity to be heard on the Senate side. We will have an opportunity to discuss, debate and perhaps put forward amendments to legislation that could be better enforced and put forward better in the Senate.

I hope we have learned some lessons from the inconsistencies and problems that came forward with Bill C-2 and do not repeat them with Bill C-9. Hopefully, when we bring in legislation, put them to a committee, and listen to legitimate concerns, complaints and suggestions as to how they could be made better, that maybe the government will listen to those concerns and suggestions openly and honestly, and make those changes at that point in time, as opposed to taking forward legislation that is inaccurate.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I will not take a lot of time. My hon. colleague is obviously talking about primary processing and the minister will have an opportunity to see the state of the art largest hog processing plant in North America when he visits my riding on Friday. I would love to take the member on a tour. I know we can arrange it.

The urban market is obviously where most rural food products that are processed end up. With regard to the member's question about urbanization, I can only say to him that there has been an evolution. When my grandfather came to Canada he farmed a quarter and 80 acres, which at that time was a huge amount of land. Today in my area a small farmer farms 2,000 to 2,500 acres. That is a huge difference.

I am not opposed to growth or evolution. The point I am trying to make is that we must adapt. Even in our natural resources and primary industries we must adapt. There is no question about that. However, as I said earlier, there must be an education process and an understanding in the urban market of what we are trying to achieve in rural areas.

We will feed people. We will give them lumber. We will give them mining, natural resources, and oil and gas. However people must appreciate that some of the wealth developed in urban centres must go back into rural communities, whether at the grocery store or when we turn on a switch or in some sort of societal support. That is what we must talk about when we talk about support for rural Canada, and I think this is a good start.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for allowing me a very minor portion of the time allocated to us. I too would like to echo his opening comments and congratulate the Secretary of State for Rural Development with whom I have had the opportunity of dealing on a number of occasions in his portfolio.

I will talk about rural development and where I see his department heading in the not too distant future with respect to helping rural communities not only maintain their populations but hopefully increase them and grow. He read a comment from a wonderfully prepared report, which unfortunately I have not had the opportunity of reading. It will be on my reading list in the not too distant future.

If we go back into history we will recognize that the whole country was developed on natural resources. Explorers came here because of the fish and the furs they could harvest and export back to Europe. My grandfather, as I am sure is the case with many ancestors of other people here, came to Canada because of agricultural land. People could come here and get land at reasonable prices, start raising a family and grow the crops we are so famous for.

Our natural resources, inclusive of the mining we talked about, the natural gas and the oil sands projects, are the backbone of the country. They started the country. They are the backbone of our economy. We have grown beyond that and have embraced the technical revolution we have enjoyed over the last number of years and the technology we have developed along with it.

However the problem we are suffering right now is the fact that Canadians have forgotten their roots. They have forgotten how the country was developed. They have forgotten what is still the backbone of our economy.

I have had the advantage of living in Toronto, and maybe that is a disadvantage. I know the difference between rural Canada and what we appreciate as being there from the earth. People from Toronto take it for granted. When people in Toronto flick a light switch they think that is where electricity comes from. I am not trying to be derogatory to the people of Toronto. What I am saying is that urban dwellers, of which I was one, take for granted all that is being provided.

When a thermostat is turned on, be it heat that comes from a coal-fired, a gas-fired or perhaps even an electric furnace, that energy comes from the rest of the country. Canadians are now allowed to take advantage of that. I am speaking about natural resources but obviously I know agriculture best coming from the area that I do.

When urban dwellers buy at a grocery store most of them believe that the foodstuffs come from that store. The foodstuffs come from my area. They come from people like my grandfather who planted the seeds and grew the crops. They come from people who raised the cattle, the pork or the chickens. They come from those people who we cannot forget and, unfortunately, in our society we have forgotten.

My colleague said that he would leave agriculture as it is my forte. I have talked in the House too many times about the crisis that agriculture is now facing. It is for any number of reasons. It is because of an unlevel playing field and subsidies that are being paid by Americans and Europeans. It is because of the horrendous increase in the cost of production through natural gas prices for fertilizer and fuel prices for the tractors. We cannot trade our commodities with other countries because of unfair subsidization.

What we need to do is to remember where we came from. We need to support that industry as well as other industries. We also need to get a mindset. I will not throw stones or cast aspersions, but I think the government has basically lost touch with that natural resource, that primary industry, agriculture. We have to develop a mindset that says we as Canadians will support that industry.

How do we do that? We do that with long term support systems that we put into place. We need to develop those so that there is some hope for our younger generation to come into and continue in the industry. We need food, shelter, heat and water to exist.

If the minister of agriculture were here I would ask to him to please have the European mindset where they have said that they will support their farmers, their rural communities and their agriculture.

I will switch gears a little because we do have the Secretary of State for Rural Development here. I will talk about what he knows best, which is rural development, those rural communities that this great country is made up of. Unfortunately, more and more people are moving into those urban centres but there are still a lot of us who would prefer to live in rural communities because of the lifestyle, the clean air, the clean water and the ability to live in a rural setting that is more conducive to raising families.

I had a chance to talk to the minister and he has been very good at looking at the big picture. However, I would like to give him some suggestions about how we could preserve rural living. One suggestion would be to introduce a tax incentive that would attract people to live in rural communities. We have talked about tax incentives for northern allowances.

We should also be looking at different ways of attracting health care professionals and workers into rural Canada. One of the major problems we have in rural Canada right now is attracting health care professionals. That is not to say that the problem is not there for urban centres either, but we have a worse problem in trying to bring those people into our communities. Health care, as we all know, is probably the issue when it comes to supporting a rural community with an elderly population. We should be looking at ways to attract health care professionals into rural Canada.

We should also be looking at capital availability for infrastructure. My colleague talked about the solid infrastructure, the bricks and mortar, the roads, the railways and the highways. Rural Canada also needs to have the technical infrastructure in place. If we do not have those advantages we will lose that to the urban centres. It is not good for the country if it is made up of just four or five megalopolises.

We must maintain our rural communities. Perhaps we should look at capital projects for infrastructure in rural areas. Perhaps we should look at different ways of attracting people to live in rural Canada. Maybe housing is the answer. We have seen examples. Elliot Lake has attracted groups of retirees from urban centres to adopt what I consider a much nicer lifestyle in a rural area. Perhaps it is a marketing thing that the Secretary of State for Rural Development should be doing.

Perhaps we should look at our own departments, because a lot of problems come from the federal government. Let us take a simple issue like customs and customs areas. A prime example is my constituency where there are a number of border crossings. When a decision is made by Canada customs to reduce, remove or change the service at a border crossing it affects the whole community, but the department making the decision does not have the mindset or vision to see how it will affect the community. We must change that thought process. When a decision is made, no matter how small, it will affect other people. That must be dovetailed.

The secretary of state talked about the rural lens. The rural lens would make sure we bring all departments together so that when they make a decision or change a service they communicate with each other to make sure the change will not negatively affect the lifestyle of people in a community.

If we lose three people in a customs department in Boissevain, Manitoba, it means a great deal. If we lose three people in downtown Toronto it does not mean as much. We must therefore acquire the right mindset.

In closing, the biggest issue vis-à-vis natural resources and rural development is education. There must be government support. Rural development must be funded by society in general, which probably means urban dwellers, but they must understand why they are doing it. We must all decide among ourselves, and I think we have. I think the people in the Chamber tonight recognize that rural Canada is a vital part of what the country is all about. Having come to that realization we must now decide how to provide services that will allow rural Canada to prosper and grow. That is where we must head from here.

I thank the minister for being here. I would add that the debate tonight has been excellent. We had a debate like this not long ago on foot and mouth disease. Like tonight, we debated the issues logically and in a non-partisan way. I congratulate the government for putting the process forward. I hope we can continue this process in other areas of debate because it is very worth while. This is the way it should be in parliament, not acrimonious as we have seen in the past. I congratulate the government for bringing the debate forward.

[Agriculture, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in less than a week Prince Edward Island potato farmers have to decide whether or not to put in a crop. Last weekend the minister of agriculture had an opportunity to discuss this with Secretary Veneman but it was a glorious opportunity lost.

He says he is working on the file. Will he stand today and assure P.E.I. producers that this year's crop will be allowed to be sold in the United States?

[Division No. 75, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes on the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Ways And Means, April 23rd, 2001]

Members of the Conservative Party vote yes this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Budget Implementation Act, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote no on this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Division No. 70, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to this motion.