Wayne Easter

[Agriculture, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the agriculture minister gave three confusing timeframes for his illusionary money for farmers. In the House he said:

We are putting $950 million today into farmers' hands.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 19th, 2006]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing in the lack of action in terms of the unemployed and the socially disadvantaged is just what we expected with a basically neo-conservative agenda. That is what we are seeing. It is kind of hidden in some ways. The budget tries to hide some of those facts. When we look at the budget we see a number of tax breaks, but overall the fact of the matter is that with the dropping of the 15% on income tax and putting it at 15.5%, the government is in effect increasing taxes.

I do not think we should be surprised. This is the government's first budget. This will be the kindest budget that this particular government produces. In the next one, the Conservatives will get to their real agenda, which will be cutting and slashing the kinds of programs that mean something to the disadvantaged and the less well off in society, while they contribute to their corporate friends.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentions the spring seeding. That is the point. The government has not put 13¢ into farmers' pockets for assisting with spring seeding. That is the reality.

We are not disagreeing with many of the other programs that have been announced. In fact, those programs are along the lines that our government had proposed.

The fact of the matter is that the government has put less money in its budget than previously committed. The government has not met the demand for immediate cash for spring seeding that many Conservative members said would be met. The government has not met its obligations and promises. It certainly needs to be pointed out that the government has failed dismally in terms of getting immediate cash to farmers this spring.

While I am on my feet I should mention that the Minister of Transport even broke an agreement with the FRCC, which would have given the farmers some control over their destiny. The farmers would have had control over the hopper car fleet. Instead, what did the Minister of Transport do? He broke that agreement and turned the railway cars over to the railways in the same old way, with a little bit of a reduction in transport costs, so the railways can continue to gouge the farm community. That is not performance. That is going against what the party opposite said it would do for the farm community.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation act. I will begin by quoting the member for Markham—Unionville who, as finance critic for the official opposition, raised three key points on the budget and the budget implementation act in his remarks. I absolutely think they are right on target.

He said that the budget was dishonest, it was visionless and it was mean-spirited. There is no jurisdiction, no industry and no segment of Canadian society where those points ring more true than for farmers and for rural Canada, and I will explain why.

Dishonest the budget was in that the Minister of Finance portrayed the budget as having more money for farmers, implying that there was more money than what previous governments had put in place. Actually, when we compare all commitments last year and this year, we find that the budget falls short even with its additional money of $1.5 billion, which we welcome by the way, but let us not say that it is more than it is. It is short by $255 million than the commitments of the previous government.

It is further dishonest in that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and even the Prime Minister have left the impression that the $755 million for the grains and oilseeds announced last November was money for this spring, but that is not the case at all.

The previous finance minister booked that $755 million for the grains and oilseeds industry as an ad hoc program and it was booked for the grains and oilseeds industry for the losses it incurred in 2005.

The new government through its budget has not put one dime of its own money toward the farm community as yet, although it is trying to leave the impression with the general public that it is doing something.

During the election and since that time, when there were 10,000 farmers on the Hill demanding immediate cash, when 21 farm organizations and farm leaders came together and made the point that they needed immediate cash for spring planting, members on the back bench over there indicated there would be immediate cash. The member for Essex even said so during the election but that is not what happened.

There is no immediate cash for spring planting coming from the government opposite, not a dime. Members laugh over on the other side. This is not a laughing matter.

I know that some of the farmers who were on the Hill started to plant wheat but had their credit cut off. They could not put fertilizer on it. They decided because they had the seed to continue to plant the grain believing what the members opposite said and what the Government of Canada said, that there would be cash there and that in the spring they would be able to top dress that crop with fertilizer.

They know now, although the government is trying to portray it as otherwise, that there will be no cash because the government is not coming through with cash. It is difficult to believe that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food missed what farmers were saying.

However, we must assume they heard what the member for Yorkton—Melville was saying when the headline in a news release on March 29, 2006, read, “Breitkreuz conveys farmers' distress to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food”. The news release quotes the member for Yorkton--Melville as telling the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that, “We need to get money into the hands of our farmers right now”.

Clearly, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food knew what the farming community was calling for and stated in the House on April 6 that they understood. However what a difference a year makes.

Last year, the then minister of agriculture announced $1 billion in March, taking money out of the surplus to put into farmers' hands so they could get a crop in the ground. Then we announced the $755 million in November.

Let us go back to a year ago when the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, told the House:

We are looking at severe problems...as we approach this year's planting and seeding. This problem has to be addressed now.

That is from Hansard of February 3, 2005.

That is what the Prime Minister said then. That is what he demanded of the previous government: that it put money into the farmers' pockets “now”, in the spring. Now this very same Prime Minister has the Conservatives' propaganda machine operating, there is no question about it. They have that machine working and well oiled up, because the Conservatives are leaving the impression they are doing something when there is not a single dime of cash for farmers this spring.

Worse yet, the situation according to Agriculture Canada's own numbers is that farm incomes have been reduced by a 16% further decline, so the need is even greater. In fact, we have called for a $1.6 billion immediate payment for spring to assist farmers to get a crop in the ground. That matches what the Saskatchewan agriculture minister is saying. It is a little less than what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is calling for, but that is really what is needed this spring.

Worse yet, and it is hard to believe that it can get worse, the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister would not answer questions in the House in a direct fashion and admit up front that there is indeed no money this spring. Farmers needed to be assured of support in a predictable and a bankable way and they did not get it from the government.

Still tied in with the budget, the Minister of Agriculture trumpeted his budgeted commitments in a press conference yesterday. The farm community understands what he said and did not say, but the general public does not. The general public is on side with the farm community. It wants something to be done for farmers, and because of the words missing from the government opposite, the public actually thinks something is being done when in fact it is not.

The Minister of Agriculture announced yesterday the $950 million that was part of the $1.5 billion in the budget, and we welcome that, but it does nothing for spring. It is moneys that are going into the CAIS program. If we recall correctly, those members opposite, even the Prime Minister himself, said the CAIS program was unacceptable. The Conservatives were going to can that program. They were going to cancel it. They were going to do away with it, saying that it was administratively difficult and did not get the money to farmers in a proper fashion. And this is the program that the government is going to put the $950 million out through?

Yes, there have to be changes to CAIS, but when will that $950 million get to farmers? They need the cash now. Farmers will be lucky to get the cash in September or November. Will that money deal with the problem of cash expenses this spring? Will that deal with the problem of assets and liability? No, it certainly will not.

As well, yesterday the minister announced the $100,000 interest-free cash advance. I welcome that program, but what he is doing is leaving the impression with the general public that there is $100,000 for farmers. I ask members if they have received those little envelopes in the mail from the credit card companies where they offer you $50,000 at a low interest rate, say, 6.6%. This is the same thing.

This is not $100,000 coming from the Government of Canada. This is farmers borrowing their own money with a little bit of an interest break. One cannot borrow oneself out of debt. It cannot be done. The interest break is welcome, but that is not $100,000 for farmers from the Government of Canada. It is a little break on the interest. It is money that has to be paid back. It adds to the farmers' debt. What they needed was compensation for the losses of selling product into the market at low prices as a result of the international subsidies that are going on all around the world.

Clearly the member for Markham—Unionville was right when he said as one of his key points that the budget was really dishonest. In agriculture, the government has clearly misrepresented what it is actually doing, because it is doing virtually nothing at all in the immediate term when farmers need the money the most.

[Agriculture, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in an earlier question the minister left the impression that there would be money for farmers today. When did September or later become today?

Earlier this morning the minister admitted there would be no cash for farmers this spring. That is a violation of the commitments that the backbench gave farmers for immediate cash. Worse yet, it is positive proof that the budget was less than honest with respect to farmers.

Why is the minister failing to provide immediate cash for farmers? Why have the Conservatives broken their trust with the farm community?

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have to raise the concern about whether the comments made by the group she quoted are in fact made on sound scientific analysis. There is no question that in this debate there are facts on both sides. That is why, at the end of the day, on a complicated issue like this one, a decision needs to be based on sound scientific principles.

The last thing I would advocate for is the pesticide companies; I would not advocate for them at all. In fact, that is why we have put in tougher regulations and stronger scientific requirements that they have to meet. For the farm community, and even for the urban community for the use of cosmetic pesticides, we put in place tougher regulations in terms of how they apply the product. We have tightened up massively in the last 10 years in terms of the use of these products and how they are applied so that we do in fact protect the environment and people's health.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely concerned about this motion and its implications. The motion is applying a blanket treatment across the country and making a policy decision that is not based on sound scientific reasoning. In fact, it flies in the face of sound scientific reasoning and uses some studies and facts of some people with certain axes to grind.

Yes, there is a legitimate concern out there, but this motion would apply a blanket approach to the whole country on an issue that is extremely complicated and perhaps better applied at the municipal and/or provincial levels because some jurisdictions are different in terms of the use of pesticides and herbicides as they relate to the agricultural community.

While the intent of the motion may be sound, as we are all concerned about health, the decisions we make on this matter need to be based on the best science available. I do not believe an overall ban is the right approach to take if we ban for cosmetic use based on emotion and not on fact, or if there is a misrepresentation of the facts, or if somebody is blaming pesticides for genetic defects in people or health concerns when in fact they may be caused by something else. If we can ban for cosmetic use on those bases, then we basically throw away the ability to make decisions on absolute facts or on the least risk based on sound scientific principles.

If we were to ban the use of pesticides, herbicides, et cetera, for cosmetic use not based on sound science, we would justify the misconceptions of facts related to their use in the country. That would be the slim edge of the wedge moving toward to the agricultural sector and its ability to be productive and produce crops with the advantage of many of the products we gained through the industrial revolution.

As well, if we were to go with this motion, the House of Commons would be justifying the exaggerations about the use of pesticides and chemicals that are in the general community. The right approach is one that is based on good regulation and sound science. I believe the previous government was, as I believe the present government is, moving in the direction of ensuring that the sound science related to the use of these chemicals exists.

As a government, we proposed several amendments to Canada's pesticide regime in 2002. Bill C-8 received royal assent on December 12, 2002. It was scheduled to come into force in 2005 but, as I understand it, has not yet come into force. We should ensure that it moves forward with some haste.

Currently, the Pest Control Products Act states that any pesticide product manufactured or distributed in Canada must be registered with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. These regulations set out what kinds of products can be sold or used in Canada, including what kinds of substances can be used in pesticides. They set out the requirements for the packaging and labelling of products and any safety requirements of pesticides.

The entire focus of the Pest Control Products Act is on things such as the chemical composition of the pesticide, its registration, and determining whether or not it is safe to use. I might underline the fact that it is illegal to use a pesticide in any manner other than that which is stated on the label. We went through some considerable turmoil in the agricultural community over that matter. The fact is that everyone is now required to take training. There are much safer standards around the use of pesticides in the agricultural community than there used to be, for everything from clothing to breathing apparatus and its use and to not spraying pesticides when winds are at certain levels or prior to a heavy rainstorm and so on.

There actually has been a tremendous cultural change in the agricultural community as that community has tried to meet the standards to ensure that when its members are using products it does not jeopardize their health, the community's health or in fact the environmental health of the country.

I might point out as well that the changes that the Pest Control Products Act sought to accomplish were the following: clear requirements for the minister to give special consideration to children and to assess aggregate exposure and cumulative effects; clearer authority for the minister to refuse to consider an application or to maintain a registration if the applicant or registrant does not provide the information necessary to substantiate claims that the risks and value of the product are acceptable; mandatory reporting of adverse effects of registered pesticides; new opportunities for informed public participation in the pest management regulations; and strengthened measures to encourage compliance. Overall, we have the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which is there to ensure the approval of and compliance with the regulatory regime surrounding the products we use in the agriculture sector.

As for the motion, the NDP certainly has absolutely lost touch with its rural roots, which is where the NDP got its start. It goes to some length to say that the motion will not impact on the agriculture sector. If this motion sets up a system whereby we bring in bans based on emotion rather than basing things on sound science and scientific principles, it will in fact have an impact in fact on everything we do. I have seen that happen in the agriculture sector in Prince Edward Island as we tried to bring in new products.

It will in fact have an impact. Yes, there are fears out there, no question about it, but this motion is put forward on the basis of using the health scare, and to a certain extent that is legitimate, but whatever we do in the final analysis should be based on sound science.

The way the motion is worded, it in fact will, as I read it, affect “any parcel of land on which a dwelling-house is situated”. That would be dwelling-houses in rural areas as well. What about not controlling the weed population for those dwelling-houses in rural areas? Earlier I used the example of up in Peace River country where they are into the worldwide production of seeds, alfalfa seeds and fescue seeds, and if we cannot control those weeds around the dwelling-houses or on vacant property, then we do lose our opportunity to market those seeds elsewhere around the world.

The bottom line is that I strongly oppose this motion because it is not based on sound facts, it is not based on scientific principles and it will be the thin edge of the wedge in the House of Commons in terms of making policy based on strict emotion on matters that really require the judgment of sound science.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we must have the proper regulations in place and that the use of these products must be based on sound research. As well, the use of the products must be in accordance with the recommendations on how they be used. I think that is one of the difficulties with the use of herbicides and pesticides on lawns for cosmetic purposes. The training is not there as it is in the agricultural sector. We know we have to absolutely meet the exact requirements and not apply an overdose.

Prince Edward Island has had this fight for a long time. We have seen the misconceptions about the potato industry and its use of products, the necessary to use these products.

I am worried about the word “cosmetic” and what the motion would mean over the long haul. I see this as the tip of the iceberg, which will leave the impression that there is not sound science around these products. Could the member explain to us exactly what they mean? Where is the limit of cosmetic use of a product? What is the limit and where do we draw the line?

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, more to the technical side of this particular motion and its impact on the farm community. I will turn to the Peace River region as an example. It is seed country, fescue seed, and one of the laws that is in place in that region is that vacant lots, even house lots, have to ensure that there are no thistles. Pretty well the only way to control thistles in an area that big is through the use of pesticides or herbicides.

If this motion were to pass, then we would have, first, a dispute over whose law prevails. However, would there not be a tremendous impact on the ability of seed producers, fescue, alfalfa, et cetera, in that region to meet the standards of weed control in order to market internationally? Because if we cannot spray and ensure that there are no thistles, then there would be a problem, in terms of marketing. I wonder if the member has any thoughts.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at this motion by the NDP I cannot help but think that if the NDP could they would basically turn back the industrial revolution. We have made great strides with research and science over the decades. This is just the thin tip of the wedge.

I heard some of the speakers from the NDP using the word “cancer”. A lot of misinformation is out there about pesticides, herbicides, the kinds of control systems we have in place in this country and the regulatory regime. The member opposite correctly spelled out in detail the Pest Control Products Act.

I would ask the member opposite for his thoughts on the long term impact of the NDP motion. Although those members say that they do not want it to apply to the farm community, I believe it would set the stage for an attack on it. I am from P.E.I. and we have seen it. What is his view? Is there a long term impact here on the ability of the agricultural community to be productive in its efforts and use research and development in terms of their work?