36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 148
CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 3, 1998
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ISSUE OF CEREMONIAL STATEMENTS OF SERVICE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-453. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réginald Bélair |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Copyright Board
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1010
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Impaired Driving
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transportation
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health Benefits
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Highway System
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Canadian Farmers
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1015
1020
1025
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1040
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1045
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1100
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1105
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
1120
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1125
1130
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1135
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
1150
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1155
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1210
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1215
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1220
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
1225
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
1230
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1235
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
1250
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1305
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1320
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1325
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1330
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1345
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CANADIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FINALS RODEO WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATURAL DISASTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1400
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MIDDLE EAST
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIRST JOB FAIR
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1405
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REMEMBRANCE DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES PARIZEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | L'ISLET ASSOCIATION OF UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1410
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1415
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1425
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRBUS
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1440
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DATURA STRAMONIUS
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1445
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
1450
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL PROGRAM FUNDING
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1455
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YEAR 2000
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1500
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL S-13
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REMEMBRANCE DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
1510
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1515
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Godin |
1520
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1525
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1530
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Canadian Farmers
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1535
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1550
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1555
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1600
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1605
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1610
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1615
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1620
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1635
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1650
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
1655
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
1700
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1715
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1720
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1725
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-55. Second reading
|
1800
(Division 255)
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
(Division 256)
(Division 256)
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-54. Second reading
|
1805
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
(Division 257)
(Division 257)
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1810
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONCENTRATION OF PRINT MEDIA IN CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1825
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1830
1835
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1840
1845
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1850
1855
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1900
![V](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1905
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 148
![](/web/20061116193126im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, November 3, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
fourth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
In accordance with Standing Order 108(2), the committee
undertook a study of fisheries issues throughout the west coast
of Canada.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a
comprehensive response to this report within 150 days.
* * *
ISSUE OF CEREMONIAL STATEMENTS OF SERVICE ACT
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-453, an act to regulate the issue of
ceremonial statements of service and recognition of duty.
He said: Mr. Speaker, having been involved for some 20 years in
federal politics, I have, on many occasions, encountered veterans
who were not wounded in any conflict that Canada was involved in
and therefore have nothing to show in terms of a card. On the
other hand, those who were wounded are carrying a health card
which they cherish.
Therefore, today I am proud to introduce this bill proposing a
certificate of service and duty to all war veterans and civilian
groups who served in support of the armed forces in such
organizations as the Red Cross and the Merchant Seamen, as well
as United Nations peacekeeping units.
This certificate will recognize and honour their significant
participation in any armed conflict or war in which Canada took
part. They are all responsible for the freedom we enjoy today.
[Translation]
Over the years, I have on numerous occasions met veterans who
had nothing to show for their participation in world conflicts.
I am therefore extremely pleased to introduce this bill today,
which will enable them to carry in their wallets a mark of
recognition by the Government of Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
COPYRIGHT BOARD
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three sets of petitions to present. The first petition is
signed by 59 Canadians who are concerned about the Copyright
Board and the recent decision of the Copyright Board concerning
commercial television royalties which will retroactively reduce
the royalties of Canadian music creators and adopt the American
practice of enforcing individual music composers to negotiate
directly with large broadcasting corporations.
The petitioners are requesting that parliament strongly affirm
this commitment: That the Minister of Industry immediately
appoint a judge to chair the Copyright Board in respect of
parliament's intent that the board be competent and objective as
a quasi-judicial tribunal.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second set of petitions concerns marriage and contains 325
signatures. The petitioners stated that the majority of
Canadians understand the concept of marriage as being only the
voluntary union of a single, that is, unmarried male and a
single, that is, unmarried female. The petitioners pray that
parliament will enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage
Act and the Interpretation Act.
1010
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition is a gathering of four separate petitions, all
on the same issue, containing a total of 1,060 signatures.
The petition pertains to the work of the Reform Party and others
who are trying to bring in the philosophy of zero tolerance
relative to drunk driving. The petitioners state that victims of
the crime of impaired driving must be given the highest priority,
as reflected by their impact statements, and that in cases of
impaired driving causing death or injury sentencing must reflect
the severity of the crime.
It is my pleasure to present this petition on behalf of 1,060
signatories in memory of Norm and Shawna.
[Translation]
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, at the
request of the Comité des citoyens pour le monorail, a petition
signed by over 6,200 of my constituents. They are asking the
government not to transfer the infrastructure of the Champlain
Bridge to the Quebec Government until the latter issues a total
ban on its automobile, bus and truck traffic.
The petitioners are calling for a monorail project to the
downtown area, which will use the bridge structure without any
noise or other pollution.
I am totally in agreement with this petition.
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to
present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are very concerned
about the multilateral agreement on investment. They are worried
that this agreement, if signed, will hamper our sovereignty and
will limit the social programs that we have.
Obviously they are very concerned that Donald Johnston of the
OECD, who is the Canadian heading up that organization, is trying
to get this agreement signed on behalf of very large
multinational corporations which will negatively affect
Canadians.
They are skeptical of the assurances that the MAI is dead and,
therefore, are asking parliament, if the MAI is resurrected, to
not sign as a country.
HEALTH BENEFITS
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour this morning to present a number of petitions to the
House dealing with two different subjects.
The first petition, which has many names on it from people in my
riding and from right across our province of Saskatchewan, calls
upon the Parliament of Canada to provide relief by not
implementing a tax on health benefits.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by a large number of people in my
riding and others who call upon the government to join with the
provincial governments to make national highway system upgrading
possible.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House,
the government should move immediately to defend the interests of
Canadian farmers from the unfair subsidies and unfair trading
practices by foreign countries, which have changed the problem of
stagnant farm incomes to a full-blown farm income crisis, and in
the event no immediate progress is made on this front, introduce
emergency measures to provide tax relief, lower input costs,
reduce user fees and address the inadequacies of the farm safety-net
programs.
1015
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the
Leader of the Official Opposition. Reformers will be splitting
their time throughout the day.
I will begin by reading some headlines as they have been
appearing in the papers out west. Since the minister of
agriculture has been denying there is a farm income crisis, I can
only surmise he is only reading the newspapers from Toronto.
Here is what the newspapers are saying. From the Calgary
Herald on October 31, “Outlook cloudy for agriculture
sector”. From the Regina Leader Post on October 30,
“Farm crunch looms”. From Agri-Week on October 26, “No
government aid for farm income crunch”. From the Winnipeg
Free Press on October 30, “Farmers turn up heat on Ottawa
as farm income plummets”. From the Saskatoon Star Phoenix
on October 22, “Subsidy wars killing farmers”. From the
Western Producer on October 22, “Net farm income needs
attention” and “Prairie pools demand feds respond to farm
crisis”.
Need I go on? Do the Liberals read the papers outside Toronto?
Apparently not. The minister of agriculture has been responding
to opposition questions about the farm income crisis since
September 24 and has yet to acknowledge there is a real problem.
On September 24 the minister said:
The disaster relief program and the farm safety net program for
Canadian farmers are already in place.
On October 28 the minister repeated his mantra by saying:
On behalf of thousands of farmers in Canada, if Canada has one
of the strongest safety net systems in the world, why are we
having a farm income crisis? Why are so many farmers in trouble?
I ask the minister to acknowledge at least that NISA is totally
inadequate in helping farmers compete with unfair foreign
subsidies.
I want the minister of agriculture to listen to the words of
just one of the many farmers coming into my office and phoning
me. I spoke to this gentleman last week. He has been farming
for 33 years. Here are his own words:
I feel so terrible. I can't even put money on the offering plate
Sunday morning. I'm probably worth more than most people in
Canada—I farm seven quarters, fifty head of beef cattle, I got
seventy bushels of barley and 35 of wheat per acre. An average
calf crop. Productivity is good, but prices aren't. I haven't
replaced my equipment in seven years and it wasn't new then. I'm
repairing and patching but I can't anymore. Farming is not like
other businesses—we don't want to make a lot of money, but we
can't keep going, and we have no alternatives. We have no
alternatives! Farmers have something to offer the country—it's
being eroded—it's not just dollars and cents. It's a sin that
raw food has no value in exchange for goods and services. Why
does our nation have a different view from the Europeans on this?
I share this with the House of Commons because this farmer
expressed better than I the real pressures farmers are feeling on
a daily basis. It takes a special kind of person to be a farmer.
It is not an easy life. They only want to make a living. The
minister should come with me to the restaurants in my riding and
listen or take some of the calls I get into my office.
No matter how one calculates farm income, total net income or
net cash income or realized net income, farm incomes have been
flat on the prairies for at least 20 years. These farmers have
managed to survive year by year in spite of stagnant incomes, but
they are in no position to withstand a real income crisis such as
we are experiencing today.
The indications of the crisis are varied. It is taking its toll
on farmers. Record numbers of Saskatchewan farmers are calling
the farm stress line this year. In September the stress line
received 147 calls. The program co-ordinator for the line said:
There's been twice as many calls in September compared to other
months. The hope is going. If you don't have hope you don't
have much to look forward to. You can only struggle for so long.
1020
Last Friday the Debt Mediation Service said that inquiries for
help were already up 22% over last year in Saskatchewan and
Manitoba. It estimates that 600 producers will use its service
this year alone. These are real people behind the statistics
that the minister of agriculture is ignoring. These are not the
only people the minister is ignoring.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture says farm income is
likely to drop by more than 40% this year, due largely to the
collapse of the Asian market. Wheat prices have fallen by more
than 40% over the last 12 months while another hard hit sector,
hog farming, has seen a price decline of 28%. Meanwhile total
federal funding for agriculture sits at $670 million, down from
$2.5 billion a decade ago.
Saskatchewan agriculture minister Eric Upshall said:
We have about a 10% subsidy according to the OECD analysis, the
U.S. has roughly 30% and the Europeans are at 36 to 37%. So
there's a tremendous difference. We're caught in the squeeze.
We've been the good guys on the block. We've cut our subsidy.
The world market has been hit from two sides. On the one hand
there is a huge grain crop this year made larger because heavily
subsidized European farmers decided to produce more wheat. On
the other hand the booming Asian market is one big bust.
According to Statistics Canada, Canadian farm cash receipts in
the first half of 1998 were 5.1% lower than the same period last
year. In Saskatchewan they dropped 8.9% and 12.5% in some areas
of Manitoba, blamed largely on a decline in wheat prices brought
about by record world-wide production and dampened demand.
Canadian wheat, barley and livestock revenues were all down
during the first six months of the year. Some Saskatchewan hog
producers say that they are losing between $30 and $40 on every
hog they sell. They are asking the province for a bailout.
The price of finished cattle, animals that have been fattened at
the feedlot, is dismal as well. Saskatchewan farmers will likely
see their realized net cash income less depreciation drop by more
than 60% this year to less than $300 million. Meanwhile there
has been no dropoff in freight rates or the cost of chemicals,
fertilizer and farm machinery. There has been no dropoff in fuel
and debt servicing.
From 1995 to 1997 gross operating expenses for Saskatchewan
farmers have risen from $3.9 billion to $4.36 billion according
to the province. The total debt held by farmers has risen from
$4.48 billion in 1993 to $5.11 billion in 1997. Last year farm
debt jumped 7% alone.
Finally last week Agri-Week reported:
Never before have prices of almost every major commodity class
been down at the same time. This is the first time that the
agricultural economy has been on its own through the down phase
of an economic cycle.
The prairie pools are calling for an elimination of foreign
subsidies, a reduction or elimination of cost recovery programs
which the pools say cost farmers $138 million in 1998, and the
development of a national disaster assistance program. Why is
the minister not listening?
What can we conclude from all this? Our farmers could compete
if only our government had not mismanaged affairs so badly. Our
tax burden makes input costs for farmers very high. Some have
estimated that for some items the farmer must purchase the input
costs may be almost 50% tax.
The responsibility for the mismanagement of the agricultural
portfolio rests squarely on the shoulders of the government and
the last two ministers of agriculture. If the Liberal government
and the bureaucrats were doing their job, agriculture would not
be in this crisis.
With the big bucks that are being poured into the department of
agriculture bureaucracy, they should have been on top of this
situation and had it solved before it became a crisis. Other
countries did.
1025
We live in a wonderful country. We all enjoy high quality food
and a high standard of living. Farmers have contributed a great
deal to it. We should hang our heads in shame for the little
regard we have for them and the value they are to us.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I join today with my colleagues in the House in saying
that what we are facing in agriculture is a real emergency.
In my province of Saskatchewan the statistics show that in 1997
net farm income has dropped by 84%. People are suffering because
of that. This is no surprise. If your income, Mr. Speaker, was
to drop by 84% you would be in the House probably asking for an
emergency injection of cash because you cannot survive when your
income goes down by 84%.
This is compounded by the fact the United States about two weeks
ago passed a farm bill in Congress to subsidize its farmers by $6
billion. There are subsidies in the European market of
approximately $200 a tonne for wheat. Because of that our
farmers are caught in a terrible cost price squeeze.
Recently the Saskatchewan legislature passed a motion, I believe
it was unanimously, calling for an emergency farm package. We
are dealing with a situation where there is to be a small surplus
next year. The House should look at investing part of that
surplus into an emergency farm package for farmers so that they
can survive. In the meantime it would also stimulate the economy
by creating jobs.
Does my colleague who just sat down agree that we need an
emergency injection of cash, an emergency aid program of several
hundreds of millions of dollars, so that farmers, particularly
grain farmers, can survive?
I once again remind the House and the minister of agriculture
that net farm income in Saskatchewan has dropped by 84%. That
affects everybody in our province and everybody right across the
country. When the farmer is worse off the small towns are worse
off, the cities are worse off, the unemployment rate goes up, and
people stop spending money. There is a cyclical effect which
affects absolutely everyone.
I hope the Reform Party will join with us today in calling for
an emergency farm package of several hundred million dollars to
inject some cash into the pockets of farmers within the next few
months to seed their crops next spring and so they can survive.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
support that I am getting with regard to the motion we have put
forward.
I reiterate what I said in my speech in case people missed it.
First we have to acknowledge that there is a crisis. The
minister has yet to do that. We cannot begin to solve the
problem if we do not first acknowledge that there is a crisis.
That is where we should begin. If we are to solve that crisis we
have to go to the root of the problem.
Farmers know the root of the problem. For us to sit in the
House and try to dictate what the solution is to the farmers in
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario or wherever
a crisis is being experienced, will not work. The bureaucrats
here have mucked it up so badly that they will not do a better
job, in my estimation, if we continue along this way.
I saw statistics a short time ago where if we took the salaries
of all the bureaucrats—there is one bureaucrat for every 5.7
farmers and they do not work for peanuts—and divided it among
farmers, we would probably not have a crisis.
We have to look at the big picture. We have to look at what
farmers are telling us. If the solution comes from Ottawa it
will distort the market even more. We need to have the solution
coming from farmers. We have to do it soon. The crisis is here.
We have to address it right now. That is where we begin.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I represent an urban riding, Calgary Southwest. To the
best of my knowledge all my constituents are in the habit of
eating three times a day. Thus all of them, as indeed all of us,
have a vested interest in the financial health of the
agricultural sector, which is the subject of the motion before
the House.
1030
I believe I am now the only party leader in the House who was
actually raised on a farm. I urge the other leaders to join in
this debate in recognition of the importance of agriculture to us
all.
The first purpose of the motion before the House is to draw the
attention of the House and the media to what my colleague from
Saskatchewan has rightfully called the farm income crisis.
Some of my other colleagues will describe the nature and extent
of this crisis by reference to its impact on particular producers
and their families in rural ridings. But the basic facts are
clear, some of which have already been cited. Farm income is
likely to drop by more than 40% this year as grain, beef and pork
producers all face declining prices. This is in addition to a
steep price decline last year.
Wheat prices have fallen more than 40% over the last 12 months
while hog farmers have seen a price decline of 28%. On a
provincial basis, to cite only two examples, the realized net
farm income of Saskatchewan farmers is expected to drop by more
than 60% this year to less than $300 million, and Prince Edward
Island's realized net farm income for 1998 is expected to be 87%
less than the 1992-1996 average.
I suggest that if the prices or incomes in any other industrial
or commercial sector such as the auto sector were to drop by 30%
or 60% or 87% we would immediately recognize and acknowledge a
crisis. That is what this motion now calls on the government to
do with respect to agriculture.
The second purpose of this motion is to urge the government to
respond to this crisis with more than empty words and assurances
that what it has been doing is good enough. We are all familiar
with the government's standard excuse for non action, the
tiresome argument that the general slowdown in the Canadian
economy and the particular income crisis in agriculture is all
due to factors beyond the government's control.
The official opposition takes a different and more proactive
approach. We divide the causes of our current economic
difficulties into two categories. One category identifies
factors beyond our control which we ought to monitor like the
Asian downturn and the worldwide downturn in commodity prices.
But the other category includes factors contributing to the
economic downturn and the crisis in certain sectors which are
within our control and which we can and should be doing something
about. It is to this category of factors that we draw the
attention of the House and the government.
The slowdown in the Canadian economy in general and the farm
income crisis in particular is aided and abetted by high debt and
taxation levels at home and by the slowness of the Liberal
government to attack domestic and external barriers to trade.
Every Canadian producer, including every Canadian agricultural
producer, has a domestic monkey on his back that negatively
affects his ability to compete internationally. That monkey is
the excessive levels of taxation in this country.
In the case of agricultural producers the tax component of input
costs, in particular fuel and fertilizer, reduces disposable farm
income year after year. Broad based and immediate reduction of
taxes including taxes masquerading as user fees is therefore one
measure the government should employ to deal immediately with the
farm income crisis.
If the federal government had followed the fiscal plan first
advocated by Reform which called for a balanced budget early in
the 1990s and tax relief and debt reduction immediately
thereafter, the disposable income and savings of agricultural
producers for the last five years would have been significantly
higher than they are today, thereby putting them in a much better
position to withstand the current downturn in commodity prices.
In other words, the best income support program is not some
government safety net after the fact but tax policies that leave
more dollars in the pockets of Canadian producers and consumers
to start with. How many income crises will it take for this
government to learn that lesson?
Second, every Canadian agricultural producer has another monkey
on his back in the form of unfair subsidies and unfair trading
practices by foreign countries.
In Canada's case the most damaging of these foreign monkeys has
been the excessive agricultural subsidies paid to European Union
and American farmers, subsidy levels in the order of 30% to 37%,
and recent attempts by several U.S. states to blockade shipments
of Canadian livestock and grain in complete violation of the
spirit and the letter of the free trade agreement.
1035
As everyone in this House knows, the Liberal Party of Canada has
a checkered record with respect to both subsidies and free trade.
Throughout the 20th century Liberal administrations have
instituted far more subsidies than they have removed, which makes
them very poor champions of subsidy reduction on the
international stage. Because it bitterly fought the Canada-U.S.
Free Trade Agreement in 1988 and even promised at one time to
revoke it, Liberal Party protestations against violations of that
agreement are treated with extreme scepticism in Washington.
That is why this motion calls for more vigorous action by this
government to defend Canadian farmers from unfair subsidies and
unfair trading practices by foreign countries.
I have one final observation. When we ask Canadian farmers to
evaluate this government's performance on agriculture more and
more of them are responding by saying it is like what it has done
to their taxes and health care. What they mean by that is
mismanagement, mismanagement that is leading to a lower standard
of living.
Many Canadians will be judging the government's ability to
respond to the general economic slowdown by how it responds to
the immediate income crisis in agriculture. That is why this
debate is so important. If the government cannot respond more
quickly, more positively and decisively to the downturn in one
sector, the agriculture sector, who will believe that it is
capable of responding quickly, positively and decisively to the
general economic downturn which the finance minister himself is
predicting?
If the government wants to restore some measure of confidence in
its ability to manage economic crises other than by resorting to
denials, excuses and diversions, let it respond positively to the
motion before the House. I urge hon. members to support the
motion.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a couple of
questions for clarification to the Leader of the Opposition.
In his comments a minute ago he accused the Liberal government
of giving a lot of subsidies to farmers in Canada. I am just
wondering if what he is saying now is that he feels we should do
more. I will address how I think we can assist farmers in the
future but I want to ask him if he would square that. He
contradicted himself fairly severely.
I wonder if he would comment about the fact that in the lead-up
to the last election his party said it would take $640 million
out of a number of ministries and another $690 million out of
regional agricultural support. If we add the two together it
comes to a sizeable number, about 80% of the agriculture and
agri-food budget, which includes the funding of $600 million a
year at the present time to agricultural support to Canadian
farmers. I wonder how the hon. member thought he could remove
that much money, add more subsidies and do it with only 15% of
the agriculture budget we have now.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister
for his questions. Let me deal with them in the order in which
he raised them.
First, my general point was that in the 20th century the record
of the Liberal government has been to grant far more subsidies
than to grant subsidy relief. The minister can check that out
and go through all the subsidies. I am not talking only about
agriculture. I am talking about the Liberal government's general
record in subsidization. Yes, there has been some removal of
subsidies in the agriculture sector in the last number of years.
But the overall record of the government has been to resort to
subsidies time and time again. My point is that when it is a
government with a reputation for subsidization it makes it a poor
advocate for subsidy reduction in other countries because they
simply point to the government's record and say “you guys are
great people to talk”.
1040
The second point with respect to this subsidy question is by
leaving NISA, the net income stabilization account, as the primary
farm support program we would think the government would be more
interested in increasing net incomes during the times when prices
are good. If we are to rely on a NISA type program it is
stronger when prices are low if we leave more dollars in the
pockets of consumers when prices are high. Net income
stabilization works better if we leave more income in people's
pockets during the boom time. That is why I hope minister would
be an advocate of tax relief with the finance minister because
that would make the one program he is relying on work better.
The second point the minister made is typical of the questions
and reactions of Liberal ministers, half the story. The minister
referred to our proposals for reductions in some government
spending, including reductions in his department. What he forgot
to mention was the tax relief that those reductions when added up
across all the departments made possible. Yes, we advocated
reductions in some of the overhead spending of the agriculture
department, but the net effect to doing that over five years was
to deliver $20 billion in tax relief to Canadians, including
significant tax relief to Canadian farmers, tax relief greater in
its aggregate than any reduction to agriculture.
I suggest the minister read both sides of what we are talking
about, the pain of reduction but the benefit of tax relief. We
end up with a net benefit and a net benefit to Canadian farmers.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I went to the Council of Europe, an organization which
meets quarterly in Europe. It is members of parliament from all
European and eastern European countries. They have a number of
committees which discuss the various issues, including economics
and agriculture.
I asked the agriculture committee about three years ago what it
was planning on doing with subsidizing agriculture in its
countries. This was the year when the Liberal government
eliminated the Crow benefit to Canada farmers. The Crow benefit
was a transportation rate, a subsidy which provided producers
with an opportunity to sell their products to market under the
old Crow benefit.
It was eliminated by the government because it said WTO warrants
the elimination of this subsidy. So it is gone. It has been
gone for three years.
The Europeans told me they would never sacrifice their farmers
for the U.S.A. with respect to subsidies. They also told me they
have five years under WTO to address the subsidy issues. We are
three years down the road and subsidies in Europe are as high as
they have ever been, rightly or wrongly. We have in our country
abandoned our farmers. We have no national agriculture policy.
Because the Americans and the Europeans have not sacrificed
their farmers by eliminating subsidies, would the Leader of the
Opposition support subsidies for our farmers now in view of the
fact that there is a crisis in our farm communities?
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, I know the instinctive
gut reaction of the NDP to any economic crisis is to yell for a
subsidy. We are open to listening to the arguments members are
putting for emergency aid.
I suggest that the long term strategy of the government should
be to do what we can to reduce and eliminate those subsidies by
our big competitors, particularly with respect to the United
States. I suggest three things that are more practical than
anything I have heard from this side of the House or that.
First, the government should use that dispute settling mechanism
more actively and quickly. This crisis was seen coming. It took
six weeks to activate that mechanism and it should not do that.
Second, the government should move more actively to lobby U.S.
consumer interests. Our allies in this fight with the U.S. are
American consumer interests gouged by the U.S. subsidization
programs and protectionism as much as our farmers.
Third, get into this European-American dialogue which is going
to put great pressure on reduction of European subsidies. Those
are three things that can be done on a proactive side to reduce
and eliminate the subsidies.
1045
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the
concerns that are being debated here today on the very serious
situation of farm income for this year. I remind members that
every time I have stood in the House in the last number of weeks
to discuss this matter and answer questions, I have fully
recognized the unfortunate situation of the farmers. I share with
the farmers and members of the House their concerns over the
difficulties of many of Canada's farmers today.
Today I hope to leave hon. members with a fuller appreciation of
the situation which is without question a complex one. I know
that they read the newspapers. And yes, I read the newspapers.
Yes, I hear what is being said on TV. I want to show how closely
the provincial governments, producer organizations and the
federal government have worked over the last decade to put in
place a pretty good system of safety nets to protect farm income.
With that I will say that there is no absolutely perfect safety
net system in our lives, whether it be personal, or business or
in government. That is why it was discussed at the
federal-provincial ministers meeting this summer. That is why we
have moved forward even faster. We saw what was coming with the
financial situation of too many Canadian farmers this year. We
moved forward and fast tracked the process of review of Canada's
safety net system.
We have taken a pragmatic approach and will continue with a
strategic approach to fiscal challenges across the country. As a
result, Canada's economic fundamentals are sound and should we
not all be thankful. As Canadians we are better able to address
the worldwide financial situation than most other countries.
Canadian farmers have made a big contribution to that. They
have made a big contribution in putting the federal books back in
the black. That was the first step we had to take. We have
recognized that as a result of the contributions from farmers and
all Canadians we are all reaping the benefits of lower interest
rates and low inflation. That certainly has an effect.
We are all aware that global markets are going through a period
of incredible turmoil. This has affected the income of farmers.
We plan to continue on the course we have charted for the future.
We will continue to target our resources, to reduce taxes as we
have in the past, to pay down public debt, to invest in the
knowledge of our people and to safeguard and improve our health
care system. All of these, including addressing the unfortunate
situation of many Canadian farmers today, have to be our
priorities.
There is no question that farm producers are dealing with the
fallout from fluctuations in foreign markets. For example, in
Asia and Russia less buying power translates into much lower
sales of our food exports. It is higher with grain and lower
with dairy products, but I remind the House and everybody
watching that on average 48% or 49% of the farm gate income comes
to Canada and those producers. We are in the export business. We
have a tremendous ability to produce. We have to export the
products or drastically cut our production, eat the products here
at home and hope that nobody wants to compete with supplying that
market. That is not the way to go. We have to work with the
industry, and we do, to find the markets where the products can
be sold at a profitable level or at the best price attainable at
that time.
As we know, many prices are set by the world. All that is
happening in the world translates into lower sales of food
exports. It is affecting the income of many of our farmers.
Combined with this is the reality of a cyclical downturn in
prices for some commodities which always happens in agriculture.
There are pockets of poor production in a country this size.
There are not going to be top yields in every hectare or portion
of the country every year. It means some farmers will have
significant reductions in their income this year.
I stress that this situation is not universal. Not all regions
or sectors are affected to the same degree. At the national
level, recent numbers indicate that without question farmers will
see a decrease in their income compared to the average over the
last five years. I stress that is not the same in all regions
and all sectors.
In particular the situation in Manitoba and Saskatchewan is
severe because of the low prices for hogs, cattle and grains.
We are all concerned about what lies ahead next year for these
producers. Nobody is more concerned than I am.
1050
I have said a number of times that I have asked all the farm
leaders to come to Ottawa tomorrow. I am pleased that all the
provincial ministers of agriculture will be here to discuss the
nature and extent of the difficulties.
Our forecast was done in conjunction with all the provinces.
When the final, most accurate numbers do become available, which
are numbers that have been put together with the co-operation and
agreement of the provinces, I will remind members that some of
the numbers they have been stating in the last half hour in this
House are incorrect. I hope they will look at those numbers when
they become available.
I am not diminishing that there are some very severe areas.
These forecasts will indicate what the market price picture is in
affected areas. We have to also be aware that it may worsen in
1999.
That is the bad news. The other news is that because of the
unfortunate reality that many farmers, including myself, went
through in the 1980s, farmers are better prepared. They are not
necessarily totally and fully prepared. That does not always
happen as much as it should or as we would like to see, but they
are better prepared for this cyclical downturn we are in at the
present time. They have had a number of years of pretty good
prices.
Farmers are very smart business people and many of them have
been able to put their money to good use. They have looked at
their balance sheets, have seized new ways of doing business,
have learned to manage their operations better, have worked hard
to get their costs down, have increased their productivity and
have invested in new technology when the money was available so
they could be prepared for the reality that is in agriculture. I
hate that reality but it is there. I farmed for 25 years. Some
years were better than others. Some commodities were better than
others in some of those years but it goes up and down.
The farmers have taken advantage of this. They have used a lot
of tools that the provincial and federal governments have helped
them to put in place. They have diversified their operations and
have been paying closer attention to market signals. They have
been making decisions on growing what they know they can market
and not trying to market what they like to grow. We know that
and they know that. They have to look at the market and use
their crystal ball the best they can.
I do not want to underestimate or not give enough credit to
farmers. They deserve a pile of credit for the tough decisions
they have made over the last decade. They have used their wisdom
and most important their foresight after the disaster of 1980s.
In doing so, on average the net farm worth in Canada is
significantly higher than it was. Assets have reached historical
highs and debt to equity ratio has been declining since 1991.
Many small farmers have sources of income outside the operation
of their farm. This certainly helps. People will say that
should not have to happen and I agree with them fully. However,
I say to opposition members everywhere that it does not matter
what business one goes into today, because of the overhead in
starting up a business or however the finances are, many people
need to address having other sources of income.
As I said, I farmed for 25 years. My wife taught school for a
few of those years. My wife worked off the farm for a number of
those years. One thing farmers know, is that it is a risky
business. It is a business that is always at the mercy of global
markets and mother nature. Unfortunately, that is not going to
change.
What has changed is the way we deal with that. We have a number
of tools in place. We are reviewing how they are being used and
how they can be used. Each year the federal government has put
$600 million into the safety net package. The provincial
governments have put in another $400 million. We have crop
insurance, companion programs and the NISA. As has been said, our
safety net advisory committee is looking at how we use those and
how we can maybe put in place a national disaster program in
order to assist those farmers who need it right now.
There has been a lot of talk about this issue. I will leave no
stone unturned as we go forward.
I look forward to the contribution of members across the way. I
know collectively we can turn every stone possible in order to
assist those farmers who are suffering at the present time.
1055
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have just one question for the minister.
In the minister's remarks there was not one single reference to
tax relief as a possible tool for dealing with this problem. I
wonder why that is. The government has a surplus, so at least
tax relief is a live option; it is not something that is
academic. The federal government is one of the greatest imposers
of taxes on agriculture that there is, so it is not as if it is
not in the taxation game.
The NISA program is a net income dependent program. If the
minister would calculate what the amount of the NISA might have
been if there had been five years of tax relief prior to this
particular period, surely he would see that that program would be
stronger than it is.
Why does the minister not, for the sake of his producers, become
an advocate of tax relief as at least one of the measures that
would have helped this situation and still could help?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Leader of
the Opposition to go back and read Hansard because I
specifically stated that we are continuing to target resources,
reducing taxes, paying down public debt and investing in the
knowledge of people and safeguarding and improving our health
care system. If I am not mistaken, a number of those are goals
of the official opposition as well.
With reference to the NISA, when there is a safety net put in
place there is always the challenge of distribution. Some
producers made a business decision not to take part in the NISA.
Some people said it was a decision that they could not take part
in the NISA as beginning farmers or whatever their reasons might
have happened to be.
Let us look at the size of the NISA in Canada, its value, the
total amount of money available. I have repeatedly said that we
are looking at how we can do other things, use other resources,
how our producers can use all of the tools presently available in
the toolbox. Let us compare the value of the NISA to the United
States industry which is between eight and nine times the size of
ours. Eight to nine times $2.5 billion would mean that our NISA
funds are equivalent to over $20 billion relative to the United
States. That is a considerable sum of money.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as an
aside, I am very appreciative, as I think all members of the
House would be, to see the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
here for this very important debate. I know we are sometimes out
of order when we try to say who is not in the House, but I think
we are probably in order when we recognize that people do take
the time to come and listen to the debate. I want to say very
sincerely that I appreciate that.
I listened attentively to the minister and I noted that he did
not make any reference to cost recovery. We have seen that rise
dramatically in recent years. I think Canadian farmers are
paying something in the order of $134 million per year in cost
recovery. This apparently is a decision to reduce the debt and
deficit situation. It is not a countervail against the WTO or
GATT. I would like the minister to comment on that and see
whether we could do something to bring some of those costs down.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am
pleased to be here. There is a cabinet meeting going on at the
present time and I will not be able to stay for all of the
morning or all of the day, but I can assure hon. members that I
will be following today's debate.
There has been a freeze on cost recovery. That commitment was
made by my predecessor and by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
and the department. The approach to cost recovery in the future
is another one of those stones that we are not going to leave
unturned. We are looking at that.
1100
That is why it is so important that we take a look at absolutely
everything. We have these tools. We have to ask: What can we
do here and what can we do there? If we could do something more,
how would we do it? How would we fund it? Are we prepared to
shift resources from here to there in order to do it at the
present time? What are the repercussions of doing that?
The bottom line is that whatever we do we have to do it in a
different way than the United States. The $6 billion put into
agriculture last week by the United States goes to producers
whether they individually need the support or not. There will be
large producers in the United States who do not need support who
will get millions of dollars. That support is not targeted to
the producers who need it. I think members opposite will agree
with me that whatever we do in our safety net system, the system
must target those who need it. It must not be a system in which
we simply throw out money on an ad hoc basis, as some people
think we should do. That will not do the job. We should invest
that money as it should be invested.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I appreciate the fact that the minister of agriculture is
here and there are a couple of things which should be clarified.
I would ask for the consent of the House to extend the time by a
couple of minutes so that I might ask the minister a question.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
extend the time for questions and comments to the minister for
five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the minister for
taking a few more questions. I realize he has a meeting to go
to, so I thank him very much for his time.
Four items were raised in the minister's speech which I would
like him to clarify.
First, he said that our economic fundamentals are sound, that
they are in good order. Would he not admit that our debt load is
twice that of the Americans, our nearest competitors, and that
because of that we have a much higher tax burden which puts our
farmers at a distinct disadvantage? As the minister knows, I
quoted some figures in my speech that show our farmers are
experiencing a much higher tax burden than American farmers.
The minister said that it is a business decision not to
participate in NISA. It has not been a business decision by
farmers not to participate in NISA. It is because they cannot.
Farm incomes have been so low that they have been unable to
contribute. Those farmers who are being hurt the most have been
unable to put funds away in NISA so the government could match
those funds and they could withdraw them at this point. There
are farmers who are well off and there are certain sectors which
have not been touched or hurt by this crisis, but others are
unable to contribute. Would the minister not agree this is the
case?
It almost shocks me that the minister would say that farmers
need other sources of income if they want to continue farming.
Is the minister saying that farmers should not expect to make
their living from agriculture? That is a serious matter.
My final question is: Did the minister's bureaucrats not see
this coming?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to
take five minutes to ask his questions, I need equivalent time.
With respect to the debt load, this government has been very
clear. We agree that personal income taxes in Canada are too
high. We have taken steps to address that. Last year 400,000
Canadians were taken off the tax rolls. I could go on.
As far as NISA is concerned, I made it very clear that it is a
business decision or an economic decision. For whatever reason,
some people made that decision. Eighty-five per cent of
participants with eligible production are covered. Well over 85%
of producers in Saskatchewan are enrolled in NISA.
As I said earlier, I do not like to see farmers searching for
other sources of income. I do not like to see somebody starting
up a manufacturing business in the industrial park in Belleville
who has to ask one of his family members to provide another
source of income.
I will bring it closer to home. My son bought the farm from my
wife and I. He is farming 800 acres. He is heavily in debt. He
made a personal decision to burn the candle at both ends.
1105
I do not like to see that happen, but he is working off the farm
full time. I asked him why he is doing it and he told me he
wants to pay his debt and mortgage down sooner. He said that if
he did that for a while he would be in a better position to be
able to be on the farm full time. That is decision. He made
that for his own personal reasons. I do not like to see it
happen.
I would like everybody who wants to farm, be a doctor, run a
garage or start up a small manufacturing business to be able to
do it. I would like to see them all succeed. Unfortunately that
is not reality. There is competition out there. There are
expenses.
Yes, there is a big debt, but we are now paying down the debt.
We reduced the deficit from $42 billion to zero much faster than
Canadians thought it could be done. We now have very low
inflation. Our interest rates have been below those in the
United States for a number of years. Nobody in the world denies
that the economic fundamentals in Canada are the best they have
been in many, many decades.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister mentioned NISA many times and said that we hang our
hat on the NISA program. The minister also mentioned that there
is $2.5 billion in NISA. Would the minister agree that it is an
accumulated amount which is sitting in accounts and that, in
fact, NISA contributions are not made specifically by the federal
government? There is a contribution from the producers, from the
provinces and from this government.
When we compare the $2.5 billion in Canada to the $20 billion in
the United States, that is an unfair comparison. In fact, the
Americans right now are acknowledging that they will put $6
billion into support programs and an immediate $2.9 billion will
be in cash.
Would the minister please correct the impression that in fact
the $2.5 billion came from the federal government and that it is
enough to combat the $6 billion in the U.S.?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, if we put the forward
thinking of the producers, the provincial and federal governments
into the perspective of any good group of people in business,
they plan for a time down the road that might not be as good or
might not be as bad as today. That is forward thinking.
I commend the industry, the provincial governments, my
colleagues on this side of the House, and those who sat before us
on this side of the House for putting in place a system to
prepare the industry for those future times.
Yes, it is a joint contribution, in comparison to the United
States, but it is very significant. I said very clearly that it
is not the be all and the end all. It is one of a number of
tools that we have which we will continue to address and adjust
in co-operation and in partnership with producers and the
provincial governments.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois supports the motion of the member for Yorkton—Melville.
The agricultural sector in general is experiencing a major
crisis and much of the blame for this lies with the federal
government, which is providing the sector with increasingly less
financial support. In addition, the federal government's
inaction in this period of budget surplus does not help resolve
the problems facing farmers.
What is the situation in the agricultural sector right now?
There are crises that cannot be ignored. Let us look first at
the Asian crisis, whose effects are being felt worldwide.
Demand for all farm products is down, and grain and meat prices,
including and primarily that of pork, are down. World demand
for wheat and pork has just about evaporated.
This drop in demand means that farmers can no longer sell their
products and accordingly find themselves more often than not in
an income loss situation.
1110
Income for the first half of 1998 was down by over 5% compared
to the first half of 1997, which means a drop of some 7% in
crops and 4% in livestock.
The figures obtained by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture
indicate that net farm incomes could drop by as much as 40% this
year. The Asian crisis is not an isolated event. Canada's
exports of farm products for the country as a whole increased by
over 65%. They reached a record level of $22.3 billion.
The agriculture and agri-food sector alone will account for
nearly a third of Canada's trade balance in 1997.
But a downside of this success is the increased dependency of
Canadian producers on international markets to earn a living.
At the same time, we have been witnessing the federal
government's withdrawal from agriculture. Since it took office,
the Liberal government repeatedly cut funding and services to
farm producers in Quebec, while making them foot a larger part
of the bill for whatever services are still being delivered.
As a result, Quebec producers have less and less money to
operate. Government support has dropped by more than 60%, from
$2.8 billion in 1993 to approximately $1 billion in 1997, in
spite of the fact that, under international rules, $4 billion
could be made available to further support the agricultural
industry.
Cost recovery fees have been imposed on no less than 42
industries over a three-year period according to Agriculture
Canada's estimates. And what about privatization efforts, where,
once again, the farming community, the producers have to pay for
services they are entitled to and used to get for free.
In its 1996 budget, the federal government announced the
elimination of all dairy subsidies. For our producers in Quebec,
this represents a $107 million loss they are still suffering
from.
When the Crow rate was abandoned in 1995, the government granted
$3 billion in compensation to western producers, but there are
no plans to compensate our producers for the loss of the dairy
subsidy.
Only $66 million was paid in Quebec in adjustment measures after
the Crow rate was abolished.
Once again, there is a double standard in which Quebec is the
big loser. In this respect, I could give you an example I have
often used in this House: the scrapie crisis in Quebec. Not only
have 11,000 sheep been put down—on the basis of a mere 38
screening tests, which raises serious questions—but active
measures to support this industry have yet to be put in place.
Of course, the government mentioned a few measures to increase
maximum compensation to $600 per animal, but this is not enough.
The whole industry must get back on its feet, and all these
measures must be retroactive, because the people most affected
are those who got involved and who tried to solve this problem
from the very beginning.
Is the government obsessed with the idea of complying with the
new WTO rules? Is this why it stopped helping farmers over four
years ago and why it gutted out these various farm support
programs?
Let us not forget that while the American government reduced its
global support for agriculture by 23% over a seven-year period,
the Canadian government cut its support by 21% over three years.
What do our farmers have to gain by complying with the WTO rules
before their main competitors who, incidentally, often enjoy a
better climate than we do?
1115
The situation in the farming industry is such that it is now
essential to reinvest in basic support structures to secure long
term sustainability.
Meanwhile, what are the Americans doing? They are supporting
farmers. According to the figures released by the American Farm
Bureau, subsidies in 1998 will total $15.2 billion in the United
States. This unfair competition raises legitimate concerns among
farmers in Canada and elsewhere. While the federal government is
abandoning our farmers, the U.S. government is helping their
American counterparts to keep their heads above water. Faced
with this unfair competition, what should our farmers do?
Are there solutions? I think there are. The first one is very
simple. The government must wake up to the seriousness of the
situation farmers are facing. Second, the government must sit
down with the industry and its representatives to discuss better
ways of at least alleviating the effects of the present crisis
and, finally, other measures will also have to be taken, which
will undoubtedly mean that the federal government will have to
increase funding to the farming sector. We cannot stay
competitive if we are at a disadvantage.
I will conclude by saying a few words about the situation in
Quebec. Obviously, this issue brings home to me all the more
clearly the need for the people of Quebec to attain sovereignty
because, in continuing to pull out of the farming sector, the
federal government has not acted in the interests of Quebec
farmers, as I have shown with respect to the sheep and dairy
industries.
A Quebec government that was master of its own destiny would
have worked exclusively in the interests of Quebec farmers.
That is what we did in the case of hogs. We sorted out the
situation ourselves, as we are doing with our crop insurance,
farm income stabilization insurance and CNRS programs.
Members often do not understand that these companion programs
are applied differently in Quebec than in the rest of Canada.
The reason for that is that my country, Quebec, takes an
interest in farmers.
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for her speech. There are a few
things I think should be clarified when it comes to the
scrapie situation. The standing committee had extensive
hearings on scrapie.
The minister and the department had very close productive
discussions with sheep producers in Quebec on the situation they
had and the situation with scrapie as far as improvements made to
the program being very substantial.
In addition to that, I think something we always forget is that
the federal government has transferred $200 million to the
province of Quebec which chose to spend that money in a different
way. Rather than have it for disaster relief, Quebec chose to
spend it on price support. When there was nothing to sell because
of the disease, the producers were not getting anything.
We have to put some blame on the producers themselves and on the
provincial government, which chose to spend the transfers from
the federal government in a different way.
If that had been spent differently or if the provincial
government now decides to maybe reconsider how to dispense with
the transfers, not just in sheep but in hogs and in other
livestock, we could have a better program, a NISA type program
for the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my
kind colleague.
We have indeed had great co-operation from the Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-Food in connection with scrapie, but
there are two things I need to point out.
First, we cannot accept the lack of retroactivity for those
sheep farmers who were the first to subscribe to the wholly
federal program of a wholly federal agency, and who in so doing
had the honesty and courage to, perhaps, save the Canadian sheep
industry. We expect them to get the same compensation as others
who will come along in future.
1120
The second question raised by my colleague—and I am glad he
raised it because that was what I was saying at the end of my
speech—is that, unlike the other provinces, Quebec does not have
the same measures for its farm safety-net programs, its companion
programs, and does not apply them in the same way.
This is so much the case that a departmental employee—Mr.
Richardson, if I remember correctly—told the committee that,
even if Quebec wanted to take the famous $200 million—and
Minister Julien wrote to the Minister of Agriculture to this
effect—this would be impossible because the rules established
with the federal government are different for Quebec than for
elsewhere in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague talked about a compensation package offered sheep
producers who have problems with scrapie. It seems she suggested
that the $600 a head offered in compensation to those sheep
producers is not adequate.
As a cattle producer I know that when someone slaughters a cow
toward the end of her useful life they may not get much more than
$600 for her.
I was wondering if the member could explain what she thought
would be reasonable compensation for victims of the scrapie
outbreak.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, I was probably misunderstood.
The $600 figure was discussed and accepted by industry. We are
very much in agreement on this amount.
Our major problem is that the 10% production loss in Quebec will
never be properly compensated for because the measure is not
retroactive. If the agency cannot allow retroactivity, the
minister can create retroactive compensation through an ad hoc
program.
I wish to state before this House that Quebec is currently the
hardest hit province. Our sheep came from all over Canada and
were sold all over Canada. What is happening to us today I
would not wish on any other province. No one is exempt from
this, however, because there is a very strong genetic link where
this disease is concerned.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too am
very pleased to take part in this important debate today on the
crisis in farm income.
I was looking through notes yesterday and we first started to
raise these questions in February of this year, continued on
through the spring and we certainly have focused on since
parliament has come back on this very important crisis in rural
Canada in general, in western Canada in particular.
As colleagues have mentioned, net farm income declined by
some 84% in my province of Saskatchewan in 1997 and it looks like
it is going to fall by another 40% this year.
My colleague, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre,
attempted to have an emergency debate on the crisis in farm
income on October 5. That was not successful. My colleague, the
member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, and I held a news conference in
Regina on October 16. We invited some farmers who were
particularly hurting from this crisis. Lloyd Pletz who farms
north of Bell Prairies was one of those individuals. He told the
assembled media that day “I'm finished. I have no way to hang
on”. Donnett Elder, who was also attending, has worked in the
farm stress area answering phones for the past 10 years and she
reports that it has never been worse out there with the phone
ringing off the hook from farmers who are terribly concerned
about the situation. She is looking at a $40,000 shortfall in
1998.
I mention people like Lloyd Pletz and Donnett Elder because we
are attempting to put a face on a very serious and growing
crisis.
1125
I know the word crisis is a frequently overused word but it is a
word that certainly applies in this instance. The Canadian
Federation of Agriculture has noted that net farm income will
decline by 40% overall and we are even looking at worse numbers
on the prairies. It is incredible when one adds in the 84% loss
in Saskatchewan and then add to that 40% to 45% this year. For
farmers in Alberta it is 35% and in Manitoba it is 40%. Hog
farmers virtually from coast to coast are looking at losses of
$40 per animal when they get them to market.
This crisis is largely as a result of economic and trade
conditions over the last couple of years. The economic meltdown
in southeast Asia has been a large part of it. However, other
countries have the same problems, not just Canada. Farmers in
European countries and in the United States would face similar
problems but their governments have taken steps to cushion the
blow and reduce the impact on farmers in those communities.
In Canada we are left with the situation where so far the
minister of agriculture agrees that there is a crisis but nobody
is yet prepared to do anything about it. It reminds me of the
old tea ad “only in Canada, you say”.
The U.S. administration is kicking in $2.857 billion under
market loss payments. It begins today to help offset heavy
losses resulting from historic low commodity prices, the very
same problems many Canadian farmers are facing. European farmers
are receiving a subsidy for wheat of up to $205 Canadian a tonne,
well above the current projected world price.
We have been told by our senior international trade negotiator
that in the United States the subsidy support for wheat farmers
is some five times higher for American wheat than what is
available to their Canadian counterpart. The bottom line is that
Canadian farmers simply cannot compete.
Canadian farmers are as good as any in the world. We hope we
have a goal in to double our agricultural exports by 2005 but
there is no way Canadian farmers can do that without some help
soon from their governments.
I asked yesterday in the House when help was going to be
forthcoming to ensure that farmers were planning to plant a
spring crop in 1999 rather than planning for an auction sale in
the same year.
The United States is pumping up farm subsidies which are not
countervails by the WTO or the GATT. Europeans are pumping up,
as I noted a minute ago. Here at home help for our farmers has
been slashed significantly.
In 1993 when the WTO was negotiated, Canada agreed to reduce its
subsidies on agriculture by about a billion dollars over five
years. In other words, we are going from $5 billion to $4
billion over the course of five years. In the usual boy scout
way that Canada often operates, we have done much better than
that. We have slashed some 60% of farm subsidies. We have gone
from $5 billion to perhaps $2 billion and some people insist that
it is probably less than $1 billion in subsidies at the moment.
We look good on the international stage but our farmers are
really in dire straits. They have paid more than their fair
share on the war on the deficit. It is time for a reinvestment
in agriculture.
In Saskatchewan net farm income is forecast for this year to be
$320 million less than it was last year.
Just in passing, that is almost exactly what Saskatchewan farmers
used to receive from the Crow benefit.
1130
Another aspect of this argument is that Canada has been assisted
greatly by Canadian farmers in balancing the books because of our
agricultural exports. If there is not some action taken quickly
I am very concerned there is a great danger we will end up
killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
The minister continually relies on the net income stabilization
account and crop insurance. He says that they are very good
programs. For the sake of argument I will not disagree with that
except to say that they are not answers to the problems we are
facing now. NISA and crop insurance were not designed to look
after low commodity prices or the ice storm of last year.
Another point the minister makes constant reference to is that
most farmers in NISA—and we heard him say that again this
morning—on average have some $18,000 in their accounts. I saw
some numbers recently in terms of NISA which I would like to
share with the House.
Farmers earning between $10,000 and $75,000 per year gross
income on their operations account for some 62% of all farmers.
The average amount in their NISA accounts is not $18,000 a year.
It is not $12,000. It is not even $6,000. The average in the
NISA accounts of the smaller farmer is $5,925 per year. It is
scarcely worth talking about. It certainly is not a program that
can be relied upon to assist farmers in the emergency they find
themselves in now.
My time is just about up. We are seeing farm costs increasing
sharply. There has been a 21% increase in machinery over the
last five years. Fertilizer is up 57% and chemicals, 63%. I
asked the minister what he was doing about cost recovery, about
the $138 million more that Canadian farmers are paying for things
that are not counter to GATT or the WTO.
We in this corner of the House are very concerned that the
Liberals are continuing to dismantle rural Canada. The rail
system, the transportation system, is in sad shape. The costs
are three times higher for shipping grain to the coast.
We are asking for help for the farm sector. We feel that the
minister could redeem himself and his government by announcing
today that he is prepared to help out farmers with long term
disaster relief.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. member for Palliser. He talked
about the NISA program and how the minister of agriculture
basically held it up as being the be-all and end-all of the farm
crisis. Today we heard the Leader of the Opposition suggest that
support mechanisms should not be put in place but that it should
be long term tax breaks.
Could the member for Palliser give me some indication as to what
his party would actually like to see with respect to farm support
programs? Does he have any idea how they should be delivered to
agriculturalists or producers that will have some difficulty
putting crops in this coming spring season?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not have a
problem with some long term tax breaks for farmers. Our concern
is that we have to do something immediately because it will take
some time. This is a crisis situation that demands an immediate
response.
We have to support Canadian farmers as the Europeans are
supporting their farmers and as the Americans are supporting U.S.
farmers, or we will see such an exodus from the land that it will
scarcely be believed.
There is no question we are witnessing the end of the family
farm. We are moving to agribusiness and corporate farms.
Perhaps a few new generation co-ops will be sprinkled in, but by
and large we are seeing a real revolution in agriculture which
will be hastened without help from the government.
1135
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the NDP member describe how we need relief
and how we need it immediately. I agree. It is a desperate
situation and we have to do something right now.
The devil is in the details. How would members propose to
deliver this relief? How would they make sure that it gets to
whom it belongs?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that
the government could very quickly ascertain who requires relief.
I notice the U.S. secretary of agriculture is saying that the
$2.857 billion support program coming into effect today will go
exclusively to farmers who need it.
I disagree with the minister of agriculture when he says it will
end up that millions of dollars will go to big farmers who
basically do not need it. The Americans know which farmers
require help and which farmers qualify. I am sure the Canadian
department of agriculture can devise ways to ensure it goes
without any great difficulty to the folks who really need it.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
certainly over the last days, weeks and months there has been a
call from throughout Saskatchewan and western Canada for some
type of farm support program.
The hon. member for Palliser, by the way, has become the member
of parliament for a large part of my old riding of Moose
Jaw—Lake Centre. How much does he think needs to be put on the
table as part of a farm support program? What percentage would
need to go to Saskatchewan or any other particular area, given
the fact that the numbers we have heard this morning certainly
vary from area to area? Some areas are in much worse conditions.
Obviously Saskatchewan is one of those areas that is in very dire
straits.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
I think we are talking in the hundreds of millions of dollars,
somewhat under $1 billion.
In terms of what would go to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which
everyone recognizes are the two provinces under the most stress
at the moment, I would not be able to hazard a guess. I would
assume they would take a significant portion of that money.
When the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and I met with the
media a few weeks ago, we talked about somewhere between $500
million to $700 million to deal with the situation.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
issue on the floor of the House of Commons today is a very
important one. It is more so important perhaps to my
constituents and me than to a lot of other members on either the
government side or the opposition benches.
I will clarify that by simply saying that coming from
Brandon—Souris the economic backbone of my constituency is
without question agriculture. Both from a direct and indirect
standpoint the total economy developed in my community is based
on agriculture. Therefore I feel very comfortable and very
privileged to speak in the House, hopefully with some ability to
convince the government the situation we are facing right now is
one of crisis. That word has been used substantially today. I
cannot help but use it again to identify the total crisis in the
farm economy today.
I would like to thank the Reform Party, once and probably the
last time in my illustrious political career, for putting the
motion on the floor today so that we have an opportunity to
debate it.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I do not think those members should
get on their high horse just yet because there is a but here.
I find it ironic that a party which obviously comes from the
grassroots of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia would
not make it a votable motion so that the government's feet would
be held to the fire. Then government members would have to stand
and indicate which way they voted on the motion.
1140
As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, the motion speaks
more to long term tax relief. As was mentioned earlier, I do not
think there is as member on this side of the House, and perhaps
on that side of the House, who does not agree with long term tax
relief. However long term tax relief does not solve the problem
we face today.
Being that I come from the wheat city I get an awful lot of
people coming through my constituency office. I can honestly
say—and I am pleased to say it—that many of the people who are
coming through my door now perhaps would not have come through my
door a year or two years ago.
These are farmer producers who have suffered in silence
throughout the decade or the numbers of years of downturn in the
farm economy. Quite frankly there is no more suffering in
silence. They are coming through the door and saying “Rick,
this is not good for agriculture”. They are saying that if
something is not done within the next three to six months they
will not be able to put in a crop this spring.
They are saying that they have suffered in silence and have done
all they possibly could. They have taken the equity out of their
land. They have taken the equity out of their farms. Their
operating lines are to the maximum right now. Unfortunately
there is no more help on the horizon. If they try to go to their
suppliers or if they try to go to the banks to get more money to
put in their crops, they will be told to sell their land, that
there is no hope.
If we as Canadians want to get farmer producers off their land,
we are heading in the right direction. My party and I say that
help should be put in place today. We should not look five or
ten years down the road when we can in fact bring in tax reforms
and give them some relief from their taxes. The producers I talk
to do not pay taxes because they have no income. They are not
generating income and therefore are not paying taxes. Tax relief
will not help them. They need support programs to offset the
American and EU support programs that are in place.
Let me give some examples of what is happening out there. It is
not simply the producers who will be affected. It is the
community that producers support on a regular basis. I am
talking about the industries that will be affected such as bulk
fuel dealers, implement dealers, grocery stores and people who
sell goods and services to farm producers. The economy goes
around. If there is no income in the farm economy there is no
income in the communities. When those industries stand up and do
not suffer in silence the government may well get the message.
Let me give some examples of what is happening in the farm
economy. I have received a number of letters, but I pulled this
one from a farm wife. She sent me a copy of the grain receipt
statements she received when her husband delivered his wheat
quota for this spring. They sent in $19,677 worth of grain or
almost $20,000 worth. The deductions for elevation,
transportation and cleaning were $6,281. They received
approximately $12,000 from $19,000 or $20,000 worth of grain.
That would be fine if that $19,000 worth or grain could have
been $40,000 or a reasonable amount to compensate them for
putting the crop in the ground. It is not. It is $20,000 and a
third of it goes to other uncontrollable costs. The $12,000 they
received is not sufficient to be able to break even with their
inputs and what it cost them to produce the commodity.
Another gentleman walked into my office and gave me a complete
financial statement of what it cost him to put in 160 acres of
crop and his return.
1145
These are producers who are good managers. These are producers
who have done everything right. The problem they found is that
they cannot sell the commodity for what it is worth.
An individual producer walked in, showed me his financials and
said for every quarter section of land that he puts in right now,
he is losing $115. That does not include the debt servicing of
the land. That is strictly the input cost and the revenue that
is coming off the land.
Would anybody here stay in business and produce a commodity that
will be less than what it costs to grow or produce? The answer is
that it cannot be done very often unless the equity comes out of
the land. That is what they are doing right now.
When our government was in power we supported agriculture.
Currently we have the ability under our trade agreements to have
support programs in place that would equal $3 billion to $4
billion annually.
Currently that contribution is less than $1 billion, so there is
room within the trade negotiations that we have already entered
into but the government in its wisdom has decided that the
agricultural producer is to take a great deal of the burden when
dealing with the deficit that it so gladly says it has brought
under control.
Let me give an understanding regarding what we did for
agricultural producers. We have a record of stating quite
emphatically that we will support agriculture.
Between 1984 and 1985 support for our farmers was greater than
ever before. Crop and income insurance totalled $21.7 billion.
The PC government eased the burden of borrowing from the Farm
Credit Corporation by setting up new programs like low interest
refinancing of loans with the size of payments tied to price of
products.
Farmers were also helped by a one time interest rate cut for
those locked into long term loans with high rates. Farm debt
review boards were set up to help farmers in financial trouble
make arrangements with their creditors. A special fund was set
up to help restructure debts.
We eased farm input costs with rebates on gasoline and diesel
fuel bought for farm use. We doubled the ceiling for advance
payments under the Advance Payments for Crops Act. We changed
the Farm Improvement Loans Act so that farmers could borrow money
not only to improve their farms but to diversify and develop new
marketing ideas.
Grains and oilseeds farmers hurt by the 1988 drought received
$850 million in emergency help. In 1985-86 and 1986-87, $146
million helped farmers through another season with no rain. A
$15 million rural water development program was set up in
1988-89. I could go on and on.
We were there when farmers needed us. All I am asking is that
this government be there when producers need it today. It is
very difficult to say what has to be said in 10 minutes, so I ask
for questions and comments. I would love to have more time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is a lot of
interest in questions and comments. We will do it very quickly.
The questions will be one minute and responses will be one
minute. I will be on my feet in 60 seconds. Make sure you have
framed your question and your response. That is what you will
get, not one second more.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have not spoken on this issue yet and I hope to do a
five minute but I do want to ask the hon. member a question. He
said his party has a record of stating it would support Canadian
farmers.
The hon. member should know that in the last election, under the
famous Tory blue book, the Tories wanted to take $600 million out
of the ministry of agriculture. It says: “The first is to merge
four existing federal departments: Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and Natural Resources. A Jean
Charest government will continue to expand the practice of cost
recovery. With the trend of these negotiations, a Jean Charest
government will be moving to reduce and eventually eliminate all
farm subsidies. Since agricultural subsidy programs will
inevitably be phased out around the world, there is a distinct
advantage to Canadian farmers of making this transition as soon
as possible”.
I want to ask the hon. member how he can—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Brandon—Souris.
1150
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that
the member can read another platform. It is too bad that they
cannot put into place their own platforms right now to support
agriculture.
What we did say emphatically is that there would be an
amalgamation of a number of departments. The money saved from
the administrative function of those departments, however, would
go back to the people who really deserved it, the producers.
That was the premise of that policy.
With respect to the hon. member's position as to whether
subsidization should be stopped, times change. It is unfortunate
that the government cannot deal with the change in what is going
on around us right now in the global economy. Those negotiations
were in place and subsidies were to be reduced from the EU and
the U.S. It is not subsidies—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question to the member is based on the emergency we
face today.
Net farm income in Saskatchewan fell by 84% in 1997. It has
gone down again in 1998. What we want in our party is an
emergency aid project or program now for the farmers, some
emergency aid to the farmers who really need it.
I want to know whether we can count on the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada to support an emergency aid program
now. I know it is in the midst of a leadership race. I think
Joe Clark is very understanding of that. If I were a Tory, by
the way, I would support Joe Clark, but I am not a Tory.
My concern is that I hear that David Orchard is coming on like
gangbusters in the Conservative Party. With David Orchard coming
on like gangbusters, can the hon. member assure us that if David
Orchard is the new leader of that party he would take a stand on
supporting emergency aid? I know Joe Clark would but I am
worried about David Orchard.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised
actually because David Orchard espouses the policies of the NDP.
It is nice to see that the hon. member would support Joe Clark,
as I have done right from the beginning.
I do not like to refer to it as emergency aid. As the minister
has rightfully said, we do not want ad hoc programs. We have
always said in this party that what we need is a crisis program,
a natural disaster program to deal with crises, the ice storm,
the Red River flooding, the commodity crisis in the marketplace
right now. Yes, we need a program in place to provide the
necessary financial resources for farmers to put in the spring
crop. I cannot say that any more emphatically. That is what we
would support and I would be more than happy to put our vote on
the table.
David Orchard, fortunately for our purposes, will not be in our
party much longer. I am sure he will be embraced by his previous
party, the NDP.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad the member for Brandon—Souris would like to
see this motion votable. He must know that it is a longstanding
policy of the Reform Party that we want to see all motions
votable. I hope his party would support us in that initiative.
He said he has farmer members in his constituency who do not pay
any taxes because their income is not high enough to get them
into income tax level. These people must not buy anything
because everything they buy contains an enormous tax component.
The taxes paid by everybody else get passed down to them through
their purchases.
I did some calculations a few years ago and worked it out that
50% of a farmer's input costs were taxes paid by other people.
Would the hon. member please explain?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, it is very laudable to
suggest that every motion should be votable, and we agree. Had
the Reform Party felt that this was a very serious issue, I am
sure it could have made it one of its votable supply days.
As for taxation, I agree with the member that producers pay
taxes as do every other sector of society in Canadian life. What
I said was that the tax relief program put forward by the
official opposition will not resolve the problem we have today.
A five or ten year tax regime ultimately is the best thing for
Canadians. It will not resolve the problem of those producers who
cannot put a crop in this spring. That means there has to be
support programs put into place.
If the Reform Party wants to hang its hat on a five year program
of tax relief, then unfortunately the people now finding
themselves in difficulty will not be around in five years to
support its tax relief program.
1155
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member for Brandon—Souris was interested in more
time. We got unanimous consent in questions and comments earlier
to extend that. I wonder if we could extend it for a few more
moments. Many people would like to address some of the concerns
he raised.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an interesting debate as the debates usually are
when we talk about agriculture. It is a very sad day when we get
up in the House and talk about the problems on farms. Our
producers put food on the tables of everybody in Canada and
supply that same commodity to millions of people around the
world. It is not just a tragedy but a crime that they cannot
maintain a lifestyle where they can put food on their own tables.
I will tell the House of the kinds of subsidies we farmers have
to put up with. The European farmer gets $175 an acre to sow his
crop and grow it. That is right off the start. Then he is
guaranteed that if there is a surplus they will at least pay $2 a
bushel to the exporter to get rid of the product. That is what
Canadian farmers are dealing with. It is disastrous out there in
farmland today.
When the World Trade Organization was negotiating, our trade
negotiators agreed to a 15% reduction in subsidies on farms. That
is what everybody was supposed to follow. We reduced subsidies
by 85%. We gave them an unlevel playing field that would break
every single farmer in western Canada. This put the feed prices
down to such a level that every farmer who had a buck went into a
livestock operation. Governments encouraged that. Today the hog
industry in Saskatchewan alone is losing $20 million every six
months. How long do we think that industry can survive? It is
impossible.
I was astounded when I picked up a paper with a backgrounder
about what was going on. The Canadian Wheat Board suddenly
realized that they are the lowest prices in the last four years.
Where was this organization in 1995-96 when prices were the
highest in the world? Instead of selling our grain the board
allowed it to back up in our bins. It had a million bushels of
wheat left over which was more wheat than it had the previous
year.
Finally Mr. Beswick got fed up with this type of marketing and
quit. He told western Canadian farmers that in the last year the
board had lost western barley producers $180 million. That kind
of marketing system does not work. The wheat board is there for
a purpose. It is supposed to get us the best price, not the
worst price. That is why farmers are in trouble. Did the Liberals
know about this? I think they did. I think they had a policy in
1993.
No matter what happens with commodity prices, the Americans and
the Europeans are going to look after their farmers. This is
what the Americans have done so far. They just passed a bill
that will give $3 billion in market losses to farmers in the U.S.
They have agreed that law makers will give a tax break worth
around $4 billion for farmers and small businesses.
The hon. gentleman from Brandon—Souris said farmers do not pay
any taxes. I paid my property taxes last week. Grain prices in
wheat and barley markets have been dropping by 40% to 70% but my
property taxes have gone up by 9%.
That is what happened to my input costs. That is what we are
dealing with. Not only that, but look at the parts prices. If we
want to fix a combine, a tractor, a lawnmower, the prices have
escalated to points where we just cannot afford to operate these
things any more.
1200
An hon. member: We have to buy them from the U.S.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: That is another thing. My hon.
colleague remarks that we have to buy them from the U.S. in
Canadian dollars and we know what they are worth. There is a
tragedy out there.
When the American government negotiated at the World Trade
Organization meeting it maintained at that time 24% of its
subsidies in a green box which is allowable. Our Canadian
government only maintained 8%.
That is what is going on in western Canada today. That is what
we are dealing with. I do not know what I can say to impress upon
people how serious it is.
I came through the crisis in commodity prices in 1969-70 when
farmers were forced to sell three bushels of barley for $1.
Seventy cents would buy any amount of wheat to put into a
feedlot.
When the Liberal government came to power in 1970 or 1971,
western farmers asked the Prime Minister who had created a just
society to please help them sell their wheat. What happened? He
gave them the finger. That is how the Liberal government looks
after farmers and agriculture.
I am told here today that the agriculture minister said farmers
should not be able to farm as an occupation, that they should
have a job off the farm. Is this government trying to create an
industry like the one there was in the Soviet Union? People
worked at a full day's job and then grew their food. Using a
small spade in their gardens they supplied one-third of all the
food that was produced in the Soviet Union.
If we want to see what can happen to a country where the farmers
are protected and where farming is not profitable, just go over
there. Pay them a visit. Today, if the American government does
not give that country free grain, people will starve to death
because they cannot afford to buy it. That country owes billions
of dollars to other countries. That country was number one in
1981 when I visited there. That country was the mightiest power
in the world. Because that country did not look after its economy
in the local market and its farmers, it is now the world's
biggest basket case. From 1912 to 1917 it was the bread basket of
Europe. That country has half of the agricultural land in Europe
and today it is begging other countries to give it food so people
will not starve to death.
That is how serious the situation is in western Canada. The
majority of farm families today have one of the partners and in
many cases both partners out working. They cannot survive even
if they get other jobs. That is why this government has to look
at what these farmers need.
The Liberals promised in the 1993 election that they were going
to come in with a whole farm support program that would look
after us if we had to fight the European subsidies. They have
reneged on that. Not only have they reneged on it, but they have
also done away with the programs we had. On the NISA program,
which they brag about, we were just told today in West Block by
witnesses who were appearing that out of 140,000 NISA accounts,
42,000 have less than $1,000 in them.
Young farmers cannot survive today. If we want the young
farmers on the unemployment line, they will be there. Very soon
it will not just be Case or Flexi-Coil that shut down their
lines of production. There will be shutdowns in other
industries.
If we want to have people stay in their jobs not just in the
farming industry, it is important that we make the farm viable.
Today in western Canada 45% of all jobs have some link to
agriculture. If that is not maintained, the $7 billion surplus
in the EI fund will be eaten up and will disappear.
1205
The government has a choice. It should help make farmers viable
and give them support until the markets again give them a chance
to operate on their own. Tax relief is important. When I look at
the taxes I pay on my property and I lose anywhere from $30 to
$50 an acre, that is unfair. That should not be happening.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, as
a point of clarification, when I said the tax relief situation
was not sufficient to make sure producers were back on the land
this spring, what I said was that they do not pay enough personal
income tax or corporate income tax, that any type of tax relief
would make the difference.
The hon. member talks about property taxes. I am sure he
recognizes that is not a jurisdiction of the federal government
but in fact is the jurisdiction of municipal government whom he
should probably talk to if his property taxes are too high. Any
tax relief would not relieve him of anything on his municipal
property taxes.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition say let us negotiate,
let us get out of the subsidies with the EU and the U.S., let us
make sure that there is tax relief. He did not mention the fact
that there has to be support programs today. The member said
that there have to be support programs. Would the member please
clarify that the Reform Party is advocating relief and support
programs right now for this year's agriculture.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that
question from the hon. member.
I want to point out to him that about 60% of my property taxes
are education taxes. Part of that comes from the federal
government in transfer payments so it does affect me on my
property taxes.
Look at the farm input costs on fuel. The tax on that is almost
prohibitive not just to the farmers but to the railways and
truckers for delivering the product. That is where we can reduce
the taxes.
If we were to take away all the hidden taxes I would bet there
would not be 10% of the costs. On a combine that costs $130,000 I
am told there is only $13,000 of physical property costs in that.
The rest is all taxes and labour. We are paying a lot of tax
and we are not getting anything in return for it.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, what is it the Reform Party would like to see done
first? Its motion reads that Canada should defend the interests
of farmers by challenging the unfair subsidies and unfair trading
practices of foreign countries, and that failing that it should
come up with emergency measures to provide tax relief, lower
input costs, reduce user fees and address the inadequacies of the
farm safety net programs. Before the hon. member answers, I
would like to know which one the party wants first. I would say
that if there is no emergency relief right away, it does not
matter about the first suggestion.
I do wish to remind the Reform Party as it so eloquently fights
for farmers on the central Canadian plains, as does the NDP, we
also have a crisis in farming on the east coast in Nova Scotia,
particularly in the Annapolis Valley and the Musquodoboit Valley.
I wanted to remind the member of the crisis we are facing as
well. I would also like him to answer the question I asked.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for the question.
In 1993 our trade negotiators knew what kind of subsidies we
were fighting and what had to be done to get a market that would
be fair and provide a level playing field to farmers in North
America. That was not done. That was neglected. We were
sympathetic to what had to be done. Instead of reducing our
subsidies 15%, we reduced them 85%.
1210
Farmers were willing to do that because they knew what the
problem was. As long as there was a market and decent prices, we
did not complain about losing the extra profit. Today that has
to be returned to the farming sector. The unfairness of the deal
negotiated by the trade negotiators was not the fault of the
farmers. It was the government's fault. The Liberals are the
government. We as the opposition can only point out to them what
the problem is and what funds are needed.
The government does the books and it has to make sure that the
money is somewhere. I do not think farmers care from where it
comes, whether it is out of NISA or out of the GRIP program which
was dissolved in all three prairie provinces. Farmers have to
have some support to tide them over until we get a level playing
field and prices improve. And they will.
In 1971 the government gave us $6 an acre to summer fallow and
we had a billion bushels of wheat that we could not sell. By
1974 we could not find a kernel of wheat in a granary anywhere
because the demand was there. When millions of people are
starving to death—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask for consent to split my time with the member for
Dauphin—Swan River. This is an important issue to many of us
and he would like a few minutes to voice his opinion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Lethbridge would like to split his time. The member would have
five minutes on debate and two and one-half minutes for questions
and comments. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, we have talked about a lot
of issues today but the main thing which was pointed out by the
member from the NDP is that this is a Canadian issue from coast
to coast. All farmers are being affected by this. The problems as
we see them are that we are facing the lowest commodity prices in
years and farm incomes have dropped right off the table. There
are some reasons for this.
We have border disputes which are mainly due to poor regulations
and losses at the trade table. Farmers are not allowed to
compete fairly with choice in the market. We are facing unfair
subsidies by the EU and U.S. governments. The government has not
helped, as I mentioned, at the trade tables. The NISA program is
not sufficient and was not designed to handle this magnitude of a
problem across Canada. This government has been unprepared and
unwilling to come forward and admit that there is a problem.
There are high freight costs across the country and our
transportation system is in disarray.
Our motion points out some things that the Reform Party proposes
could be done to rectify the problem.
Canadian farmers are facing some of the toughest times they have
seen in 30 years. Farmers are accustomed to having to deal with
the cyclical patterns of the markets. However, prices of nearly
all major farm commodities are down drastically and not just down
seriously.
Farmers are worried about the border trade disputes, whether
they will have enough cash to seed next spring, even whether they
will have enough cash to pay their bills at the end of this year.
When farmers cannot pay their bills, it has far-reaching effects
right across our economy. Gross farm income continues to decline
yet input prices continue to rise. How are our farmers supposed
to survive? What is at the root of these problems? There are
many things but I will try to elaborate on a few.
There are American and European farmers who seek massive
subsidies from their governments. European farmers are having a
record year. American farmers are in line for nearly a $6
billion handout and they will receive tax breaks, something that
we have been requesting for many, many years. Give our Canadian
taxpayers a break.
This government has not offered Canadian farmers any of these
things. Canada has been very diligent in cutting off its
subsidies when it comes to agriculture. The government has
repeatedly thrown Canadian farmers to the wolves, all in the name
of WTO.
This government has not protected our farmers. Our farmers are
the ones who put food on the table for every Canadian and they do
it with a passion. Canadian farming is not just a business, it
is a way of life. It is a way of life that is unique and
important to Canada.
As a result of cutting the Crow rate, producers have had to
absorb the full cost of freight which is sometimes as high as 33%
of the cost of production.
Railway lines have been abandoned. Producers who 20 years ago
had to pay for the upgrading of railway lines are now facing the
prospect of these same lines closing. The government is so
short-sighted that it does not realize the implications of this.
It does not understand that a huge increase in truck traffic will
require a huge increase in road upkeep.
1215
The Canadian government collects $2.7 billion in fuel taxes from
the four western provinces, yet it only returns $35 million.
These taxes are supposed to be used for road maintenance, but
most of it disappears into general revenue. The roads in this
country will be ground into dust if the government does not
return the money that has been sucked out of the provinces.
In my area, the intensive livestock area, the fact that the
infrastructure cannot handle the switch that the farmers have
made into intensive livestock is the subject of much debate.
They are paying money every time they start their vehicle through
fuel taxes, but that money is not being returned to upkeep the
infrastructure.
The government has no comprehensive plan to deal with this
situation. NISA is not the answer. As has been pointed out,
many of the NISA accounts have $1,000 in them and the average
account is $18,000. That does not go very far in paying a
farmer's bills.
The Reform Party supports our farmers. It has consistently been
the voice for the man in the field. This government has shown
that time and time again it does not care about farmers. It has
been in power for over five years and has done nothing to improve
the lot of our agriculture community. This government is in
control of the next budget. When will it make agriculture a
priority?
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the west coast fisheries report came out today and there
is one statement in it that applies very equitably to agriculture
and farming in this country. It says “Our fisheries and marine
policy on the west coast is a perfect example of how Canada does
not work, how unaccountable and dysfunctional our system of
government can be”. If we get rid of the words “fisheries and
marine policy” and replace them with “farming and agriculture
policy” would the member not agree that statement is accurate
when it comes to farming and agriculture in this country?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, the basis of the problem is
receiving fair value for the product produced, whatever that
product may be.
The agriculture community is one of the only areas where farmers
have no influence over their input costs. They have no influence
over the taxes they pay and somebody else tells them how much
they are going to get when they sell their product.
Speaking personally, I have a small farm. I hauled in my crop
this year and sold it through the board. It was durum wheat. I
had 100 tonnes of crop off a quarter section of dry land and I
received $7,300 net in my pocket. It does not matter how many
quarter sections there are, that is not going to cut it. That
does not pay the bills and it does not put food on the table. It
does not keep the economy going.
We could apply that to any industry, whether it be fisheries,
farming, forestry or our retail sector. Anybody who is in
business, and farming is a business, has to receive a fair price
for the product they are producing. That is what we are after.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
first I would like to thank the member for Lethbridge for
splitting his precious time with me.
My riding is Dauphin—Swan River and it certainly is a rural
riding. Farming is the backbone of the riding. There is no
doubt that the health of all the communities in my riding depends
on the cash in the pockets of farmers.
There is a real farm crisis whether the government realizes it
or not. It is impacting farmers, and certainly farm families, as
many of them are going broke and they rely on farming for their
livelihood.
I have received a countless number of calls on this issue. At
times as a member of parliament I feel very helpless. All I can
do is bring the messages to this House and I am very glad to have
the opportunity to relate those messages to members of this House
today. Hopefully the government will listen to the real people
in the ridings.
I would like to put some face to the concerned farmers and
farming families and tell the House what they have asked me to
do. I will begin by saying that the president of KAP, the
Keystone Agricultural Producers Inc., has talked to me about the
crisis in farming. This organization represents many farm
producers in Manitoba.
1220
Those producers are very concerned. This is not only a crisis
in Manitoba, it is a crisis in all of western Canada. In the
upcoming months KAP will host meetings throughout the province to
listen to farmers.
A lady by the name of Audrey Warkentin from Fork River called
me. She is concerned that their family farm is at risk of going
under. She is concerned about the prices at this time because
they cannot meet cash requirements.
David Hanlin from Miniota in my riding wanted to talk about the
low prices of grain and the high prices of chemicals and
machinery. The price of grain has bottomed out. He tells me it
will eventually put him out of business.
Stan Yaskiw of Birtle, Manitoba, is very concerned about the farm
economy as it has been impacting his life and his family.
Bert Stewart of Benito, Manitoba, is concerned about the farming
economy and low prices. The cash crunch is impacting on his
family farm. He has farmed most of his life.
Don Ray from Russell, Manitoba, called about the low grain prices
and his farm income, which is in jeopardy. He told me that he
has 1,500 acres and that it requires $250 an acre to maintain
equipment and pay for fuel. He has also experienced a crop loss
due to flooding, not from a flood like the one in Winnipeg, but
from too much rain. Part of my riding received too much rain
over the past summer. In his area there were numerous fields
which were flooded. There was a 50% loss due to excessive
moisture. He wants to know how the government can help him
survive as a farmer.
Bert Stewart from Benito has the same concerns. In fact, 55
cents per bushel of barley puts him at great risk. He told me
that 333 bottles of beer are produced from one bushel of barley.
He would like to see some of those returns.
Cam Mateika from Swan River is paying more for freight now and
he is getting less money for his crops. He cannot survive. He
says that many farmers are talking the same way. There certainly
is a crisis out there.
David Wilson from Rapid City has a problem surviving. He says
that GRIP has been a total disaster as far as he is concerned.
Farmers were counting on it. He has also heard many horror
stories about NISA.
Barry Durston, another constituent of mine, is concerned about
commodity prices, freight rates and NISA. He is not happy with
the whole business of NISA and how it has been dealt with.
There is a crisis out there. People are pleading for help.
These are real people. The government needs to be accountable to
these people. We help people in crisis situations like the ice
storm and floods. This is a time when the government needs to
help people who farm for a living because their livelihood is at
stake.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for Dauphin—Swan River for his remarks.
The member comes from a province with the most diversified
agricultural base in western Canada, and people have done a lot
in that regard. They do not rely on one or two crops. They are
very diversified these days. They are even growing a lot of
potatoes. They are in competition with my province.
He has brought up individual situations. I would like to have
his comments on the fact that the government has to take into
consideration the suffering of all farmers and the different
commodities across Canada. We cannot take an ad hoc approach and
simply write a cheque today. We have to look at the statistics
and we have to look at individuals on an individual basis to
ascertain who is most in need and who has been taking advantage
of the NISA program.
1225
This is going to take a little time. I do not think the hon.
member wants us to sit down tonight, write a cheque and send it
to Manitoba. The government has to get in touch with its
provincial counterparts, with the producers in those provinces
and in those commodities and do what is right.
I would like to know if the member agrees with that way of doing
things.
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of
the hon. member opposite.
The difference here is that farmers in the west are open to the
global impact of markets and farmers down east do not have that.
We do not have the protection of marketing boards.
Yes, we are talking about farmers who diversify. They grow
different crops, and not only cash crops, they also have cattle
and hogs. But the whole bottom is falling out because of what is
happening on the international markets.
The domestic market in eastern Canada is protected by marketing
boards, but western farmers do not have that protection and
safeguard.
I would state at this time, because of the circumstances, that
the farmers out west do need help. It is a time of crisis for
them and their livelihood totally depends on that help.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time
with one of my colleagues.
I think it is indeed worthwhile to take whatever time is
required to look at the situation of the agricultural industry
across Canada. Needless to say it is an industry of vital
importance. The agri-food industry accounts for about 9% of
Canada's gross domestic product, employs nearly two million
people and generates almost $91 billion a year in sales on the
domestic market. It is appropriate to take stock of what is
going on in the industry and paint a realistic picture of the
current situation.
Nationally, net farm income is expected to drop from the 1997
record level, given the prices of major commodities like pork,
cattle and grains, which undergo cyclical downturns, and the
fact that some of our best foreign markets have been affected by
the so-called Asian flu.
In addition, depreciation expenses will grow in 1998 to take
into account the substantial capital investments made in this
industry in recent years. It is also to be expected that
Saskatchewan and Manitoba will be particularly hard hit.
However, I want to make it clear that this is not a widespread
situation. Cyclical downturns do not affect all industries the
same way.
For instance, income from dairy, eggs, poultry and horticulture
will remain stable. Farm cash receipts in a number of industries
have actually been good these past few years, resulting in
record revenues in 1997.
However, it is important to recognize that the difficulties
experienced in the agricultural industry are part of a much
larger economic problem. Indeed, no one is immune to the Asian
flu.
As the finance minister indicated in his economic and financial
update last week, most countries in the world are experiencing a
recession, and the International Monetary Fund now predicts 2%
economic growth worldwide this year, instead of the 3.1% growth
forecast just months ago.
Stock markets around the world have plunged, and commodity
prices have dropped nearly 30% from the peak reached at the end
of 1996. In absolute terms, they are now closer to their all-time
low since the early 1970s.
But the global economy will recover from this difficult period,
as it has in the past, and Canada is in a particularly good
position, because it has put its fiscal house in order.
In the agricultural industry, the price of most of the products
that we sell has always been determined by world markets. When
commodity prices go down, farm income does also. Conversely,
when the global economy is on the upswing and commodity prices
bounce back, farm income follows the same trend.
1230
Farmers will tell us that cyclical downturns are unavoidable,
that they often anticipate them, and that they do their best to
cope with the situation.
As a government, we have done our best to help farmers prepare
for cyclical downturns and we continue to do so. The Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is currently hearing
representations from those concerned, so that, together, we can
find solutions to provide greater security to our farmers.
Each year the federal and provincial governments invest $1
billion in farm income protection programs.
This money is in addition to the contributions made to the
various programs by the farmers themselves.
The result is that farmers have now accumulated over $2.5
billion in net income stabilization accounts, which are the
cornerstone of our national income security program. According
to preliminary studies conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, the majority of those contributing to net income
stabilization accounts have enough money in their accounts to
meet their needs during the winter.
Moreover, crop insurance will probably make payments of about
$430 million this year to help farmers who have suffered a
shortfall. The government also set up services to help farmers
who, for one reason or another, could not meet their cashflow
requirements.
Most farmers remain optimistic about the future. The primary
production industry is in most cases in a good financial
position and things look very positive. In fact, levels of
investment in the industry continue to increase.
Long term positive outlooks for the sector are in fact one of
the reasons for this situation. The healthy cash flow and
credit positions of many farm operations is another reason.
The other important factor is the general good health of the
Canadian economy, characterized by a lack of deficit, low
interest rates and relatively low inflation. As the minister
mentioned, the government has taken a pragmatic and strategic
approach to the financial challenges. We have set guidelines.
We have followed them and will continue to do so in the future.
I will give members an example. At one point, as tangible
support, the Farm Credit Corporation initiated the agristart
plan.
The agristart program provides a new range of farm loans to
ensure the future of farmers expanding their operation and to
help pass on farm operations from one generation to the next.
There are three types of loan. There is the family farm loan,
which enables the developing farmer to finance the purchase of
farm assets, or transfer shares in a family farm business. The
1-2-3 grow loan permits farmers starting or expanding an
enterprise to defer payments over three years or longer in order
to accommodate the drop in their income. The payday loan is for
people wanting to start a farm or people with off-farm employment
wanting to expand their operation.
This government is continuing to work closely with farmers and
the provinces to set up an income protection program that meets
the sector's current and future needs.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, if we listen to the conversation in the Liberal Party we
would think there is nothing wrong with our farming communities
and farm families.
Unfortunately the fact is that farmers are in a crisis and need
help now. They do not need further consultation with industry
leaders and Liberal backbenchers or government people. They need
emergency assistance now, and not just on the prairies but from
coast to coast to coast.
The hon. member mentioned that some industries and some parts of
the farming practices were doing well. I remind him that the
farmers and agricultural producers of the Annapolis Valley, as
well as the Hants East area and the Musquodoboit Valley in my
area, are suffering due to weather droughts and everything else
that is happening.
1235
Members of the federal government are downloading responsibility
on to the backs of the provinces. It is similar to what they did
in health care. It is similar to what they did in the fishing
industry.
We do not have a national agricultural policy. That is one of
the main reasons we have such a crisis today. If the government
had paid attention to rural Canadians and their needs, we would
not be having this discussion today.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague listened
carefully to what I was saying earlier, he will realize that we
have many existing programs to serve farmers' immediate needs.
As for the future, and this is important as well, there are the
upcoming negotiations with the World Trade Organization.
As for the present crisis and farmers' reduced incomes, we all
listening to communities from all provinces. Their spokespersons
are appearing before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food and together we are trying to find the best solutions
possible.
At the same time, we are preparing Canada's position for the
upcoming negotiations with the WTO.
An important fact that I did not raise earlier, but one which I
would like to mention to my hon. colleague, is that the present
state of the Canadian dollar allows us to increase our exports.
I come from Brome—Missisquoi, a riding bordering on Vermont.
Because the Canadian dollar is weaker than the American dollar,
farmers in my riding can cross the border, sell more on the
American side, as well as diversify our farm economy.
These are positive measures that farmers themselves are taking,
which result in a favourable balance of trade.
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to comment on the Reform member's answer to my question that this
appeared to be a western Canadian issue. I remind the official
opposition that there is a beef industry in the rest of Canada.
There is a hog industry in the rest of Canada. There is also a
wheat board in Ontario. To say this is strictly a disaster for
western Canada is misplaced.
The government supports Canada's agriculture and agri-food
industry in a way that works for industry shareholders and for
all Canadians. We have not abandoned our agriculture industry
and we will not abandon the people who feed our nation and our
planet.
The Government of Canada invests $600 million each year in
safety nets for Canadian farmers. The provinces add another $400
million to that total, which means that Canada has one of the
most stable and reliable farm safety net systems in the world. It
is not perfect but it has been working, helping farmers to
achieve stable incomes by banking money in the good years to use
in the bad years.
I will not minimize the challenges facing some of Canada's
producers today. Some are dealing with the fallout from
fluctuations in foreign markets. Some are dealing with normal
cyclical downturns in prices for some major commodities. Some
are dealing with poor yields. That is why the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food has called together farm group leaders
and provincial ministers of agriculture for a meeting tomorrow in
Ottawa.
For the past several years governments and producers have worked
closely together so that today we can manage the challenges
facing us. That partnership will continue at the meeting
tomorrow. The current situation will be discussed as will the
tools government and producers have worked to put in place to
deal with this kind of situation. There are $2.5 billion in the
net income stabilization accounts of farmers. These accounts
were put in place to help out in situations like the one facing
farmers today.
In addition to the net income stabilization account or NISA
farmers can take advantage of crop insurance which protects them
against losses from hail, drought or other natural disasters and
is expected to pay out about $430 million this year. Farmers can
also use province specific programs to which the federal
government contributes $200 million. That will not stop the
government from working with farmers and the provinces to explore
what else can be done for farm income protection programs.
1240
Just as we began preparing for this situation five years ago, we
are preparing for the future today. We have positioned ourselves
through our safety net programming to meet and manage both the
foreseen and the unforeseen blips that show up from time to time
on our radar screens.
The advance payments program also helps farmers manage risk by
providing loan guarantees so that farmers can receive cash when
they need it but still have the flexibility to negotiate the best
possible price for their crops.
This program kicked in for the benefit of grain producers
earlier this summer. Given the early harvest and the resulting
need for cash, federal government and Canadian Wheat Board
officials worked to get cash advances issued two weeks earlier
than normal, a full four weeks earlier than last year.
It is important to note that farm safety net programs are not
the only way in which we are supporting the agricultural
industry. The government is making a number of strategic
investments to help Canadian producers be competitive. These
investments help to improve access to the latest technology,
access to up to date and relevant industry information, and
access to new markets abroad.
Our agriculture and agri-food minister was a farmer himself for
many years. He knows how important research and investment are
to Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry, important enough
that as a country our total spending per year on research in the
sector amounts to about $1 billion. The Government of Canada is
the largest single contributor, investing more than $350 million
annually. Much of the research is done in partnership with the
private sector in programs like the matching investment
initiative which helps to ensure we meet the industry's research
priorities.
As a result of our activity Canada is a world leader in
innovative agri-food research and farmers reap the rewards from
that. Because of research producers have access to new and
better crop and livestock production techniques, more
environmentally and economically sound ways to manage disease and
insect pests, and cutting edge technology. All these add up to a
more competitive industry.
We further enhance our competitiveness through trade agreements,
export and marketing programs, and export credit facilities that
help farmers not only satisfy the domestic market but expand into
markets abroad as well.
We are also investing in the sector in other ways that encourage
farmers to diversify production and adapt to changing consumer
demands. The Canadian adaptation and rural development fund is a
$60 million a year fund designed to help farmers and others in
the agri-food industry adapt to changing market conditions.
Farmers and other agri-food stakeholders are able to take a very
hands on approach to this program. Through their participation
on councils in each province and their involvement in national
programs, they help to decide on the priorities and expenditures
for CARD related activities.
On another front the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has
been working with provincial agriculture ministers and deputy
ministers to develop an investment strategy designed to improve
the investment climate in Canada. This summer they agreed to
focus their efforts on promoting Canada as an investment location
and on securing increased investment in Canada's agriculture and
agri-food industry.
Short and medium term work plans will be implemented to increase
investment activity. Departmental officials will establish
performance targets so that we can track progress and make sure
we provide top quality service to interested investors.
The Federal-Provincial Steering Committee on Investment is
continuing to work to ensure that our investment strategy is
implemented and that the Canadian agri-food industry is duly
consulted. I am confident that these efforts on the investment
side will also contribute to a stronger agricultural sector and a
better livelihood for Canadian farmers.
Farmers have made tremendous progress since we last experienced
low commodity prices in the mid-1980s. They deserve credit for
working hard to embrace new ways of doing business, to manage
their operations better and to take advantage of the tools that
governments have put in place to help them manage risk.
As a result the net worth of farmers on average has gone up.
Farm assets have reached historical highs. The debt to equity
ratio has been declining since 1991. This is good news. It
indicates that most of our farmers are in good shape as we enter
this period of depressed income in certain areas. In short, the
system we have may not be perfect but an ad hoc system like the
one in the United States is not the answer. Our farmers want a
system that is reliable and predictable.
Our challenge now is to continue to work together to refine our
system so that it meets the needs of Canadian farmers now in
these difficult times and long into the future. That is exactly
what we intend to do.
1245
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will speak on this motion soon, but I could not help but react to
the parliamentary secretary's comments that our farmers are in
good shape going into this crisis. He is certainly living in a
different world from where I live. He quoted NISA as the answer.
Perhaps his part of the country is different, but in mine the
average NISA account will not pay the fertilizer or chemical bill
for one year. In my part of the world farmers when they have a
good year invest it in their operation to improve it and not into
an RRSP for their retirement.
The member talked about the advanced payment scheme as a safety
net program. What good is an advanced payment scheme when the
cost of the commodity they are selling is lower than the cost of
production?
I cannot believe this member would stand there and throw out
these systems in place as the answer or even anywhere near the
answer to the problems facing agriculture. Farmers are are
producing hogs at $30 less than the cost of production. How will
those programs help those farmers?
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Athabasca quoted me out of context. What I said is that farmers
are in good shape as we enter this period of depressed income in
certain areas. That means we are in better shape than we would
be if we had not put the programs in place that we have.
The Canadian farming community is coming off the best five years
on average in the history of the country. That is not saying
that all this money is in the bank waiting to be spent. But there
is $2.5 billion in the NISA accounts which is put there
specifically for this purpose, to access in times of a downturn
in the economy whether it is a collapse of markets or a collapse
of price.
We have these programs like advanced payments for crops in
place. The situation would be much more difficult if these
programs were not in place and if farmers had not been saving and
putting money into the NISA accounts.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his words today.
I note that opposition members keep trying to suggest this is
somehow a western Canadian problem. As usual they always try to
pit the west against the east.
The hon. member is from Prince Edward Island which is also one
of the hardest hit areas in Canada. I wonder if the hon. member
can bring us up to date as to the situation in his home province
which I know he is very concerned about.
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, in Prince Edward Island we
have a hog industry that is in very poor shape, as it is right
across Canada. As was indicated earlier, we do have a supply
managed system in dairy and in other areas. This is why the
marketing boards were put in place in the first place. They put
order into chaos. Canadian farmers are benefiting from the
forethought and the planning of previous Liberal ministers in the
Government of Canada.
The situation is not as difficult as it may be in areas where a
supply managed program would not work. It is difficult to have a
supply managed program for grains. It is a crop that relies on
exports.
In this case there is a downturn because the markets for exports
in grain have diminished. The demand for pork in the Asian
markets has collapsed. Therefore there is a more serious problem
in the western provinces than there may be in the east. There
are a lot of producers in the east, in Prince Edward Island, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia and in Quebec. We can look back to a few
weeks ago when there were hog farmers blocking the Trans-Canada
Highway.
1250
There are problems in eastern Canada with the same commodities
as there are in western Canada, even though we are more
diversified. However, the west is becoming more diversified in
agriculture and that is because of the programs put in place by
the Liberal government.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Before we continue debate can I get the consent of the House to
ask the member a couple of key questions?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate being part of this debate. From my point of view and
my constituents' point of view this will be one of the most
important debates in this session of parliament. Farmers across
the country who are certainly listening as we discuss this issue
in the House will hopefully get some indication of where the
government is coming from on the issue.
In order to have a productive and useful debate, the members
opposite must be open to the arguments put forth by the
opposition parties. That does not appear to be what is happening
today. This is the case, of course, in all debates but it is
particularly crucial when debating an agricultural issue.
Farmers from across Canada are suffering serious economic
hardship. Unfortunately few are represented by Liberal
government members in this House. Outside of Ontario the Liberal
government holds very few rural seats. It is extremely difficult
for rural farmers to make their voices heard when dealing with an
urban based government. It is for this reason that debates like
this one are so important.
As a rural Canadian third generation farmer, I am especially
close to this issue. I am extremely troubled by the government's
dismissive attitude toward the issue. Thus far the government
has done little more than minimize the magnitude of the problem.
We heard just that from the previous two speakers.
Government ministers have not even gone so far as to acknowledge
there is an income problem let alone a net farm income crisis.
Whether the government has acknowledged it or not, the farm
income crisis is very real, painfully real, for farmers feeling
its effect.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
minister fully admitted there was a problem this morning in his
remarks. Maybe the members opposite should be a little more
truthful.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member would not want to
suggest that anybody was not being truthful, but I think he would
also know that what he is really raising is a point of debate. I
am sure he will get ample opportunity in questions and comments
to make his point.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, in recent months I have
sat around the kitchen table with farmers and their families who
are feeling the real effect and it is extremely painful.
From 1996 to 1997 farm income declined by a whopping 55%. This
decline was especially felt in the west where farm net income
dropped by 35% in Alberta, 40% in Manitoba and 84% in
Saskatchewan. Farm income will likely fall another 40% across
the country this year. Like last year, this decline will be felt
more severely in the west.
I am dumbfounded as to how the government can deny there is a
crisis in light of these statistics, especially in light of the
fact that other governments have responded to this problem. The
United States has already announced a $6 billion package for
agriculture producers. This package includes $3 billion in
market loss payments to offset low prices and $2.5 billion in
disaster relief for crop loss.
The measures taken by the U.S. are significant for two reasons.
First, the U.S. government has not only acknowledged the crisis
but has responded to it. Already our government is two steps
behind. Second, further subsidization in the U.S. can only
worsen the crisis in Canada. It is imperative that the Liberal
government deal with the issue of trade distortion and foreign
subsidies.
It is also important that the government take these issues
seriously. I have little confidence that this government will do
that.
This fall when mid-western states began disruptive actions
barring the entry of Canadian livestock and grains into the U.S.,
some government ministers dismissed these actions as election
year nonsense.
1255
Election year nonsense was not the problem. Falling commodity
prices are at the root of the dispute and they will not disappear
after the U.S. election. That is just one small example of the
way the agriculture portfolio has been handled over these years.
In each of the three generations of farming in my family there
was one or more income crises, although perhaps varying in
degrees of intensity. In each case the government went through a
period of denial before taking action. This denial stems from
fear as the government has never had a comprehensive plan to
ensure secure future for the agriculture industry in Canada.
In response to questions about this crisis, the minister of
agriculture has repeatedly stated that the net income
stabilization account will adequately address the current
situation.
NISA was never intended for a crisis of this magnitude. NISA
accounts contain an average of only $18,500 per account which is
not enough to cover the average fertilizer or chemical bill for
even one year.
The program has not had enough time to accumulate adequate funds
and the government is partly to blame for this as there were
years of delay in making the decision to implement a farm safety
net program.
Many businesses will not have enough money to finance the
upcoming season and many more will go bankrupt if the crisis is
permitted to continue even longer. This is an urgent matter.
Measures must be taken now so that farmers can make decisions
about the upcoming spring.
As part of its election platform the Liberal government
committed to a whole farm safety net program to see farmers
through such crises. Now the crisis is here. Nothing has been
done and the government is poorly prepared to deal with it.
This government must make modifications to the existing safety
net program such as NISA and follow through with promises to
develop a whole farm safety net program that includes disaster
relief.
The government must also address trade issues. When the world
trade agreement was signed in 1994 the intention was to level the
global playing field for Canadian farmers. If anything, the
playing field has grown steeper with Canada at the bottom of the
slope.
Canada is fighting an uphill battle against heavily subsidized
American and European producers. American farmers will receive
billions of dollars in extra assistance this year. Americans also
have emergency aid for natural disasters. In addition, the
Americans have income support to offset depressed commodity
prices.
According to the Canadian Wheat Board Americans receive $2.68
per bushel in direct subsidies. Meanwhile their competitors in
Canada receive a subsidy of less than 40 cents per bushel. This
difference is nothing when compared to the difference between
Canadian and European subsidies.
European grain farmers receive direct area support payments of
$175 per acre just for being farmers. European farmers also
receive intervention support that creates floor prices for grain.
OECD's analysis of this situation shows that Canadians have
approximately a 10% subsidy, Americans 30% and Europeans 36% to
37%.
Canadians have upheld their commitment to reduce subsidies and
have proceeded quicker than required. Now it is the
responsibility of the government to address foreign subsidies.
The government must ensure that our foreign competitors are
meeting their commitments and trade responsibilities. No one can
know how long this crisis will continue or how serious it will
become.
Asian economies represent approximately 20% of Canada's
agri-food exports and there is no way to know when these
economies will recover.
Livestock and grain sectors are the most susceptible to declines
in income and will be most severely impacted by the collapse of
world commodity markets. Something must be done.
I am truly shocked that the government is so dismissive of an
industry so central to our nation's existence. One of the
fundamental factors determining the success or very existence of
a nation is its ability to feed its people. A country becomes
vulnerable once it is dependent on other countries to feed
itself.
By allowing American and European competitors to provide unfair
advantage to producers through subsidies and refusing to provide
additional assistance to farmers, this government is jeopardizing
the future of agriculture in Canada.
My colleagues and I are not asking for retaliatory
subsidization. Canada has been moving toward production and
trade based on competitive advantage, a steady progression we
support.
However, global free trade must also be fair trade. At this
point Canada is getting the short end of the stick.
I implore the government to address this problem immediately.
There are a number of measures that could be taken, including
eliminating or placing a moratorium on all cost recovery
programs, eliminating the excise tax on farm fuels, improving
transportation to help farmers in the long term, introducing
general tax reductions for Canadians, and introducing some
flexibility to enable the Farm Credit Corporation to deal with
the crisis in agriculture.
1300
It is imperative that the government push for reductions to
foreign subsidies and for the elimination of trade barriers which
continue to depress the prices our producers receive. The first
step is acknowledgement of the problem and that has yet to
happen.
It is my sincere hope that by the end of the day the government
will be able to admit that Canadian farmers are in crisis and
that the farm income crisis is an issue worthy of its immediate
attention. Ignoring this crisis amounts to jeopardizing the
backbone of Canadian society.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, was I mistaken or did I
hear the member for Athabasca say that the governing party was
largely an urban based party? Did I hear that correctly? If I
did, do I have to remind the hon. member that the government has
probably more rural based members than the official opposition. I
suggest the hon. member take a look at the province of Ontario
and what rural members have accomplished in that province.
I realize the member for Athabasca resents the ethanol biomass
program. However, I would point out that if he makes a speech
that is on record and goes to the people of his constituency, he
should put it in the proper perspective.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I stand by my comments.
The governing party is largely an urban based party. I did not
say it did not have any rural representation. It certainly has
no rural representation in Saskatchewan or Alberta, but it is
well representative of the legal profession.
All those things aside, I am not here to debate the percentage
of farmers or farm based people in my party or in the governing
party. I am here to debate the crisis in agriculture. That is
simply a diversion from the issue that we are here to debate.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague in the Reform Party makes an excellent
point. The government is trying to paint this as a partisan
issue of some sort. It is not a partisan issue. If we wanted it
to be a partisan issue, we would have made it votable. We could
have done all kinds of things.
Everybody is trying to take shots at everybody else here. We
are trying to highlight the fact that the government has bungled
this portfolio badly. We need to address these issues now.
I find it unbelievable that the parliamentary secretary
continues to defend NISA. We are here to try to debate the
issue. NISA is not cutting it. Farmers have to contribute to it
and many farmers have not.
To demonstrate how out of touch the government is, I take one
phrase the parliamentary secretary used. He said that it has
been the best five years in the history of agriculture. Where do
these people live? I concur with what my colleague said. They
must be living in downtown Toronto to make a statement like that.
They cannot live in rural Canada and maintain that stand.
Then they went on to talk about advance payments. Farmers do
not want to borrow more money. That is not why we are bringing
forth the motion today. We have to walk and chew gum at the same
time, I guess. We have to look at the long range and we have to
look at the short range. We have to fix what is broken and help
them out in the meantime. That is what has to take place.
I conclude by going back to one thing the minister said. If
this is his answer to the whole crisis, we are in big trouble. He
said that they wanted to show farmers how to use all the tools in
their toolbox. They should not throw a wrench in the gears and
bring the whole agricultural machine to a grinding stop and then
make that kind of statement. This is ridiculous.
1305
The government ripped out the Crow subsidy. It did not have
time for transportation costs. It did not provide for any
competition and so on. There has been so much misrepresentation
on the part of the government in this debate that it needs to be
corrected.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, my colleague
demonstrates the passion with which some of us view this issue.
He is very correct.
As I said in my presentation, I am the third generation on my
family farm. When my grandfather arrived in this country he just
barely settled on the farm and had to face the depression of the
thirties. That pattern has repeated and repeated itself and
every time the government came up with some emergency measure and
promised a long term whole farm program of some sort to deal with
the problems in agriculture, the cyclical nature of prices. Every
time it has failed to do so.
We are asking the government to live up to the commitment it
made in the election campaign and sit down with the stakeholders
in this business to develop a long term whole farm program that
will work, not to continue with ad hoc emergency programs that it
keeps coming up with.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my colleagues have spoken at some length on the big
agricultural picture. Others will probably do so. I will
address a very specific problem which the government could solve
quickly with a few strokes of the pen at no cost to the general
public.
If the government would remove some of the obstacles it has
created to value added activity, there would be immediate
measurable benefits to prairie agriculture. I am not referring
only to the onerous payroll taxes. These are not specific to
agriculture when they are the bane of all entrepreneurs, not just
farmers or farm enterprises.
I am referring to the requirement that grain used in production
of food for export out of its province of origin is subject to
the same freight and elevation charges as grain shipped to port
position. This bizarre situation is actively hindering economic
diversification and benefiting overseas processors of our grains.
Excessive freight and handling charges are the largest single
component of a grain farmer's production costs. With the Crow
benefit gone the prairie grain industry's best hope for long term
survival is to get away from the century old mentality of
exporting, to process more grain at home and to export more
finished product.
Paying $30 or $35 a tonne to move a lesser quantity of high
value finished product makes a lot more economic sense than
shipping raw material to port position. The federal government
does not force mining companies to ship unmilled ore or logging
companies to ship only logs, although I would say that with the
abysmally stupid softwood lumber agreement they are not allowed
to add value beyond sawn lumber for the U.S. market. Sometimes I
wonder whose side the government is on, but that is another
debate for another day.
After a producer has paid the cost of trucking grain to a miller
or maltster, which in some instances may be 200 or 300 kilometres
from the farm, there is no logic or justification for hitting him
with freight, elevation and terminal charges. Where is the
incentive to deliver to a domestic facility when merely
delivering the grain to the local elevator through the CWB for
export, as is, gives the same net return?
The government rationalizes that the price received, for
example, at the malting facilities at Biggar, Saskatchewan, has
all the freight and handling charges built in and that the
deduction is therefore only a bookkeeping exercise.
1310
That is utter nonsense. To be sure, without government
intervention through the board the market price in Biggar would
probably, as the minister loves to reiterate, be lower than the
Vancouver price including freight and elevation. Would it be $45
a tonne less? The maltsters' freight costs for exports are based
on the quantity of product, not on the quantity of raw barley
used in the process.
By the way did you know, Mr. Speaker, that a farmer receives
six-tenths of one cent for the barley used to produce a bottle of
beer? I thought I would just throw that in for your information.
The minister himself stated three years ago:
As the cost of shipping raw unprocessed grain increases, the
wisdom of shipping possibly lower volume but higher value
processed grain product also increases. By further processing on
the prairies the proportion of the value of the commodity which
is spent on transportation is reduced, thereby improving returns
to the local economy.
I could not have said it better. If the minister really
believes what he said, why has he not initiated changes to the
constipating regulations and enabled producers to benefit from
that exercise? Obviously it would be nearly impossible to market
all our export grain as pasta, flour or malt, but any significant
increase would help to move us away from being hewers of wood and
drawers of water.
Three years ago the minister's grain marketing panel recommended
that organically produced grain be removed from board control.
Polls have shown that the majority of board supporters would
support that. Neither the board nor grain companies provide any
service to organic farmers who must personally market and arrange
shipment of bagged grain or flour, mostly for the yuppie market
in the United States. Nevertheless their production is subject
to the board's buyback provisions.
For example, Arnold Schmidt of Fox Valley, Saskatchewan, has
been producing exceptionally high quality organically grown wheat
for more than 10 years. There is a high demand for the raw grain
and the flour milled on his farm. By the way, he employs five
people in his operation to upgrade his product. There is high
demand for his product not only in Canada but in the United
States where it sells at a very good premium price. He never
gets to see one penny of the premium because it is forcibly
extracted from him for services that he does not receive.
To consummate a sale into the U.S., Mr. Schmidt is first
required to go through the charade of selling to the wheat board.
The grain does not actually pass through a grain elevator because
even the slightest contamination by other grain would destroy its
premium value. Nevertheless he has to pay the grain company
about $200 for doing the government paperwork on a 20 tonne
shipment. Then he pays the board a buyback premium of $2 a
bushel.
Levying a huge charge for which the farmer receives absolutely
nothing can only be described as extortion. When organized crime
engages in activities of this nature the perpetrators sometimes
go to prison, but for organic farmers the situation is reversed.
Confiscation of the fruits of their labour by busy little
bureaucrats is protected and enforced by the majesty of the law,
but a producer who resists is subject to heavy fines. It is no
wonder that the business of supplying certified organically grown
wheat to the U.S. specialty market is stagnating when it could
and should be the bright spot in our otherwise dismal
agricultural picture.
Our trade competitors are giving their farmers multibillion
dollar subsidies, and we are not asking for that. We know that
Canada with its feeble economy could not possibly sustain a trade
war with the economic giants with whom we have to compete. Only
the Minister of Canadian Heritage is silly enough to think that
we could do that. We are asking that the government stop beating
up on the agricultural industry through its discriminatory
regulations.
1315
Farmers cannot fight on two fronts. They cannot simultaneously
fight their foreign competitors and resist the encroachment of
their own government into their operations.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed the member's comments. He has made
an excellent point, one which has not been made thus far today.
I heard him speak on the issue of rail transportation in his
part of Saskatchewan. Could he elaborate on the concerns farmers
have about government policy with regard to rail line
abandonment, on some of the problems that have been created
because of the lack of competition in that area? Has he heard
any concerns from his constituents with regard to the
transportation problems they are encountering?
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, prior to the eruption of
this extreme cost price squeeze, the only thing I was hearing
from farmers or anybody else in my riding were complaints about
what is happening with the rail industry.
Under the new Canada Transportation Act it is extremely easy for
a railway to divest itself of a line. There is nothing to it. It
only takes about six months of activity to get rid of it. This
can be done regardless of what economic effect it may have on the
community affected by that line.
It is done with—and I use the word advisedly—the connivance of
grain companies that want to see these lines closed down so they
no longer have to operate the delivery points in these more
remote areas. They can force farmers to transport their grain to
distant terminals. The farmer is the one who has to take the
responsibility and the economic rap for the extra transportation.
He gets hit twice, not only through the actual cost of hiring
the transport truck to bring the grain to the terminal, but he
also pays the taxes to the municipalities for the destruction of
the roads that are now taking the place of the railways.
Rail freight cannot be carried in large quantities on light duty
roads without creating a very severe problem. There is a double
problem. There is the loss of the lines which not only affects
farmers but everyone who lives in the small communities. With
the loss of the rail line and the grain elevator, they probably
lose a third of their tax base.
When farmers have to truck their grain anywhere from 50 to 100
miles to an elevator at a larger delivery point, they tend to do
their shopping when they get there. Therefore the businesses in
the small towns that have lost the elevators also suffer. We
have already ended up with what we call 7-Eleven towns where some
of the lines have been lost. There is nothing left of the former
thriving community except the convenience store.
We are killing the agricultural community in as many ways as
this government can seem to figure out. In the end, the economy
of the whole country is going to suffer. I do not care what
country it is, agriculture is the fundamental base on which the
entire economy is built.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, do you not just love it? Do you not love
the hypocrisy of the Reform Party? It is the party that loathes
the heavy hand of government, the party that loathes state
intervention, the party that loathes regulation, but when it
comes to rail line abandonment, which is a very legitimate issue
and concern on the prairies, what does the Reform Party want? It
wants state intervention. It wants more regulation. It wants
more heavy handedness from the government.
There is absolutely no party on the face of the earth that is
more hypocritical than the Reform Party.
1320
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, speaking of slimy
hypocrisy, I would like to know when this hon. member heard any
member of the Reform Party not speak out against rail line
abandonment or when he has failed to hear us chant and shout for
continued regulation within that aspect of the rail industry?
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the
debate today. This debate is one that is very vital to the
agricultural industry of this nation.
It is not just by accident that Canada ranks as one of the
world's largest economies and is doing business in a very
positive way throughout the world. Our success is the result of
the efforts of the Canadian government, the provinces and the
Canadian people all working together. Those joint efforts have
made Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector an important and
dynamic part of the world economy.
This same model of partnership prevails in the agricultural
sector. Producers work closely with the provinces and the
federal government to set directions for today's programs, those
in the past and those in the future.
The federal government is providing many ways so that all
regions of Canada can work in the agriculture sector. The
Government of Canada works hard to balance the needs of regions
and the sectors, providing support for each and every area of the
country. Federal investment fosters the growth of the sector by
encouraging the development of our export markets, our food
supply and in developing new innovative food products. A healthy
dynamic agricultural economy means jobs for Canadians.
Past federal investment in the sector tended to be governed by
specific crops or market failures. Thanks to the combined
efforts of farmers, provincial governments and the federal
government, the farm income production system we currently have
takes into account both the different needs of individual farmers
and the agricultural economy as it varies across this country.
The safety net agreements that we have in place result in a more
market driven program. They also provide inevitable and
reasonable support for commodities, producers and provinces.
It is this system of safety nets that will help stabilize
incomes and reduce the need for ad hoc assistance. All provinces
enjoy substantial advantages in being part of the Canadian
federation especially when it comes to the agriculture and
agri-food sector. While it is not easy to put dollar figures on
many of these national advantages, they are every bit as valuable
as federal support that goes directly to individual farmers.
By working co-operatively with provincial government partners
and with our clients, the Government of Canada will ensure that
the advantages of federalism continue to be fully exploited to
the benefit of all Canadians.
As mentioned by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, we do have the tools in place for farmers. We spent
the better part of a decade working closely with farm leaders and
our provincial colleagues to put in place an effective system of
farm income.
Mr. Speaker, I should have noted at the beginning that I am
splitting my time with my colleague from
Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant.
Under the current safety net system, we have three components:
crop insurance, the net income stabilization account, and
province specific companion programs. Those tools are funded
partially by farmers but a large chunk, $1 billion, comes from
governments. Each and every year the federal government puts
$600 million and the provinces put $400 million into that
program.
1325
In this calendar year alone, the national crop insurance program
which is offered to Canadian farmers at low or no cost will
provide farmers with an estimated $430 million in direct
payments. The program has a participation rate of 55% to 60%
nationally.
At this point I would like to take the opportunity to speak
about the third component of the Canadian farm safety net system,
the province specific companion programs. While crop insurance
and NISA are national in scope, the $200 million in federal money
devoted to companion programming supports initiatives specific to
a province based on the needs and make-up of that particular
province's farm sector.
The companion programs that have been put in place are generally
of six types: additional producer and government contributions to
enhance the NISA program; enhancements to existing crop insurance
programs; whole farm income disaster programs providing
government assistance to those who have major income shortfalls
for reasons beyond the farmer's control; adaptation and
development programs to strengthen the overall competitiveness of
the farm sector; residual price support programs, available in
Quebec, Ontario and Nova Scotia; and the experimental programs,
such as self-directed risk management in Ontario.
These companion programs have been very positive. They allow
different provinces to experiment with new programs that lead to
better production for farmers. For instance, the income based
disaster programs run by British Columbia, Alberta and P.E.I.
have proven so popular and effective that the national safety
nets advisory committee is exploring the possibility of a
national program based on similar principles. It is part of the
long term review process mentioned earlier by the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food. I want to emphasize that no decisions
have been made to this date, although I am sure it will be one of
the things that comes up in tomorrow's discussions with farm
leaders.
As many members know by now, the minister has called a meeting
in Ottawa to discuss with our partners in the safety net system
what producers are requiring, where producers see the government
could provide support. The minister has also invited the
provincial ministers of agriculture to deal with the current
situations that are faced by our agriculture sector.
I do want to assure members of the House that the federal
government is not about to implement a unilateral program within
the safety net system that does not have the support of all
producers and provinces throughout this country.
To conclude, the Government of Canada's approach to safety nets
is a true reflection of Canada's strong
federal-provincial-producer partnership in ensuring the future of
Canadian agriculture. I am quite certain that the meeting
tomorrow will produce outcomes that will be beneficial to those
farmers who are presently feeling a great deal of difficulty. The
minister will work with the provincial ministers to ensure that
our goals meet the needs of the farmers, the provinces and the
federal government.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and ask questions of my
colleague.
For years and years this country has had a cheap food policy.
Through this farm crisis we have not seen the price of a loaf of
bread take a dip. My colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands
talked about six-tenths of one cent worth of barley in a bottle
of beer that is worth $1.50 on average. Food costs in Canada are
one-quarter to one-third of what consumers pay in Europe. It is
no wonder our farmers are going broke. We pay all the costs and
subsidize the consumer as well.
I am wondering if the member would care to comment on who is
going to feed Canadians when the farmers are gone. We have a 65
cent dollar here which will not buy much produce from offshore.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that everyone
in this country does not have the morbid point of view that my
colleague just raised.
1330
I believe there is a great deal of pressure on many farmers in
this country but the reality is that in many respects the
government is trying to put in place quality programs. It is not
doing it on a unilateral base. It is doing it in conjunction
with the farm community. It is discussing these issues with farm
leaders on a regular daily basis. It is discussing the issues
with provincial leaders on a regular daily basis.
We are not going down a stream of the federal government not
understanding the realities in every region of the country. As I
tried to point out, we are trying to put in place programs and
resources that will help our farm communities.
I suggest the member is correct. Canada does have an extremely
low price when it comes to agricultural and food commodities. As
many others, I am very interested in making sure Canadian farmers
get a fair return for their dollar. I am not opposed to making
certain that a fair return does come back to the farm and there
is no question when we raise that.
However, I would not like to leave on record that we are looking
at a monstrous unfair system either. We as a government are
trying to do our best to support farm communities and make
certain they have the tools to work with.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the farmers
of West Nova over the past two years have suffered very difficult
times living through two very dry summers. Last winter when the
ice storm hit Ontario and Quebec we quickly saw that if, for
example, there was no farming taking place in the Atlantic
provinces, particularly in my riding of West Nova, we would have
effectively been cut off from milk, produce and things of that
nature.
Farming is very important in my riding and that is why I am
standing up today to say that. It is so critical for farmers to
receive just compensation for the hard work they do. In the past
years that has not taken place.
My comments are for the minister of agriculture. I would just
ask him to work together with his provincial counterparts because
it is very important for the farming community to be taken care
of.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely true.
The comment made by my hon. colleague is so clear. Farmers are
exposed to the elements. They are exposed to any kind of
disaster that happens in nature. They do not have a guarantee at
the end of the year that they will be able to harvest the crop
they plant. It is a business that has a lot of risks to it which
are extremely difficult to deal with at the best of times. There
is no question about that.
I believe that it is a desired direction we need to go in. We
need to make sure we have programs in place which help take those
high risks out of it and give farmers an income they can count on
for support. We have to do this in conjunction with the producer
groups, the provincial governments and with anyone who will sit
down and work out good policy.
My colleague does raise an important point and one that all of
us have to be aware of. Farming is probably in the only business
in the western world that is so uncertain because of the
uncertain weather conditions. It is something we all have to
consider every day.
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can stand in my
place today on behalf of the constituents in
Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, particularly the farming community,
and say that our hearts go out to the many farmers and their
families suffering through this crisis which is one that is not
of their own making.
The opposition would have us believe through its motion that this
crisis, which it is, was made primarily because of unfair
subsidies and unfair trading practices of other countries. I
think that does a disservice to the Canadian people. They would
agree that unfair subsidies and unfair practices are a problem.
They would agree that Canadian trade representatives around the
world are fighting on behalf of not only Canadian farmers but
Canadian businesses in this area and are doing an admirable job.
Under the WTO last time we came out with a good deal for Canada,
a deal which was supported by all the commodities across this
country, farm commodities, and I think the opposition would agree
with that.
1335
Because of the situation in the world, the financial crisis in
Russia, the Asian financial crisis, the problems in Latin America
and the fact that a lot of countries around the world told their
producers to get into pork, for instance, we have had a situation
where there are a lot of these commodities on the market. This
is the problem we need to address.
We can deal with the trade situation. We have people in place
and we are working at that. How do we deal with some of the
fundamental problems? I want to say to the Canadian people that
this is a crisis, particularly for those in urban areas. Some
people may be watching today and saying what are these farmers
complaining about, they have a good life. We do in the rural
areas but there are times, because of the nature of the world and
because of trade, when beyond our control situations hit us. This
is one of those times.
I have been here for 10 years. When the Progressive
Conservative government was in and then when we came in in 1993
and took government we debated on how we deal with the WTO and
the trading rules. We signed an agreement in 1993. Part of that
was to deal with the situation of farm income. So we brought in
NISA. I agree with those who say that NISA was never made for
this situation. There was always an intention under the third
line of defence to have something there for an emergency
situation. Governments at both levels and the farm leadership
failed in getting that through. I think we failed in the House
in making sure that aspect did not go through.
I think we can rectify that if all the parties can come together
and agree that we need to deal with an emergency situation.
Whether it be tax cuts, like the opposition says which has some
merit, and certainly we on this side have moved over the last
number of budgets to cut taxes directly, or whether it be some
sort of relief that would come in to these farmers or some sort
of payment is debatable. We need to agree first that something
definitely is needed and that we need to take action. In
listening to the debate, I think we could probably get all
members in the House to agree to that. It is a question of what
and how we go about doing it.
I suggest that the farm leadership in the provinces and the
minister when he meets with it in a couple of days come up with
an emergency package to deal with the situation. I call on all
members to support it.
This is not simply a problem of western Canada. Granted, places
in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island will feel the
heat.
1340
I have today in the gallery a constituent, Karen Scott from
Ontario, a pork producer and representative of the Brant
Federation of Agriculture, who can tell members directly the
impact this crisis has had on the pork industry.
I can find people all across Ontario, through Quebec, through
the maritimes. This is a national problem and it takes national
leadership and all the premiers.
In 1988 when we had this other crisis we had the premiers coming
to Ottawa. I have not seen them yet. They came to Ottawa to
lobby. I encourage them to get away from their houses within the
next week and come to Ottawa to talk to the Prime Minister and
cabinet ministers and let them know exactly how this crisis is
impacting them.
I think there is a solution. I call on all members to join with
me in working to find that solution. I can say directly that
Canadian farmers are good farmers. We are fair traders. We need
the help of all Canadians in this situation.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to hear the member opposite admit that his government
has failed miserably on this issue. That was the best speech I
have heard all day. It certainly had a ring of sincerity to it.
If and when the premiers come to Ottawa to discuss the issue and
to meet with the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister, are
the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister prepared to
recognize that there is a crisis and in an open and honest way
say that they want to solve the crisis now before spring seeding?
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped when I spoke
that my speech would not become some sort of partisan attack on
me or on our government. I could definitely get partisan in the
House but I know a solution to this will not be found in trading
barbs across the House.
A solution to this will be found in all people across the
country coming together and saying we need to have a united
front, all different commodities no matter if it is pork, dairy,
supply managed or grains and oilseeds.
I hope that united front comes soon. I call on members across
the way not to be partisan and to work with the government in
finding a solution.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the
parliamentary secretary.
He indicated that everyone is coming to Ottawa. He hoped that
the provincial premiers would get out of their houses and come to
Ottawa.
I do not see very much farming going on inside the House of
Commons today. If the Liberal government wishes to know exactly
what is going on in farming communities across the country, not
just in the prairies, the meeting should be held in Strasbourg,
Saskatchewan or in Upper Musquodoboit, Nova Scotia.
The ignorance of the problem by the government and the arrogance
of the minister of agriculture toward the farmers is absolutely
appalling.
In the last parliament the government brought in Bill C-101, the
deregulation of transport. It also privatized CN and eliminated
the Crow rate. These were all supported by the Reform Party.
The government must have known that when we download these
responsibilities to the farmers, their income is going to drop
rapidly and that is one of the major reasons why we have such a
crisis today.
I thank the hon. member for mentioning the word crisis because
we have not heard that from the minister of agriculture yet.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that
the minister of agriculture called the meeting with his
representatives and with 34 different commodity groups in Ottawa.
The minister has recently had meetings in Winnipeg. He will
have meetings across the country in terms of consulting with
Canadian farmers and all Canadians on the future of the WTO
negotiations.
1345
This meeting was called in Ottawa. Different groups are coming
here and they are coming, I know, with the knowledge that the
minister of agriculture will listen to their concerns and that he
will work with them to come up with a solution to this crisis.
The minister has always indicated, in fact he has indicated in
the House many times, his willingness to look at the situation.
He said that NISA is only a short term solution and that there
needs to be more fundamental change so that farmers in this
country can farm with the knowledge that these crises, these
major shifts in commodity prices, will not hurt them in the
future.
The minister of agriculture, as members know, has been a farmer
for many years. He listens very closely to the views of farmers.
I know he is greatly concerned about this crisis and will work
with the farmers, the provincial ministers of agriculture, the
premiers and whoever else wants to discuss and resolve this
situation.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
really concerned that I must stand here today to make a speech
that I, quite frankly, hoped I would never have to make. On the
other hand, it is important to talk about the crisis that our
farmers are facing.
There is a reason I had hoped I would never have to rise to make
a speech like this. I am the member of parliament for Lakeland
constituency, which is a very large rural constituency in
Alberta. Agriculture is the most important industry in that
constituency.
I have a farm myself. I worked to help support the farm for
many years as a farm economist with the Alberta department of
agriculture. In this job and in private consultations with
farmers during the 1980s and early 1990s I saw things that I hope
I will never see again.
I sat at the table with members of farm families whose farms
were failing. This did not just happen once or twice or a dozen
times. I literally met with farmers and helped them deal with
situations dozens and dozens of times when I knew, often from the
very start, that the end result would be that a farm family would
be forced off their farm.
In many other cases I knew that the end result would be the
downsizing of a farm in a way that the family never expected and
never wanted.
The problem in the 1980s was caused by many of the same things
that are causing the current crisis. For that reason I hoped it
would never happen again. I really, really hoped that this
government would recognize the problem and would deal with the
situation so that we would not face this kind of crisis again.
Unfortunately, we are here today debating a motion, which I will
read again:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move
immediately to defend the interests of Canadian farmers from the
unfair subsidies and unfair trading practices by foreign
countries, which have changed the problem of stagnant farm
incomes to a full-blown farm income crisis, and in the event no
immediate progress is made on this front, introduce emergency
measures to provide tax relief, lower input costs, reduce user
fees and address the inadequacies of the farm safety-net
programs.
Here we are. We must talk about this. I think it is really
important to go through what has happened in the last five years
since this government has been in power, and indeed before that,
to recognize clearly what has led to the situation that Canadian
farmers are facing today.
I know the situation is a Canadian-wide situation, although I
believe that the crisis is worse on the prairies.
1350
It is important to look first at what has caused this situation.
There are many causes for this situation. The first of course is
the Asian economic problem. We recognize that as being part of
the problem.
The second cause is normal market cycles, for example with hogs,
which has been made even worse by the economic crisis which has
spread beyond Asia.
Those things were not really preventable by Canadians and the
Canadian government, but there are many things that were and
those are the things we have to talk about.
We have to talk about the preventable factors that have led to
this situation becoming as critical as it has. To do that we
have to look at what has happened over the past five years.
When I think back to the first speech I made in the House of
Commons, we were talking at that time about farm safety nets and
about the farming situation. One of the things being discussed
was the elimination of the Crow subsidy. The Crow subsidy was
causing a lot of harm on the prairies, in particular in
processing industries. Processing was not happening on the
prairies, where it would have made sense. Jobs were being
exported as raw commodities left the prairies.
Reform supported the elimination of the Crow benefit, but called
for putting at least part of the capitalized value of the Crow
benefit into a trade distortion adjustment program. We campaigned
on that in 1993.
Look at what the Liberals allowed to happen. They did eliminate
the Crow benefit, but instead of putting that money into
something like a trade distortion adjustment program, which would
have been there now to help farmers deal with this crisis, they
made a $1.2 billion payout which really was done for political
reasons and did farmers almost no good whatsoever.
As a result, we are in this situation with nothing to help
farmers deal with the crisis.
A trade distortion adjustment program, which we campaigned on in
1993 and which was presented in this House by Reform MPs again
and again after 1993, right up to the time the Crow benefit was
eliminated, would have put some of the capitalized value of the
Crow benefit into a fund which would have been there to deal with
unfair trade practices in other countries. In other words, if
commodity prices were hurt, as they are being hurt right now due
to unfair trade practices on the part of Europe, the United
States and Asian countries, there would have been money in this
fund to help farmers deal with that situation.
We have unfair trade practices. For example, the European
Economic Community has subsidies which are higher than the price
we get for our alfalfa. European subsidies alone are destroying
our alfalfa industry. It is very near collapse. We have nothing
to help deal with this situation. That fund was not established,
in spite of the pressure that was put on this government to do
that. That is sad because now our farmers face a situation they
should never have had to face.
If we go through the list of things that happened in the last
parliament and did not happen, it is a long list and it is a sad
indictment of this government. It is important to point these
things out. If we do not, then this government will not do what
has to be done now.
We can start with the elimination of the Crow and the fact that
the money is no longer there to help anyone. Farmers face
extremely high freight costs and, with low commodity prices, it
is causing an unnecessary hardship on farmers. Had that fund
been established, with this situation being forced on farmers,
the money would have been there to help.
1355
We can go through the list. There was the privatization of CN.
We supported the privatization, but we did not support the
legislation. There was nothing in it to ensure that competition
would be allowed and that there would be fairness in dealing with
situations involving a dispute between farmers and others and the
railways.
Look at the Canadian Transportation Act. We called for the same
kinds of things to be put in the act, but they were not.
In terms of cost recovery and user fees, one after another has
been piled on farmers, often at costs that are much higher than
need would be and no competition is allowed in terms of who can
provide the services that these fees pay for. That is costing
farmers a lot of money.
Tax increases on things like fuel, which affect all farm inputs,
have put an undue and unnecessary burden on farmers. Tax
increases across the board are one of the single biggest factors
that have caused the problem we see today.
Prohibitive regulations have topped all of this off and made it
extremely difficult for farmers to deal with the very difficult
crisis they are facing today.
This list of indictments is something the government should take
note of. I want to see the government stand in this House today
to say exactly how it is going to make up for the wrongs that it
has committed in the past and for the lack of action that has
been shown on many issues.
The Speaker: We still have five minutes for
questions and comments and we will take that time after the
question period.
Today is a rather special day and, with your agreement, I want
to proceed to Statement by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE CANADIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for
justice met for two days in Regina last week.
It comes as no surprise that public confidence in the justice
system was the first item on the agenda. Even though crime rates
across Canada may be dropping, fear of crime among Canadians has
increased.
The message is clear. Canadians deserve a justice system that
protects society, one that is administered efficiently and
fairly.
Canadians deserve a system that is accountable, one that is more
responsive to the needs of victims and communities.
Canadians deserve safer communities, ones that are free of crime
and free of the fear of crime.
All ministers expressed their commitment to working together to
establish a more effective and more equitable justice system in
which Canadians can have confidence.
I think that effort deserves the support of this House.
* * *
CANADIAN FINALS RODEO WEEK
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
next week marks the Canadian Finals Rodeo Week in Edmonton,
Alberta.
To many Albertans this is real life itself. It is more than
just horsing around. It is more than just roping a calf. It is
more than just steer wrestling or a bucking bronco. It is more
than just a lot of bull. It is where the best of the breed, men
and beast, meet to compete.
It is an exciting week in Edmonton. Our city welcomes thousands
of visitors during that week. They come from near and far. They
come in campers and pick-up trucks and they have a wonderful week
down at the coliseum.
This is serious competition. It is not just horsing around.
The winners move on to compete in the world finals. It is a
pretty exciting challenge for them.
The stakes are high and the money is big, just like Alberta.
I want to welcome all these people to the Canadian Finals Rodeo.
I want to welcome all the contestants to cowboy country.
Good luck and good riding.
* * *
[Translation]
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to offer my warmest congratulations to mayors Peter Yeomans
of Dorval Bill McMurchie of Pointe-Claire, Roy Kemp of
Beaconsfield, Ann Myles of Baie-d'Urfé, and Bill Tierney of
Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue on their re-election.
I also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate all the
municipal councillors who were elected or re-elected in these
cities in the riding of Lac-Saint-Louis.
[English]
We have established on the West Island of Montreal a remarkable
tradition of co-operation and harmony among the three levels of
government: municipal, provincial and federal.
I look forward to continuing this close co-operation with all
the mayors and their councils, as well as my National Assembly
colleagues to whom I offer my warmest wishes for re-election.
May the spirit of co-operation and harmony which animates our
West Island region live on and on.
* * *
NATURAL DISASTERS
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was with regret and dismay that all of us heard of
the enormous disaster that occurred in Nicaragua and Honduras by
hurricane Mitch.
1400
At present it is estimated that up to 7,000 people may have lost
their lives in flood and mud slides. The International Red Cross
said yesterday that it was tripling its efforts to make sure
assistance was going to those hurricane victims. In many places
in Canada we can do a great deal to help in this cause.
Small villages sat where seas of mud now exist. I call upon the
generosity of all Canadians to try to support organizations like
the International Red Cross and church organizations which are
sending relief to flood and disaster victims in Honduras and
Nicaragua. Canadians should get together to help those people.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, I had the honour to present a petition on the use of
the Champlain bridge landing to install an electric monorail
with pneumatic suspension, which means no noise and no
pollution.
I have received this petition with 6,200 names from the Comité
des citoyens pour un monorail. Today, I want to recognize and
congratulate these men and women for the countless hours they
have put into furthering an issue they believe is not only
important but also essential to the economic development of
southwest Montreal and job creation in that area.
I am sure that the tenacity and patience of this committee,
combined with the competence of its members, will move this
project forward for the greater good of our community.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to last week's supplementary estimates the government
is planning to spend billions on some interesting projects
including $4 million for millennium art projects; $22 million for
new chanceries in Colombia, Haiti, Venezuela and South Korea;
$3.2 million for senators; and $1 million for international
environmental organizations. However the government has no money
for hepatitis C victims and pepper sprayed APEC protesters. It
cannot even give employers and employees a break from the burden
of high EI premiums.
The government's list of priorities is shameful. It is
literally throwing these estimates in the faces of those who
justly deserve a break. Imagine hepatitis C victims reading that
there is no money for them but the Liberals have millions of
dollars for senators, and employers and employees finding that
there is nothing for them but there are millions for arts
projects.
It is time to reject these estimates. It is time for the
President of the Treasury and the Minister of Finance to go back
to the drawing board and start again.
* * *
MIDDLE EAST
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the conflict in the Middle East has had a long and
torturous history. Therefore it is with great satisfaction that
we learn of the ground breaking peace agreement at Wye, Maryland.
The Palestinian and Israeli leaders, with the instrumental
support of the United States and the moral support of King
Hussein of Jordan, worked courageously to achieve the
breakthrough agreement. We trust it will lead to a resolution of
the conflicts and provide a better life for future generations.
We are already hearing and seeing protests from opponents to the
agreement, but we can only hope that they will not be successful
in undermining this achievement.
The leaders of both the Palestinians and the Israelis have been
working hard for many months to find a mutually agreeable
solution while constantly being under the threat of failure.
As in Northern Ireland, the agreement is an important step
toward building trust between longstanding rivals. Those who are
outside this conflict now have an opportunity to provide support
for a peaceful resolution.
* * *
[Translation]
FIRST JOB FAIR
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pride that I rise today in this House to report on
the first job fair, held in the West Island area of Montreal on
October 30 and 31, 1998.
This job fair, with its 32 stands and 1,400 job offers,
attracted more than 7,000 job seekers. I am also proud to say
that 75% of the available positions were filled during the fair.
This shows the vitality of this part of the greater Montreal
area and its significant and sustained economic growth. With
more than 7,800 new jobs created in 1997, paying on average
$32,000 a year, and the injection of $250 million in wages,
there was an urgent need to bring together companies looking for
workers and workers looking for jobs.
At this first job fair, our local youth employment centre rose
to the challenge. I want to congratulate Gilles VanChesteing and
his team at Trait d'Union for the excellent work they have done.
* * *
1405
[English]
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
whilst skies rained shells and proud men died, a soldier penned
prose of bitter truths. His pen spoke out from the fields of war
83 years ago. He spoke for all that have faced their soul in the
finality of the theatre of war.
Whether Korea, the gulf or two world wars, he could well be
speaking of all brave men that have soldiered the world for
Canadian beliefs.
World War I has long been gone but John McCrae's In Flanders
Fields lives on. His words are carved in the walls of the
House and are enduring as the threat of future wars.
For our honourable war veterans and remebered war dead we
pause to give our respect. “If ye break faith with us who die,
we shall not sleep”. Lest we forget.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES PARIZEAU
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, former
Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau is now toeing the line and
supporting Lucien Bouchard's strategy, after condemning it not
too long ago.
This is a remarkable about-face since, as we know, Mr. Parizeau
has always been anxious to achieve Quebec's separation from the
rest of Canada. But, being a real trooper, Mr. Parizeau now
supports the view that winning conditions must prevail before a
referendum can be held.
A referendum on Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada
remains the number-one priority for the PQ, and they will go to
any lengths to achieve their goal.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
by rejecting the MAI, France and other OECD nations have clearly
acknowledged that we must not enshrine the interests of powerful
corporations above the rights of working people, governments and
the environment. By rejecting the MAI these nations rejected the
NAFTA approach to investment.
By signing the NAFTA the Liberals made Canada the guinea pig for
this flawed model. The result is the Ethyl case and those that
will follow where foreign corporations are able to extract
compensation if their profits are limited by legislation, no
matter how legitimate that legislation may be.
After looking closely at the MAI and the Ethyl case, other
countries are now scratching their heads as to why Canada ever
agreed to sacrifice its sovereignty in this way.
Instead of looking for other venues in which to push the MAI
such as the WTO or FTAA, the government should be rethinking the
MAI and NAFTA and putting an end to our role as guinea pig for
such unacceptable provisions.
* * *
[Translation]
L'ISLET ASSOCIATION OF UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
enough is enough.
On August 27, 1997, the Secretary of State for Agriculture asked
the Minister of Human Resources Development to change the parent
region of the L'Islet regional county municipality by
integrating it into Quebec's eastern region, because of the
difference in benefits for EI recipients.
At the time, the secretary of state said that the current
unemployment rate in his riding was closer to the 17.9% rate for
Quebec's eastern region than to the 8.1% global rate Statistics
Canada assigned to the whole Chaudière—Appalaches region.
One year later, the L'Islet association of unemployed people is
condemning the about-face of their member of Parliament and the
human resources development minister's refusal to correct the
injustice done to them.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that the unemployed in L'Islet deserve
more respect and assures them of its support.
* * *
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the weekend saw
the Bloc Quebecois adding to the stakes in Quebec's upcoming
election.
The member for Rimouski—Mitis insisted that there would indeed be
a referendum during the next term of office, if Lucien Bouchard
were re-elected.
She even set a deadline, saying that Mr. Bouchard would probably
hold the referendum in 2001. Quebeckers now know what is riding
on their vote November 30.
If they want to avoid another referendum, Quebeckers must vote
for a stronger Quebec led by the provincial Liberal party.
* * *
TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of New Brunswick reneged on a contract with the
Government of Canada and Quebec now finds itself paying the
price, and a high one at that.
The Trans-Canada Highway through New Brunswick is the main link
between the Magdalen Islands and the rest of Quebec. New
Brunswick has announced that a toll booth would be set up on the
section of the highway running between Moncton and Petitcodiac.
1410
This section of the highway should be funded equally by the
federal and the provincial governments. The provincial
government has refused. Instead of paying its share, it will
set up toll booths. If we end up with toll booths, it will be
because the Government of Canada did not hold New Brunswick to
the agreement.
On behalf of the people of Quebec, I call on the Minister of
Transport to require New Brunswick to respect its obligations.
* * *
[English]
REFORM PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, imagine my
surprise when I received a franked letter last week in my
constituency office from the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
My surprise stemmed from the fact the hon. member was using his
postage privileges, paid for by the Canadian taxpayer, to inform
me of the “evils” of the Liberal government. The information,
clearly marked with the Reform Party logo, asked me to send my
opinions to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.
I would like to take this opportunity to send my opinions
directly to the Reform Party leader and his member: first, talk
to me when Stornoway has been turned into a bingo hall; second,
talk to me when Reform stops representing special interests like
the gun lobby; and, third, cease sending misinformed propaganda
to my door.
I am sure those on the opposition benches have heard my message
loudly and clearly.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, contrary to the
federal Liberals' claims, since 1994 the Parti Quebecois
government has been an active and faithful participant in
federal-provincial meetings, far more so than the 1990-94 Liberal
government.
The Bourassa and Johnson governments, in fact, attended only 53%
of these meetings, while the Parizeau and Bouchard governments
have attended 83%.
The empty chair policy is but a myth; the government of Quebec
staunchly defends the interests of Quebec and its traditional
demands. The specialist in non-presence is Jean Charest, he who
is incapable of committing to the Calgary Declaration.
Along with his federal Liberal ally, Jean Charest, who is
passing himself off as the saviour of Quebec, has nothing but
hot air to offer the people of Quebec. This coming November 30,
all of Quebec will let him know that this is unacceptable.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let us deal with some facts. The Liberal government's record of
patronage and backroom deals just got a whole lot worse.
Former Liberal MP Ron Fewchuk was appointed president of the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in 1997. When he arrived
he was not wanted. They would not even give him the keys to the
front door. No doubt this appointment was an agreement for
giving up his seat in the riding redistribution.
Fewchuk has now been fired after a disastrous year in his new
position. As a parting gift from the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans he has thrown in another generous severance package. This
is Fewchuk's second golden handshake in 18 months.
Who will pay for it? Will it be the Canadian taxpayer? Will it
be the fishermen who finance the marketing board? Either way, it
is unconscionable.
The Liberal ship of patronage appointments is adrift at sea.
How much money will have to be wasted on Ron Fewchuk and others
like him before the government gets the message.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the members' attention the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Benalia Boulahouadjeb, Minister
of Agriculture for the Peoples Democratic Republic of Algeria.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: I would also like to draw the attention of
hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Cathy
McGregor, Minister of the Environment of British Columbia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, every time Canadian workers get their paycheques they
see the Prime Minister has skimmed something off the top. For
three out of four workers the Liberals skim 2.7% off their
paycheques for employment insurance alone.
The chief actuary of the employment insurance plan says that
those workers' premiums should not be higher than 1.9% which is
enough for a safe and reliable plan.
1415
Why is the Prime Minister taking 2.7% off those paycheques for
EI when he ought to be taking only 1.9%?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we reduced employee contributions from what they were
supposed to be in January 1994 from $3.30 to $2.70. The Reform
Party said in its fresh start platform that we should cut EI
premiums by 28% for employers only. It is on page 11. As usual,
there is no caring at all about the employees, just about the
employers.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister appears to be confused but that
should not be not unusual. We see from the papers that the Prime
Minister is suffering from a peculiar delusion. He thinks he is
a baseball player of some sort who is in a batting slump. At
least now he is using his baseball bat for recreational purposes.
The question still remains why is the Prime Minister taking most
workers for 2.7% on unemployment insurance instead—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is another strikeout by the Leader of the
Opposition. I just explained that we have taken care of employee
contributions. We reduced them from $3.30 to $2.70 and we did it
in every one of the five budgets of this government. We did this
while the Reform Party was proposing that we reduce them just for
employers. I am happy we did not listen to the Reform Party. We
thought about the employees. That is always the concern of the
people on this side of the House.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is another swing and a miss from the Prime
Minister. The Prime Minister is taking 2.7% off of most workers'
paycheques when he should only be allowed to take 1.9%. That
costs the average worker about $350 a year and it costs the
average small business about $500 per worker per year. To get it
straight I will ask the Prime Minister again. Why is he taking
2.7% when he should only be taking 1.9%?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have explained to the people, and I am happy to
explain again, that we have reduced premiums since becoming the
government. We have done it in a very responsible way. If we
had listened to the Reform Party we would have reduced only
employer premiums. I am happy we are not listening to the Reform
Party.
We have been doing it in a rational way. This fund is sometimes
in surplus and sometimes in deficit. That is why we have to
manage it carefully. The Liberal way is always to be careful.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
arrogance is not a mistake and it is not a slump. It is a
character flaw. When the Prime Minister says he wants to
confiscate $350 in premiums from workers and $500 from employers,
that is a calculated decision, it is arrogance. It is not a
mistake and it is not a slump. If the minister really wants so
desperately to redeem his reputation, why does he not allow
people to keep their money?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us take a look at what the Reform Party has
suggested. It has said that income taxes should be cut by $9
billion and that the debt should be cut by $9 billion. That is
$18 billion. Now Reformers want another $7 billion reduction in
EI. That is $25 billion.
The hon. member talks about confiscation. I will tell him what
confiscation is. It is confiscation of Canada's health care
programs if we follow through with that. It is confiscation of
our research and development policy. It is confiscation of
equalization. It is confiscation of everything Canadians hold
dear. That is what they would do.
1420
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is hard to believe that is coming from the Dr. Kevorkian of
Canadian health care, $7 billion in cuts from that minister.
Recently the finance minister has been arguing that we should
forgive billions of dollars of foreign debt and at the same time
he is getting set to confiscate billions of dollars from Canadian
workers.
I wonder if the minister can tell us why he has so much
compassion for foreign governments and so little compassion for
Canadian workers and small businesses.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the Reform Party is arguing against is the very
policy it advocated for four years in terms of EI. The real
question is why the policy flip-flop. The next thing Reformers
will advocate is that the Leader of the Opposition should not
live at Stornoway.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have learned that the federal government apparently intends to
wait until December to announce the 1999 employment insurance
contribution rate and that this rate will be either frozen or
slightly lower than that of last year.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that a freeze or a slight
reduction is illegal and this is why he might be tempted to
postpone it as long as possible, particularly since he has not
yet changed the law?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the past points the way to the future. Every year since we
formed the government, we have reduced the premiums at budget
time. We are looking at the problem at the moment.
We have made a lot of progress. As I was saying earlier, the
employment insurance fund has been in a deficit position at
times in the past and in a surplus position at others, and
happily this is the case at the moment. This is why we have
reduced employee premiums over the past five years from $3.30 to
$2.70.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
the past points the way to the future, we can expect the Prime
Minister to be again digging in the pockets of workers and
businesses in order to reduce the deficit and to put money into
government pockets.
An hon. member: That is what happened in the past.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: That is what happened in the past. We also
learned today that a coalition of unions, unemployment support
groups and students is calling, along with the Bloc Quebecois,
for a better deal for the unemployed. Even the Liberal premier
of New Brunswick is calling for improvements to the plan.
In his refusal to improve employment insurance, will the Prime
Minister acknowledge that his insistence on proving that he is
right is stronger than the compassion he ought to feel for
people in difficulty—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have already said we will maintain this approach. We have
reduced premiums from $3.30 to $2.70. At this point, the
government is studying the situation, and we will announce our
plan in due course.
The hon. member should listen to what Michel Chartrand had to
say this morning about the Parti Quebecois. The PQ gives with
the left hand and takes away with the right, while we have
always—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, of all the ways the government has come up
with to penalize unemployed workers, the ones that hurt most are
those that affect seasonal workers. Even the Premier of New
Brunswick has been quoted criticizing the federal government in
the newspapers.
Is the minister going to tell us that the Premier of New
Brunswick, his Liberal ally, is also living in the past because,
like us, he is coming to the defence of the unemployed victims
of these reforms?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every time my Bloc Quebecois
colleague rises in the House, it is to ask for improvements to
the EI system. That is all he can talk about.
He never has anything to say about workers wishing to rejoin the
labour force. Our government has made it a priority to help
these people. A much greater portion of our funding has gone
into active measures and we have signed a new agreement with the
Government of Quebec to help manpower training and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
1425
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the point I am making today is the same as the
one made by the Premier of New Brunswick, a Liberal premier.
The government ignored the first wake-up call from maritimers,
who did not re-elect two senior ministers from the Atlantic
provinces in the last federal election.
Is the government going to continue to ignore the warning of the
Premier of New Brunswick, who is urging the minister to stop
targeting seasonal workers in the Lower St. Lawrence and
maritime regions?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my position has always been very
clear. Our government undertook an extremely important reform
of the EI system.
Our government promised to table annual studies over the next
five years to monitor the reform and to determine any
corrections needed.
The first report to come out was important. We noted that people
in the Atlantic provinces find the additional hours to maintain
their level—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to welcome the Prime Minister back into the ballpark and now
we will see if he is on his game.
This government has cut health care so deeply that some
provinces are contemplating pulling out of medicare altogether.
This government is more concerned about who gets credit than who
gets the health care they need. An infusion of $2.5 billion is
needed, not over the next three years but now.
When will this government recognize the crisis it has created in
our health care system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have already started the reinvestment of which the Prime
Minister has spoken. The era of cuts is well behind us. Having
restored the fiscal solvency of the nation we now turn to
restoring its most important programs.
The Prime Minister has said health will be the subject of our
next major reinvestment. With our partners in the provinces we
shall ensure, and Canadians can count on us to do so, the future
of medicare in this country.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of
Canada's greatest strengths is medicare. It seems that Lucien
Bouchard cares more about medicare than this government.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1430
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the
truth hurts.
Lucien Bouchard got caught cutting money from medicare and he
had to put it back. When will this government put back the money
that it cut from medicare?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is astonishing, indeed it is appalling how little this member
and her party knows about which political figures and which
parties in this country stand for Canada and its health care
system.
* * *
AIRBUS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago the government spin doctors
circulated passages of the fictitious novel On the Take to
refute allegations that the solicitor general had done something
wrong.
I would therefore like to cite page 303 of the new book
Presumed Guilty by William Kaplan. In it the Prime
Minister allegedly discussed Airbus and mused about a royal
commission with an Ottawa businessman in the summer of 1995. This
was several months before the Prime Minister claimed that he
learned of the investigation.
Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny that this particular
conversation took place?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I love those very courageous people who never give their
names when they talk to the press.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister claims to be a home run hitter
but his responses are way off base.
There is an apparent contradiction in what the Prime Minister
has said about when he knew about the Airbus investigation. On
November 20, 1995 the Prime Minister said he first heard of the
Airbus investigation in a Financial Post article dated
November 18. William Kaplan's book apparently contradicts this.
The question is simple. Does the Prime Minister stand by his
November 1995 statement, or did he in fact discuss Airbus prior
to November? What is the truth?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again this is an allegation based on nothing. If the
hon. member has any self-respect, he will name the person and I
will deal with the person very neatly and clearly.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, he
does know how to take them out.
Yesterday the public complaints commission said that instead of
asking the federal court to decide if the commission was biased,
it would now make that decision itself. In other words, the same
commission that is accused of bias will sit in judgment of
itself. This is what we call fairness?
When will the Prime Minister replace that farce of a commission
with a real independent judicial inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a law in this land that was passed to establish
this commission. This commission is doing its work. We will let
the commission do its work. We will not do as the opposition
does and try to destroy the commission. Let the commission do
its work according to the law that was passed by the previous
government.
1435
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the public complaints commission has been destroyed by this
government, by the solicitor general and by several other things,
certainly not by the opposition.
It is obvious that the Prime Minister prefers the public
complaints commission to an independent inquiry. The commission
cannot investigate the Prime Minister's involvement, but do you
know what, Mr. Speaker? A judge could. The commission cannot
subpoena government documents that the Prime Minister says it
cannot have, but do you know what, Mr. Speaker? A judge could.
I ask the Prime Minister, is that not the real reason the Prime
Minister continues to talk about the public complaints commission
when he should turn it over to a public independent inquiry to
get to the bottom of what his involvement was?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a law of the land that established exactly
that, an independent inquiry that is doing its work.
I repeat that I have nothing to be afraid of because I received
the leaders of the United States, China, Japan and other nations.
My preoccupation at that time was really on the turbulence that
existed in the Pacific and I had no time to talk with the RCMP.
* * *
[Translation]
TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS CANADA
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in
the House, the Minister of Industry did not answer my question
about Technology Partnerships Canada but, outside the House, he
told a Globe and Mail reporter that he was trying to get the
necessary funding from the Minister of Finance.
Does the minister realize that, while his colleague in the
Department of Finance is holding back his announcement for a
splashy budget in the spring, high-tech jobs are disappearing by
the hundreds in Montreal or are moving south of the border?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): But that is not
true, Mr. Speaker. Our program has been a great success, not
just at saving jobs in Montreal and in Canada, but at creating
jobs in the aerospace industry, a sector that is very important
for Canada. It has been a great success for Canada.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister told the Globe and Mail:
[English]
“We don't lose the company but less is being done
here—. That's clearly what I'd like to arrest if I can”.
[Translation]
Is the Minister of Finance going to continue to abandon the
Montreal region? Can he afford to sit tight until the spring to
make an announcement that would save R&D; jobs now?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
which are the successful sectors in the Montreal area? They are
the aerospace sector, funded by the federal government, the
biotechnology sector, funded by the federal government, and the
telecommunications sector, funded by the federal government.
All three sectors receive funding from our government.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister continues to hide behind this now totally dead
and useless public complaints commission. He has a reason for
that. The public complaints commission was never, ever designed
to look into the affairs of the Prime Minister denying Canadians
their rights of freedom of speech and expression.
This commission will be calling the commissioner of the RCMP who
has acknowledged that because it will be reporting to him, it
will have a bias. The RCMP lawyers say that it will have a bias.
What are we going to do to get to the bottom of this affair as
long as the Prime Minister—
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the hon. member does not understand is that the
public complaints commission was initiated by an action of the
complainants. They started the process. Now the process is
master of its own procedures.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is not about the RCMP commission. My question is not
about the RCMP's actions or the students' actions. My question
is about this Prime Minister's involvement in denying Canadians
their rights of freedom of speech and expression.
1440
This commission does not have the authority to get to that and
is completely derailed. When are we going to get what Canadians
need, an independent inquiry?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, is the hon. member suggesting that the government should
interfere with a process that was established by parliament in
1988? Is that what the hon. member is suggesting? This
government will not do it.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation charges a $235 appraisal fee to
all home buyers who make use of its services in securing a loan.
My question is for the Minister of Public Works. How can he
explain the CMHC's imposition of this $235 appraisal fee on
everyone, when appraisals are done in Quebec only 5% of the
time?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, CMHC has an appraisal system which
it uses along with the financial institutions. CMHC also has an
insurance component.
Overall, the purpose is to do an appraisal, and the cost is
shared among the users.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, nevertheless,
there is a property appraisal done in only 5% of cases in
Quebec.
Can the Minister of Public Works tell us whether, in the
imminent legislative amendments to the National Housing Act, he
plans to require CMHC to appraise all properties on which it is
securing loans, since it is already charging an appraisal fee to
all buyers?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if CMHC were to appraise every
property individually, the cost would be higher than at present.
The hon. member should be aware that, thanks to new
technological developments in doing appraisals, we are able to
transfer the resulting savings over to the users. That is why
the charge is a minimal one. We are constantly trying to reduce
fees, and when we can bring them down, we will.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
medicare started, the federal government promised it would pay
50% of the costs. Today due to Liberal neglect it is down to
11%.
The health minister says that he and the Prime Minister are
ready to reinvest in medicare. Exactly what is the percentage we
can expect the federal government to pay? What is his target?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is hard to know what to say about a party that would put a
question like that, when the Reform Party would repeal the Canada
Health Act.
This very member has been quoted in the House as calling the
Canada Health Act an outdated piece of legislation. This very
member called for something he terms medicare plus. We know what
that is. It is American style health insurance. We will never
have it in this country. Never.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while this
crew promised to protect medicare, what did they deliver? Seven
billion dollars in cuts. While this crew promised to protect
medicare, what did they deliver? Longer waiting lines. While
this crew promised to protect medicare, what did they deliver?
People having to go to the Mayo Clinic for treatment.
My question again is since it has dropped from 50% to 11% what
is this minister's target? What will we see when he is through
with medicare?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians will not be distracted by this empty rhetoric from the
member opposite. Canadians know the Reform Party would sweep
away medicare. The Reform Party believes in American style
health insurance.
Let me make it very clear for every member of the House. This
Prime Minister and this government will never repeal the Canada
Health Act because the Reform Party will never have the
opportunity to serve in government.
* * *
[Translation]
DATURA STRAMONIUS
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Last week, I drew the attention of both the Minister of Justice
and the Minister of Health to the trafficking in datura
stramonius, the fruit of a hallucinatory plant that is not
currently prohibited in Canada and that has devastating effects.
1445
Could the minister tell me whether he will act quickly, as he is
being asked to, to ban datura stramonius?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week I clarified Health Canada's position. We are now looking
into this whole question.
We know the risks associated with this substance and we are
currently considering all our options, including that of adding
this substance to schedule A, to ensure it is prohibited in
Canada.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this summer the House made what
amounts to the single biggest change in Canadian grain marketing
in 60 years. For the first time producers will directly elect 10
of the 15 directors to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Can the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board tell
the House how this historic election process is progressing?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board electoral process is going very
well.
Sixty-four candidates, many of them brand new people, are
running for the 10 positions, so there is obviously a healthy
contest. For the most part, the debate is positive and
constructive.
An editorial in yesterday's Lethbridge Herald—
Miss Deborah Grey: Brand new people?
Mr. Art Hanger: Were they just born?
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the
prairies is obviously healthier than the debate across the way.
An editorial in yesterday's Lethbridge Herald said this:
“Democracy is alive and well in agriculture in western Canada.
The most important thing from a farmer morale perspective is the
actual vote. Finally, for the first time since the federal
government instituted the wheat board in 1935, farmers will have
a say in who serves them in the global marketplace”.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Hong Kong war veterans, having endured as prisoners of war of
Japan in World War II, also suffered from a Canadian government
cover-up in 1955.
Fifty years later the concerns are still unanswered, though
all-party committees give full support for compensation. Time is
running out.
When will the minister listen to his colleagues, apologize for
the cover-up and get on with the compensation?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is aware that there is an all-party
agreement, presented in a committee report, which is before
parliament and which the government is considering. He is very
much aware of the file, as am I, and we have discussed it
personally. He is also aware that this is a very complex file.
It is 58 years old.
I want to assure the House that this government will take the
time that it needs to take all of these factors into
consideration and put forward the most positive solution possible
to this age old problem.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government has a solemn responsibility to look after
our war veterans, and yet this government has neglected the
veterans who are under care at the Perley-Rideau veterans'
hospital in Ottawa. Our veterans do not deserve that kind of
treatment.
I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs, why is this government
shirking its responsibility to provide veterans with adequate
health care?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have discussed this in committee.
I want to tell the hon. member that no one is more concerned
about the health of veterans than we are on this side of the
House, in this government.
I also want to tell the hon. member that this country has the
best veterans' benefits in the world. I stand by that.
I also want to tell him with respect to the Perley-Rideau
veterans' hospital that we are concerned about the level of
health care. I do not know if the hon. member is aware of it or
not, but I will tell him and all members of this House that we
have done two audits. The last one was done in April. The
audits show that the health care is the same level as it was four
years ago.
* * *
1450
SOCIAL PROGRAM FUNDING
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In the first year of the CHST my home province of Saskatchewan
lost about $100 million in transfers for health and education.
Now the federal government is going to allow wealthy hedge fund
investors to make the same $100 million on tax deductions if they
channel money into health and education.
How can the government justify putting hospitals and schools in
the financial position where they have to rely on the casino
economy and participate in hedge funds in order to secure
financing for their operations?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government intends to monitor this situation very
closely. We would certainly insist that any of the donors be
fully at risk for any of the investments that are to be made.
At the same time, we are going to take a look at the
advisability of a number of charities engaging in what could
conceivably be risky investments.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the hedge fund in question is for wealthy individuals
who would receive a tax credit of up to $700,000 for an
investment of only $250,000. It is really a subsidy for rich and
wealthy gamblers like the Conrad Blacks of the world.
How can the finance minister possibly sit on his hands and allow
schools and hospitals to starve in order to use a hedge fund to
divert tax money to subsidize the rich?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is one of the difficulties of having a
supplementary question prepared in advance. I just said that the
donors will have to be fully at risk if the tax consequences they
seek were to arise.
At the same time, we are going to look at the advisability of
hedge funds in this particular circumstance.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the CPP
investment board is responsible for the pensions of all
Canadians. It will have $80 billion worth of assets and it will
be the most powerful force in Canada's equity markets.
The finance minister has assured this House that there will be
no political interference with the Canada pension plan, yet of
the twelve members of this board six are prominent Liberals.
How can Canadians trust that there will be no political
interference in the decisions of this board when in fact there
has been political interference in the appointment of this board?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. In fact, the provinces and
the federal government got together on a list of some 20
appointees from whom the final list was taken. If one takes a
look they will see that the vast majority of these people were
recommended by the provinces. Unfortunately, the majority of the
provinces do not have Liberal governments.
All of these people have outstanding qualities. It does no good
to the Canada pension plan or to Canadians for the hon. member to
demean some are very high quality Canadians.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister knows full well that the final decision rested
with him, and the finance minister's final decision was to staff
the board with Liberal partisans.
Canadians cannot trust that there will be no political
interference in the decisions of this board because clearly there
has been political interference in the appointment of this board.
Will the minister clean the slate and ensure that all
appointments to this board go through a parliamentary review and
approval process?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the provinces have already done this. The fact is that
there was a joint stewardship between the provinces and the
federal government. There was a committee set up to choose those
people who would be nominated. We then went through and picked
those people.
I simply go back to what I said before. When we ask Canadians
to serve and to give up their time for the benefit of their
fellow Canadians, I do not think it does anybody any good for the
hon. member to stand in this House and decry what they are doing.
They are serving their country and the hon. member should
recognize that.
* * *
CANADA CUSTOMS
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of National Revenue recently issued a discussion
paper on the future direction of the Canada customs and trade
administration program.
How will the minister ensure that Canadian businesses and
travellers are well served?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently launched a blueprint for
Canada customs and revenue.
1455
As our tourism has increased and as our trade has increased
there are new challenges for Canada Customs in its trade
administration.
We will be consulting with stakeholders, with employees and with
Canadians on how to address the new challenges to ensure that we
can expand tourism and continue to have increased trade, which is
up 50%.
We are consulting, we are listening and we will be responding to
Canadians.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
January 2000 we will see the sequel to the ice storm. There will
be people without heat, there will be people without power and
there will be people without water. There will even be people
who will lose their jobs.
My question is to the Minister of Finance. What is the
government's estimate for the number of jobs that will be lost
and the drop in the GDP that will be caused by the millennium
computer bug?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
of course there have been all kinds of forecasts about the
January 1, 2000 problem.
There is no doubt that we are trying to prepare the government
and the various government departments to be absolutely ready for
that date. Even the Bank of Canada is considering increasing the
money supply.
The government has made plans to deal with the various
contingencies that may happen at that time.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
minister of agriculture is holding a meeting in Montreal with
the farming industry to discuss farm incomes and to prepare the
upcoming negotiations with the WTO.
Why did the federal Minister of Agriculture, who was informed of
this meeting, decide to compete by inviting Canadian and Quebec
agriculture leaders the same day to discuss the same topics here
in Ottawa?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we can do two things in one day and I am
sure the people in the province of Quebec can too. I respect
them for that.
I discussed the date for this meeting with all ministers of
agriculture and people in the farm organizations in Canada and
they agreed that they could attend the meeting tomorrow afternoon
with some of their officials, while some of their other officials
are attending other meetings in Montreal.
I will be in Montreal tomorrow morning and I will be in Ottawa
tomorrow afternoon.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it seems like a long time ago that a few students in British
Columbia began to look for justice as a result of what happened
at the APEC conference in British Columbia.
The legal complexities of this matter grow daily. The matter
goes from the Public Complaints Commission to the federal court
and back to the Public Complaints Commission, and yet the
students are expected to represent themselves.
If this government will not set up an independent inquiry, will
it at least reconsider its position and provide funding for the
students' legal counsel?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said many times, the Public Complaints
Commission was established so that citizens would have access to
a process that would not require that. That is the reason that
counsel to the commission is assisting the students in their
preparation during this procedure.
The Public Complaints Commission is an independent, arm's length
organization established by parliament to do exactly what it is
doing right now.
* * *
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The minister will know that Canada's Walk of Fame in Toronto is
an opportunity to showcase Canadian talent both here in Canada
and internationally. The minister showed her support to the
inaugural Walk of Fame last year in Toronto.
Can the Walk of Fame count on the minister's and the
government's continued support for this most worthwhile
initiative?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, no, that was not a planted question.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Sheila Copps: I will say that the launching of the
Walk of Fame in Toronto was an absolute first for Canada. It was
a blockbuster success. I am very pleased to tell the House that
there are a number of Canadian cities that are looking at the
option of establishing a similar walk of fame. I think it falls
very nicely in line with the millennium. We as a country have to
start to show the world our heroes.
[Translation]
That is exactly what was done in Toronto, and I think it could
be done in Montreal, Vancouver and throughout Canada.
* * *
1500
[English]
BILL S-13
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. Is the
government willing to provide government time for the House to
debate and vote on Bill S-13, an act to incorporate and to
establish an industry levy to provide for the Canadian
Anti-Smoking Youth Foundation?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hate to disappoint the hon.
member, but the negotiations between the opposition and the
government in terms of House business occur at 3.30 today, not 3
o'clock.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: Today is a very special day for us in
the House of Commons. In just a few moments I will present some
17 World War I veterans.
I want to explain first of all how I would prefer to proceed in
this regard. I will say just a very few words and I will present
the veterans who are behind me. All of you can see them from
your seats.
You will understand that when I call out their names some of
them will stand, some of them will remain seated and simply wave,
and others have hearing problems, but they are here and they
belong to us. After I have read all their names I would like you
to join with me in welcoming them to our and their House of
Commons.
I am delighted to welcome some 17 of our World War I veterans
who are, as I said, in the public gallery just behind me.
[Translation]
The wars touched the lives of all Canadians, without regard to
age, race or class. Fathers, sons and daughters died in action,
were wounded, and many came home changed for evermore. Those
who remained in Canada also served—in factories, as volunteers
and wherever they were needed.
[English]
Together they fought a war and they forged a nation, a nation
that we proudly call our Canada.
The standard they set was repeated by those who followed in the
World War II and in Korea. It is a tradition of service and
international respect that continues today with the courageous
efforts of our peacekeepers in hot spots around the world.
To all these people, these Canadian heroes, today we the
representatives of 30 million Canadians say thank you.
Parliament, as do Canadians in communities across the land, owes
them so much also. Our pledge is never to forget their sacrifice
and to pass on their legacy to our children and our children's
children.
I will read out their names and, as I said, they will make
themselves recognized by you in their own way.
Mr. Henri Allain, Mr. Henry John L. Botterell, Mr. Gordon Boyd,
Mr. Frederick Connett, Mr. Fred Evans, Mr. Fred Gies, Mr. Lazare
Gionet, Mr. Harold Lidstone, Mr. Walter Loudon, Mr. Paul A.
Métivier, Mr. Lawrence Morton, Mr. Percy Perdue, Mr. Harry
Routhier, Mr. Tom Spear, Mr. Ernest Stevens, Mr. Stephen
Thorlakson, and we have with us today a man they call their
mascot. He is one of two surviving Victoria Cross winners, Mr.
Smokey Smythe. These are our veterans.
[Editor's Note: Members rose and applauded]
* * *
1505
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I address veterans of the great war and other veterans
who are with us today.
Clearly this is a special occasion for special people at a
special time. As we approach Remembrance Day and we celebrate
veterans week, we who are so fortunate to have largely known only
peace in our lives would do well to remember those who built our
nation in the earlier years of this century. For so many war was
a constant companion of their youth.
This Remembrance Day is a special one for it is the 80th
anniversary of the signing of the armistice that silenced the
guns for the first world war. The killing fields of Europe
became remarkable at long last for their silence. More than
650,000 young Canadian men and women served. More than one in
ten or 68,000 never returned.
These figures are just figures. They do not show the human side
of war. They do not show the cold, the wet, the rats and the
stench of trench warfare. They do not show the fear and the
horror of war. They do not show the sorrow, the broken hearts
shared both on the battlefield and by friends and families back
home when entire battalions and regiments would be cut down as
they marched in the maelstrom of enemy machine gunfire, whether
it be the virtual annihilation of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment
in a mere 30 minutes fighting at Beaumont Hamel or the 80%
fatality rate suffered by Canadian regiments during 10 days of
drawn out fighting at Passchendale.
[Translation]
These figures do not show the triumph of Canadian spirit,
ingenuity and determination during such battles as Ypres, Vimy
Ridge or Amiens. It was indeed during the first world war that
Canadians would earn a reputation for being among the most
professional and effective soldiers. These brave Canadians
earned for our country international recognition, respect and
independence.
[English]
It is a sad fact that not many veterans of that war are with us.
Perhaps there are a few hundred. Some would say their steps are
a little more tentative these days, their hands perhaps a little
more shaky, and their eyesight somewhat dimmed.
After all, as the nation approaches the millennium, veterans of
the great war are approaching and have surpassed their own
centenary. Despite the many changes that age visits upon us,
their legacy to their home and native land remains etched in
time. We consider them a national treasure.
1510
We are delighted, indeed honoured, to have our World War I
veterans with us in the House today and, as we have done earlier,
we salute them.
No sooner was that war over and won, a mere two decades later
Canadians again were called upon to offer up their lives in the
fight against tyranny in World War II. They fought on land, at
sea and in the air. They fought for their homes, for their
families and for their country. Just a few years later we
answered the call to Korea.
[Translation]
Every time a country came under threat of occupation and
enslavement, Canada answered the call, and our peacekeepers have
kept up this military tradition by maintaining peace for over
half a century.
[English]
This week it is our turn to say to those who lost their lives
and to their families and to those who returned to build a great
nation that we the inheritors of their courage and determination
will continue to honour their sacrifice by acts of remembrance
and the telling of their story to our children from one
generation to another. We will not forget.
The Speaker: To the member who sent me this note asking
how old our veterans are and to all members, the baby is 98 and
the oldest one is 105.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
we rise in the House today to recognize the glory and sorrow of
our veterans valiant efforts for Canada and Newfoundland in World
War I in battles like Vimy Ridge and Beaumont Hamel, we should be
reminded of the words of one young man from Guelph. No finer
example of inspirational significance has been born by the horror
of human conflict than In Flanders Fields:
We are the dead
Short days ago, we lived,
Felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Lived and were loved,
And now we lie,
In Flanders Fields.
Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae paused to reflect on the high
price of peace and of man's duty to serve. His pen spoke out
from the fields of war 83 years ago. He spoke for all who have
faced their soul in the finality of the theatre of war. From
Korea to the gulf and through two world wars he could well be
speaking of all brave men who have soldiered the world to defend
Canadian beliefs.
The brave young men who fought in the two world wars served in
our armed forces and merchant fleet, contributing so much to the
end of global war.
His words are carved in the walls of the House and are as
enduring as is the threat of future war. This year marks 80
since the guns of the war to end all wars grew mute, a war the
world learned not from even with a price of 60,000 Canadian dead.
Canada's losses would continue in 20 short years.
Our veterans of Korea, the gulf war and peacekeeping duties know
too well the significance of his words. This century the price
of peace was war. One hundred thousand of Canada's young never
grew old. One hundred thousand youths lie in foreign graves, one
hundred thousand from the Korean and two world wars.
When I visit foreign graves with Canada's war veterans I am
deeply moved by their moments of reflective grief for their
comrades they left behind so far from home so long ago.
1515
Time has not yet healed their wounded souls. Near one century
hence memories fade not. Near one century hence they still have
not forgotten that by mere chance alone they survived as other
did not.
As veterans grieve for long lost friends they ponder why the
price of peace is war and is so very high.
Soon John McCrae's words will echo in this hall and resonate
throughout the land as we pause to give respect to our honourable
war veterans and remembered war dead. “If ye break faith with
us who die, we shall not sleep, lest we forget”.
I am proud to be in this House today to speak to Canada's war
veterans.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
pleasure today to rise in honour of Veterans' Week, from
November 5 to 11. This week is set aside to commemorate the
contributions and sacrifices of the men and women who gave up
their lives for peace, democracy and our freedom.
As they gather around the cenotaph on November 11, thousands of
people will remember the courage of those who died at the front
fighting for peace in the great world wars. This moment in
honour of the memory of these people should be a time of
reflection on the atrocities that have marked world history.
Often, the past may appear to explain the present, but it can
never convince us that human lives must be sacrificed for a
cause, whatever it may be.
Thousands of them died in the line of duty, were wounded or
taken prisoner. On Remembrance Day we honour their memory and
that of all the other veterans of 20th century wars.
War also affected the lives of all those left behind by the
soldiers who died in the war. Their families will remember this
great meeting with destiny that was beyond their control and the
painful moments that will remain always.
On this Remembrance Day there will be veterans who are surely
remembering their friends and colleagues as they were before
they fell.
I think of the wives making their last farewells as their
husbands went off to war, never to return, of the parents whose
children never came home.
Let us remember, so that there is never again an armed conflict,
and our children never have to learn the horrors of war. We have
a duty to ensure that Remembrance Day receives the respect due
to it, and retains its position among our noble traditions.
I have travelled with veterans' delegations returning to visit
the battlefield sites, and the graves of their fallen comrades.
Veterans now in their seventies and eighties trying to locate
the resting places of comrades who lost their lives in their
twenties, if not younger.
I have always been impressed with their appearance at these
ceremonies, as they stand stiffly at attention, just as they did
when they were still in the Forces.
As soon as the speeches and prayers are over, they wander off in
search of the resting places of their dead comrades, lost in
their memories and grief for a brief moment.
These unforgettable experiences have made me realize the reality
of war. Such pilgrimages are both extremely sad and extremely
gratifying, gratifying because of the appreciation shown by
those who were liberated by our veterans. For instance, during
my visit to Dieppe in 1997, I realized that our servicemen were
true heroes in the eyes of the French.
1520
These men and women did not forget the hard lessons of 55 years
ago and they remember that our veterans liberated them. This
year marks the 80th anniversary of the armistice that brought
World War I to an end. On November 11, 1918, all of humanity
pledged that there would never be another war. This universal
hope was short-lived.
Twenty years later, the world had already forgotten the war's
atrocities and launched into an even more deadly conflict, World
War II, which lasted from 1939 to 1945. Six years of civilian
and military losses. Six years of fighting for our freedom.
These were the six most defining years in history.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I pay tribute to the men and
women who gave their lives during the two world wars, the Korean
war and in numerous UN peacekeeping missions.
Let us hope, as they did, that there will never be another war.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great honour and humility that I mark Remembrance Day on
behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus.
Eighty full years ago from this Remembrance Day, the great
terrible guns of the first world war fell silent on the 11th hour
of the 11th day of the 11th month.
When the great war began in 1914, the Canadian regular army was
made up of only 3,110 Canadians. Yet over 66,000 died in the
killing fields of France and Belgium, with so many more deaths of
our merchant mariners, our navy, the Newfoundland forces and the
Royal Flying Corps.
World War II brought our death toll to over 100,000. With great
pride and great sadness and with tremendous respect I recognize
the ultimate sacrifice given by those killed in all wars and the
terrible sacrifice also of their loved ones and their friends.
I will soon be joining these honourable veterans and other
members of this House in France and Belgium to pay our respects
to Canada's dead from the first world war.
This day is marked to ensure we never forget those who gave
their lives for all of us. Let us never forget those veterans
who suffered unspeakable horror in Korea, Japan and Hong Kong.
Let all of us in this House commit to doing all we can to ensure
that those who served in our merchant marine are treated with
respect and justice.
Let us recognize those who fought fascism as part of the
Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion in Spain. Let us also ensure that
those brave Canadian prisoners of war sent to the Buchenwald
concentration camp receive the justice they deserve.
As the first black member of parliament for Nova Scotia, it is
my honour to remember those who served with the segregated Number
Two Construction Battalion in World War I.
As aboriginal veteran day approaches on November 8, let us also
not forget the over 7,000 aboriginal Canadians who served in the
two world wars and in the Korean war.
Remembrance Day is honoured by many people in many ways. My
comments have already spoken to those who died and their families
and loved ones, but now as a parent I believe Remembrance Day
must always address our youth. It is now their lives that we
need to protect through remembering war.
If anything, let this day give each of us more strength and
vigour in working for peaceful and democratic solutions wherever
possible.
I finish with the words gracing the tombstone of Corporal Hugh
Rocks of the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada who died on D-Day, June
6, 1944 and who is buried in the Canadian graveyard at
Beny-sur-Mer in France: “There is a link death cannot sever.
Love and remembrance last forever”.
Our duty especially today is to remember with honour and great
thanks.
1525
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to Canada's veterans.
Although I pay tribute every year to the men and women who
fought for Canada, this is the first time I have had an
opportunity to do so in the House of Commons. I consider it a
privilege.
Veterans served their country so that the inhabitants of
Compton—Standstead and of all regions of Canada may vote for the
candidate of their choice.
As this violent and bloody century draws to a close, young
Canadians must know that the values, ideals and institutions we
hold dear today required sacrifices.
Too often during this century, tyrants and dictators tried to
expand their empires by force. Many people saw their villages
burned, their families killed and their freedom taken away.
[English]
Too many times this century tyrants and dictators raised their
ugly heads and expanded their realm through force. For
individuals this meant seeing their villages burned, their
families murdered and their freedoms extinguished.
Against the expanding tyranny of Germany and Austria in the
first world war, Nazi Germany, Japan and Italy in the second
world war, and communist North Korea, China and the Soviet Union
in the Korean War, Canada held firm. Young, vibrant Canadians
with their futures ahead of them understood the importance of the
call and put their lives on hold and at risk. Soldiers, sailors
and airmen travelled to the farthest reaches of the globe to
protect their families at home, safe in Canada. Too many of them
never came back.
Today, thanks to their sacrifice, we continue to be safe here at
home in Canada. While young people must learn the history of
this century, our leaders must remember its lessons.
Tyrants must never be appeased. Dictators must never be welcome.
True justice and freedom must always be the guiding principles
for the leaders of Canada, leaders who inherited the trust of
those who never made it back.
As I stand here in this House of Commons, elected freely by the
citizens of Compton—Stanstead, I remember those who served
Canada and on behalf of all Canadians and all people who love
freedom, merci, thank you.
The Speaker: My colleagues, in your name I have invited
our World War I veterans to be received in Room 216N. You will
understand that it will take us a few minutes to get them all
there and as many of you as possible could come to meet them.
[Translation]
I invite you to come and shake their hands and perhaps thank
them individually for what they and all the others have done for
us. It is because of men like them that we are here today.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1530
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADIAN FARMERS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is good to pause for a truce once in a while in the
battles we engage in regarding the policies of the government and
the affairs of this great country. We have a lot to be thankful
for and many people have sacrificed their lives so that we may
have peace. We pay them our respects. It is not easy to do
battle in this House as we battle with words and that is what
parliament is all about.
In posing my question I need to explain to Canadians that it is
not easy to get a resolution on to the floor of the House to be
debated and battled over. I want to thank all of those who
helped me in the battle to have agriculture discussed. Farmers
have gone to bat for us and they have done a lot for this
country. We need to recognize that.
The government gets the chance to choose what is debated here
most of the time. The official opposition gets to name the topic
for debate about one day out of every month and generally the
topics submitted for debate are much more important to most
Canadians than what the government puts forth.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this topic to all
Canadians. We may not debate agriculture very often, but I have
no control over that.
I did not want this to be a partisan issue and so I did not
press to have it votable. However my colleague had become quite
partisan in his comments by documenting the failings of the
Liberal government. Would it not be more productive to work with
the government rather than chastise it for its failings? That is
the question I would like the member to address.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the
question from my colleague. I would say yes, normally it would
be much better if we could work together in a non-partisan way
toward solutions. I think the member would know as well as
anybody that in the last five years we have been in Ottawa we
have tried that approach. We have worked hard in committees to
try to move government along the way that farmers and Reform MPs
think it should go. It has not worked. It is to the point where
we have a crisis in agriculture that was completely unnecessary.
Before we can force or push this government into doing something
about it, we have to make it very clear to the government how it
failed farmers. The government has failed farmers in terms of
the legislation it has brought forward, like the legislation that
eliminated the Crow benefit. It was handled very poorly. The new
Canadian Transportation Act does not encourage competition, is
not fair and will not lower the cost to farmers. The
privatization of CN which was a good idea has been handled
poorly.
The ever increasing user fees and what the government calls cost
recovery have put an undue tax burden on farmers and have made it
so they cannot make ends meet. The increase in taxation at every
level and in every imaginable way has been loaded on farmers.
1535
All of these things together with the weak position of this
government and previous governments during trade negotiations
have allowed this completely unlevel playing field which our
farmers are forced to compete on. This all shows that the
co-operative approach does not work with this government. That
is why we have to point out the government's errors of the past.
Hopefully by doing that we will get it going in the right
direction so this crisis can be dealt with.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the debate today—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Excuse me. Normally
we go from side to side and I did not see the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am sorry
but I have already recognized the hon. member for Crowfoot. I
guess I owe you one.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: If the hon. member across the floor is
concerned about not having time and has to leave the House, I
would certainly acquiesce and allow him to stand and speak.
Nevertheless, I have been given the floor.
I have been asked to meet with the municipal council of the town
of Wainwright as well as the district council next week based on
the crisis in the farming community in that area. Some of the
farmers there have been told by the bank that they must list
their land for sale.
This whole business of leaving things until we reach a crisis
situation is not the way to do it. It seems that the only time
the government will listen to us is when it is afraid of what the
people are going to do at the next election.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but I
must interrupt. The hon. member for Lakeland for a very quick
response.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, the Wainwright area was
in the constituency that I represented last time but due to
boundary changes it no longer is. They have the same situation
there that we have in the Lakeland constituency which is a
drought following several years of drought. The situation is made
much more difficult because on top of that are the low commodity
prices and all of the problems that have been caused by inaction
and improper action on the part of this government. It is a
crisis situation.
We have to get ideas from the people affected by this crisis and
make sure that the government really listens to the ideas so that
some action will be taken to deal with this crisis. It is an
extremely serious one.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the debate on the Canadian
farm crisis. Of course we all know that it is Canada wide and
that is why we are raising the topic here today.
I am sure all members of this House at some time in their lives
were faced with the situation in which they had to scramble to
overcome misfortune. Either due to choices they made or ones
that were arbitrarily made for them, they awoke one day to
discover that they were out of a job or that they had some sort
of financial crisis looming over them. I just want members from
urban centres to keep that picture in mind so they can appreciate
what we are talking about today.
This is not like losing one's job. A Canada wide farm income
crisis is like losing the best part of one's life and all that
one has worked toward.
The present crisis in farm net incomes is nothing short of a
financial earthquake rumbling across Canada toppling lives and
livelihoods for years to come. One of the buzzwords we have
heard in this House lately is child poverty. Child poverty is
erupting and rearing its ugly head out on the prairies where I am
from and across Canada due to the rural crisis. Like natural
earthquakes, this one was preceded by tremors and will be
followed by aftershocks that will reverberate in areas far from
the epicentre on Canadian farms.
Unlike natural earthquakes, farmers cannot count on the Canadian
forces coming to their assistance. In fact they cannot count on
federal authorities to do anything except to keep many of the
counterproductive, bureaucratic programs that they have loaded on
to the Canadian farmer over the last number of years.
Simply put, the price that anyone can get for their produce
minus their input costs and taxes determines whether or not they
can succeed and invest for their future. Right now, economic
turmoil in Asian markets is reducing demand and prices as well.
The resulting oversupply in world markets is reinforcing this
downward pressure.
But what about the input costs? In a free market, producers
should be able to reduce their costs and adjust to a reduction in
demand. That is not happening. That it is not happening is the
fault of interference in the marketplace by a variety of players,
including governments.
1540
Canada's dollar is down and though the Prime Minister was too
busy playing through to notice this summer, the effect has been
devastating. For some exporters the low dollar stimulated sales,
that is true. But for farmers the lower price for their products
offset by massive agriculture subsidies by our neighbours to the
south and even more by our so-called friends across the Atlantic
have added to that situation. Furthermore, that low dollar cannot
buy as much fertilizer, chemical, new machinery and/or parts
which tend to be based on American dollars.
Of course the expenses connected to farming are not just the
ones that go into the ground. Like every household and business
in this country, farmers cannot seed or harvest a stock of grain
without answering to a bureaucratic program or shelling out for a
mandatory fee which is a tax. Farmers know as well as anyone that
there has to be some tax to pay for government services, but we
hold the opposite view of government members who display a desire
to have constantly rising taxes pay for a constantly expanding
government and its programs.
On a regular basis we have to question where these revenues come
from, where they go and whether there is not a better way to
provide certain services or manage public concerns. We do not
see a commitment to re-examine the status quo on a host of issues
from taxation to democratic accountability from that side of the
House. We do not expect to see any imaginative resolutions to
the present agricultural crisis either.
The farmers are doing their best. One of my constituents, Mr.
Rene Cadrain, wrote in the Western Producer “They say
diversify. I've been diversifying all my life and things are
getting worse by the minute”.
The federal government can try to pawn off its responsibility by
saying that Asia has depressed prices and there is nothing it can
do about that. But what is really happening to the price of
grain worldwide? We can see that a loaf of bread still costs the
same. As a baker, Mr. Speaker, I am certain you can answer to
that.
The Europeans are injecting billions into subsidies to keep
farmers growing wheat when the market is already well served in
that area. Insulated from the real price they should be getting,
European farmers are contributing to a glut that nonetheless
leaves millions of starving people around the world. That is
obviously something that needs attention all by itself. But this
government has done nothing to counteract the mistaken policies
of its trading partners.
We scaled back our agriculture safety net from $2.5 billion to
$600 million in accordance with the world trade agreement. Good
for Canada, but we forgot to hold our allies to that same
standard. The Americans are getting into the act now with their
own bailouts.
Despite Canadians selling only 1.5 million tonnes into that
market that consumes 35 million tonnes, this government does
nothing as frustrated Americans stop our trucks. It is certainly
ironic when a prairie farmer tries to sell his own wheat in the
U.S. and he is arrested by his own government, and when his
government tries to truck the wheat down there, it is turned back
by state troopers. It gives you a greater appreciation of the
comment in the Lethbridge Herald recently that wheat
production is 10% grain and 90% politics.
We know that this government will be going to international
conferences soon to discuss these issues, but will it just be a
replay of Kyoto? No plan until they step from the hotel, no idea
of what Canadian farmers need to compete and prosper and no idea
of the cost and implications until it is too late.
We should all recognize the difficulty that governments face
when they try to satisfy many competing interests. This is a
diverse sector. Any policy has unintended consequences and is
bound to have as many detractors as it has beneficiaries.
Most of the difficulties experienced by farmers in this time of
falling net income relate to the tax burden. Federal income and
payroll taxes are bad enough, but due to offloading by senior
governments, many rural municipalities are forced to rely on
excessive property taxes to maintain their services. This type
of tax is not tied to the ability to pay and looms larger as land
values fail to reflect the drop in value of the crops grown on
them.
Senior levels of government brag about how they have balanced
their budgets, but they are bragging to the same taxpayer who is
getting squeezed at the local level. It is a shell game that no
longer fools many Canadians.
Of course jurisdictions cross at the federal and provincial
levels with negative consequences. The federal government is
responsible for the railways, but has not come up with a policy
to make the system more efficient. It offered a one time payout
to eliminate the Crow rate which equalled one year's worth of
freight. We are still shipping product. The effect is that now
farmers are paying an extra 30 cents a bushel for freight, a
major input cost.
What we have now are piecemeal rail abandonments, the
destruction of elevators and the towns that support them, and
longer hauls to market for crops. The roads take a pounding
without any dedication of fuel taxes to compensate the local
governments to fix them. The farmers' costs go up and grain ends
up sitting in bins.
The feds and the provinces cannot agree on who is responsible
for the environment either. We all have a stake in it of course,
but policies that impose flat charges on a whole range of goods
and services without any recognition of whether a large western
farm of 3,000 acres has the same impact as an eastern farm of 70
acres of a diverse crop can wipe out that narrow margin of
income.
Taxes and environmental fees on automotive parts and petroleum
products can loom larger for a farmer than a high volume urban
operation.
We are never sure whether that money is going toward an
environmental purpose or into general revenues. Farmers are
certainly willing to pay their fair share and they have been but
the key word here is fair and we just do not see that.
1545
I am calling for the government to stand up for Canadian farmers
on the international stage and to re-examine how the agricultural
sector is treated within our borders. Farmers as businessmen
need flexibility, accountability and efficiency from government
policies. They need to see a thorough re-evaluation of the many
short term band-aid solutions that have piled up over the years.
They do not want handouts. They are very self sufficient. But
they could use a playing field that would allow them to compete
fairly and efficiently now and when times are good.
I quote my constituent, Mr. Cadrain, again: “Wives have to
work to put food on the table and pay utilities. Why should we
who feed the world go with less than the people we feed?”
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really would have
enjoyed getting up for the previous speaker but you would not
allow me. I do not want to get into a partisan fight on this
issue although it is awfully hard not to get drawn into one by
the remarks made by the last member, especially with some of the
less than accurate information he was talking about on what this
government is doing.
The reason some farmers were arrested for trying to move grain
to the United States is that they were violating the marketing
system in this country which is there to maximize for producers
the returns that are in the marketplace. Thank goodness we have
the Canadian Wheat Board or the returns would have been even
lower. That's a fact.
Give us a little credit. We have some programs that make sense.
The supply management industries, which the member's party is
not too supportive of, are reasonably healthy because we have
organized marketing. Perhaps we should be looking at organized
marketing in other areas.
There is a serious farm crisis that is increasing. In this
debate we have to try to find some solutions. We on this side
are willing. I did not hear any proposed solutions in the
member's remarks. Could he give us some solutions to consider
rather than his rant against past policy?
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful the member did
not get partisan. I would not know where to start. He speaks
about the marketing system of the wheat board maximizing returns.
A while ago I heard the movie line “show me the money”. I
have not seen it. I am a western Canadian farmer who is under
that system. Of course the parliamentary secretary is not
because he is in a different part of the country. I have not
seen that maximization of returns. Nobody can show me the bottom
line.
People are trying to take their products across borders because
they are frustrated. They do not have any black ink on their
bottom line. Bankers are saying the only way they are going to
get out of it is to sell their land. Where do they go? What do
they do? I have farmers in my riding who are 55 to 60 years old
who are ready to pull the plug because there is no tomorrow for
them. They have diversified, they have agriculture, they have
done everything government levels have told them to do, and they
cannot be there for next spring's seeding. Where are they going
to go? At that age what are they going to retrain in or retool
to do?
Liberals have killed jobs in this country. What jobs are these
farmers going to take on? Their wives are driving school buses,
they are driving school buses. They are doing everything they
can to put bread on the table and they cannot keep it up. So
where do we go?
There is no open accountability in the wheat board. The member
says the board maximizes our returns. Look at the
continental barley market a couple of years ago. It took barley
and drove it right through the ceiling for price. Everybody loved
it. It had to shut it down after two months because it was
competing against other forces that the wheat board did not want
it to be competing against. When we took oats out from under the
board, productivity in oats went up by 2000% on the prairies.
Those facts and figures are there to be verified. I could go on
all day.
Mr. Wayne Easter: You're not making any sense.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: I will answer to that at home. I will
not answer to it to the member's potato producers in P.E.I.
We have a cheap food policy in this country. We have not seen
the cost of a loaf of bread following the price of wheat. If it
were we would be buying bread for two bits a loaf, and we are
not. Mr. Speaker, you are a baker. You know the price of bread
is up there on the quality stuff. You pay for that quality.
1550
We have a quality wheat product in this country which is better
than anywhere in the world. But we do not get a premium price
for it. Why is that? The wheat board is maximizing our returns.
We have high protein. We have the best milling wheat grown in
the world. We have the best durum grown in the world. The
Italians like it for their pasta, but we cannot get it to them.
The Americans love it. Why are we handcuffing our farmers by not
letting them have the flexibility to make their own decisions?
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.
I am very pleased to participate in this debate and to speak
about one of the principal strengths of Canada's agriculture and
agri-food sector, its innovativeness.
The sector has long been a leader in forward thinking and
strategic planning. The agri-food sector demonstrates a keen
business sense and a healthy enthusiasm for competition. Staying
at the forefront of developments in this sector is a constant
process, a process of adapting to changing conditions, of
adopting new technologies and improving one's position in the
marketplace.
Clearly if we are serious about this effort we have to put the
money where it matters. Research is a critical investment. The
work done by scientists in the agri-food area provides the
foundation on which farmers are able to build a competitive
business that returns them a reasonable income.
For example, a recent study by the Government of Canada called
“The Economic Benefits of Public Potato Research in Canada”
found that from 1971 to 1995 public research on potatoes returned
$10 to the industry for every $1 invested. Other studies have
shown that the return on investment in cereal research is 30%.
That means for every dollar we spend we make $1.30 through things
like increased exports, higher quality products and lower
production costs. This is a very important figure when we
consider how important and competitive the world market is for
cereals.
With its commitment to both basic and applied research the
Government of Canada is working hard with the agri-food sector to
make that return grow. Canada's agriculture and agri-food
research capabilities amount to a success story. They are key
factors in helping our agriculture and agri-food innovate for
further economic development and environmental sustainable. With
the inevitable downturns that are a fact of life in the market
system the strength of the connections between the research and
technology development community and the wider agriculture and
agri-food sector has never been more important.
In Canada public and private spending on research in the
agriculture and agri-food sector amounts to $1 billion, and $350
million of that comes from the Government of Canada. If we think
research is expensive just try competing without R and D against
the likes of the United States, the European Union and our other
main competitors. It will not work.
Producer organizations representing farmers in many commodities
are participating in steering committees on research and
development at the national level of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada's research branch as well as at individual research
centres across the country. This means that producers are
playing a direct role in the direction of research and technology
development activities. These activities will lead to new
products and new processes to enhance productivity, open new
markets and add value to agricultural products.
Through programs such as the matching investment initiative and
the Canadian adaptation and rural development fund, producers
have contributed both input and funding to support research and
technology development activities in a wide range of areas, from
biotechnology to environmentally sustainable farming practices.
They deserve praise for their proactive efforts.
Research activities are supporting diversification by
developing, testing and adapting new crops and techniques to
Canadian conditions. Scientists are working to develop new
applications for existing crops such as varieties of wheat better
suited to pasta.
From cranberries to canola, Canadian farmers have access to
expertise and advice from researchers on lucrative new crops or
niche marketing opportunities.
1555
Research is also helping farmers lower their costs of
production, whether through new soil conservation methods or high
technology for livestock grading.
Research also facilitates the transition to a more global
market. We are in a difficult stage of that transition right
now, no doubt. The current situation has been shaped by an
almost unprecedented combination of events. But both the sector
and its partners in the federal and provincial governments remain
actively engaged on all fronts to see that the farm income
support system continues to work well and to evolve. That is
what the meeting the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has
called tomorrow is all about.
In the background, research and technology development
activities across Canada are laying the groundwork for future
success. That helps explain why Canadian agriculture is among
the best in the world. Our expertise in things like irrigation,
tillage, crop breeding and disease control is no accident. It is
the product of hard work and investments on the research side.
Agriculture is high tech. Farmers make great use of technology.
In wise and skilful hands the tools of technology can bring rich
harvests. Go to any region in this country and look at its farms
and its processing operations to get a measure of that.
Moving technology from the lab to the farm requires a close and
ongoing relationship between Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's
18 research centres and producers in their regions.
Here are some examples for my hon. colleagues to consider. At
the Lacombe Research Centre in Alberta, the Canadian Cattlemen's
Association is involved in a study using computer vision
technology to accurately grade beef.
At the Saskatoon Research Centre the Canola Council of Canada is
working jointly with federal researchers on a study using the
latest biotechnology methods to improve the quality of canola oil
and meal.
At the Horticultural Research and Development Centre in
Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, work has led to diagnostic standards to
correct mineral deficiencies for peas, beans and corn.
The Fredericton Research Centre, in a project supported in part
by the New Brunswick Potato Agency, has developed a technology to
improve blight forecasting.
These are just some examples, and they dramatically illustrate
the point that whether it is new approaches to crop and animal
production or learning how to control weeds and combat diseases
that can cripple a harvest, what is accomplished at research
centres will positively affect us all.
Increasing production is a great thing but we know that we are
living on borrowed time if we ignore the long term quality of the
soil, water and air. Using water and fertilizers more
effectively means improved soil structure, conservation of water
and a reduction in the so-called greenhouse gases that are behind
global warming.
Hon. members wish to debate the current situation in
agriculture, but I would think we should broaden the debate to
focus on now and the future, because research is helping to shape
the future of agriculture. In many ways it is helping to ensure
there will be a future for agriculture.
In assessing the current situation we must not lose sight of
what is being done to build on the many strengths of Canadian
agriculture, and there are many strengths. Without question the
agriculture and food sector in Canada is leading the way in
setting priorities and making decisions and investments that will
generate long term benefits at all levels of the food system,
from producers to consumers.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions and
comments we will have one minute for the question and one minute
for the response.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it rather interesting that a member with a
background in media and communications would give us a speech
which is very obviously a canned speech straight off the shelf.
1600
I wonder if he understood anything he read. He does read very
well. He gave us a lot of platitudes. He said farming was high
tech. I am lost for words. He said water and fertilizer should
be used effectively. He is into a lot of fertilizer all right.
Mostly he spent time singing a hymn to our agricultural research
establishment. It is great. It is one of the best in the world,
but it has been around for over 100 years.
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear in the
intervention of the hon. member that he is not interested in the
debate. Despite the fact that farmers deserve a healthy debate,
the member is not prepared to give it. He would be happier
simply hurling allegations and insults across the floor.
In my prepared speech I was trying to talk about the fact that
research is playing a vital role in agriculture and agri-food. If
the hon. member from Saskatchewan wants to belittle that, that is
fine, but I do not think his constituents will be very impressed.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, with all the research being done—and we know costs have
to be cut—why is it that the Canadian Wheat Board for the last
three or four years has been marketing less and less grain but
costs have still gone up about 8% to 10% a year?
Where could we do some cutting in that marketing agency? When
prices drop from 40% to 70% for grain, surely there should be
some cutbacks instead of continual increases.
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, farmers on the prairies
will have an opportunity to look at the problem he raises. As he
well knows, there is an election process taking place right now.
Ten of the fifteen directors will be farmers.
If that is an issue which concerns farmers, and I am sure it
does, the new board of directors will look at it. If there are
some solutions to bringing down the overhead of the wheat board,
I am sure these new directors will find them and implement the
new ideas they bring to the board.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
always find it very interesting to come here not just to talk to
agriculture issues but to a lot of other issues. Members of the
government come in with canned speeches and read from them as if
they were quoting from the Scriptures.
Has the member been out of Winnipeg lately to talk to farmers
and to find out how serious the situation is? Does he have a
clue what the motion is today? Are we talking about R and D in
agriculture or are we talking about a farm income crisis? The
questions are quite simple.
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, it is typical of this
member that he generally does not know what he is talking about.
I assure the member that I grew up on a farm in southern
Manitoba. I have scads of relatives and friends who work farms.
I see and talk to them all the time. He may not want to believe
that, but if he wants to check it out I invite him to do so.
I am very familiar with the motion. I find it very interesting
that in effect the Reform Party is asking us to look at the farm
crisis right now and do it on an urgent basis. There is nothing
wrong with that, but the motion asks us to deal with other
countries around the world concerning unfair subsidies.
It would take a number of months, if not years, to negotiate
some new deals with other countries on subsidies. Yet that is
exactly what members of the Reform Party want. They want us to
spend years dealing on these international matters and at the
same time hop on the farm crisis tomorrow. It is one way or the
other. They cannot have it both ways.
1605
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to join in
the debate concerning the future of the Canadian agriculture and
agri-food sector because it is a fundamental concern that unites
us all.
As a former agriculture producer of asparagus, cauliflower and
tobacco, I know very well the ups and downs of farm income, low
commodity prices and weather conditions. There is much the
government can do and should do.
While we acknowledge that farming is a risky business, our
government is working from coast to coast to coast in support of
agriculture and our agri-food sector. Together with farmers,
local organizations, provincial and territorial governments we
are working co-operatively to improve producer efficiencies, to
develop market opportunities, and to encourage sustainable
environmental practices.
As the minister pointed out in his remarks, farmers and
governments have both planned well ahead of time for a market
downturn in farm commodities. We are now, however, experiencing
a farm crisis.
At the October 15 meeting of the National Safety Nets Advisory
Council there was a discussion of a national disaster program.
The federal and provincial representatives as well as farm
leaders from across the country agreed that farmers were facing
some very difficult economic times.
As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stated in my riding
two weeks ago, he does not want Canadian farmers left twisting in
the wind if the current bout with poor commodity prices continues
for long.
Jack Wilkinson, president of the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture, feels a program could be finalized relatively
quickly even by February. While he is not sure what the final
program may look like, it could be premium free and could be
triggered by individual farm operators suffering from a drastic
loss of income caused by either crop losses or reduced market
prices.
“A whole farm approach may be taken and a program will have to
be designed to be trade neutral”, stated Mr. Wilkinson. He
suggested that any new program, if put in place, will complement
existing programs.
For Ontario farmers existing programs include the market revenue
program for grain and oilseeds producers, the NISA program and
crop insurance, but we also need a third line of defence.
Changes have been made to NISA already, enabling farmers to take
advantage of early withdrawals based on estimated income
projections rather than on year end tax statements. There are
whole farm disaster type programs now in place in Alberta,
British Columbia and Prince Edward Island.
NISA program moneys are available to Canadian farmers and add up
to about $2.5 billion. That equates to $17,000 for the average
Canadian participant and about $16,000 for the average Ontario
participant. I would be remiss in saying that there are
approximately 40,000 who have $1,000 in that program.
We now live in a global economic environment and there is much
more competition for our product. On October 23 I had the
pleasure of taking the minister of agriculture to four operations
in my riding to see hemp, sugar beets, soybeans and a large farm
implement dealer. I believe it is important to hear from the
grassroots about what they are thinking, what their concerns are
and their ideas for the future.
Chatham—Kent in southwestern Ontario is Canada's largest
producer of hemp. A new firm called Kenex Limited, headed by
Jean Laprise, is an example of the ability of our agriculture
entrepreneurs to succeed in an increasingly competitive world.
Already it has invested over $4 million in harvesting and
production, making inside door panels for cars and trucks, floor
mats, hemp cheese and hemp nuts, all for export.
The federal government is assisting in their enterprises. I was
pleased this summer to announce funding for Kenex through the $60
million per year Canadian adaptation and rural development fund
to help set up a processing line. It is one way we can help our
rural communities adapt to change.
Many farmers across Canada are diversifying their operations and
trying new crops, aiming for new markets. I also announced this
summer funding for asparagus growers in my riding to assist them
in the niche crop they are exporting.
1610
Sugar beets are returning to southwestern Ontario after a 30
year absence. Some 3,000 acres were grown last year and this
year 6,500 acres were grown by 103 growers, with estimated gross
sales of $8.5 million, and 100% of this product is shipped to
Michigan. It provides an additional crop rotation, increases
employment through the supply, production, piling and
transportation chain, and provides a future for many farmers.
These are but a few examples of success stories in the agri-food
industry.
Those of us who represent ridings in rural Canada, who have
raised their families and earned a living in rural Canada, know
full well the importance of farming in the agri-food sector.
Producers, processors and retailers from the field to the fork
represent a vital contribution to Canada's economy.
Those of us who live in rural Canada also know that many
commodity prices are at or near record lows. Low grain prices,
low hog and cattle prices, along with rising input costs, are
causing income related concerns among producers. Since grains
and oilseeds have been heavily hit by the loss of international
markets, prairie farmers are most affected.
The shift toward canola and special crops like beans and lentils
is no coincidence. Farmers are paying close attention to market
signals and using that information to decide what to produce and
how to produce it.
I am sure we can all agree that the current troubling situation
was not created by factors only within Canada. The Asian
financial crisis and Russia's economic woes have meant lost
sales. Good crops combined with reduced demand have resulted in
an oversupply in the marketplace and lower commodity prices.
These low prices are expected to continue through 1999.
In the long term diversification means a stronger farm and a
stronger farm sector and farmers know it because it accords with
their keen business sense and strong competitive spirit.
Staying at the forefront of development is a constant process, a
process of adapting to changing conditions, of adopting new
technologies and of improving one's position in the marketplace.
Hemp and sugar beet producers are doing exactly that in my
riding.
The question then becomes what is the government's role in
cushioning the impact of the farm income crisis. The government
and our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food are addressing this
issue in the most prudent and effective manner. In the short
term the net income stabilization account holds $2.5 billion that
Canadian farmers can access. This represents an annual
contribution of $600 million by the federal government, $400
million by the provinces, and $600 million by farmers.
The safety net program is available to the farmers right now.
Seventy-five per cent of NISA participants have sufficient funds
to bring 1998 incomes up to average earnings in the 1993 to 1997
period. Any simplistic short term solution is not in anyone's
best interest. Only a long term solution to the low commodity
prices is appropriate. This solution cannot encourage trade
sanctions and provoke a trade war. Sanctions would hurt the long
term viability of Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector.
Canadian farmers do not want a stop gap or an ad hoc approach.
Upon the invitation of our minister of agriculture, farm leaders
and provincial government representatives are meeting tomorrow to
discuss the problem. Let us hope the discussions are productive
and fruitful and are in the interest of our farmers first and
foremost.
Diversification cannot prevent downturns in the market but it
can blunt some of the effects of that downturn. Diversification
is not the only solution but is part of the effort to ensure the
best possible prospects for the Canadian agriculture and
agri-food sector.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I must express my appreciation. It is good to see
somebody on the other side who knows something about agriculture.
It is also reassuring to see the hon. member working at committee
to recognize the difficulties that farmers are having. She
talked about a third line of defence. I am glad she is willing
to look at other things that work. Unfortunately she needs to
inform herself a little more fully about NISA.
I would like her to reply to a question. How do we communicate
the importance of this issue to all Canadians? The concern we
have over here is that not enough people are made aware of the
importance of agriculture to Canada.
1615
I can appeal to Canadians by putting this in context by saying
that we are talking at great length about whether we should give
a 1% or 2% raise to our union members, postal employees,
teachers, workers in the automotive industry, electrical,
telephone and delivery services. We express grave concerns that
these people are not getting a 1% or 2% raise but here we have
farmers taking a 75% cut in their pay. That is very serious. It
affects a large part of Canada and yet we are unable to get most
Canadians to recognize the seriousness of the problem.
We can talk about $22 billion in exports and we know how
important that is but if we go beyond that people's eyes glaze
over at these numbers sometimes.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for his comments. I certainly agree that we have a big
learning cycle out there to educate our non-farmer consumers on
this issue.
All too often we hear that it is the farmers' problem. Prior to
being a member of parliament I worked as a constituency
assistant. I had a man of the cloth who came in and was right
downturned on farmers. Being a farmer I did not take too kindly
to his remarks.
He said he did not know why farmers needed subsidies. He said
the shelves are full in the stores. I said that was wonderful and
was glad he realized that but I also asked him if he realized the
food was not grown in cans on the shelves in the stores.
I believe our urban colleagues are certainly understanding our
situation with the pricing and to see exactly what is out there.
I think we have a little battle ahead of us but I do believe they
are recognizing the vital importance agriculture plays in our
society, not only farmers but the further processors. Many
people have family members who are connected indirectly or
directly with the agriculture sector.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member
for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is very concerned about the farm
crisis and agriculture issues. I have heard her talk
passionately on it many times.
One common theme runs through all farm crises. We have had farm
crises in past generations. It does not matter in what generation
the farm crisis occurs or what commodity or community. There is
as a result of a farm crisis economic violence, I would call it,
inflicted on farm families. That is the level I want to deal
with.
Do we have anything in place? What about the Farm Debt
Mediation Act or is there anything in place that the government
can do to deal with that kind of economic violence that will take
place within farm families at the community and individual level?
That is what we have to deal with.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for that question. I can certainly understand where he
is coming from.
I have been very fortunate to be on the front lines working in a
constituency office and addressing some of these concerns over
the past years when there have been crises within our communities
in the farming sector.
I believe the revamping of the farm debt review board has a
program that will help some of these farmers. Being a farmer in
my past life, we always think next year will be a better year.
Sometimes our pride gets ahead of common sense a little by
thinking that another struggling effort can be made to put in the
crops.
With this program farmers can actually access information to see
if there is a possibility of them continuing next year. They can
see the avenues or how they could change their farming practices.
I think it will be tapped into on a regular basis in the next
few months.
I look forward to tomorrow's outcome when we have the provincial
ministers and agricultural leaders in town. These are the people
who will give us the best answers as to how we address this
national disaster program.
1620
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be splitting my time.
As the chief critic for the Reform Party on agriculture I find
it a pleasure to be here today to speak on this Reform supply day
motion dealing with the income crisis currently occurring in
Canada.
We found it necessary to bring this supply motion forward and to
bring a motion forward in the agriculture standing committee to
move the government along on this issue and recognize there is a
problem today and that it will be even worse in the future. There
is every indication that the government was not prepared to take
any immediate action to deal with this problem and was looking
down the road that maybe it would solve itself.
I would like to make a correction to what has been going on in
the House. A number of members on the government side have
repeatedly stated that we have raised this issue simply as a
western crisis. We well know that when one sector of the
agriculture economy goes into a crisis situation on the income
side that it is not too long until a major portion of the
Canadian economy follows suit.
I refer directly back to the comments by the member for Calgary
Southwest. He said we recognize that there is a Canadian income
crisis which is why we have raised this debate today. Politics
has to take a back seat to the issue facing people today.
Many farmers even when they are making a profit are not in the
rich and wealthy category. We have heard the same story today as
we have heard in the House in past weeks, the same reasons why
the government feels it did not have to really do anything. It
was kind of along the idea that the global market has failed us,
the farm income crisis is due to the Asian flu or the Russian
economy going down the tubes. It is just a cycle.
Also we have heard that NISA and crop insurance will address all
the problems. That is just not the case and I have noted the
government is moving along the road to admitting that there is a
major problem and that something has to be done. Tomorrow the
agriculture ministers are appearing in Ottawa from across the
country and that will help move this issue along further.
If the government is sincere about ensuring the future of
agriculture it will have to take the actions required so that a
farmer does not need two or three jobs off the farm. The
minister of agriculture has made comments to the effect that the
farm economy goes up and down and suggested that farmers look for
some outside source of income. A viable agriculture operator and
his family cannot be put under greater stress by getting a job to
supplement his farm income when it is not sufficient for him to
make a living.
That suggestion is fine for the small farmer who maybe has only
a few acres or is only part time farmer at best, but it certainly
cannot be applied to our commercial farmers. The government has
to create an environment which producers can make an adequate
living from farming. I believe that we are debating this issue
today because the government has failed to do its job over the
past 30 years without going into a long history of 100 years ago.
A government needs the foresight to look down the road and have
in place programs and policies that enable a vital industry like
agriculture to continue through the good and bad times that are
always coming along. I do not just fault the Liberal government
on this. The Conservative government shared in that past.
I remember back in 1970 when wheat was $1 a bushel in Interlake
and Manitoba.
1625
The few people who would buy it tried putting it through
livestock and that soon went down the tubes also.
We have had this before and somehow, someday a government has to
put in place programs and policies that will ensure farmers carry
through when the next downturn comes along. That opportunity is
now available to this government and that is where the farming
industry is looking for solutions.
The priorities of this government also need to be examined.
Education and health are major issues and major programs that
have to be fully funded and cared for. These should be at the
top level of this government's next budget. In addition,
agriculture should be added as a top level area to be addressed
in the next budget.
Some of the examples of misguided priorities have probably been
examined here today. They include the spending with regard to
the Firearms Act. I would be surprised if my friend from
Yorkton—Melville did not mention that. But $330 million going
into a program that will not do any good shows a misguided
attempt to priorize government spending to an area that will buy
votes in some sectors of the country, big cities perhaps, but it
will not do anything effective for the country.
There is a lot of money in many parts of government departments
similar to that wasteful spending that could be marshalled to be
used to deal with the crisis before us.
We have had several speakers from the different parties and I
note that our friends to the left, the NDP, are singing along the
lines of $1 billion here or $1 billion there. That is not the
solution to this crisis or the long term crisis. The Conservative
Party has been repeating some of the same things and I find that
disappointing also.
The minister has stated this government has frozen user fees for
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. What about eliminating that
agency? What about a corresponding reduction in income taxes?
What about the cost recovery programs of the Canadian grain
commission? What about pilot fees on the Great Lakes? Will the
minister commit to eliminating these costs today?
In short, we have to create an environment with a viable farming
community and we must reduce the cost of government to enable us
to do that.
I end with an analogy. We had the famous Prime Minister batter
situation arise and I think the Prime Minister is really more of
a pitcher. The pitcher is supposed to be the leader of the team.
He has the ball in his hands and it is up to him to throw that
ball and make the next action, address the issue in front of him.
If this pitcher, this little guy from Shawinigan, throws the
next baseball into the dirt on this issue, the taxpaying farmers
of Canada, along with many other taxpayers, will soon recall him
from the team and probably bring in a reliever.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member
for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, agriculture.
1630
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member
for Selkirk—Interlake has farmers in mind in terms of the farm
crisis and I want to back him up, but this is not a western issue
and I do not believe people on this side of the House believe
that it is in fact a Canadian issue.
His remarks lacked specifics. There is a funny thing about the
farm crisis. If one has not experienced the farm crisis
personally it is very difficult to understand the loss of pride,
the loss of one's heritage and so on.
Does the member have any specifics? Would he support utilizing
the Farm Credit Corporation in some fashion to deal with this
crisis? Would he support introducing green programs? Are there
extra tools that the member could offer that the farm debt
mediation board could utilize in terms of dealing with this
crisis?
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, the crisis that is
facing us today has a long history and a long track record. It
goes way back to the previous government of which the questioner
was a member.
We have raised this issue and brought it to the attention of the
government along with many industry players and representatives.
The industry and the opposition parties do not have control of
the budget that will be coming down in February. We do not know
how much has been committed to other programs that are not
related to agriculture. We do not know where the government will
be able to get that money by repriorizing its spending. Heaven
knows, it may even raise taxes. Who knows what it will do?
The fact is that no one can tell the government what to do in
its next budget. We can suggest, but it is up to the government
to come up with solutions in its budget and to repriorize its
spending toward agriculture.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened intently to the member for
Selkirk—Interlake. He accused the NDP of wanting to throw a
billion dollars here and a billion dollars there.
I can assure the hon. member that our agriculture critic, the
member for Palliser, has estimated that anywhere from $500
million to $700 million is needed for emergency aid now so that
farmers right across this country can get through the winter.
As a former member of the fisheries and oceans committee, I want
to express this statement, relating it to farming and
agriculture, and see if he agrees. “Our fisheries and marine
policy is a perfect example of how Canada does not work and how
unaccountable and dysfunctional our system of government can
be”.
If we relate that to farming and agriculture, would he not agree
that is a valid statement?
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, he certainly seemed to
have the agreement of a lot of members in the House after his
speech.
The crisis that we are talking about has to have a two-pronged
solution, both for the short term and the long term. Simply
throwing money at the problem is not going to solve it in the
long term. That is what the budget is for in February and that
is where the government has to move.
We have to wait until all of the industry players have had a
chance to put their solutions forward. At that time, through the
committee on agriculture, we will be able to put forward reports
with recommendations that will have a viable, long term solution
for the government to follow. We are going to get that done in
time for the February budget.
I take great pride in the fact that Reform has been the party
pushing this issue forward the most at this point.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been very, very difficult to have questions
answered by the government. I asked this question earlier and I
must emphasize once again that the government is ignoring the
question. What are the bureaucrats in agriculture doing?
I read an article in the paper awhile back that described how
many bureaucrats we have in all of the departments of agriculture
across this country.
1635
There are 5.7 farmers for every bureaucrat. Farmers have come
to me and asked: “What are these guys doing? This crisis is
coming down the pike and nobody has prepared us for it”. It is
the very same thing that the member asked: “What would you do?”
We do not need more programs designed by bureaucrats.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, with the limited
resources of any economy we have to use the resources available
to us in the wisest fashion.
Things such as excessive numbers of employees, starting programs
simply to have a program in a given area, to get votes in that
area and to make everybody feel good have to be cut.
We heard today in committee a suggestion that a task force be
created to address the very issue of wasted, misguided spending
by various departments.
The industry believes that a lot of money can be found for
agriculture in the existing budget. That is the challenge for
the government.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very glad to be able to get in on the latter part
of this debate, having just come from a constituency where
another problem related to agriculture is very, very important.
In the area where I come from taxes rank third. For some dry
land farmers it is freight, fuel and then taxes.
I want to show how this government, by a reversal of form, is
killing rural government in Saskatchewan.
Rural government in Saskatchewan is maintained by rural
municipalities. Generally it has an elected reeve and six
councillors. We recognize and my friends in the rural government
recognize that some of the land that is under their taxation
jurisdiction, as part of the municipality, now comes under Indian
land claims.
This argument is not about rural municipalities versus native
claims. It is a direct concern of the little rural municipality
out there with 400 or 500 people. This humongous government has
reversed a policy and is forcing the rural municipalities to
raise their taxes. It is not just one rural municipality. Many
will follow.
This is a federal issue. What this government is doing is
trying to pass on a debt that is owed by this government to the
rural government of Saskatchewan.
Under the previous government there was a treaty land
entitlement. I want hon. members opposite to listen carefully to
this. That government agreed that the rural municipality from
which the land would be taken would receive compensation based on
22.5 times the previous year's taxes.
After 10 years this was agreed upon. Harry Swain, deputy
minister of Indian and northern affairs, wrote to the
Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and said “The
mechanism agreed with Saskatchewan in the September 13
cost-sharing agreement on treaty land entitlement appears to be
appropriate”. That is when they agreed to pay 22.5 times the
previous year's taxes. He was referring to the specific land
claims.
Just one year later, in 1992, deputy minister of Indian and
northern affairs Dan Goodleaf wrote “The federal government
recognizes that the recent TLE framework agreement has created a
level of expectation by RMs that a standard of 22.5 times the
previous year's tax revenue will be paid in all cases of reserve
creation”.
My time does not allow me to read all of it, but I want to point
out that one year after that promise there was a change in
government.
1640
This government was elected. By the way, five Liberals from
Saskatchewan were elected.
What happened? This government unilaterally, after a commitment
was made to the RMs of Saskatchewan, changed the 22.5 times to a
lousy five times.
One has to ask the question: Where were the Liberals who were
elected from Saskatchewan to support the RMs during that time?
Where were those Liberals?
It means this. People who owned a piece of land with a tax rate
of $1,000 were promised that they would receive $22,500 and the
RM would maintain the roads. This government has now said that
it will give them $5,000 and they can maintain the roads forever.
The RMs have been slapped in the face. As a result they have to
raise taxes in the balance of the RMs because of the lost
revenue.
The real problem is in the fact that no one in Saskatchewan can
understand why the previous minister of Indian affairs and
northern development refused to meet with SARM, the Saskatchewan
school trustees and the provincial government.
The economy of Saskatchewan is in dire straits. Would this
minister meet with the groups which are so drastically affected
by this reversal?
A former Prime Minister of Canada from Saskatchewan finally
erected a dam across the Saskatchewan River. Up until that time
this hon. gentleman said that the federal government said
Saskatchewan was not worth a damn. That is exactly what this
government is saying to the rural municipalities.
This government is saying that it will give people $5,000
instead of $22,500 and they can maintain the roads. These people
cannot do it.
Here is the situation. The government negotiates a treaty with
an Indian band. The RM knows it is going to get 22.5 times the
last assessment or the taxes on that piece of land. It does not
happen. What happens? Revenue goes down. There is no money
available for the schools. People are moving out.
Six or seven more land claims are imminent. This government
sits here, smacks us in the face and says that it unilaterally
decided it is going to be five times the assessment.
Where have the members of the NDP been? Where have the NDP
members been in protesting this in rural Saskatchewan?
We are supposed to believe that the premier of Saskatchewan can
pick up the phone to call the Prime Minister. All the premier
would have to say is “back off and give Saskatchewan what it
deserves. Give rural Saskatchewan what was originally
promised”. Or do they really agree and continue to knock it
away? More farmers are being affected very quickly.
This is a debt which is owed by the people of Canada. This
government is saying to those 300 or 400 people in the rural
municipality: “Who are you? You are not going to get the 22.5
times the previous year's taxes. You are going to get five times
and you people can bloody well get your change out of your
pockets and pay more tax dollars”. This is just one RM, but it
is gaining momentum throughout Saskatchewan.
I can assure members that this local government, as well as the
trustees, as well as the villages and towns, want to know if the
government is going to continue this robbery. These people want
to know if this government is going to continue smacking us in
the face with five times the assessment and making the RMs
responsible for maintaining the roads forever.
This is an utter disgrace. It is a smack in the face to
agriculture. It is a smack in the face to the people who have
built the roads and everything else. Let us show a little
concern. Let us reverse this and go back to the original
agreement and do not slap Saskatchewan in the face again and
again with every land treaty that is settled.
1645
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been here
most of the day during this debate. In all seriousness I am
really wondering why the motion by the Reform Party was put
today.
I have asked several times for Reformers to come forward with
specifics and they have not. The member opposite was not on the
farm crisis really at all. Are they just blowing smoke over
there? Is this a debate for their pet peeves about other issues?
We have seen all kinds of attacks on the government, on the
Canadian Wheat Board, on this and on that but we have not seen
one specific from the Reform Party in terms of dealing with this
farm crisis. The farm crisis is serious. It must be dealt with
now.
Tomorrow the minister of agriculture has a meeting with the farm
leaders and all the ministers of agriculture from across the
country. He is being proactive.
Here is an opportunity today for Reformers to put forward some
suggestions and we are hearing none. Let me ask again, could
they give me some specifics. I know their policy talks about
using market mechanisms. Are they now recognizing that there is
a crisis out there? Are they willing to go beyond the market
mechanisms and go to ad hoc programs? Are they willing to use
farm credit? Are they willing to use green programs? Does the
farm debt mediation board need to be strengthened? Give us some
suggestions, some specifics.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite
made the suggestion that I should be more specific. How much
more specific can anyone be as it relates to the taxes of the
farmers in a growing number of areas within my constituency?
I was elected to serve my constituency first. That is what I am
doing. How much more specific does the member want? This
government reneged. Instead of giving 23.5 times the taxes of
the previous years, it is going to cut it down to 5. Then the
government latches on to the RMs and says they can maintain the
roads on top of that. They are losing money. This is a debt.
That is specific. It is a debt of the federal government. It
was promised by the federal government. It was promised to the
RMs. It was promised to the taxpayers and the Liberal government
is not living up to that debt, and that is specific.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Souris Mountain asked where was the NDP
in all this. I can assure the hon. member that when farmers are
in trouble or anyone in this country is in trouble they can
always count on the NDP provincially and federally for support.
In the last parliament it was not the New Democratic Party that
voted for the privatization of CN. It was not the New Democratic
Party that voted for the privatization of our transportation
system in Bill C-101. It was not the NDP that voted for the
dismantling of the Crow rate. It was not the New Democratic
Party that laid the burden on farmers for the transportation
problems right across the country.
The government and the Reform Party must have known that when we
download that kind of financial responsibility on the farmers
they are going to have problems down the road. Would the member
not agree that because we do not have a national agricultural
policy that is one of the major reasons why we are in such
trouble today?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
comment. I still believe, however, that the New Democratic Party
could help on this issue. I believe it could help on the
taxation issue. I think the NDP should get together with the
premier of Saskatchewan and do something about it.
1650
Hon. members ought to know that every time we get into a
situation like this, farmers are looking at this massive
bureaucracy. For every five and a half farmers we must have a
government employee. That is part of the problem. The other
problem is taxation. I just vented one area of taxation. Time
does not permit me to get into two more areas of taxation which
drop right smack in the laps of the members opposite.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the
opportunity to speak on this motion. I will be splitting my
time.
The Government of Canada recognizes that Canadian primary
producers face unique challenges in operating their businesses.
Not only must they deal with the pests, the diseases and the
unpredictable Canadian weather, they must also do business in a
highly volatile, competitive and often heavily subsidized
international marketplace.
To help Canadian producers meet those challenges the federal
government is investing $600 million each year in farmer safety
nets. The provinces are spending an additional $400 million.
This envelope of $1 billion in addition to the funds contributed
by producers funds a system that helps farmers deal with the
production, the material risks and the market risks they must
manage in their farming operations.
The cornerstone of this system is the net income stabilization
account, NISA, a voluntary program that can provide a source of
money for farmers during market downturns. This money can be
used for whatever purpose they choose, to pay input suppliers, to
meet operating and term loan payments or to supplement their
personal incomes. As the minister mentioned earlier, NISA has
been a tremendous success with participants accounting for 85% of
the net sales of commodities eligible for the program.
I will briefly describe how the NISA system works and how it
helps Canadian farmers deal with market downturns. Each year a
producer participating in the program can place up to 3% of his
or her eligible net sales into his or her individual NISA account
with a maximum of $7,500. The federal and provincial governments
match that money and pay a 3% interest bonus on the farmer's
share. That is fair.
When a downturn comes, producers can withdraw funds from their
account up to the level of their average income over the last
five years. Since 1991 Canadian producers have saved almost $2.5
billion in their NISA accounts. Most of that money has been
contributed over the last three or four high income years. In
general, producers of all primary commodities except for supply
management products like dairy, eggs and poultry are now eligible
to participate in this program.
Farmers who are not already enrolled in NISA are permitted to
make a late application up until the end of December. Benefits
for the 1997 year that would be reduced by a late filing penalty
could still add up to a significant amount.
Most farmers choose to participate in this excellent risk
management program. That means they have a tool to help them
manage through a price slump or a market downturn like the one
currently being experienced. On a national level, an Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada preliminary analysis suggests that the
majority of active NISA participants have enough money in their
accounts to see them through the winter.
By contrast, American farmers did not have this. They had to
wait and see what kind of bailout package Congress and the White
House would devise but in Canada farmers and governments have
been putting money into the bank every year. Thanks to NISA, most
Canadian farmers have money in the bank to fill in their income
gaps.
Canadian farmers have helped federal and provincial governments
to build the farm income system we now have in place. It is a
system that puts farmers in charge, that encourages farmers to
save money during the good years and helps them to manage their
way through the lean years.
This year we implemented a new interim withdrawal mechanism for
NISA so farmers can have access to their money when they need it
the most. So far producers have withdrawn only 3% of the $2.5
billion that has been accumulated in NISA. If the need for
additional funds increases in the coming months, they will be
able to decide based on their own individual circumstances when
and how much to withdraw from their accounts.
1655
In conclusion, I am very pleased that Canadian farmers have
worked with Government of Canada and the provinces to put in
place the kind of tools they need to help them through tough
times. They continue to work with the government and with the
provinces through the long term review process of the farm income
production system currently underway and scheduled to wrap up
this coming spring.
More immediately, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is
meeting with farm group leaders and provincial ministers tomorrow
to discuss this serious farm income situation. As well as the
tools we have in place now for these farmers, they will discuss
how these tools can be used to maximum effectiveness and if there
are other adjustments that we should be making to our safety
system for farmers.
Once more farmers themselves are at the table deciding how to
deal with the ups and downs in the markets and what the weather
and world conditions can bring. I am glad to see so many
commodity groups, along with all the provinces, joining our
minister tomorrow.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great attention to the hon. member. What
we have, in those famous words, is a failure to communicate.
The hon. member is once again deluding himself and his
government colleagues that there is not a problem out there. He
went on at great length extolling the virtues of the NISA
program. Yet the member has to know that NISA as it is presently
constituted helps those who really in many cases do not need the
help. In the past it has been the people with the highest net
incomes who were in the enviable position of being able to
contribute to the NISA. The people who had no net income and were
struggling and did not have the money could not invest in that
program. We have always said it was a good program. We have
said we would expand it to be an all-farm NISA. It is not the be
all and end all. I do not want the hon. member to leave that
impression with the farmers who are viewing this debate today.
I ask him if that is his intention. He said it was great that
the Liberals were able to deliver tools they need to help them
through tough times. The reality is these farmers do not have
the tools they need because the Liberal government has failed
miserably to act when it had the opportunity.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon.
member's colleagues on his side will tell him that we had four
hours of meetings on the agriculture standing committee today
with farm leaders such as Jack Wilkinson and the western pools.
NISA is a good program but it is not the answer to all our
problems. That is why we spent four hours in committee listening
to these people and asking questions. This is a serious
situation. No one has all the answers. That is one of the
reasons my hon. colleague from Prince Edward Island on this
side of the House today asked what he proposes. The supply
management sector is healthy at this time. Does he support that?
What would he like us to do?
He does not want us to help anybody out. He wants to cut money
from all these programs. Yet he wants us to help the western
producers. I want to do that too. We have to look at how bad
the circumstances are and see what we can do. This is not a
short term problem. World prices are at the very lowest in
commodities. We want to work together with our colleagues.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to clear up a misconception that was given by the member for
Selkirk—Interlake when he implied that it was the government
that stated this was a regional issue with western Canada.
It was a member from his party, the member for Dauphin—Swan
River, who brought the topic up that this was a western concern
and that eastern Canadians were fine because they had marketing
boards.
I go from there to the chair of the rural caucus about that
particular topic. The downturn of commodity prices is a national
catastrophe. It is a national issue.
Would he describe the effect of this downturn on his home
province of Ontario?
1700
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, this morning in rural
caucus as we met at 7.40 individual members from Ontario were
discussing how serious this situation is and how it is affecting
our producers. Individuals talked about hog producers. We
wonder what their future will be. There is an overproduction and
commodity prices are at an all time low, and following the Asian
flu there is less demand.
I have many neighbours who are involved in supply management and
are thankful that the government is supporting that. There are
also many people who grow cereals and grains who are concerned
about the future.
I am glad to see the motion on the floor. At committee we
supported bringing the motion forward, although we may have
wanted to change a few words in it. This is a serious crisis.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me say at the outset, which may come as no surprise to
members, that I am not a farmer. I have spent some time on a
farm like many Canadians. In fact, my wife's uncle has a 600
acre farm in a little community called Iron Bridge just about 80
kilometres this side of Sault Ste. Marie, which is my home town.
It is a farm that grows mostly rocks and a bit of water. He also
raises some cattle. Over the years he raised hogs and therefore
has had to deal with commodity difficulties.
My family and I have actually spent a lot of time there over the
years, mostly in the summer months, some of it bringing in the
hay and working on the farm. My boys spent many of their years
as youngsters working for their Uncle Ted.
That does not necessarily give me credentials as a farmer. I do
not pretend to have them. However, I think is important that all
Canadians understand what the position being put forward today
represents.
Let us be clear. An opposition day is an opportunity for the
opposition party in question to put forward a motion that somehow
in some way might embarrass the government. It is not about
serious policy. It is not about putting forward arguments and
debate to the farmers of western Canada or southwestern Ontario.
It is not about putting forward policies that make sense. It is
about ranting, raving and railing on about how awful it is that
this dastardly government is ignoring farmers.
The Reform Party has principles. If we do not like them it has
others, which is exactly what we are seeing here. One part of
the motion states:
Yet we can see it is the Reform Party's position. It is quite
interesting. Members of the Reform Party, in their own document
referred to as the blue book, call for a self-reliant and
economically viable agricultural industry which will use market
mechanisms, including the free operation of comparative advantage
between regions and commodities, free entry into all sectors of
production, and marketing and global free trade to meet the needs
of consumers. If their policies were adopted they would create a
trade war which they know full well would not benefit farmers or
consumers.
All of us in this place, whether we represent farm communities
or urban communities, represent people who need a successful
farming industry.
1705
On the one hand they would do all these miraculous things. They
consider themselves to be primarily free traders and on the other
hand they would create a trade war that would see farmers across
the country penalized.
Let us talk about some contradictions because hypocrisy
sometimes is amazing. It is amazing to see some of the
differences. They also support “the phased reduction and
elimination of all subsidies, support programs, trade
restrictions and non-tariff barriers in conjunction with other
countries and domestic sectors”.
They go on to say that they will vigorously use federal safety
net programs to support Canadian food producers that are
struggling. Which is it? Are we to use programs like NISA to
support farmers who are struggling food producers, or are we to
phase out and eliminate all subsidy support programs? What is
NISA? Is that not a support program? On one hand they want to
eliminate it. On the other hand they want to use it to support
farmers.
This takes me back to the election campaign when the leader of
the Reform Party would say one thing when talking in eastern
Canada, perhaps about Quebec or whatever, and another thing when
talking in western Canada. There seemed to be two messages or
more. I cannot explain it.
I am reading from their document. This is not Liberal
propaganda. They will support the phased reduction and
elimination of all subsidies and support programs. However they
will vigorously use federal safety net programs to support
Canadian food producers. It is pretty clear to me. They cannot
have it both ways.
Here are some other interesting statistics out of the blue book.
In their supposed taxpayers' budget of 1995 they called for $640
million to be saved by downsizing guess what department?
Mr. Larry McCormick: What department?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The department of agriculture. There
were others: industry, fisheries and oceans and natural
resources. Their knives knew no boundaries. They were prepared
to slash and burn and put up figures regardless of sustainability
or of the impact it would have on those ministries in regions of
the country. We can imagine what would happen in fisheries and
oceans.
No wonder they do not have a seat in eastern Canada. They
should go into eastern Canada and tell them that they want to cut
money out of those ministries that support Canadians working in
those industries. They would cut $640 million by downsizing
agriculture, industry, fisheries and oceans and natural
resources. They did not say the environment.
The other day the debate in the House was about how all
environmental issues should be turned over to provincial
interests. Someone even suggested that the municipalities could
do a better job, that the federal government had no position to
play as custodians of the national environment, and that it
should abdicate its responsibility.
It would not surprise me in the least if the day arrives in the
not too distant future when members of the Reform caucus will
call for the Minister of the Environment to invoke tough federal
regulations to protect a particular interest that they may have
that day or that they have read about in the Globe and Mail
or the National Post that morning, which seem to be the
fundamental research documents used by the Reform Party.
In addition, a further $690 million would be cut from other
regional and sector specific funding through the department of
agriculture. They talk about environment, industry and natural
resources. It is truly astounding.
The motion calls for emergency measures including tax relief and
yet their own documents do not support it. One thing I find most
interesting is how this seems to be a johnny-come-lately for
Reformers. Where have they been in question period? Where has
the critic for agriculture been? Where has the leader of the
Reform Party been to stand and ask amazingly tough questions of
the government and hold its feet to the fire?
1710
They do not ask questions during question period. Rather they
sit in the back room and concoct some kind of emotion to throw on
the floor and try to pretend they are the saviours of Canadian
farmers and Canadian businesses, that they are the only ones who
can foster tax relief. It is hypocrisy in its purest form, and
the Canadian people know it full well.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
may I straighten the member out as I usually have to do. At the
time he was talking about with regard to the 1995 budget there
was a $40 billion problem. The finance minister increased taxes
and slashed the guts out of health care by slashing $7 billion.
We do not have to take any lessons from him.
Everywhere I go I have people coming up to me and talking about
the issue of taxation, taxation and taxation. When I was talking
to farmers in the maritimes that was the number one issue. I do
not understand why the member, in spite of the fact that he comes
from an urban constituency, cannot understand that everyone
including farmers needs a tax break.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the member will know that
there was $7 billion in tax relief in the last budget. The
member will know that when we took over government in 1993 the
inherited deficit left by Mulroney's Conservative Party was $42
billion.
The member will know that our finance minister recently
announced a debt reduction of $3.5 billion in addition to the
fact that debt instruments totalling $9 billion were not renewed
by the government. The member will know in his heart but he will
not admit it that the government has started the country on the
road to tax relief from which farmers will benefit far more than
the nonsense being proliferated by the Reform Party.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is really odd that the member attacks us for what he
calls nonsense and yet the people by and large on this side who
are speaking are farmers, people who have lived their lives on
the farm.
The hon. member figures he can speak about the issue because he
once picked rocks on Uncle Ted's farm. If he wants to talk about
hypocrisy, I will tell the member about hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is
making the deep cuts as was done by the government and then
holding itself up as the great defender of not only agriculture
but health care and every other social program.
I draw the member's attention to the fact that the Reform Party
said it would repriorize programs in agriculture and develop a
program called the trade distortion adjustment program. Has the
hon. member ever heard of that? That is what we said we would
have done five years ago. Had the Liberals done it, our farmers
would not be in this mess today.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I give the member a
point. Picking rocks on Uncle Ted's farm certainly does not
qualify me to be a farmer, and I do not pretend to be.
Being elected to a national parliament requires dealing with all
kinds of different issues. I have never worked in a mine and yet
I am very concerned about the mining industry in the province of
Ontario. I have never worked in a steel plant, although my
father, my uncle and cousins did, but I am very concerned about
the impact of downloading and the pricing problem in the steel
industry. I have never worked in the fisheries. Does that mean
as a nationally elected politician I should have no concern for
Canadians in Atlantic Canada?
I have never worked on an active farm. I admit that but it has
nothing to do with it. The point is the hypocrisy I am pointing
out in that party.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government went into the 1993 election and into the
1997 election and never told the Canadian public what it would
do.
It ended up gutting health care. It gutted education funding.
It hit the Canadian Coast Guard in Manitoba. Icebreaker fees are
rising.
The other day the government gave $500,000 to professional hockey
in Canada.
1715
This is all on record. The government's record of slashing,
burning and cutting into Canadians' economic well-being is well
documented. Every Canadian knows what it is. I ask the member
to list for us the dollar figure of the total cuts that have
happened since the 1995 budget. How much was cut out of these
departments by the hon. member's government?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon.
member one list. There was a $42 billion deficit which was
eliminated by this government. That is clear. I will give him
another point.
The Reform Party is looking for quick fixes with this motion.
In fact in the short term NISA holds about $2.5 billion that
Canadian farmers can access. This represents an annual
contribution of $600 million by the federal government, $400
million by the provinces and $600 million by farmers.
The record is clear. This government stands ready to support
small business, fishermen, miners, steelworkers. Absolutely we
will support farmers.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion.
Actually I did not think I would get the opportunity to speak
because there are so many people who want to address this very
important debate.
It is an important debate for Canadians all across the land.
Farmers from coast to coast have been experiencing ongoing
difficulties in meeting the bottom line and putting food on the
table.
A number of my colleagues have spoken very, very eloquently
today. Despite the absolute rubbish that has come from a few of
the members, and I add that it is only a few, there are some hon.
members across the way who actually tried to sincerely address
the debate today. I appreciate that and I am sure farmers
watching the debate today appreciate that. But members such as
the one who just spoke do a great disservice to this place and
certainly to farmers out in the real world who are watching the
debate today.
I will speak briefly because, with the unanimous consent of the
House, I would like to give one of my colleagues the opportunity
to speak in this very brief time slot. My hon. colleague from
Blackstrap would like to address the House. I would like to take
perhaps five minutes of the 10 that is remaining.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Prince George—Peace River has requested that his 10-minute slot
be split into two fives with corresponding questions and
comments. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Prince George—Peace River has three and a half minutes.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, while I certainly appreciate
the consent of all members who are in the Chamber at this time, I
will say it is very, very difficult to address this issue in 30
minutes let alone three and a half minutes.
I want to make one brief point on behalf of the producers of
Prince George—Peace River, the riding which I am always pleased
and honoured to represent in this Chamber. Most members present
today have heard me speak over the past two years about the
difficulties faced by the farmers of the Peace River country, not
just the B.C. Peace River region, but also that part of the
extended prairies known as the Alberta Peace River region.
We had two years of disastrous weather leading up to this.
Farmers struggled very hard and valiantly to try to bring in a
reduced crop in the past two years. The vast majority of the
crop for those two years was left out in the fields. It was an
absolute—I cannot say a disaster any more than I have already
said it. Farmers were faced with this crisis. A lot of farmers
could not meet commitments and pay their bills. Governments both
at the provincial level in British Columbia as well as the
federal level were very slow to react to the disaster.
This year should have been a great year for the Peace River
country. We had good growing conditions for the first time in
three years. Farmers produced an abundance, a great crop,
particularly in its quality, although the quantity was not what
they had hoped for. The majority of the wheat was number one
high protein, which is not often seen that far north. It is a
credit to the farmers themselves that they produced such a great
crop. But it was a disastrous year for prices. Members have
addressed that quite well today.
1720
I want to speak on behalf of those farmers. We should try and
put ourselves in their place. They finally had a year where they
hoped they could put a little bit of money into NISA and into
these other accounts and pay down some of their bills that had
been accumulating over the past two years when despite their most
valiant efforts they could not bring the crop in. They finally
had a year where they produced a crop and the price has gone into
the tank.
As I said a few moments ago, this government should have shown a
little bit of foresight and should have reacted when it became
government some five years ago. It should have done what we had
suggested. One of the suggestions was to reduce programs down to
a few and prioritize them in order to help farmers.
One of the programs we said should be put in place was a trade
distortion adjustment program to protect farmers from exactly
what is occurring today, against unfair subsidization in Europe
and the United States, our biggest trading competitors. Then our
farmers would have been protected and there would not have been
the need for this debate today.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask a very simple question of the hon. member who just spoke
about his concern for the farmers in the Peace River district.
Does he know how many of the farmers in his riding opened NISA
accounts? We are saying NISA should at least be a help in times
as he is describing. If so, how many of those farmers did access
their NISA accounts?
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question that
was put forward. The reality is that a great many of those
producers are enrolled in NISA. I myself have farmed in the
neighbourhood of 20 years in the Peace River country. My brother
and I were enrolled in NISA and he continues that.
When farmers do not have any crop, when they cannot harvest
their crop, when their land is a quagmire and there is nothing
there to harvest, they do not have any money to contribute to
their accounts. That is the sad part about NISA, especially for
a region like the Peace River country that has experienced
natural disasters for two years back to back. There was no money
to go into the accounts to build up for a rainy day.
Despite the farmers' best efforts, we have a situation where
because of what foreign countries are doing in subsidizing their
farmers, the price has plummeted. Farmers are looking at
breaking even at the very best and probably a loss for the third
year in a row. This year the loss is caused by price rather than
by yield.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank my colleague from Peace River for allowing me to
have these few minutes to speak.
Today some members have said that they take great pleasure in
standing to address this issue. I take no pleasure in addressing
this issue. This debate should not have had to take place in
this House.
I want to pick up on a point that my colleague from Peace River
made a few minutes ago and which others made before him. They
talked about what happened in 1993 when the Liberal government
was first elected. Had the government at that time taken some of
the advice that we had laid before the House on a program called
TDAP, we would not necessarily have been in great shape and the
crisis before us today may still have been there but not to the
degree that it is. But time and time again over the last five
years I have looked across the way and I have seen lawyers from
downtown Toronto and downtown Winnipeg telling farmers from
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and northern British Columbia how
to farm. That is indeed the problem.
This is a serious problem. I want to recount very quickly about
what two people whom I have talked to in the last few days are
doing.
One is a person about my age, a good friend of mine, who is a
good farmer and has been a good farmer for many years. As we
speak he is working on a potato farm in Outlook, Saskatchewan
digging potatoes with a spade to make an extra buck to help pay
his bills. That is how serious the problem is. It is not fun.
It is not nice.
The man is in his forties and should not have to resort to that.
1725
I talked to another good friend of mine who is a good farmer. In
fact he is a Liberal supporter quite clearly and openly and he
still happens to be a good friend of mine. He said that he is
going to quit the business because he is no longer prepared to
take money out of his equity to keep farming. He is a good
farmer. He is a great manager. He is one of the most optimistic
people I know yet he is going to walk away from farming because
of this problem. That is how serious the problem is.
This government has done nothing in the last five years for a
long term approach, to make long term changes, so that these
problems do not happen again.
My point in standing was to illustrate how serious the issue is.
I want to illustrate that nothing has been done. We look at
what the long term solution should be or could be. Yes, we
should still continue to work on a long term solution to the
income crisis of farmers because this happens from time to time
over and over again. This will not be the last time. There will
be more down the road.
I encourage the government to look at a long term solution. I
encourage the government to finally listen, to pay heed to not
only our party but to other parties in this House and other
groups that may have possible solutions. I would also have to ask
this government to look at possible short term solutions. After
all, the crunch will come between now and next April when farmers
will not be able to put in their crops.
I talked about two farmers whom I know personally who are on the
edge of quitting a business and an industry that they love
because they cannot make a dollar at it. They have done their
share over the last few years. They have diversified. They have
changed their way of farming in order to be economically
feasible. These farmers have done their share. The government
has not done its share.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said a
number of times today that yes, I agree this is a serious issue.
I will try again to get some specifics.
It is clear that when the farm community was called upon to
increase exports and hit the targeted exports, it did that.
Farmers hit the targeted exports. When the farmers did that they
assisted Canada in terms of meeting its balance of trade issues.
They drew foreign dollars into the country and did a lot for
Canada.
I think there comes a time when Canada has to stand by its farm
community in terms of this crisis. That is true. But I thought
the purpose of the debate and the motion today was for the Reform
Party to put forward some specifics that the minister could deal
with at his meeting tomorrow and that the government in general
could deal with.
I ask again. I have heard no specifics from the Reform Party—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Blackstrap.
Mr. Allan Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked. That was
the point of my whole speech. We put forward specifics for five
years. When was the last time the government paid any attention
or listened to what we had to say? I would be happy to sit down
with the government but there has never been one solid concrete
suggestion.
The Liberals must remember that they are the government. They
are the ones who make the decisions. They are the ones who are
failing the farmers, not our party. I would remind the party
across the way that if they truly want the farm industry not only
in western Canada but right across the country to continue, they
must do something. It is on their shoulders. It is their
responsibility.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion
have expired.
* * *
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied
by foreign periodical publishers, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the motion that the question be
now put.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
pursuant to order made on Thursday, October 29, 1998, the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division
on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill
C-55.
Call in the members.
1800
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Telegdi
| Torsney
| Ur
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wood – 144
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 111
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bevilacqua
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Desrochers
| Discepola
|
Guimond
| Leung
| Loubier
| Mercier
|
Serré
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Valeri
|
Venne
| Wilfert
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The next
question is on the main motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will oppose this bill to the bitter end.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
will vote yes on this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party are voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston I support the minister's bill.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guay
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
|
YEAS
Members
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wood – 208
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Forseth
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Strahl
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 47
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bevilacqua
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Desrochers
| Discepola
|
Guimond
| Leung
| Loubier
| Mercier
|
Serré
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Valeri
|
Venne
| Wilfert
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
The House resumed from November 2 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-54, an act to support and promote electronic commerce
by protecting personal information that is collected, used or
disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of
electronic means to communicate or record information or
transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the
Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee; and of the motion
that the question be now put.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the
second reading stage of Bill C-54.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yes.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present oppose this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is
opposed to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote no on this motion.
1805
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston, I vote against the government's
attempt to invoke closure.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 255]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The next
question is on the main motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois are opposed to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
this evening vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
constituents, I support this legislation.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
YEAS
Members
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams
| Wood
– 209
|
NAYS
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Solomon
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 46
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bevilacqua
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Desrochers
| Discepola
|
Guimond
| Leung
| Loubier
| Mercier
|
Serré
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Valeri
|
Venne
| Wilfert
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1810
[English]
CONCENTRATION OF PRINT MEDIA IN CANADA
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of establishing a commission of inquiry
to examine the concentration of print media in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the issue of
the concentration of ownership in Canada's media. This is an
issue that has become very important to many Canadians. Ownership
concentration, in my opinion, needs to be examined.
Anyone who has read the newspaper, watched the news or listened
to radio in the last year, knows that this is an issue of debate
that has been around for a long time. This has recently taken on
new dimensions. Canadians have started to ask themselves whether
we should worry about this once more.
The fundamental question and the questions revolving around this
matter are whether Canada's media ownership is in the hands of
too few people. Furthermore, does the concentration of media
ownership present a true dilemma relative to the amount of
influence that these owners have on what is published or
broadcast? If so, I would therefore recommend that the government
study this issue further.
I am not necessarily asking for a commission of inquiry. Rather
I am interested in what my colleagues in this House have to say
about this matter. Let us take a look at these questions before
going on any further.
Canada's media is comprised of many facets, including radio,
television, print and electronic through the Internet. Each
medium reaches a wide number of Canadians and is a large part of
many of our lives. Few are the Canadians who do not read the
newspaper, watch television or listen to radio every day.
On a daily basis the citizens of this country are bombarded by
information about the goings on around Canada and around the
world. But one has to ask whether they are receiving a balanced
presentation of the news.
Taking a look more particularly at the concentration of
ownership in Canada's newspapers, we realize how concrete this
issue really is. Ownership of the newspapers of our nation has
been a target of much discussion over many years but has become
an even more intense debate recently.
First let us examine a few facts revolving around Canada's
newspapers. The three biggest newspaper chains in Canada are in
charge of 72% of all the circulation of daily papers. This in
itself demonstrates concentration of ownership.
What is more impressive is that two out of these three chains
are owned and run in essence by the same person. Hollinger Inc.,
through its owner Conrad Black, owns 27 of Canada's newspapers.
In July of 1997 Hollinger secured a large portion of Southam
Inc., Canada's largest chain owning 34 papers. Now 58.6% of
Southam is under the control of Hollinger and of Conrad Black.
Together these two companies control almost 60% of Canada's
newspapers and approximately 42% of the country's circulation.
They own all the daily newspapers in Prince Edward Island,
Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, as well as 14 out of British
Columbia's 16 dailies. In addition, they control papers in every
provincial capital except for Winnipeg, Toronto and Quebec City.
As I have demonstrated, Canada's print media is controlled in
big part by one company, Hollinger Inc., and by one person.
Another very influential newspaper company in Canada is Torstar
Corporation which owns 100% of the Toronto Star, the
country's single largest newspaper in terms of circulation. This
corporation is another example of a company securing quite a
large portion of ownership and circulation in Canada's media.
Just last week Torstar Corporation announced plans to stage a
hostile takeover of Sun Media Corporation. Together these two
conglomerates would control a total of 26% of Canada's daily
newspaper circulation.
Another area of concentration is cross ownership of newspapers,
radio, television, news services and web sites. But the question
remains on the issue of influence. We can easily say that the
majority of Canada's newspapers are in the hands of a few people,
but is it too concentrated?
Are there too few people at the helm of Canada's media?
1815
To really know if it is overconcentrated we must look at the
integrity of the papers themselves. Are they presenting a
balanced approach to the news? Are the facts being put out in an
objective standpoint way? Do Canadians in all market areas have
access to differing points of view?
Besides the danger that might exist in very few companies having
too much influence on the papers, another danger might arise.
While it is said that publishers might not directly control
policy at each paper, certainly those in charge are conscious of
what publishers like and expect.
Do they, for example, follow their own personal standards and
guidelines or do they try to please the person who signs their
paycheques? With the number of papers within one publisher's
control the chances are fairly good that some papers' editors do
not always work in a totally unbiased state of mind.
On the other hand the publisher of the Southam owned Victoria
Times Columnist insists that he does not feel any pressure
to go one way or another on issues. The mission for him, he
says, is to get in touch with the community's agenda and not the
publisher's.
It would not necessarily be that a newspaper would neglect or
falsify information, but certainly they might put emphasis on
certain facts more than others. Any editorials may present
opinions following a publisher's philosophy or political point of
view. As we can see, although a publisher might not be in
complete control of what is printed, those who are in charge of
content could be easily persuaded or inclined to undertake
methods to make their publisher happy.
Let us inspect yet another aspect that adds to the ramifications
of the debate. As it was officially announced earlier on this
year, Hollinger Incorporated launched just a week ago the first
edition of National Post. This new paper is competing
against the Toronto Star, Canada's most read newspaper, and
the Globe and Mail, the only other paper that claims to be
national.
If the paper is to be successful it may take readers from the
Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star, particularly in
the important Toronto market. If the National Post ends up
taking many readers from the aforementioned papers, not only will
they suffer but there will be greater concentration and obviously
less competition.
The Government of Canada in the past has taken a closer look at
media ownership. In 1970 Keith Davey and others studied media
issues, one of which was the concentration of media ownership.
The three biggest chains controlled 45% of daily circulation at
that time in comparison to the 72% that the three largest chains
now own. This study led to the creation of the Royal Commission
on Newspapers 10 years later. This commission was formed after
Southam closed its Winnipeg Tribune and after Thomson shut
down the Ottawa Journal.
Tom Kent, commissioner of this organization in the 1980s had
suggested restricting the number of papers that any one company
could own. His recommendations were soundly rejected by the
industry, an industry that has consistently rejected government
intervention.
Our federal government to this day has never implemented any
regulations in this matter and that in essence is the foundation
of this private member's motion. I am asking other members and
Canadians in general for their opinions on the issue.
Do we as Canadians need to worry about media concentration?
Should we be implementing legislation to regulate ownership of
the media or are the present mechanisms in place all that is in
fact needed?
On a related note, the Canadian public has expressed concern
with the matter of bank mergers which would give the so-called
megabanks too much power and control. I would argue, as have
others, that the issue of newspaper ownership is at least as
important as the subject of bank mergers. Should we not then be
examining the issue of media ownership in the same light?
As I have already mentioned, there exists at present no law
restrictions in Canada on how many newspapers one company can
own. Some have argued that we should be more concerned about
media ownership since it is more important to democracy than any
other industry. It plays a powerful role in shaping our nation's
public opinion.
Recently major players in the newspaper industry expressed
reason for concern over the increasing concentration of newspaper
ownership. Paul Godfrey, chairman of Sun Media, last May was
quoted as saying it was wrong for the newspaper industry to be in
few hands.
John Honderich, publisher of the Toronto Star, made
observations earlier this year when Southam bought six British
Columbia newspapers from Thomson Corporation.
He said:
I can't remember a time when so much has been dominated by one
chain. What is enough? Is this level of circulation too much?
Should it be allowed?
1820
He went on to ask who should answer these questions and went on
to suggest that Ottawa should intervene. As Mr. Honderich said,
“I don't think it can be the industry itself or the people we
appoint”.
I will end with that question. It is important at the very
least to explore this potential problem. We might realize that
the media are in no way influenced by ownership concentration. On
the other hand we might find that they are and that information
presented is not balanced.
In the very least it is our duty as Canadians and as members of
the House of Commons to examine and discuss this matter. It is
important that we do so in a manner consistent with the values,
the institutions and traditions of all of us as Canadians.
Perhaps all we can do at this time is simply to monitor the
situation. There may come a time when other action is required.
I look forward to hearing what my colleagues in the House have to
say on this important issue.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Motion No. 423 as the chief
opposition critic for industry.
For those who have just joined the debate and for those watching
the proceedings on television, the motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of establishing a commission of inquiry
to examine the concentration of print media in Canada.
The motion is certainly timely as we are all aware of the
Southam launch of the National Post just days ago, a
national paper which includes within its pages the former
Financial Post. We are also aware of the impending
Toronto Star takeover of the Sun Media Corporation, a
merger that will give Torstar 26% of the total weekly circulation
of daily newspapers in Canada.
I compliment the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington for the
impeccable timing of the motion. On the issue of timing I only
hope for his sake that he owns a large block of Sun Media stock
since it went up over 60% as a result of the takeover bid.
I make this remark in good humour, but there is an important
point in all of this. The success of these private businesses,
the profits they make, are disbursed among literally thousands of
shareholders. Many of these people are average hard working,
overtaxed Canadians investing in mutual funds for their
retirements because the government messed up their pensions.
It should be known that all Canadians benefit from profitable
industries. We should not be concerned when businesses make
decisions to enhance their profits. I would be pretty worried if
businesses stopped concerning themselves with profits as this
would destroy the Canadian economy.
My first message as it applies to the motion is that we need not
be concerned about those in the print media industry merging to
improve their economies of scale and their bottom lines. We need
not be concerned with the impact this may have on consumer
choice.
As far as the interests of consumers are concerned it should be
appreciated that companies become profitable and remain
profitable by offering consumers quality goods and services at a
low price. They make money only when they serve the interests of
their consumers. The better they serve, the richer they become.
When companies work against the interests of consumers they lose
money because they lose market share. Therefore the free market
is the best corrective mechanism by which to address any alleged
market coercion or manipulation. Furthermore, the House cannot
support both property rights and free enterprise while proposing
to create a government body that would have the power and the
mandate to prevent companies from exercising their property
rights freely through voluntary exchange. The motion is an
attack on free enterprise and on property rights.
When speaking to Bill C-20 in the House some time ago I brought
my concerns regarding the Competition Act to the attention of my
colleagues. I share those concerns again so that members of the
House can understand why those who understand and respect the
workings of the free market cannot support the motion.
1825
The Competition Act rests on the assumption that the government
can meddle and regulate its way into a free market. In his
recently published book entitled The Myths of Antitrust,
author Armentano wrote:
Trades of private property are either voluntary or they are not;
one cannot legislate the free market or create competition. To
have a free market the government must leave the markets alone;
to have the state make markets “free” is again a contradiction
in terms.
I am also reminded of Nobel prize winning economist Dr.
Friedman, who wrote:
A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without
overt and covert government assistance in the form of a tariff or
some other device.
With respect, competition and free enterprise are concepts that
are not properly understood by my colleague from
Waterloo-Wellington. The number of companies providing a product
or service is not a reliable indicator as to the competitiveness
of the market. The key to ensuing competition is removing the
barriers to access and entry into the market and into that
segment of the economy.
I add at this point that the television industry should be the
focus of our attention. The CRTC acts as a barrier to
competition. As long as no such regulatory body encroaches on
the print media industry, we need not be concerned with
concentration of the industry.
I believe we can learn a lesson from the banking industry that
might help my colleagues understand why the motion must be
rejected. The government has created an environment in Canada
that has encouraged the creation of a banking oligarchy. Instead
of deregulating the banking industry to allow for competition, it
meddles further into the banking industry with foreign ownership
restrictions.
When Canadian small businesses cannot get adequate financing for
new innovations, they justify the need to create another
government program called the Small Business Loans Act. We can
see how one government intervention leads to many more until we
are so far removed from the free market that we cannot begin to
understand the potential for market based solutions to public
policy problems.
Competition legislation is nothing but a bundle of
contradictions. The entire purpose of being in business is to
drive competitors out of business. Every entrepreneur wants to
capture more and more of the market share by providing a better
product at a better price than his competitor. This is called
anti-competitive pricing and dumping.
Entrepreneurs eager to obey the government should not try to
outdo their competitors by providing consumers a better price.
They should keep their prices and services at the same levels as
those of their competitors. That too is against the rules. It
is called collusion.
Entrepreneurs should raise their prices far above their
competitors so that they are not guilty of anti-competitive
pricing or collusion. Wrong again. This is called price
gouging.
Our competition laws are an unenforceable mess of
contradictions. If members of the House give these laws some
honest consideration, they too will come to this conclusion.
The Reform Party believes that the creation of wealth and
productive jobs for Canadians is best achieved through the
operations of a responsible, broadly based free enterprise system
in which private property, freedom of contract and the operation
of the free market are encouraged and respected.
Economic competition and the resulting prosperity that will come
from it are the results of a deregulated market and cannot be
achieved by government intervention. As the critic for industry
I will work with the private sector to identify and remove the
barriers to entry that may be limiting competition. However I
will not allow the government to use its power to further meddle
into the economy.
I conclude my remarks by asking members of the House to give
some thought to all the benefits a vibrant and free economy has
given to Canadians. I would like members of the House to look
beyond big government solutions to public policy problems and to
start working with the private sector to create laws and
regulations in Canada that will bring us prosperity.
Once we all come to understand the importance of economic
freedom, we will also come to understand why we should not be
concerned with print media concentration in Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the motion by the member for
Waterloo—Wellington, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of establishing a commission of
inquiry to examine the concentration of print media in Canada.
1830
The Bloc Quebecois is in total agreement with the members of
this House who are wondering about the reduction in sources of
information and the concentration of the ownership of newspapers
in the hands of a few magnates. It also feels that this
situation represents a threat to freedom of expression.
In Canada, two commissions of inquiry have already examined the
issue: the Kent commission in the early 1980s and the Davey
commission in the 1970s. None of the recommendations of these
two commissions was ever implemented.
The commission, which published its report in 1981, was tasked
with examining the decreasing competition between dailies, that
is the disappearance of newspapers within a market, and the
increased concentration of ownership in the industry within the
hands of a few people.
It was also asked to examine the growing trend among newspapers
to belong to chains, a trend which has increasingly taken hold.
The commission was also asked to indicate the effect on services
offered by the print media to the public, and to make
recommendations if it saw fit.
This commission made recommendations on such matters as the
acceptable level of ownership of newspapers in a particular
market, the process of divestment of newspapers, measures to
ensure editorial independence from a newspaper's owners, and the
adoption of a national newspapers act.
A Library of Parliament study examined the Kent Commission's
recommendations with a view to determining the areas of
jurisdiction involved. The study concluded that, under the
division of powers set out sections 92(13) and 92(16) of the
Constitution Act, 1867, a large number of the Kent Commission's
recommendations fell within provincial areas of jurisdiction.
These sections recognize that property, trade and civil rights
are provincial matters.
Thus it was that in Quebec, for instance, an order in council
was passed by the government on July 13, 1988 after an agreement
was reached with Hollinger and Groupe Unimédia to structure the
future sale of Quebec City's Le Soleil and Chicoutimi's Le
Quotidien, so that Quebec buyers would have a chance to become
owners of Quebec newspapers, while maintaining the plurality of
ownership of dailies.
The concentration of print media is a greater concern today,
however, than it was when the Kent Commission was created. In
1970, in English Canada, the three major newspaper chains
controlled 60% of the circulation of dailies. In 1980, this had
increased to 75%. Today, through Hollinger and Southam, Conrad
Black controls 61 of the 105 dailies in Canada, or approximately
60% of the circulation of newspapers in English Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the creation of a commission of
inquiry because it is not at all convinced that this is the
right way to go about correcting the problem. The Davey and
Kent commissions did their work at a time when the situation was
much less alarming than it is today, and their recommendations
were not followed up, primarily because of the issue of
jurisdiction and legal precedents.
It is also important to note that Canada's three most recent
commissions of inquiry cost taxpayers a fortune, and their
findings were not worth the money spent, with the possible
exception of the Erasmus-Dussault commission on aboriginal
peoples, although the final bill was $50 million.
1835
The Létourneau inquiry into the events in Somalia cost
approximately $12 million, not to mention the expenses of the
Department of National Defence and the legal expenses of other
parties.
The Krever commission, which left hundreds of thousands of
people dissatisfied and not even entitled to a small amount of
compensation, ran up a bill of some $15 million.
It looks to the Bloc Quebecois as though the government is
soothing its conscience by creating commissions, by giving the
public the impression that it is looking after real problems,
while spending millions on commissions whose reports are shelved
and never followed up.
Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois is concerned that ownership of
almost 60% of Canada's newspapers is concentrated in the hands
of Conrad Black, a man famous for interfering in his newspapers,
a man who does not hesitate to hire staff who share his views
and to quickly get rid of anyone who disagrees with him.
The Bloc Quebecois is concerned that the majority of Canadian
newspapers are owned by a man who says that Trudeau is mistaken
when he compares today's Quebec with the Quebec of Duplessis'
time. He put it this way:
[English]
It is unwise for Trudeau to muddy the waters, diluting his attack
on the bigotry and the undemocratic impulses of the separatists.
[Translation]
This appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Friday, October 9. Dear
Mr. Black also said:
[English]
Radio-Canada is a separatist propaganda agency and it has been
for 30 years and operating courtesy of and to considerable
expense of the taxpayers of Canada.
[Translation]
That man who has no respect for Quebec's language
legislation, which was passed democratically and which
recognizes the rights of the minority, as the Council of Europe
so eloquently pointed out. That man who favours partition
and used his Montreal newspaper to spread his own views.
Various voices have been raised against the concentration of
print media, including our own. But we have a great deal of
difficulty accepting the idea of creating a commission. We are
concerned by the apparent unanimity in English Canada regarding
how the sovereignist cause should be treated by the media.
Thus, all the independent studies, those done by independent
researchers—be it the Fraser Institute or Denis Monière or even
the CBC ombudsman—indicate that the anglophone media, both
electronic and print, are not objective in their treatment of
the Quebec issue and present it negatively.
We believe a lot needs to be done in Canadian newspapers to
ensure the public is well informed. We also think it is
important not to exaggerate the concentration of print media.
We would like a longer debate to find a way to prevent this sort
of thing. A commission of inquiry, however, does not seem to be
the solution.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to Motion No. M-423 which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of establishing a commission of inquiry
to examine the concentration of print media in Canada.
I must start by registering a regret. My regret is that this
motion does not go far enough. It does not go past the
discussion stage to the action stage, to the legislation stage.
I for one, and I speak for the New Democratic Party, believe
that we need media concentration legislation in this country now
and that we needed it 20 years ago. Media concentration has been
studied and studied. I have two studies here in front of me
which I will refer to momentarily.
To show how long media concentration has been debated in this
Chamber I point to Hansard of December 11, 1970.
1840
Tommy Douglas rose to ask Pierre Trudeau about the three volume,
1117 page study which was the Senate special committee on mass
media report, sometimes called the Davie report:
In view of the findings of this committee that the profits earned
by media corporations, that is by broadcasters and publishers,
are, in their words, extraordinary and astonishing, and in view
of the evidence of the growing concentration of power in the
hands of fewer and fewer media corporations, what actions does
the government propose to take?
While Hansard does not record gestures, the answer was an
obvious shrug.
The Liberals in the Senate spent over two years studying
corporate concentration in the media. They discovered it was a
problem requiring government action. The Liberal response was do
nothing.
In 1980 another study was launched by the Liberals, the Kent
commission, this time in response to the simultaneous shutdown of
the Ottawa Journal and the Winnipeg Tribune, wiping
out over 185 years of journalist tradition in Canada.
This eloquent report starts with a quote from a judgment of the
Supreme Court of the United States:
Freedom of the press from government interference does not
sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.
The royal commission on newspapers reported in 1981 and,
surprise, media concentration is a problem requiring government
action, not more studies.
Specifically, the Kent commission called for halts to further
concentration, with limited divestment relating to cross
ownership in different medias and the divestment of the Globe
and Mail from Thomson. It said that a newspaper owner should
either be national or local.
Another key set of recommendations in the Kent report was
designed to protect the editorial independence of the newsroom
from the interference of the boardroom through the use of an
independent board to hire the editor of the local paper and the
establishment of a central press panel which would oversee the
independence of the newsroom. The government response at the
time, a Liberal government headed by Pierre Trudeau, was a little
more encouraging. It flew trial balloons in the form of a draft
bill on the watered down press council with limited divestment.
Then it blew the balloons out of the water and did nothing.
It is worth noting that the minister who tried to do something
about this, James Fleming, was removed from cabinet. He then
tried to have a private member's bill pass on the same topic. It
was a bill that was strongly opposed by his Liberal colleagues. I
notice a pattern of behaviour here. Liberals study and then
Liberals do nothing.
The problem of corporate concentration in the media is in
crisis. Conrad Black, the Star fighting for the Sun,
Global and Shaw carving up WIC, these events will continue to
escalate unless the government acts now. Unless the government
does something now and unless the government makes a real
commitment to protect Canadian media at upcoming trade talks,
Canada can expect to see the eventual takeover of media giants
like Baton and Global by American giants like NBC and CBS. We
need government action now.
Where do we start? I spoke to Tom Kent in recent weeks. When
he wrote his report 34% of the daily newspapers were in the hands
of one chain. With the launch of the National Post Conrad
Black now owns about 55% of Canadian dailies. Given that, I
asked Tom Kent what recommendations from his report were still
doable given the rise of Conrad Black and since then the
Star wars in Toronto. Mr. Kent felt that the future he
predicted had come to pass and therefore the divestment options
are probably not available. He strongly felt that the setting up
of independent committees in the newsrooms to protect the paper
from boardroom interference was still doable but also more
important than ever.
I also spoke with people who know the media business like Gail
Lem, a former journalist and now an organizer for the
communications workers, and David Robinson from the Canadian
Centre for Policy Alternatives. It is clear that there are
things that the government must do now to control the situation.
1845
The government can and should ban newspaper owners from owning
broadcasting corporations. The government should also ban any
further concentration and cross ownership dealing with the weekly
newspaper sector.
The government can implement the sections of the Kent commission
dealing with the press rights panel and the newspaper advisory
committees for all daily newspapers. This does not cause
government interference. It protects editorial independence of
content.
The government can place controls on the foreign ownership of
all media companies in Canada.
The government must re-fund the CBC so that Canadians have a
strong independent standard voice across the country.
The government can and must encourage community organizations of
all types to participate and buy their local weekly papers,
stopping the massive concentration of weekly chains and making
weeklies truly community papers.
The government can instruct the CRTC to force cable stations to
have a higher level of standard, community run programming on its
community channels.
The CRTC, as part of the current exercise it is conducting,
should also be asked to advise the government on controls which
may be placed on the cross ownership of media corporations as
they relate to the new medias which are emerging daily on our
computer screens.
In conclusion, I regret that I will not be able to support
Motion M-423 because it falls far short of what is required now.
I believe that the member moving this motion is sincere and
concerned. I also think Canadians are concerned about media
concentration. We all want a free press. We all know, almost
instinctively, that having the ownership of the press in a very
few hands threatens freedom of the press. What we need now
however is not more study but action.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise today and address Motion M-423, a motion which
proposes:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of establishing a commission of inquiry
to examine the concentration of print media in Canada.
The timing of this motion could not possibly have been scheduled
at a more appropriate moment. Who would have thought that on the
eve of the debate of this motion we would see a blockbuster
takeover attempt such as that of the Toronto Star versus
Sun Media.
It is a little hard to believe that it was merely five months
ago that Torstar was calling for just the type of probe that this
motion is seeking. Of course when this motion was introduced, I
very much doubt that the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington was
targeting his party's friends at the Toronto Star.
No, this motion is being made so that the Liberal Party, which
has never shied away from big brother style interference in the
marketplace, could effectively interfere in the operation of
Hollinger Company. Make no mistake. Today we are not debating
the inherent problems of dominant position within the print
media. This could not possibly be the discussion for we already
have an effective Competition Act to handle just such an issue.
In essence, what we are really discussing is just how far
government should go in its interference with private industry.
Allow me to say that if we were capable of setting aside our
principles, it would be moderately seductive to entertain this
motion. I would like to assure the hon. member that as a
Conservative, I do not relish the potential future of the print
media situation in the greater Toronto area.
Already I can envision a scenario on the eve of the next federal
election. The Liberal mouthpiece Toronto Star headline
will read “GST, free trade and helicopters aside, this time we
really believe them”, and across town the Toronto Sun
headline will read “Ditto”. It is enough to send shivers up
your spine but it is not enough to warrant interference.
Let us examine the Torstar proposal on its merits. On October
28 Torstar offered $16 per share for all of the common shares of
Sun Media Corporation on a fully diluted basis. The question
becomes, is this is a good and fair offer? Indeed that is the
question, however it is not for the Government of Canada to
answer. It is instead up to the shareholders of Sun Media to
decide.
Perhaps a 62% premium over the closing price last Wednesday is a
very good deal. Perhaps it is not. Once again it is not for us
to decide. Large and small investors will make this decision
alike, including the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, Trimark
Mutual Funds, Talvest Mutual Funds and others.
1850
This is not to say that every merger that gets dreamed up in the
minds of deal makers should remain outside the scope of
inspection, not at all. But this is where I come back to the
Competition Bureau and the Competition Act which my party
implemented in 1986. The Competition Bureau has been given the
necessary tools to complete this task so let it do it.
Print media is not a new media form, unlike the Internet
explosion. This House would certainly have taken print media
into consideration when it crafted this act just over a decade
ago.
It seems we may very well be debating nostalgia today. The
world we are living in has changed dramatically in the ways in
which information is delivered. No longer are newspapers merely
competing against a few radio stations and a couple of television
networks. Instead news is now available on different networks 24
hours a day. The Internet is available 24 hours a day. This has
forced the print media industry to re-evaluate its own
efficiencies and competitive advantages.
Far from being an industry that is fading away, we have
witnessed a rebirth in this nation. Canadians now boast two
national newspapers that must be included in the competitive mix
of every market in the country. Canadians in general have become
news junkies as they read more, tune in more and surf more. Our
media outlets, already among the most scrutinized in the world,
thanks to the work of the CRTC have grabbed hold of the
information age and in many ways lead the revolution.
My background is not in competition law but we should take a
moment and review what we are looking at in terms of level of
competition. I am certain my hon. colleagues in this House have
all seen the breakdown of print media numbers as a percentage of
circulation. According to those numbers, if this deal goes
through, the Toronto Star parent company will control
approximately 26% of the print media circulation. However, it is
unfair to base any review simply on circulation. Should it not be
reviewed as a percentage of holdings versus all other media
outlets including broadcast and the Internet?
One phenomenon that has long existed in Canada is the
acceptability of monopoly markets as it pertains to the newspaper
industry. Historically we have learned that it is not reasonable
to expect there to be more than one newspaper in our smaller
market cities. In fact the 1970s saw the consolidation of
outlets across the country. It was reasoned that the result was
an acceptable level of competition due to the existence of
non-print competitors as well as the reality of market forces.
Now I understand that my colleagues in the Liberal Party are
loath to accept market forces at any time when they think they
can get in and start interfering. However, there is nothing that
can be done by legislators to increase demand. I trust this will
not discourage those would be manipulators into believing that
our media marketplace is not vibrant. In fact quite the opposite
situation exists.
If we look back to 1971 and the demise of the old Toronto
Telegram, it became apparent that a void existed. A group
of 60 displaced workers and $650,000 led to the formation of the
Toronto Sun. This is not something that could have been
addressed by parliament. Instead what was needed was a passion
for the industry, proper financing and a void in the marketplace.
Basic market forces and a group of entrepreneurs filled that
void.
In the 27 years since then, the marketplace has changed
dramatically. The Southam chain is now under new ownership, the
once mighty Thomson chain is substantially smaller, and the
Ottawa market's second largest newspaper will turn 10 years old
this Saturday. I use these examples to illustrate my point that
the print media industry is a dynamic one, yet some remain
unconvinced.
There is a constituency out there that was addressed by the
publisher of the Toronto Star, John Honderich, when he
called for a royal commission five months ago. The member for
Waterloo—Wellington responded to this challenge. I am not
convinced that the gentleman who started this ball rolling would
still be enthusiastically supportive of it today.
I understand the fears that are inherent in this motion. They
stem from the basic reality that newspapers are not widgets.
Newspapers go to the heart and soul of communities. Newspapers
often fuel fundamental debate in this country. It is because of
these factors that the marketplace will not tolerate uniformity.
It will not accept uniformity of thought, nor will it accept
uniformity of product.
1855
If the Sun newspapers were to become carbon copy
apologists for the Liberal Party of Canada, another newspaper
would emerge supported by those who do not necessarily believe
that the sun rises and sets on Prime Minister Mark McGuire.
In conclusion, it is not our feeling in the Progressive
Conservative Party that a commission as set out in this motion is
needed. We feel very comfortable with the present make-up of
regulations and on how the Competition Bureau and the CRTC
administer them. A commission of this type would result in
unnecessary government duplication.
We are truly disappointed that this is a non-votable motion. In
lieu of the events of the past week, it would be very interesting
to ascertain the sentiments of my colleagues on the other side of
the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There will be nine
minutes left in debate before we go to the last five minutes and
the mover of the motion.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to address the House on Motion 423 which was
introduced by my colleague representing the riding of
Waterloo—Wellington. The motion calls for a debate to express
the concerns of the member's constituents, colleagues and
Canadians on the concentration of print media in Canada. I would
also thank my colleague for the research and effort that was put
into his motion.
As members of this House are aware, the print media marketplace
in Canada has been undergoing significant changes in recent years
with several newspapers changing ownership. One recent example is
Southam Inc.'s acquisition of the Financial Post from Sun
Media Corporation in return for four southern Ontario dailies,
including the Kitchener—Waterloo Record circulated in my
colleague's riding of Waterloo—Wellington. The most recent
concerns the announcement of a possible takeover of Sun Media by
Torstar.
As I understand it, some people perceive that newspaper mergers
can be detrimental to Canada for two reasons. First, there is a
fear that increasing ownership concentration may leave Canadians
with reduced access to both ideas and sources of information.
Second, there are concerns that newspaper conglomerates might be
able to conduct business in an anti-competitive manner with their
subscribers, advertisers or journalists. I will address the
anti-competitive business behaviour point first as it clearly
relates to something that falls within the purview of the
industry department.
The Competition Bureau headed by the director of investigation
and research is an independent law enforcement agency of Industry
Canada with responsibility for enforcing the Competition Act.
This act is a law of general application. It applies with few
exceptions to all sectors of the Canadian economy, including
newspapers, magazines and other print media. The law touches on
the everyday life of all Canadians by seeking to maintain and
encourage competition in the marketplace with the objective of
providing consumers with competitive prices and a variety of
choices in the goods and services that they purchase.
The director actively enforces the Competition Act by monitoring
developments in the marketplace and reviewing complaints from
consumers, competitors and other interested individuals to
determine whether there is evidence of any anti-competitive
activity in the marketplace.
In the case of mergers, the act mandates that all transactions
of substantial size be reviewed by the director, whether the
bureau receives complaints about them or not. The test applied by
the director in his review of mergers is whether or not the
proposed transaction would or is likely to substantially lessen
or prevent competition.
Accordingly, the Competition Bureau reviews all major print
media mergers. The bureau's review centres on a merger's
economic impact, which in the case of a newspaper merger
primarily revolves around advertising issues. Every transaction
is thoroughly examined on a case by case basis.
I take this opportunity to encourage anyone who has information
that anti-competitive activity is ongoing or that might be
facilitated by a merger to bring it to the attention of the
director.
The director's view is that the provisions of the legislation
are adequate to deal with anti-competitive behaviour in the print
media industry. For instance, they have allowed the director to
successfully challenge Southam Inc.'s acquisition of a chain of
real estate advertising papers in Vancouver.
In addition, the provisions of the Competition Act are subject
to regular review in order to identify appropriate amendments to
the law. In this regard, a set of amendments to update the law
is currently before the Senate.
I will return to the first issue that the motion seeks to
address, that increased print media concentration may lead to a
lack of diversity of sources of ideas and information. I wish to
point to the conclusions of a prior commission of inquiry on this
very topic, the Kent commission of 1980.
1900
The Kent Commission felt that increasing print media
concentration was a cause for concern as it might limit the
dissemination of ideas and information.
It has been almost 20 years since the Kent Commission report.
The Canadian information landscape has changed tremendously. The
growth of broadcast media has been explosive. Canadians can now
partake in an ever expanding universe of general interest and
specialty channels, several of which are devoted exclusively to
news, debates and editorials.
What also bears mention is the incredible communication
potential of the Internet and the proliferation of so-called new
media or multi-media services. In Canada the Internet is
irrevocably on its way to becoming an integral part of every
Canadian's life.
As Peter Desbarats, a member of the Kent Commission, recently
mentioned, Canadians now benefit from a wide array of choices
when they seek ideas and information.
Nevertheless, Canadians are concerned in some areas. Regardless
of the vast array of choices that individuals have in accessing
information on events throughout Canada and the world, the
newspaper has come to symbolize freedom of expression and the
exposure of facts.
Moreover, our newspapers have presented Canadians with a virtual
buffet of analytical perspectives reflecting many different
points of view. When one person or one company acquires many
different newspapers across the country people might rightly ask:
Are views being suppressed? Are the views of one perspective
over-represented in the newspaper media?
An example can be seen in British Columbia where the owner of
the News Group, Mr. David Black, recently told his editors
of the 60 weekly newspapers to oppose the Nisga'a treaty and to
run a series of eight columns against it. Black's action set a
dangerous precedent of management interference. This strikes at
the very heart of editorial interference.
We might also ask if local flavour gets sacrificed in favour of
a cookie cutter approach from a large corporate super structure.
Should Canadians decide that they are not being well served by
the change in ownership structure that we are currently
witnessing, what can be done?
I believe that the key to this is to ensure that our information
marketplace must be as free of barriers to entry as possible. In
other words, we must continue to create a business climate that
makes it possible and attractive for existing and potential
competitors to provide Canadians with alternatives that they
seek.
Maintaining a competitive marketplace is an important role for
government and I look forward to working with my colleague from
Waterloo—Wellington to make sure that we pursue the right
policies to make it attractive for new and fresh perspectives to
enter the business of providing information to Canadians.
I thank the member for Waterloo—Wellington for giving us the
opportunity to have this debate today.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to thank all of the members who shared their
opinions and expressed their points of view regarding this very
important matter. I think the importance of this issue has been
demonstrated through their thoughtful interventions.
In the eyes of some media, ownership concentration, until now at
least, does not seem to have caused many noticeable problems.
But as ownership continues to be put in the hands of fewer and
fewer people, problems may arise. This is why the potential
exists for the Government of Canada to examine this issue.
Let me reiterate a few important facts that were brought up in
my introductory comments and which other members alluded to as
well.
The three biggest newspaper chains in Canada are in charge of
72% of the daily circulation. One person owns Hollinger Inc.,
which controls 27 of Canada's newspapers. This company owns over
half of the interests in Southam Incorporated, Canada's largest
chain, with 34 papers.
These two companies, essentially in Conrad Black's control, are
in charge of 60% of Canada's newspapers and distribute 50% of its
dailies. Their control spreads across the country and is present
in most of the provincial capitals.
Owning 100% of the Toronto Star, Canada's largest paper in
terms of circulation, Torstar Corporation also has a very large
grasp on the information being given to Canadians. Its bid to
take over SunMedia Corporation, still in the works, would provide
it with an even greater hold on the newspaper industry in Canada.
I think it is obvious that Canada's newspapers are in the hands
of a few people. The question that we must ask ourselves,
though, is whether or not the concentration of the media's
ownership adversely affects the ability of Canadians to obtain
different points of view on the affairs of the day.
The newspaper industry has a tremendous impact on public opinion
in Canada. The information presented by this medium reaches many
people in our nation.
Therefore it is everyone's duty to ensure that this information
be presented in a balanced fashion, showing differing points of
view.
1905
We must therefore all work together to ensure that the media are
giving the public what objective information is needed and is
desired. At the very least I think it is our duty as Canadians
and here in the House of Commons to examine and discuss this
matter. It may be difficult to judge whether media ownership
concentration is detrimental to the industry or to society as a
whole but it is important to talk about it nevertheless.
We should therefore be vigilant as mergers and acquisition tend
to concentrate the media even more. This is especially true in
many areas of the country. Accordingly, I reiterate that we
should exhibit caution as mergers and acquisitions in the media
take place. We should monitor the situation closely, recognizing
there may come a time when further government action is required.
I thank all hon. members for participating in this very valuable
dialogue and debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being 7.07 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.07 p.m.)