36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 10
CONTENTS
Monday, October 25, 1999
1100
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1105
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Farm Income
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Motion
|
1110
1115
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1120
1125
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1130
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1135
1140
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1145
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1150
1155
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1200
1205
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1210
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Mr. John Harvard |
1215
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1220
1225
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. John Harvard |
1230
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1235
1240
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1245
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1250
1255
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1300
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Mr. John Harvard |
1305
1310
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1315
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1320
1325
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1330
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1335
1340
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1345
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1350
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1355
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE LATE CHARLES MERCIER
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| SURREY SPIRIT OF YOUTH MURAL PROJECT
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1400
| SLEEP-WAKE DISORDERS CANADA
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| CANADIAN PSORIASIS FOUNDATION
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| TRUCKING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| DR. KÉVORK BAGHDJIAN
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1405
| LIBERAL CANDIDATE IN HULL—AYLMER
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| PRESCOTT GALA OF EXCELLENCE
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| CANADIAN HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTES
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| SOCIAL UNION
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
1410
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| ALICE TAYLOR
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| GREENHOUSE GASES
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1425
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1430
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1435
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1440
| INFORMATION HIGHWAY
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Hon. John Manley |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1445
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| EAST TIMOR
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1450
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| TOBACCO
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ELECTIONS CANADA
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1455
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| TELEPHONE SERVICE
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. John Manley |
| NAV CANADA
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| APEC SUMMIT
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1500
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Canadian Security Intelligence Service
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1505
1510
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
|
| Bill C-260. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1515
| MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT SUPERANNUATION ACT
|
| Bill C-261. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-262. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Bill C-260
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1520
| The Deputy Speaker |
| PETITIONS
|
| Canadian Wheat Board
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1525
| Street Letter Box
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Cruelty to Animals
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Farm Income
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1530
1535
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1540
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1545
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1550
1555
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. John Solomon |
1600
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1605
1610
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1615
1620
| Mr. Murray Calder |
1625
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1630
1635
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1640
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1645
1650
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1655
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1700
1705
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1710
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1715
1720
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1725
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1730
1735
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1740
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1745
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1750
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mr. John Solomon |
1755
1800
1805
1810
1815
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1820
1825
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Native Peoples
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1830
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Homelessness
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1835
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 10
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 25, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1100
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion
dealing with speaking times during today's debate.
I move:
That, during today's sitting, the Member proposing a motion on
an allotted day shall not speak for more than twenty minutes,
following which, a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made
available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and
comment briefly on the matters relevant to the speech and to
allow responses thereto, and immediately thereafter a
representative of each of the recognized parties, other than that
of the member proposing the motion, may be recognized to speak
for not more than ten minutes, following which, in each case, a
period not exceeding five minutes shall be made available, if
required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly
on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.
1105
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order.
I notice that the motion contained the words “during today's
sitting”. In fact the motion was established some time ago. I
understand there may be a party in the House that wants to
enhance its opportunities for speaking.
I just want to make the point that for today's sitting, as far
as we are concerned, this is the motion that exists. If any
other party wants to have more speaking time then it should elect
more seats in the House of Commons.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the House leader of
the official opposition has indicated, the motion being put
forward today is for today's purposes only. It is certainly
something that will be discussed at a future House leaders'
meeting.
It is put forward by the opposition House leader in the usual
spirit of gentlemanly co-operation we have come to expect from
the official opposition. We will be discussing it in the future
and we will see about electing more members in the future as
well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does he have the
unanimous consent of the House to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FARM INCOME
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House,
the government has failed to defend the interests of Canadian
farmers from the unfair subsidies and unfair trading practices by
foreign countries and its Agriculture Income Disaster Assistance
(AIDA) program is a catastrophe since Canadian farmers are
continuing to face record low incomes, especially in the
provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan where the combined
realized net income is 98% below the five-year average and,
accordingly, the government should immediately ensure that
emergency compensation is delivered to farmers that have not been
served by AIDA and launch an international campaign against
foreign subsidies, provide tax relief, lower input costs, reduce
user fees, and address the inadequacies of the farm safety net
programs.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At
the outset of today's debate on the Reform motion dealing with
the agricultural crisis in Canada I would like to notify the
House that all members of the official opposition will be
splitting their time today.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, the motion is seconded
by the Leader of the Opposition. This debate should not have
even had to occur today because at the start of this session on
October 12, after the prorogation of parliament, the Reform Party
had asked for an emergency debate on the issue of farm income.
The farm income issue has reached a crisis proportion in the
past year to year and a half and has been identified as such
through committee hearings, by farmers themselves and by
Statistics Canada.
1110
The motion today sets out both short term and long term problems
that have arisen. Certainly one of the long term problems that
is identified in the motion deals with the practices of our
competitors, namely the United States and the European Union. The
program the government designed to address the farm income crisis
was called the agriculture income disaster assistance program. I
will be dealing with that a little later in my speech this
morning. As an aside, I believe I indicated I will be splitting
my time with the member for Calgary Southwest.
In dealing with this income crisis Reform knew as early as
September 1998 that the farm situation in western Canada, in
particular, and the cash crop people in Ontario were hitting a
financial crunch which they were no longer able to handle totally
on their own. As a result, the advisory committee on safety net
programs was called to examine this issue. Reform put forward a
motion to the Standing Committee on Agriculture to hold hearings
with regard to the situation.
What came out of that was a solid recommendation to the
agriculture minister as to the seriousness of this crisis and a
suggested solution, which was a program of domestic support based
on individual farm income situations. On receiving the
recommendations from the safety net committee, which included all
the different farm organizations across the country, the
government took the program called AIDA and made it fit the
amount of money on which the agriculture minister was able to get
a commitment from cabinet.
The fact that the crisis was real, that the statistics were
there from Statistics Canada, did not seem to matter. It was a
situation where the government made the program fit the budget as
opposed to taking care of the income crisis.
On top of that we had a situation where there was a natural
disaster of flooding in southwest Manitoba and southeast
Saskatchewan which certainly compounded the major problems in
those provinces. We will see from the Stats Canada statistics
that compounding will make for a negative realized net income in
Saskatchewan and a drastically lowered realized net income in
Manitoba.
Another statistic of great concern also comes from Statistics
Canada. Total cash receipts for farms in Canada will be flat
right through until the year 2003. When we look at whether or
not the government has to do more for farmers in Canada to retain
a viable agriculture sector, we see that the government has to do
more in the area of domestic support than what it is doing at the
present time.
The AIDA program was simply a two year program designed to
provide funding for Canadian agriculture producers to cushion an
extreme income reduction beyond their control. The government
and the agriculture minister totally missed the point, missed the
real crisis in farm income. The real crisis is that for many
years now through the 1990s net farm incomes have been dropping
due to the fact that commodity prices have been extremely low.
This is mostly affecting commodities that are exported to other
countries around the world.
1115
We also see that input costs are rising dramatically. The cost
of a pickup, for instance, which most farmers require, is between
$30,000 and $41,000 for a decent half tonne. How can farmers
continue to survive on commodity prices that are only designed to
buy a $10,000 pickup? That is just one little example.
We can look at what the people who administer the AIDA program
are saying in the media. The managing director said that despite
all of the negative talk about the program not working cheques
are flowing to producers. He said that he thinks the message is
out there and that payments are going to the rural communities.
Part of the problem is in getting our urban cousins, city
dwellers, to understand and support agriculture. In essence,
they are doing a spin doctor routine by telling Canadians that
money is flowing, cash is flowing and that farmers are all right,
when in reality there are tens of thousands of farmers who are
not receiving any money. A relatively small amount of farmers
are receiving money.
The results of this crisis are being reflected in the
communities, in families and at the social level. In Manitoba
even the United Church has seen fit to try to do something for
farmers by way of financial assistance and by bringing this
crisis to the forefront. That has not happened since the 1930s.
The Liberal government got us into this mess and it has failed
in its efforts to fix it. That is why we had to force this
debate today. The Reform Party has put forward many solutions
for the government to consider because it has failed to bring
forward a suitable long term program to fight this income crisis
and it is now in the position of having to come up with some
immediate domestic support to get cash into farmers' hands before
the end of October.
The agriculture minister promised in December 1998 that he would
have cash in the hands of farmers by spring. That did not happen
and that is a condemnation of this government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Selkirk—Interlake
for his presentation on the ongoing crisis in our agricultural
sector and I urge him to persevere.
This is the fourth time in five months that the official
opposition has tried to raise both the consciousness of the House
and, more importantly, the consciousness of the government with
respect to the seriousness of the income crisis facing our
farmers, a crisis further compounded by flooding earlier this
spring in certain parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
We are frankly at our wit's end as to what more can be done to
get the Prime Minister to personally address this issue and to
get the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to acknowledge the
inadequacy of his efforts thus far, but for the sake of our
constituents and Canadian farmers everywhere we will try again
today.
Once again we will lay before the House the mounting evidence
that Canadian farmers continue to face record low incomes due to
factors beyond their control. We have already done so once
before in this session during our replies to the Speech from the
Throne, a speech in which the government completely failed to
even acknowledge the problem. If only one fact could be cited,
which should be sufficient evidence in itself to prompt the
government to greater action, it is the fact cited in the motion
that combined realized net income for farmers in Manitoba and
Saskatchewan is down 98% from the previous five year average.
1120
In human terms this means a lot more than the loss of income.
It means tears and heartache. It means the churning of stomachs,
worry and despair for thousands of farm families. It means a
loss of the ability of those families to provide for themselves
and their children. It means the loss of hope, which is the
worst loss on the farm, a loss of confidence in the future and a
desperate feeling of people not knowing where to turn. For some
it has already meant the loss of the farm itself.
Once again we appeal to the government. If the government will
not be moved by the statistics and the hard facts concerning the
disastrous drop in farm income, surely it must be moved, and
moved to do something more, by the human tragedy that surrounds
those facts.
The position of the government appears to be that it has done
all that it can or can be expected to do. This position we
categorically reject. We urge the House to reject it by
supporting this motion. Instead of pursuing its current policy,
we therefore urge the government to do the following six things.
First, we ask that it acknowledge that its ill-conceived, ad hoc
AIDA program is a failure. It should be reformed or replaced so
that it actually delivers payments to farmers in combination with
provincial contributions in the order of the $25 to $50 per acre
promised in the press releases and the public statements of the
minister.
Second, we ask that it present to the House an immediate plan to
provide tax relief to Canadians, including agricultural producers
and farm families. This plan should include reductions in taxes
on agricultural inputs such as fuel and fertilizer and it should
include reductions in user fees such as those collected through
the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency.
Third, in order to find the money to meet the cost of providing
any additional emergency assistance, the government should make a
formal and urgent request to the Standing Committee on Finance to
do precisely that, to find the money; not by increasing total
taxes or borrowing or returning to deficit financing, but by
readjusting the government's current spending priorities. This
is precisely what any family or business facing an emergency
situation would have to do. It would have to take funds from
other areas to address the emergency requirements. This is what
the government and this parliament should be learning to do,
whether it is to cope with the spending requirements of an
agricultural emergency or to cope with the government's $5
billion pay equity bungle.
Fourth, in order to address the longer term dimensions of the
problem and to ensure that there is a long term future for
agricultural producers, the government should present a plan to
the House to redress the inadequacies of its current farm safety
net programs, in particular crop insurance and the net income
stabilization program.
Unlike the NDP we do not advocate a return to the protectionist
or dependency creating subsidies of the past. Such measures
would not survive challenges under either the NAFTA or the WTO
and proposing them only raises false hopes that will be dashed
later on.
What we do advocate is reforming crop insurance to include
disaster insurance so that programs like AIDA do not have to be
invented on an ad hoc basis after the fact every time there is a
major climatic disaster like a flood or a drought.
We advocate an expanded NISA-type program that will really do
the job, a single trade distortion adjustment program, a single
agricultural income insurance program that compensates
agricultural producers for income injury suffered as a result of
somebody else's subsidies in violation of the spirit and letter
of free trade.
This idea was first raised in this House by Elwin Hermanson, our
former agricultural critic and now the leader of the official
opposition in Saskatchewan. He is a respected agricultural
leader who has just received an overwhelming mandate to represent
the farming and rural communities of that province.
Fifth, we demand the immediate formation of an emergency team
Canada mission to Europe and Washington, led by the Prime
Minister but including the Minister for International Trade, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and other provincial officials. Their mission would be
to make the case as it has never been made before that European
and American subsidies, contrary to both the spirit and the
letter of free international trade in agricultural products, are
killing our farmers.
We have one further proposal for the agricultural minister which
we insist he convey to the Prime Minister and that is that the
Prime Minister himself participate in this debate.
The Prime Minister has consistently absented himself from every
major discussion of this issue in the House since he became Prime
Minister six years ago. This is inexcusable in a country where
agriculture is one of the major primary industries and where
hundreds of thousands of Canadians are dependent on agriculture
for their livelihood.
1125
We are aware that the Prime Minister does not know the
difference between wheat and toadflax, but surely the agriculture
minister could brief him before he came down, because the Prime
Minister's continued indifference to this issue is an insult to
farmers everywhere in this country, particularly in the west.
If the Prime Minister really cares about this issue, why does he
not come down here and say so, and present to the House not the
usual fluff and chaff, but a plan incorporating the emergency
measures and agricultural reforms which this motion urges upon
the government?
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in a major speech of October 13 the member for Calgary
Southwest berated the government for not having a good policy or
an aggressive policy with respect to tax cuts and debt reduction.
While I have great sympathy for helping not only western farmers
but farmers in my riding, particularly the pig farmers who have
recently suffered considerably from low prices, he now proposes
and is advocating increased spending for crop and disaster relief
for farmers.
Within the context of his remarks about debt reduction and tax
cuts, can he put a figure on what he thinks the government should
be spending on farmers who are in difficulty? Is it $1 billion?
Is it $2 billion? Is it $3 billion? Is it $4 billion? Can he
be specific in terms of the money that he would spend?
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
paying attention to my speeches, but if he had paid a little
closer attention he would have had the answer to what he is
driving at.
I think we should wait until we see the further updated
presentations from Saskatchewan and Manitoba later this week with
respect to the figure. Whether the figure is $1 billion or $1.5
billion, this is what we should do to meet that.
First, we should try to meet it within the existing government
spending envelope. We are simply going to have to learn to do
that. If there is an emergency let us readjust our spending and
tell the Standing Committee on Finance to do that. We have some
ideas as to where to get that money. We would be interested to
see if anybody else in the House does as well.
Second, I said in my reply to the throne speech that one of the
answers was to cut taxes. That is still part of our solution.
Why not cut taxes, including taxes on agricultural inputs? That
can be done without increasing the deficit or the spending
requirements of the government.
The third thing which answers the member's question is, if the
House had listened to Hermanson when he was here, as early as
1995 he proposed the reform of the NISA and the setting up of a
single trade distortion adjustment mechanism. If that had been
done the amount of money in the NISA accounts today to deal with
emergencies would be significantly higher than they are. We
would be in a much better situation to address this problem.
The answer is to listen when reforms are proposed by the
official opposition.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very intently to the member's speech. As someone who
has farmed for about eight years, I can understand some of the
concerns and issues that are going through our farm community
today.
The member said that the finance department and the finance
committee should find the money. If I recall, it was his party
that proposed something like a $600 million reduction in spending
for the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food in one of its
budget proposals. We left that money in that envelope for
financing, yet the member's party would have withdrawn it.
Second, he talked about taking the NISA program and expanding it
so that we protect farmers from all kinds of trade distortions
that are occurring all over the world. I agree with him. It is
a big problem that our farm community is facing today. I know
that the member also believes in equality. I hear him saying it
time and time again. Is he also going to protect every other
business interest in this country from trade distortions all over
the world using government programs?
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, there are two responses
to that question. First, the point about Reform advocating a
reduction in agricultural spending several years ago is correct.
However, we also proposed these other measures, which more than
compensated for that from the farmers' standpoint and which would
protect distortion adjustment mechanisms.
1130
Second, if the member does have this great background in
agriculture, which I am sure he does, he will understand that
there is more protectionism today in the agricultural sector than
there is in many of the other sectors that are subject to free
trade. That has been the case ever since free trade has been
talked about. It has been the big problem in Europe. The big
problem is getting subsidies down in agriculture.
Where the trade distortion adjustment program is particularly
relevant is in the agricultural sector. That is why we advocate
it. There are other measures in both the WTO and NAFTA to deal
with other trade distortions. In agriculture, those measures are
inadequate as is demonstrated by the situation our farmers are in
today.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
make a few comments on the issue that is before the House and the
motion that is before the House today.
There is no question that the financial difficulty facing many
Canadian farmers this year is of great concern to all of us: to
myself, to the members of the government, to the agriculture and
food community and indeed, to all Canadians. I know very well
how difficult the times are for a number of Canadian farmers
every year, but in particular, this year.
At the same time, I do not want to lose sight of the larger
picture, not diminishing the problems, as I say, that a number of
producers have. I want to remind all hon. members that the
fundamentals of the agriculture and food sector remain on the
whole very positive. On a national basis, farm income is only
slightly below the five year average. I remind the House that is
on a national basis.
Thanks to the safety net programs that we have in place, the
cattle industry is prospering, supply management sectors are
sound and, in spite of price instability, our hog sector
continues to claim an ever increasing share of North American
production, laying the groundwork for the future.
In addition, investments in the agriculture sector are up and
food exports are increasing, in particular those of processed
food products so that we get the value added and the jobs here in
Canada. That is certainly an important area of growth for the
future.
Unfortunately, however, some commodities in some regions are in
trouble. These farmers are dealing with an extended period of
low commodity prices but not extended to the extent that some of
the members opposite are trying to make us listen to. We know
that the prices of commodities in 1996-97 were some of the
highest prices that we have had in the industry for a number of
decades. The situation, however, has been aggravated by turmoil
in the financial markets around the world, prolonged by the
increasing use of subsidies in the United States and the European
Union and made worse this spring in some areas by excessive
moisture or, in other areas, by drought in certain parts of the
country.
I remind the House that farmers have not been left to face these
challenges alone. We have been working with them and the
provincial governments to develop both short term and long term
solutions. I remind everyone that agriculture is a joint
responsibility of both the provincial and the federal governments
as so declared in our constitution.
I want to begin by making some comments on the short term
solutions. Agriculture income disaster assistance, or AIDA, is
putting $1.5 billion into the hands of Canadian farmers in need
over a two year period. So far 16,000 farmers across the country
have received money from AIDA. Over $220 million has been
distributed. It is averaging just a little less than $15,000 per
producer. Applications are continuing to be processed and
cheques are being mailed out even as we speak today. Over half
of these cheques have gone to farmers in the hardest hit
provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Farmers continue to receive support from other safety net
programs as well. This spring changes were made to the crop
insurance program to put money into the hands of farmers in
southwestern Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan when
excessive moisture prevented them from seeding. In addition, we
worked with the province of Saskatchewan to give those producers
access to up to $50 per acre for unseeded crop land this year and
in future years.
A number of changes were also introduced to NISA, the result of
which was more money for more farmers and faster. Twenty-four
thousand farmers have already taken advantage of these changes.
As a result, they have been able to get more than $260 million
out of their net income stabilization account.
That is what the program is there for. It is a contribution from
the federal and provincial governments and individual producers.
The account will be available for producers to draw on in the
down years when it is needed.
1135
I remind everyone that another 80,000 farmers have triggered the
opportunity to take money from their NISA accounts. There is
another $900 million in those accounts which they can withdraw
right now if they need to. These programs and the adjustments we
have made to them are closing the gap between farmers' current
incomes and their five year averages. Our safety net system is
helping farmers to stabilize their incomes in the middle range
between the higher and lower income years.
I am not suggesting that our farm income protection system is
perfect. There will never be a system that is all things to all
people under every condition, every day of the year and every
year. What I am saying is that we do have a solid foundation in
place and, together with all the players, we are working very
hard to build on that foundation.
We have already made changes to AIDA to keep money flowing to
producers between now and the end of the tax year. Further
changes are also being considered, including coverage of some of
the negative margins.
I continue to meet with colleagues in cabinet, in caucus, in the
provinces and with farmers themselves. I can assure the hon.
members that the government is looking at a variety of options to
give more resources and support to farmers.
In addition to the short term measures I have talked about, I am
also working on long term solutions. Together with our partners
we are rebuilding, renewing and revitalizing our farm income
protection system. The system must encourage farmers to make
production decisions based on market conditions. It must be
national in scope and available to farmers across the country
regardless of region or commodity produced. It must respect
Canada's obligations under the international trade agreements. A
safety net structure that invites countervail or other trade
problems will only do harm not good. It must not encourage
overproduction.
Canadian farmers are committed to responsible stewardship of
their land and water. The challenge is to fashion these guiding
principles into a framework that is acceptable to 10 provincial
governments while maintaining a cost sharing arrangement of 60%
federal money and 40% provincial money. I do not think I have to
explain how difficult a task that is.
Provincial premiers and their agriculture ministers recognize
how critical this matter is to the Canadian primary producers. I
will continue to count on their goodwill and diligence to develop
a solution that is in the best interest of farmers across the
country.
I continue to work and meet frequently with the national safety
nets advisory committee. Safety nets are only one part of the
solution. Stronger international trade rules are another part.
Canada cannot afford to match the huge injections of cash to
farmers that take place in the United States and the European
Union. The reality is that our pockets are just not that deep.
In the final analysis it is probably not even smart to try.
Higher subsidies only serve to drive commodity prices down
further, encouraging overproduction and hurting farmers not only
in Canada but everywhere in the world. I have made that point
forcefully to my counterparts in the European Union, to my
counterpart Secretary Dan Glickman in the United States, at the
Cairns group meeting in August and at the Quint meeting in
September. I will continue to make that point because that is
where the discussions take place, at the WTO and those types of
forums.
I plan to continue working to shore up support at the WTO
negotiating table. Meanwhile, the government is working in other
ways as well to provide support to the industry and the tools
farmers need to adapt, diversify and compete in a rapidly
changing global marketplace.
In the Speech from the Throne, we reaffirmed our commitment to
research and trade development, two major building blocks of the
future, particularly in the agriculture and agri-food sector.
1140
We are also in the process of reforming the western grain
handling and transportation system to ensure that farmers have a
competitive, efficient system to get their goods to port and from
there to markets around the world.
I am absolutely committed to working with farmers and provincial
governments to build a highly competitive, increasingly diverse
agriculture and food sector in the country. We are doing that
through the short term and long term measures which I have
outlined today.
I look forward to the constructive comments from members in the
industry and members of the House. As much as we would like to
have an ideal situation, there are always limited resources. Our
challenge is to target those limited resources as fairly as we
can to those who need the support.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the agriculture minister began his remarks by saying
that the situation is not too bad. I would remind him that was
the theme of R.B. Bennett's speeches in the House a long time
ago. He might reflect on what happened to R.B. Bennett.
We have to get real in this discussion. We appreciate the
minister's presence here. Could he give straight answers to the
following questions? We made six proposals for fixing the
situation. Could he tell us whether he supports: replacing or
reforming AIDA; providing tax relief now; asking finance to
readjust the budget priorities; reforming crop insurance to
include disaster insurance; expanding NISA for the long term;
and, leading an emergency trade mission to Europe and the United
States and getting the Prime Minister engaged?
Does the agriculture minister support those specific proposals
for dealing with the situation, yes or no?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, we have already been
flexible and have made changes to AIDA. We are not finished yet.
The second point was tax relief. The government has given $16.5
billion in tax relief in the last two budgets. Farmers have
benefited from that as well.
It was very clear in the budget. Before last year's budget
there was a $900 million contribution made by the government
toward the situation and along with the provincial government's
contribution that comes to $1.5 billion.
Regarding NISA, we made changes to NISA this summer that lowered
the triggers. We made another $121 million available to
producers and, if everyone had listened, I said in my speech that
we were looking at that as well.
Regarding trade, I outlined the only approach that can be made.
When we talk about trade, it is not just between two countries.
It is in the form of WTO and we have a strong approach to that.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister of agriculture shows a fairly rosy picture but I do
know that he recognizes it is not quite that rosy in western
Canada.
He talks about the 14,000 to 15,000 people who have been
approved for AIDA. For each one that has been approved there is
one who has been declined.
I wonder if the minister of agriculture would please tell the
House if those people who have been declined are simply on their
own and should not expect any further assistance from the
government.
Lastly, there are extraordinary circumstances with respect to
some areas that have been dealt another blow of natural disaster.
The AIDA program is not sufficient for those particularly
extraordinary circumstances. Will the minister tell the House if
there are going to be additional programs for natural disasters?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the applications that
have come in have not all triggered a payment. I would put to
the hon. member that there is never a situation when 100 per cent
of the applications for anything, whether it be this type of
program or any type of program, have been accepted.
1145
I have put criteria in place so that all farmers no matter where
they live in Canada receive assistance, if they trigger those
criteria. As I said, unfortunately the program cannot be all
things to all people at all times.
The provinces have a role to play as well. Recently one of the
provinces came forward with more support for its producers.
Other provinces can do so if they wish and we would welcome those
discussions with them.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to ask the House for
unanimous consent to have the minister stay just a few minutes
longer so there can be more than the 10 minutes of questions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Selkirk—Interlake has asked for the unanimous consent of the
House to extend the time provided for questions and comments of
the minister of agriculture by five minutes.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, quite
frankly it is not surprising that the Liberals would not want to
keep the minister here. Obviously he does not have the answer to
the agricultural problem.
I want to know what responsible government would abandon its
farmers by cutting subsidies by unnecessarily high amounts before
ensuring that they would be on a level playing field with other
countries.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals took
over as the government, this country took in $120 billion a year
and spent $162 billion a year. If we were going to sustain any
kind of support whether it be in the agriculture industry or any
other sector, we could no longer continue on a course of
bankruptcy as a country.
We made some tough decisions. Support programs were removed.
The hon. member wants to forget that there was $1.6 billion in
capital money which was put in as a replacement of some programs
in western Canada. Adjustment programs of hundreds of millions
of dollars were put in to assist the industry to adjust. There
is $600 million a year contribution by the federal government in
the safety nets. In the last two years there has been another
$900 million.
We would all like to have more. Our challenge is to do as much
as we can with the resources that are available. We will continue
to look at that and try to find other appropriate ways to assist.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go to the
next speaker I want to clarify a couple of items.
As we have done in the past, during the time provided for
questions and comments if there seems to be a number of members
who wish to ask a question, I will identify at least three
initially if there is a five minute period so people will know
whether or not they are going to be called. If that is the case,
then it is obvious that questions and comments will have to be
kept at around 60 seconds. We have done it that way for the last
year or so. We will continue to do it that way.
I also want to clarify that in this first round it was one 30
minute slot to the official opposition, it being a supply day
motion, and then 10 minutes with a five minute question and
comment for each of the recognized parties. I was in error in
saying that the hon. member was splitting his time. It was 10
minutes to start with.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, three things
are clear from this motion: the failure of the government's
agriculture income disaster assistance program; the need to set
up an emergency program immediately to come to the aid of
farmers, and the matter of the unfair subsidies paid by foreign
countries to their farmers.
Our remarks will focus on these three points. The first is the
government's failure with its AIDA program. The government has
no compassion.
The federal income security program is a fiasco that ignores the
reality faced by the farmers.
The present situation in agriculture is proof that the AIDA
program does not work and cannot guarantee farmers a decent
standard of living. The government cannot simply wash its
hands. It is responsible for the situation and is contributing
to maintaining this farm income crisis situation.
1150
The main problem, but not the only one, arises from the fact the
AIDA program, as designed today, is denying the benefits to a
number of producers that it was originally intended to provide.
As it is currently designed, AIDA program will not distribute
the $900 million in federal government funds set aside for
farmers in the coming years. It will not enable the government
to keep its promises of support.
AIDA therefore does not meet the needs of farmers. The problems
posed by AIDA are many and prove that the federal government
really does not know farmers. In its design, AIDA does not take
account of the situation farmers are in.
Why are agriculture producers with a negative cost-price ratio
being penalized? Why does the program set a ceiling on what a
farmer can receive, and the method by which the ceiling is
calculated means that the ceiling is lowered when the farmer is
experiencing a crisis?
Why has the minister not made a commitment to producers to spend
all of the announced $900 million? Why has the minister not
made an exception in his assistance program to include the sheep
producers who experienced heavy losses in the 1997 scrapie
crisis and were ineligible for the $600 per capita compensation?
Why has he not made that effort, given that it would have cost
only about $1.5 million?
The flaws in the program are the fault of the government and
will contribute to keeping farmers in a precarious situation.
The rule on negative margins will seriously affect farmers who
are in such situations this year.
Because of the sharp drop in commodity prices this past year,
the Canadian Federation of Agriculture estimates that there will
be 10,000 farms with negative margins. Is the federal
government prepared to change its principles and to give
consideration to these otherwise viable operations deserving of
assistance? Is the government prepared to accept responsibility
for the eventual disappearance of farm businesses because of the
flaws in AIDA?
This situation notwithstanding, the federal government is doing
nothing, thus giving proof of its lack of compassion. Why has
it not followed the recommendations of its advisory committee?
In Quebec a revenue stabilization program has been in place for
some twenty years. It is a three-way program, with the federal
government contributing one-third.
The Quebec government is currently satisfied with the AIDA
arrangement, because the province continues to manage its own
program and the moneys received were used to lower participants'
contributions. The same goes for those who do not have access to
the stabilization program, but who benefit from NISA because,
again, they are subsidized by the province and the program is
managed by Quebec.
The second point is the need to take action to save farmers.
Farmers are going through the worst crisis since the thirties.
In Quebec, low prices for pork, down 34% from last year, have
had a direct impact on farmers' income.
Faced with this situation, the government must continue to help
the agricultural sector, particularly since it has the means to
do so, while also complying with international agreements.
However, if this government finally decides to act, the measures
will have to be comprehensive because the agricultural issue
concerns the whole country.
According to Statistics Canada, the net farm income went from $4
billion in 1989 down to $2 billion in 1998. In Quebec, the net
farm income dropped by $10 million over that same nine year
period. Based on estimates, Quebec's total net farm income will
be $526 million, that is a 26% drop over the average income for
the past five years.
The last point is subsidies made to the agricultural sector in
foreign countries. Ottawa is more virtuous than necessary.
According to Bob Friesen of the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture, Ottawa went too far in that “Canada reduced
subsidies beyond what was expected of it. Ottawa could do a lot
more for farmers without violating trade agreements”.
For each dollar received by Canadian farmers, their American and
European competitors receive $2.5 dollars, and this does not
include the $8.6 billion that they just received in assistance.
In 1998, the OECD estimated that total support through
agricultural policies amounted to $140 U.S. per capita in
Canada, compared to $363 in the United States and $381 in
Europe.
As we can see, the argument invoked by the Minister of
Agriculture about the constraints imposed by the WTO is not
valid.
Let us not forget that, under the 1995 GATT agreement, the
signatories pledged to reduce their farm subsidies by 15%.
1155
Canada, ever virtuous, went for up to 50% of international
guidelines, while the United States and the Europeans went for
up to the full 100%. The Bloc Quebecois will always take the
side of farmers when they are being oppressed.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member has rightly noted that the federal government has
constantly been saying it had to cut subsidies to farmers due to
the trade agreements that are in place. The minister's answer
this morning and the fact that the government has cut subsidies
up to 60% when it only had to cut to 20% indicate it has really
been using one excuse or the other, whatever suits that day.
Does the hon. member agree that the government has abandoned
farmers in an effort to meet a budget line and that it has been
using the excuse of the trade agreements?
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, I agree completely, because the
government still had some leeway, particularly in a time of
crisis. If the agricultural sector were in its prime, then
would be the time to go all virtuous, and take the hard line
adopted in Cairns.
But with the sector now in crisis throughout the country, I
think the government could have taken the maximum leeway allowed
under the WTO rules.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the Bloc members have looked at the realized
net income for Quebec. They would then understand that the
situation there is not nearly as serious as it is in other parts
of the country. The realized net income there has not dropped.
My question for the hon. member is twofold. First, does the
hon. member recognize that AIDA does not address the real problem
in the farm income crisis? The real problem is the long number
of years where the income has been so low that when AIDA pays out
it pays out only a very small amount, a few thousand dollars that
does nothing to help the crisis.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the
member's question.
Quebec producers' net income from farming has indeed dropped
less than that of producers in western Canada. There are
several reasons for this, one being that our income support
program has been stable for 25 years. Instead of fluctuating
with the federal subsidy, Quebec takes what the federal
government offers under the tripartite agreement and maintains
the stability of our program. This is a big help. Quebec
therefore plays a greater role than the other provinces in
supporting its farmers. When there is a crisis, we pay our
farmers and then we collect from Ottawa, which the other
provinces do not do. They do the opposite.
If AIDA is not meeting farmers' needs, I think everyone who
spoke this morning has shown why.
Just applying is a nightmare requiring farmers to pay an
accountant $1,000 to fill out the forms. Right from the word
go, there is a problem
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to lead off on this important topic today on behalf of
the New Democratic Party caucus.
The record will show that our caucus as been in the forefront of
this issue. We have discharged our obligation as an opposition
party by bringing the crisis in agriculture to the floor of the
House of Commons on numerous occasions. We also brought it to
the standing committee on agriculture and to meetings with farm
organizations, particularly on the prairies.
Our caucus does not have any difficulty or major disagreement
with the resolution before us today. Our disagreement is with
the party that has moved this motion because we believe strongly
that the crisis in agriculture, especially on the prairies, has
been accelerated by the rise of the Reform Party in western
Canada and the eager acceptance by the government opposite of
some of its half-baked ideas.
Reform members may not like it, but consider their farm policy
resolution back in Saskatoon in 1991. They stated that their
party's policy was not guided by the interests of producers but
by the “demand of consumers for secure supplies of food at the
lowest competitive prices”.
1200
That was nothing short of a declaration of war on the family
farm. Shilling for this cheap food policy led to predictions at
the time that up to one half of the farmers in western Canada
could be wiped out. Well, guess what? According to an Angus
Reid poll a couple of months ago 46% of western farmers are
seriously thinking about packing it in if their current
demoralizing financial situation continues.
A mass exodus of farmers should be music to the ears of Reform
members. After all, it was their leader who said in Truro, Nova
Scotia, in 1992 “The brute truth is that the prairie provinces
cannot support the number of farmers they have been supporting”.
This brute truth was corroborated in 1995 by Reform's lead
agricultural critic, the member for Kindersley—Lloydminster.
The official opposition leader said a few minutes ago that we
should listen to Hermanson. Let me quote Mr. Hermanson who said
in March 1995:
I am not complaining about the cuts in support to agriculture. I
will say it again, so that it is clear to the House. I am not
complaining about the cuts in support to agriculture. Probably
Reform would have done some of the cutting differently, and I
think better.
By “better” the former member undoubtedly meant deeper. When
the Liberal government heard the Reform Party's agricultural
proposal to shift from government supported to an industry shaped
by market forces it put on its happy face and moved as quickly as
possible to accommodate those recommendations. It did so by
taking a meat axe to government programs relating to agriculture.
The facts of the matter are that all signatories to the 1993
GATT Uruguay round agreed to lower domestic support payments by
20% over five years. The government thought it had a better
idea: why not eliminate it by 60%. Why not accommodate Reform
and cut much deeper? It was a win-win situation for the
government and accordingly it hacked and slashed support payments
with a vengeance. Instead of simply agreeing to abide by the 20%
GATT rule in reducing domestic support payments the government,
as I mentioned, has happily reduced it by 60%.
What is the impact of these cuts? Today, on every dollar of
wheat sold the Canadian farmer receives a grand total of nine
cents in subsidies. We must contrast that with the 38 cents
received by the American wheat grower or the 56 cents in
subsidies awarded to the European grower. It is an
unconscionable disparity that explains why our farmers are at a
huge disadvantage.
I want to address some remarks to the minister of agriculture.
The minister told delegates to the united grain growers
convention 11 months ago that he was fully aware that as bad as
1998 had been on the prairies in Manitoba and Saskatchewan the
outlook for 1999 was even worse. More important, he pledged to
do something about it and that something became known as AIDA.
AIDA does not seem to be working very well in Manitoba and
Saskatchewan. It seems to be working not too badly in British
Columbia or Alberta. There are statistics on that. It certainly
seems to be working reasonably well in southwestern Ontario where
we hear that cheques are in the magnitude of $65,000 or $70,000.
In Manitoba, and it is important to note that less than half the
producers are even qualifying for anything, the average cheque is
about $14,000. In Saskatchewan it is even less, as the member is
noting. It is $11,128.00. Again more than half the farmers that
are applying under AIDA are not receiving anything.
I am sure it could be agreed that it takes a particular form of
genius to predict accurately the provinces most at risk for an
upcoming year and then design an assistance program which
actually extends more help to the farmers in neighbouring
provinces than the farmers that actually need it. It is like
calling for emergency highway assistance after seeing a two
vehicle accident. Police and ambulance arrive to provide
assistance to the people who saw the crash while the victims of
the crash remain trapped inside with no one paying them any
attention.
Since we are in the middle of the world series it is worth
saying that prairie farmers are paraphrasing what Babe Ruth said
about another program, that AIDA is not worth a cup of warm spit
on the prairies. That is exactly what farmers wanted to tell the
agriculture minister to his face last July in Prince Albert.
They wanted him to step out of the shadow of the Marlborough
Hotel on July 6 and speak so that everyone could hear him, so
that there could be a genuine dialogue between farmers and their
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
1205
I was amazed on that occasion that the minister failed to
recognize that farmers see the minister of agriculture as their
minister. They wanted to talk to their minister and tell him
their frustrations about the complicated AIDA forms, the
exclusion of negative margins, the inclusion of NISA and off farm
income, the low commodity prices and high input costs. In short,
these farmers wanted to tell their minister about the state of
agriculture as they live it on a daily basis.
Instead of understanding their desire to be heard and to engage
in any kind of meaningful dialogue with their minister, the
minister of agriculture came across that afternoon as petulant
and uncaring to the several hundred farmers in attendance.
Farmers were not interested that day in the minister's six
second sound bite. They wanted to talk to him directly. They
wanted to tell him in their words what was wrong with AIDA from
their point of view and what was needed to correct it. They
wanted desperately to tell him that they need an effective, long
term, viable safety net program to support them.
We support that on this side of the House as well. Farmers know
that for them to be competitive Canada must provide them with
levels of domestic support comparable to those provided by our
trading competitors. The minister denied prairie farmers that
opportunity on that occasion and in their disappointment and
frustration some of them reacted.
Because of how poorly AIDA is working on the prairies some
people say scrap it, get rid of it. Our caucus does not agree
with scrapping the AIDA program. We say again that it seems to
be working elsewhere. Therefore it can be made to work in
Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
However for AIDA to work on the prairies the reference period
must be extended to five years or more. The three year reference
period is simply too short. A longer period would provide a much
more accurate picture as to what is actually happening to net
farm income, especially for grains and oilseed producers. In
addition to a long reference period, negative margins must be
factored in to the AIDA calculation.
In closing, two days ago the Minister of National Defence in
Ottawa, in speaking to an audience of current and former
peacekeepers, said that the failure to act in the face of misery
and hurt when one has the means to correct it is wrong. I pass
that message on to the minister of agriculture and indeed the
entire government opposite.
The government knows there is unprecedented hurt and stress in
rural Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That stress extends beyond the
farmgate. It includes grocery and hardware stores, gasoline and
implement dealers. Without immediate action the hurt will become
unsustainable and unprecedented numbers of farmers and others
will simply walk away, devastating our rural way of life.
These injustices must be corrected immediately. On behalf of
the caucus I urge the government, through the minister of
agriculture, to make the changes to AIDA that are so desperately
needed. With the changes outlined here prairie farmers can
continue to do what they do as well as anyone in the world, and
their sons and daughters can follow in their footsteps with some
assurance that with hard work and a bit of luck they too can
expect a reasonable living standard. That is what our farm
families are seeking and I implore the government to act now
before it is too late.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, much of what my hon. colleague from Palliser has said
and has said very well is true but I do want to correct his
opening remarks. Coming from the same province as I do, there
are three basic questions I want to put to him just for the
record.
First, could he comment on the fact that the NDP government in
Saskatchewan took a real beating at the rural polls in the
September election? Second, what government was it in
Saskatchewan that stole some $450 million from the farmers GRIP
program? Third, would he like to explain why the property tax on
farmland has increased some 300% in NDP Saskatchewan?
1210
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, yes, there was a modest
downturn of rural support in Saskatchewan last September. No
provinces have GRIP any longer. It simply was far too expensive
a program not just for Saskatchewan but for a number of other
provinces as well. Taxes on farms need to be addressed by all
three levels: provincial, federal and municipal.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I listened
intently when the minister of agriculture spoke. He said that
not all programs were perfect and that some people from time to
time may fall through the cracks. We also recognize, according
to Statistics Canada, that net farm income dropped in 1996-97 by
55% and is projected to drop by another 35% in 1997-98.
What would my hon. colleague expect the minister of agriculture
to say to farmers from the Annapolis Valley who for the past
three years have experienced drought conditions and cannot
qualify under the AIDA program or any other program, or to those
farmers who in the last few years came into the farming business
and are unable to benefit from this program?
The problem was beyond their control. It was something that
happened to them. It was not something they mismanaged. It was
just something that happened. What would my hon. colleague
expect the minister of agriculture to do?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
of the member for West Nova. Part of the problem he is
addressing about the Annapolis Valley would be resolved if there
were an extension on the three year period for AIDA to which I
referred in my speech.
Farmers have gone through a tough patch and had no crop. Under
AIDA they cannot put down a negative margin. They can only put
down a zero. If they have lost $20,000 or $30,000 in a crop year
they cannot include it at the moment under the AIDA application.
Extending that out to five or seven years would give a better
picture and get a truer value of the extent of the loss farmers
and producers are suffering.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to one or two
observations made by the hon. member for Palliser.
In his remarks a few minutes ago he indicated, and one could
perhaps infer it from what he said, that very little AIDA money
is flowing into his home province of Saskatchewan. In the
interest of accuracy we should share with the member the latest
information.
As of October 20, five days ago, a total of $72,149,506 has been
paid out to farmers in the member's province of Saskatchewan.
That is from a total number of claims paid of 6,865. With
Saskatchewan having so many cereal grain farmers and cereal grain
farmers being so impacted by low commodity prices it is
understandable that the largest amount of money would be going
into the member's home province. Almost half of the AIDA money
paid out has gone to Saskatchewan.
I wanted to share that information with the member as I am quite
sure he would want farmers to understand it.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, $72 million is a
significant amount of money, but I would respond to the member
for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia by reminding him that the
Government of Saskatchewan has put $140 million in and of itself
into the AIDA program. The member is telling us that $72 million
of the AIDA program was paid back, not a terribly significant or
compelling number.
The member did not tell us from the data he has how many people
in Saskatchewan do not qualify for AIDA.
As I said in my speech, from the figures I have seen, less than
half of the producers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are qualifying
for any kind of payment.
1215
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to stand and speak to this particular issue.
I agree with the assessment made by my colleague from the NDP on
the motion put forward by the Reform Party. We also do not
disagree with the issues put forward in the Reform motion.
However, I suspect it must be difficult for the Reform members to
keep turning those 180 degree turns all the time and making
changes to positions that they had taken previously and putting
forward resolutions such as we have today.
I would also suggest that if the Reformers really felt that it
was an issue of great importance, then perhaps it could have been
a votable motion as opposed to simply a non-votable supply day.
There are obviously some issues that the Reform Party, needless
to say, has not been terribly forthcoming with respect to its
position on assistance to agriculture. As a matter of fact a
number of Reform members have indicated quite emphatically that
tax relief and reduced subsidies are the only ways we should be
going in industry. I could quote a number of members who suggest
that the Reform Party does not really believe in support and
spending through ad hoc programs to the agriculture industry.
In a debate with me on national TV, the member who put forward
the motion suggested quite clearly that hog farmers should take a
lesson from cattle producers and stop whining. That does not
speak very well to the belief that agriculture is in desperate
turmoil and needs some assistance.
I wish to talk about a couple of issues, the first one being
AIDA. The member from Charleswood has indicated that the
provincial governments are doing a wonderful job but that the
federal government is not doing its job. The federal government
takes credit for $1.5 billion which has been allocated to the
AIDA program and farm relief.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like you to advise me. I think the member put my
name to certain quotes pertaining to this issue. If so, could
the hon. member tell me exactly what they were?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That would be a
question of debate. Provided that another member is not in some
way casting unparliamentary aspersion on another member, it is
not the role of the Chair to get involved in such questions. The
hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would
like, it happened on November 30. I have the transcript from CBC
television.
The member from Winnipeg, who suggested that a wonderful job has
been done by the federal government with respect to dollars
allocated to this particular farm crisis, had indicated that over
$200 million has already been distributed. However, remember
that the minister of agriculture continually stands in the House
and says that $1.5 billion has been allocated to the AIDA and
farm disaster programs that we are now suffering. Two hundred
million dollars being distributed to this date, October 25, is a
far cry from the $1.5 billion he continues to use.
Let us look at the AIDA numbers. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have
in fact received a goodly share of the $200 million that has been
distributed thus far, but for every one application that has been
approved there is one application that has been denied.
I asked the minister of agriculture earlier this morning if he
believes that the people who have been denied do not require any
assistance throughout the farm disaster. His answer was
“absolutely not”. He said that not everyone was going to
qualify and not everyone was going to get assistance from the
$1.5 billion. To date, only $200 million has been allocated.
In Manitoba and Saskatchewan right now there are people who are
in desperate straits. They do not qualify for AIDA. For what
reason? It is because the AIDA program has criteria attached to
it which will never allow them to qualify for disaster assistance
or AIDA assistance.
1220
Let us talk about some of those inefficiencies or deficiencies
within the AIDA program. Negative margins was mentioned. When
we first talked about this as the PC Party of Canada, we had a
program set out that dealt with 70% of the farm income. We would
also like to see negative margins covered. When the program was
put into place negative margins were not covered. A substantial
number of applicants need cashflow in order to put their crops in
next year but they have been disqualified because negative
margins are not allowed in the program.
A five year averaging of margins was not allowed. A three year
averaging of margins was accepted by the government, a criteria
that disqualified a number of people. Seventy per cent of
nothing is nothing but that does not mean the producer or farmer
does not need cash in order to continue the operation. A five
year averaging would have been much better.
Let us talk about the bureaucratic nightmare of applying for the
AIDA program. It is so complicated that in some cases it
dissuades people from even applying. Beyond that, once a person
gets an application into the AIDA bureaucracy, there is a whole
different set of circumstances.
Why is it that in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where the federal
government administers the program, almost one out of every two
applicants gets disqualified? There are verifiers and the rules
change every day. We can talk to five different verifiers or
auditors and five different answers will come forward. That is
not only frustrating for an applicant who has put in an
application, but it is also to the point where other applicants
will not even apply. Rules are changed on a daily basis. We
need some consistency within the program to make it fair.
Another issue not dealt with in the existing AIDA program is
that of year ends, a simple little bureaucratic nightmare. For a
corporate farmer with a year end that falls outside of the
calendar year end, the AIDA program is unfortunately backdated to
a 1997-98 program as opposed to a 1998-99 program. We recognize
that the 1999 crop year is going to have some serious
ramifications on the farm economy. With corporate year ends,
which have not yet been resolved, some corporate farmers may not
have any option or opportunity to take advantage of AIDA in 1999.
That is an absolute travesty because those particular producers
as well as all producers need a 1999 support system.
I have the distinct displeasure of representing an area that has
more than simply a commodity crisis going on right now. We have
a natural disaster. Millions of acres of land could not be
seeded in the spring because of too much water.
The minister of agriculture has tried to make the AIDA program
everything for everybody. This is an extraordinary circumstance
that has to be dealt with by extraordinary support from the
federal government. It has not been forthcoming. Those
producers in the area who do not have any crops and who do not
comply with the AIDA criteria will not be farming in the next
year.
I speak with some authority. When our party was in power prior
to 1993, we came forward with some very strong programs. We
implemented the NISA program which people throughout the House
are now taking credit for. We came up with the GRIP program
which is still in effect in Alberta and in Ontario and is doing
quite well for the producers in those areas. However, it was the
Liberal government in 1995 that decided to take a little short
term gain for a long term pain. It got rid of the GRIP program.
If it were in place today we would not be standing in the House
trying to demand additional support services from the government.
Through the late eighties and early nineties the Progressive
Conservative Party put hundreds of millions of dollars in support
to farm communities and farmers with respect to drought
assistance and commodity assistance. The federal government can
take some lessons from what happened prior to 1993, and I wish it
would.
The Reform Party talks simply of tax relief and getting rid of
subsidies.
That is very laudable. It should happen and it will happen, but
it will not happen between now and next spring when farmers will
need and demand some assistance to get their crops in.
1225
I thank the Reform Party for bringing forward the motion.
However, it has always stood in the House and said “If you can't
stand on your own, then you had better get out of the way”. Our
party says “If you can't stand on your own in this particular
situation, we should be there as a part of the government to say
that here are the services and support that is necessary to keep
you going until the next crop year”.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I understand the member correctly, he is saying we
should loosen the criteria and give as much money as possible to
all the farmers who say they have a problem.
That was precisely the mistake made by the government when it
attempted to help the east coast fishermen who were affected by
the cod moratorium. A lot of the $1.5 billion that went to the
maritimes did not reach the people who actually needed it.
Surely criteria have to be established and there has to be a
bureaucracy that looks at how the money is spent on a program
like this. If the member really has complaints about the AIDA
program, surely he has a responsibility to be specific in his
complaints rather than just suggesting we add more money to the
pot.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
obviously not listening. I never asked for more money to be
added to the pot.
I suggested that the $1.5 billion, that has continued to be used
as the number distributed to agriculture, should be distributed.
The number now stands at $200 million for 1998. The reason the
minister of agriculture is tinkering with the program now is
because he is embarrassed. The criteria that were put into place
in that program were so restrictive that it never had the
opportunity of putting the money out that was necessary to get
out.
I think the government should be embarrassed that $1.5 billion
is available and only $200 million has gone out to desperate
farmers who need it. When the government changes the criteria to
reasonable criteria then the full $1.5 billion can be distributed
to the people who really need it, not one out of every two
applications being denied.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will bring forward some factual
information in reply to my hon. friend from Brandon—Souris.
I think he left the impression with some listeners and viewers
that the GRIP in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan was
taken away against their wishes. I remind the member for
Brandon—Souris that GRIP was abandoned because those two
provinces did not want GRIP. They felt that the premiums were
too high and the federal government agreed to it. The province
of Ontario wanted to continue with GRIP and does so today.
The member for Brandon—Souris finds the AIDA program wanting
and would like to see it improved. Again he would like to leave
the impression that it is the sole responsibility of the federal
government. I would remind the member for Brandon—Souris that
this is not just a one government program. The provinces are
involved as well. The federal government pays 60% of AIDA. The
provinces pay 40%. The provinces agreed to the criteria involved
in AIDA.
My friend from Brandon—Souris supported the former Filmon
government which agreed to AIDA. The Romanow government, which
still exists by a thread, agreed to the criteria of AIDA.
It is nice to bring these things into perspective so that the
people out there, many of whom are not farmers and are living in
cities, understand the true facts about AIDA.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, maybe there is some
foreshadowing there with respect to the Filmon government and the
NDP government. The federal government also agreed to the AIDA
and perhaps it may well be a former federal government.
Let us talk about the issues brought up by the member for
Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia. First, the GRIP was put into
place and it was and is a good program in those provinces that
still continue with it; FIDP in Alberta and the MRI program in
Ontario.
1230
It was to the government's detriment that GRIP was taken away in
1995. Had the government had vision, it could have seen that the
commodity prices are very cyclical in the farming economy. One
government and a provincial government suggested they did not
want to have it for the opportunity of saving money, as the
federal government did when it took away its contribution to the
GRIP. Perhaps it should have seen down the road that this program
was going to be necessary in 1999, 2000 or 2001, instead of
getting rid of it. It was short term gain for long term pain.
As for the provincial government, yes, Manitoba did give $50 an
acre for unseeded acreage. That came totally at the expense of
the provincial government. The federal government has still not
made its commitment to that $50 per acre.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be sharing my time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
It is important that we are debating this motion today. I
congratulate the member for Selkirk—Interlake for bringing it
forward. The country's agricultural crisis is not being
addressed properly. It needs to be discussed and debated. The
issues need to be brought forward for all Canadians to consider.
It is a simple fact that the agricultural industry in Canada is
in crisis. There was no indication in the throne speech from the
Prime Minister that he was going to adjust programs to handle
this, which has necessitated this motion.
As we debate this today, family farms are being repossessed.
Families are being torn from the land they have worked for
generations. Families are losing a way of life that is unique to
Canada and to their heritage. Their fathers and grandfathers
sweated and worked hard for years to develop a way of life. Not
only do they lose their farms and their jobs, they lose their
homes, their heritage, possibly their pride and their
self-esteem.
With all the hard work that went into their farms, things
outside their realm are affecting what they do. No matter how
hard they work and no matter how sharp they are in their
marketing decisions, the fact remains that they cannot sell their
product for enough to pay the bills.
Situations have come into the farm communities over which the
farmers have had no control. Our farmers now need some help.
They need help to compete against the monopolistic wheat board.
They need help against European subsidies that drive up
production and drive down prices. They need help against U.S.
protectionism and subsidies that distort the marketplace. They
need help against the natural disasters that have devastated the
prairies in this and previous years.
Farmers need help to combat the attacks by people who know
nothing about farm life and rural life. Environmentalists have
come forward without any thought of what they are doing to our
agricultural people, with unfounded allegations that are going to
tremendously affect farm life. Farmers need help to fight the
input costs that have been driven up, the input costs and taxes
that have been created by this government.
The government they have to turn to for help is the same
government that has put them in this position. It is a catch 22
situation. Most of their problems have been created by the
people they are forced to go to as a last resort.
Farmers would sooner keep everything inside than say that they
need help. They would not ask for help unless it was very badly
needed. They have to go to the government that has its hands in
their pockets right up to the elbow. We are here to find help
from one of the sources that is creating the problem.
The east coast fishery is in turmoil. As mentioned earlier by a
government member, the TAGS program on the east coast did not do
what it was supposed to do. We can look at the dairy and hog
industry in Quebec, or the diverse crops and farming in Ontario.
The prairies have been devastated by low commodities. We can
look at the B.C. forest and fishing industries, or the dairy
industry in the Fraser Valley.
1235
The one thing people do not want to hear is “Hi, I am a
Liberal. I am from the Liberal government and I am here to help
you”. That sends shock waves and fear through the hearts of all
producers.
This country has come to a crossroads when it comes to
agriculture. As a country, as a government and as a people we
have to decide if we are going to put the measures in place to
preserve a way of life that has helped to build such a great
nation. We have to decide if the family farm and the family farm
way of life is worth preserving and we have to decide now because
if we do not, it is gone.
There has not been a crisis such as this one since the Great
Depression. I did not live through that, having been born after
it, but I listened to my folks talk about it. Terrible stress and
duress was put on families and the things that happened then, we
do not need again. We need to do things quickly. The problem is
many faceted in the agriculture industry. We need to react
quickly and respond immediately.
We need to have programs in place that will give some long term
stability to the industry. We need to look at all costs.
Commodity prices are down and revenues are low, but let us look
at the other side of the issue.
The government has put a program in place that obviously is not
working. It seems to be reluctant to move further. It is trying
to match the amount of dollars it took out of the budget to suit
the program instead of looking at the damage being done and then
having the program match that.
We need a government that will stand up for farmers and a way of
life that Canadians are proud of. We need a government that will
go to bat for its people and not create bureaucratic nightmares
that do not get the job done.
The official opposition has come up with a plan. Our job is to
point out the shortcomings of the government but also to bring
forward plans and ideas that will help to solve the situation.
Five key areas need to be addressed.
The first one is a short term solution. We have to find some
solutions immediately. The AIDA program is not working. It
needs to be replaced or reformed. The hurt in the agricultural
community is not being addressed by the size of this program. We
have to look at all angles. Some of the provinces have come up
with ideas. The federal government should look at what is going
on in Alberta and what has been developed for the short term.
We also need medium and long term solutions. Every time we get
in a crisis we try to develop a program to handle it. Let us
develop that program when we are in good times to carry us
through the bad times so that farmers do not have to come on
bended knee to the government for help. Let us get something in
place that will work.
Some changes are needed to the safety net programs. The three
year average currently used in AIDA needs to be extended. We
have heard that from other members. Negative margins need to be
considered in the program. The application process needs to be
simplified. For every farmer that is receiving aid, one is being
rejected for various reasons. Are those people who are being
rejected disappearing or is their hurt gone? No, they are still
there and need to be addressed.
Crop insurance programs need to be put in place that would
address those situations as they arise. The premiums must be
affordable so that farmers can get in early and they are there to
help.
We need free and fair trade abroad. We have done a good job in
reducing subsidies but other countries we deal with have not. For
instance, European subsidies on wheat production are 7.7 times
higher than Canada's. U.S. subsidies are 4.5 times higher than
Canada's. We have to address that situation. We need a
government that will put a team together to say to the Europeans
and the Americans that something has to be done about reducing
the subsidies to bring up the commodity prices.
Trade laws must be modified. There is a situation very close to
my home where groundless anti-dumping complaints have been lodged
by the United States. We have to change the rules. We have to
go to the bargaining table and stand up for our producers.
Many of my colleagues and I had the opportunity to meet with
some northern state U.S. senators over the last year.
We need to open up that dialogue. It became quite obvious
through these talks that we need to know more about each other
and we need to educate them on what we are doing in the House.
1240
The government must actively promote value added processing. We
should not sell a grain that has not been processed. We should
not be selling our other products unless we can add value. We
have to put some emphasis on that as that would bring relief to
the prairies and add value to the products.
The government needs to open up the marketing choices that
farmers have. They should not be restricted. There should not
be a monopoly. They should be able to make the choices they want
to make in order to improve their bottom line.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, regarding the criteria for something like the AIDA
program, there are two choices. We can either make the criteria
very stiff in order to prevent people from abusing it, or we can
make it looser so that people who should not take advantage of it
can do so. Another alternative is to add money to the AIDA
program.
What scenario does the member think the government should
follow? Should it loosen the rules and thereby have people abuse
the program, or should it put more money into the program?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, that way of thinking about
the situation is the problem. Let us listen on Thursday and
Friday when the premiers and the delegations are here from
Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Let us hear what they think needs to
be done.
To assume that if restrictive regulations are not in place that
eliminate half of the people from applying and that to reduce the
regulations will cause abuse, is wrong. People are genuinely
hurting. We have to make this program available to them. To
approve one application and then to reject the next one for
whatever reason is not the answer. To assume abuse is the wrong
way to go about it.
Let us find out from the representatives of the farming
community exactly what needs to be done. Let us follow their
lead. They are the ones that do know.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I found
the debate rather interesting, in particular the address
presented by the Leader of the Official Opposition.
I would like the member to expand a little further on the AIDA
program and the distinction of the hon. member opposite regarding
there being only two options. I wonder if my colleague could
address that question in another way and simply suggest to the
hon. member that perhaps there are not only those two
distinctions.
Perhaps one of the biggest problems with the AIDA issue is not
that it does not work because it is not a good program, but it
does not work because nobody understands it. The government does
not understand it. The bureaucrats do not understand it. The
farmers do not understand it. Certain accountants, when they are
given all the papers to complete, will charge $500 or $600 to
present the application only to discover that the farmer does not
qualify or only gets $45. Could the hon. member comment on that
issue?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Kelowna for his question.
I have the opportunity once in a while to meet with farmers in
the morning for a coffee in a local truck stop. There are
dryland grain farmers, sugar beet growers, cattle producers,
cattle feeders and people with a small land base that get into
custom farming. It is a wide range of folks. Of those who
completely understand the AIDA program there is not one that does
not feel confident that it can help them out. They know they are
going to have to go to an accountant. They know they are going to
have another $500 or $600 bill.
Simplifying the process would go a long way toward relieving
their concerns. Simplifying the process does not require one
more dollar, it just requires some common sense.
1245
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate for one
basic reason and that is that the constituency which I represent
was perhaps the worst hit constituency across Canada last spring.
My remarks will dwell on people. Everyone has done an adequate
job of talking about the reasons, but I want to talk about the
people, the people who I serve and the people across Canada, who
through no fault of their own cannot extract one cent for the
help that is needed now.
The people that I represent are proud prairie people, people who
have been betrayed, people of the land. They are people who are
fourth and fifth generation farmers. They are young farmers,
young farm families, many of whom I know personally. They will
tell me, as will some of the older people, that the situation
they are looking at right now is even more severe than it was in
the depths of the 1930s.
I get very emotional when I talk about these people. Make no
mistake about it, these people have been betrayed. They have
been betrayed by this government. They have been betrayed by
their provincial government.
When the flood came two years ago to Manitoba the people that I
represent rushed to help not only because of their location, many
of them took equipment to help. Two years later there is more
land under water in my constituency. A hundred times more land
did not get seeded. While my constituents agreed with immediate
help for the Red River flood, they are still waiting for some
help from this government. Is it any wonder they feel betrayed?
My same constituents were happy to see the immediate influx of
cash during the devastating ice storm. But there they sit with
frozen grain in the field this fall. They filled out AIDA forms,
which is like buying a $500 lottery ticket, and they lost because
they have received nothing.
They are being betrayed because of the stubborn insistence of
this government which says that the current programs are meeting
the farmers' needs. They are not. The government should open up
its ears to the provincial delegation that is coming down.
The sad part is that many of these young people are telling me
that they are being politically punished simply because they do
not support a government, provincial or federal, which really has
no keen interest in agriculture.
They are feeling betrayed as well by the fact that they lost
$400 million out of the provincial GRIP program. Boy, that would
come in handy right now.
They are feeling betrayed because the property tax on their
agricultural land is sky high.
They are feeling betrayed because the grain companies, which they
really believed would be there when they needed them, are not
there.
Finally, the greatest betrayal of all, they were told if they
would just settle for the Crow rate removal, get rid of it, the
government would pay them out. All they got was one year's free
freight. That is all. That is not the end. This government
told them in no uncertain terms that if they would accept the
Crow, then they would not be fighting these big subsidy wars.
The House knows the rest of the story. It is little wonder that
I get emotional when I talk about this.
Virtually every night last summer, if a phone call was not
picked up by my offices, I tried to make contact with that
constituent. This House is dealing with a human tragedy which I
witnessed for all but three days during last summer.
People ask if anyone is listening.
1250
Our daily newspaper, the Regina Leader Post, announced the
results of a phone survey which revealed that even in
Saskatchewan 60% of the people responded that farmers should not
get any financial consideration. Obviously many people agree.
Farmers are not looking for a handout. They hate that term.
They are not looking for a subsidy. Farmers are simply pleading
with the government that they need some survival funds right now.
That is what they are asking for. GRIP has turned them down. If
farmers lost money for three years, GRIP does nothing. Farmers
need assistance.
It is time the government stopped trying to score political
brownie points. It is time the government took a look at people
and helped them to survive so that they can, once more, pour
billions of dollars back into the economy of Canada.
At this time of the year we hear the statement “If ye break
faith”. Because the government's AIDA program was not designed
for the area which I represent, it has broken faith. The
government can correct that. It can correct that this Thursday.
It can be corrected by making an agreement with the group coming
here to put an end to what otherwise would be the blackest
chapter in the history of agriculture in my constituency. The
future is in our hands.
I want to mention three phone calls that I received. This will
give members some idea of the extent of the suffering out there.
A young farmer's wife phoned me in August. She was 32 years of
age and had one child who was starting school. She wanted to
know if I could help. This family had spent $500 filling out an
AIDA form. They were told that they would get a little bit. Two
weeks later they were told that their application would be
reviewed. Eventually this family may get something.
Before this phone call was over, this young lady broke down.
She was in tears. She wept bitterly. The power bill would soon
be due. The phone was about to be cut off. This lady's final
words were that they had never asked for help before from anyone.
I want the government to listen. The programs which have been
created have been misconstrued and misstated. The minister of
agriculture said that individuals would receive $50 an acre for
flooded land. Nobody received $50 an acre; not anywhere near it.
The second phone call I received was an even sadder case. This
call came from a lady who was phoning from the bedside of her
husband. She had spent the entire summer trying to get a bed in
the hospital. Her husband is dying of cancer. The government
had told this lady that they would get a small amount. All I
could do was write to the government and beg on this couple's
behalf. I want members to note her last words. She too broke
down and said that their only son would probably never survive
the agriculture crisis long enough to keep the land which was his
great-grandfather's.
This is as great a crisis as that which has ever happened. Yet,
we are still trying to make some political points from it.
The last phone call I received was very personal. It came from
a young couple who are living on the same farm as my wife and I
lived on. This young fellow bent my ear for 50 minutes.
He basically said that he had learned not to trust any
government. That is a sad case.
1255
On behalf of my constituents and those across the prairies, we
are not asking, we are begging that on Thursday the government
meet with the provincial people and say, yes, that it can indeed
look after those people who do not qualify because of some stupid
form. They hate that form.
Let us look at the human tragedy. Let us stop the bleeding. It
is in the hands of the government. Hundreds of farm families
need to be listened to.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member two very specific
questions. The first is, given that the AIDA program and other
compensation programs are 60:40, should the provinces be required
to pay their share?
The second, related question is, when this visit comes on
Thursday, what happens if the federal government cannot get
agreement with the provinces to reform AIDA in the manner that
the hon. member suggests is necessary? Should the federal
government then act unilaterally to reform it if it cannot get
the agreement of the provinces?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I
believe that both the federal and the provincial governments
believe that it should be zero for qualification and not a
negative. That has to be changed.
Second, if the government does not get the agreement of the
provinces, then this must happen. If this human suffering is
going to be stopped, this bleeding that I referred to, then it
will fall on the government's shoulders to say, yes, it can make
those improvements to AIDA that will fill the needs at this time.
I understand that they are going to be asking for $1 billion.
The most disappointing thing I heard came from the only Liberal
member from Saskatchewan, who I thought had passed away because
we had not heard from him. He said that we do not have enough
jingle jangle down here. That is nonsense. If this human story
is turned over to everyone in the government, my guess is that
the farmers will get help. However, if it is turned over just to
cabinet, I am afraid this may rest on its hands. I hope I am
wrong.
We have to help and I think the hon. member would agree with
that.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
would the member for Souris—Moose Mountain please tell me if it
is Reform policy to issue $1 billion in subsidies to farmers in
Saskatchewan? If so, how would he see that being distributed
fairly?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for
Brandon-Souris calling the AIDA program a subsidy? Is he calling
the crop insurance program a subsidy?
All I said was that there is room within existing programs to
sharpen them up to stop the human bleeding. That is what we are
asking for. Quite frankly, if the government needs some help I
can tell it how to help the hundreds of people who I know
personally. Do not call it a subsidy. We are not calling it a
subsidy. If the government wants to call it a subsidy, fine.
1300
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the question of my
hon. friend from Brandon—Souris. Is it the Reform Party's
policy to ask for an additional $1 billion for farmers in the
province of Saskatchewan?
I remind the House that if the answer to the question is yes,
this is a demand from a party that just a couple of years ago
wanted to take about $1.5 billion out of agriculture. Which is
it?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the
hon. member should happen to refer to that. If he wants to know
Reform policy I can give it to him straight out. We are there
when help is needed. He should not ever let anyone fool him that
we will not be there to help on a fair and equitable scale.
I will get to the question by the hon. member. We are saying
that if the government were to get rid of many of its taxation
policies it would not have to worry about programs like this one.
It would not have to tell over half the farmers in Saskatchewan
that they would not get a cent. Reform policy is to look after
everybody fairly, not just so that a few get money and the others
do not.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the previous
speaker from Brandon—Souris did not answer the question. It
does not come as a great surprise to me.
I will be splitting my time with the distinguished member for
Waterloo—Wellington. I am very pleased to take part in this
important debate. I wish to bring another perspective to the
discussion.
Canadian farmers produce some of the safest, highest quality and
most affordable food in the world, but having the best product at
the best price does not do a lot of good unless there is an
efficient, cost effective way to get product to the market.
This is what the government's grain handling and transportation
reform is all about. It is the issue I will speak to today. This
is an important issue for the bottom lines of western farmers. It
is also an important issue for the thousands of Canadians whose
livelihoods depend on a robust farm economy.
Before I talk about the ongoing consultations and the decisions
that lie ahead I would like to give some sense of the history of
this very complex issue. The difficulty of transporting grain
across vast expanses of land to deliver it to port for export is
an issue that is multifaceted and that has prompted endless
discussion. The severe backlog of grain shipments and ships
waiting in the port of Vancouver during the winter of 1996-97,
particularly in February of that year, hurt producers in the
pocketbook. As a result the government's resolve to tackle the
problem hardened.
During that winter, extreme weather conditions and railway
infrastructure problems caused disruptions that affected every
part of the grain transportation system. The then agriculture
minister convened a meeting in Calgary to which he invited all
participants in the system: railways, grain companies, the
Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grain Commission and the car
allocation policy group. They turned their efforts to finding
solutions.
All agreed that it was time to concentrate on building a grain
transportation system in which there would be more accountability
and reliability, where there would be rewards for those who
overperform, penalties for those who underperform and a system
with incentives built into it to make sure grain gets to where it
is supposed to be and on time.
In July 1997 the Minister of Transport, the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board again convened a meeting of all stakeholders
to develop strategies to ensure grain moves efficiently
throughout the crop year and to further discuss industry calls
for an early review of the grain handling and transportation
system rather than wait for the 1999 statutory review under the
Canada Transportation Act.
Several months later in December the Minister of Transport
announced that Mr. Justice Willard Estey was to head a major
review of the grain handling and transportation system.
1305
His mandate was to come up with recommendations for, first, a
responsive, efficient, customer oriented logistics system that
would enhance the competitiveness of producers, shippers,
carriers and ports; second, a system where all stakeholders
including producers would share in the rewards of productivity
improvements and would also share in the appropriate direct
consequences for activities that detract from system performance;
and, third, a system with well defined accountability for all
elements of the grain logistics system to encourage high
performance levels by each participant.
Justice Estey consulted with industry stakeholders in the early
part of the year and provided a preliminary report at the end of
April 1998. His final report delivered at the end of last year
contained 15 recommendations. These recommendations constituted
a blueprint for a less regulated, more accountable and
competitive grain handling and transportation system
The government agrees with Justice Estey's vision that the
western grain handling and transportation system should be made
more efficient, more accountable and beneficial to farmers. We
want it to move to a more contract based, commercially oriented
environment with appropriate safeguards for all stakeholders.
Justice Estey set out key principles to be followed in solving
grain transportation issues but there was still work to be done
to put the operational details in place. To achieve this the
Minister of Transport appointed Arthur Kroeger, a former deputy
minister of transport, to involve western stakeholders in
developing those operational details.
Over the course of this past summer Mr. Kroeger held extensive
consultations among grain industry stakeholders on 12 of the 15
recommendations included in the Estey report. He headed a
steering committee which set up three working groups that
concentrated on rates, revenues, commercial relations,
competition and safeguards. Mr. Kroeger was asked to provide
recommendations on any issue that was not agreed upon by the
stakeholders during the process.
When he delivered his report to the government last month he
indicated in a letter to the Minister of Transport that there was
still a dispute over the issue of eliminating regulated grain
freight rates and replacing them with a cap on revenue for each
railway. The point of a revenue cap is to provide a safeguard to
ensure that producers are not paying too much to transport their
grain and that as savings are achieved throughout the
transportation system farmers get to benefit as much as anyone.
The main dispute was the starting point for a revenue cap, which
Mr. Kroeger recommended should be set at 12% below the 1998
level. This would be a reduction of $3.73 per tonne or a total
of $112 million below the 1998 level based on a total grain
volume of 30 million tonnes. This means that shippers of grain
would benefit to the tune of $112 million in the year 2000. I
assure the House that many farmers are holding for greater
savings than those.
In his report Mr. Justice Estey recognized the mutual dependence
between the railways and grain producers, and I quote what he
said:
I could not agree more. The prosperity of our producers depends
on it. Mr. Kroeger also recommended that the federal government
assess the results of these reductions at the end of a five year
period. If at the end of that period the results were found to
be unsatisfactory we would have other options open to us such as
developing further measures to increase competition. In the
meantime, however, the revenue cap would provide safeguards
against excessive rate increases to grain producers during the
trial period.
All the issues in the report and Mr. Kroeger's letter will be
very carefully studied before we move to any consideration of new
legislation.
We recognize the important role that grain handling and
transport play in the costs and incomes of farmers and in the
strength of the rural and agricultural economy of the west. I am
confident, though, that through changes to the grain
transportation system Canada's grain sector will become more
competitive, which can only help western Canadian grain
producers.
1310
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly thank the member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia for identifying for his government a potential
$112 million saving to farmers on grain transportation. Today's
debate is exactly about how to get more money into the hands of
farmers, particularly those who are especially suffering in the
area of export commodities.
In addition to making grain transportation more of a commercial
contract based system, would the member consider advocating to
his government the reduction of the four cent federal excise tax
on fuel and lowering user fees, especially in the case of the
Canadian Grain Commission, or not increasing those fees to cover
its deficit?
Finally, to help farm incomes greatly he could advocate a
voluntary Canadian Wheat Board so that farmers who want to form a
co-op, which in essence is what the Canadian Wheat Board is,
specific to their products, in this case durum wheat, could add
further value and the value added money would stay with farmers
producing durum wheat?
Would he comment on those ideas and indicate whether he would
support them?
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I
can remember all those questions. I remind my hon. friend from
Manitoba that the input costs or the fees charged by the grain
commission have been frozen. I recognize the financial
difficulties of farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and elsewhere.
If those fees continue to be frozen for an indefinite period I
would certainly support it and recommend it to the government.
I love advice from the Reform Party on a voluntary wheat board.
The fact of the matter is that the producers the Reform claims to
support are in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I remind the
member for Selkirk—Interlake that we changed the governance of
the wheat board. It now has 15 members, 10 of whom are elected
by farmers.
The Canadian Wheat Board is dominated by producers who speak for
farmers. If the Canadian Wheat Board wants to make changes with
respect to marketing, whether it has to do with co-ops or anybody
else, God bless them. Let it go ahead. It is the producers'
board. We in Ottawa should not be telling them otherwise. Get a
grip.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague from Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia has indicated
that he and the government recognize that the last couple of
years have been really hard on farmers for a variety of reasons,
rail costs being one of them. A solution for rail costs is not
in place as yet. Farmers will not benefit immediately from that
at this crucial point.
If the government recognizes the last couple of years of
hardship, why would it set up a program that does not take in
five to seven years but takes in only the two years of great
hardship? Why set up a program that will not meet the needs of
farmers out there? From my perspective it sounds a lot like EI
where we have it out there but some 40% of the people cannot
access it. That is what the government has done to farmers as
well.
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure whether
the member for Churchill expressed her question clearly, or maybe
I misunderstood it. If she is referring to the reference period,
the reference period has to do with the past three years. I know
there have been considerations about looking at a different kind
of reference period called the Olympic model. Things are being
considered.
AIDA has been modified to some extent from the time when it was
brought in last Christmas. I would not be surprised that in aid
of improving it and streamlining it there will be some other
changes.
1315
Who knows, there might even be another reference period adopted
to give farmers a choice.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I take the opportunity to enter this debate to provide some of
the details on the government's response to this very serious
financial situation facing Canadian farmers.
I feel very strongly about this issue for two reasons. First,
in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington approximately 30% to 35% of
the wealth generated is as a result of agriculture and
agribusiness. Second, I still live on the family farm and
therefore have firsthand experience about what it is like in this
kind of situation. It is very important that we detail it in an
effective and progressive manner and that is precisely what we
are doing today.
While overall the agriculture and food sector is strong and
makes a significant contribution to the Canadian economy, the
government knows very well that the past year has not been an
easy time for many of our producers and farmers. As the hon.
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explained recently,
Canadian farmers encountered problems last fall when the prices
in the Asian economy hit North America. That situation was
compounded by declining commodity prices, a low Canadian dollar
and unusually difficult situations that occurred, especially the
flood and drought conditions in certain areas of the country. All
these things combined to make for a serious impact on the income
of many producers, particularly those in grain, oilseeds and hog
operations.
In response to that situation the government moved to the aid of
Canadian farmers by introducing the agriculture income disaster
assistance program, AIDA. Funded 60% by the federal government
and 40% by the provinces, AIDA is providing $1.5 billion over two
years to those farmers in need. That funding is in addition to
the $1 billion the federal and provincial governments contribute
each year to the safety net programs, including crop insurance
and the net income stabilization account which cushion farmers
during difficult times, and those programs which invest in
marketing research and other initiatives which serve to
strengthen the sector.
Working closely with farm organizations and farmers themselves,
the federal and provincial governments designed AIDA to be a
national program which would be as inclusive as possible, open to
all farmers in all commodity areas in every region of Canada.
AIDA uses an individual producer's revenue and expense
information from tax returns to calculate payments. The
applicant's gross margin, that is, the allowable revenues from
all commodities minus allowable expenses, is compared with the
average from the three previous years to determine the amount of
assistance available through AIDA. The farmer is entitled to a
payment that brings his or her income up to 70% of the previous
three year average.
AIDA was also designed so that governments could offer
assistance to new or beginning farmers. That is crucial because
we need to help our young people in this regard. Special
procedures were put in place so that producers who had just
started were able to apply for the program even though they may
not have had the historical information necessary for the
calculations.
AIDA has proven successful in helping Canadian farmers to
withstand the current crisis. The numbers speak for themselves.
Up to October 20, over 54,000 applications had been received.
More than $220 million is now in the hands of more than 16,000
farmers across the country, with average payments amounting to
about $14,000 per producer.
Saskatchewan is perhaps the province most affected by this
crisis. I was in Saskatchewan this past summer and saw firsthand
the kinds of situations the farmers are facing. More than 6,800
farmers in that province have been paid over $72 million. In
Ontario where the provincial government is administering the
program, more than $61 million has gone out to 4,200 producers.
1320
The impressive number of applications means that Canadian
farmers will use most, if not all, of the $600 million available
to deal with reduced incomes in 1998. This money will ensure
that farm incomes for 1998 are brought close to the previous five
year averages.
In a move to ensure cash continues to flow to those farmers in
need, the government has also made advance payments available
from AIDA 1999. This allows farmers to get 60% of their
estimated entitlement without having to wait to file their income
forms next February. A total of $900 million in funding is
available in 1999, the second year of the AIDA program.
In provinces where the Government of Canada is delivering the
AIDA program, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Nova
Scotia, application forms for 1999 have been available since the
beginning of September. I encourage all of those who need money
soon to submit an application as quickly as possible.
There are those in the opposition who want the government to
throw out this successful program and replace it with an acreage
payment. Some on the prairies are demanding up to $80 per acre.
The Government of Canada has not and will not implement such a
program for three very good reasons.
First, acreage payments would go to all the producers regardless
of need. This would not be fair to those who have suffered from
some of the worst declining market conditions for a long time.
Again the AIDA program is targeted at those in need.
Second, if we were to cover all land, an $80 per acre payment
would cost up to $5.2 billion in Saskatchewan alone. To be fair,
the payment would not just be offered to Saskatchewan producers.
Third, any ad hoc programming that is not disaster based and
that does not treat all farmers equitably would violate our
international trade obligations. If we were to implement this
type of program we would be subject to countervail activity from
our major trading partners, especially from the United States.
The government cannot act irresponsibly in this regard and it
will not.
AIDA is trade friendly because it treats all farmers in
financial need equitably regardless of what commodity they grow
or what province they live in. However the Government of Canada
realizes that AIDA is not working for everyone. We realize that
some producers have had several back to back years of low income,
primarily due to repeated drought or flooding conditions. It is
for this reason that the minister's national safety nets advisory
committee was asked to recommend changes for the second year of
the program. That advisory committee incidentally is made up of
representatives from all the major farm commodity groups. The
government is now considering its recommendations and will
proceed accordingly.
The Government of Canada is committed to Canadian farmers, as
well we should be and as we are. We are working to improve
conditions for producers on many fronts including in the upcoming
World Trade Organization talks where we will put forward a strong
position which represents the broad trade interests of the entire
agriculture and food sector.
We will continue to support farmers with effective and flexible
safety nets. Dialogue continues with the provinces and farm
groups on options for the long term renewal of a safety net
package and a permanent disaster program. We will continue as we
should to push for changes on the international front to level
the playing field so that our farmers can compete on the same
footing as their American and European counterparts. World Trade
Organization talks in Seattle in December will be a major
stepping stone toward our goal of subsidy elimination.
We will continue to invest in research and development so that
the industry will be further strengthened by adopting new
technologies which enhance food production and help the industry
to develop new products and technologies that allow new uses to
be made of existing products. In addition we will continue to
support diversification in an effort to foster self-reliance and
improved competitiveness.
All of our efforts will result in a strengthened agri-food
sector and a strong and vital rural Canada. That is what all of
us on the government side are working toward. We think it is
important. We understand the importance of rural Canada to this
great country of ours.
1325
As the Speech from the Throne indicated, this government is
committed to building a higher quality of life for all Canadians.
That includes helping the agricultural sector to deal with this
very difficult income situation. We know that AIDA has made a
difference and has made significant contributions so far and will
continue to do so in the months and years ahead.
I applaud the government. It is appropriate that we let it be
known to Canadians wherever they may live in this great country
of ours that is the position of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting to hear my colleagues from the other side boast about
leadership and vision. My constituents in West Nova,
particularly those in farming and even those in the fishery fail
to see where that vision and leadership is. We look at the Speech
from the Throne. There is no leadership, no vision, nothing
about fishing and farming. My constituents tell me that the AIDA
disaster program is exactly that, a disaster.
Farmers would not have to ask for help if this government showed
leadership and direction. That is not a question. I will leave
it as a comment.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the member
opposite for the question. He speaks of vision, leadership and
direction.
Need I point out to him that in 1997 the New Democratic Party
had a shopping list of $17.6 billion in additional spending? How
much of that was geared toward subsidy for agriculture? How much
was geared to help our farmers? A measly $11 million.
Imagine
that they would now support leadership and direction when they
had absolutely nothing to say about agriculture and the supports
necessary.
Shame on the NDP.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today we are to be debating the farm income crisis and
not slamming each other around, party against party. We are all
supposed to be doing what we can for the farmers.
I got one little hint of a positive comment from the member. He
was talking of diversification in agriculture. Certainly that is
one of the areas in which farm incomes can be raised.
When it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board, the member must be
reminded that the wheat board only operates under the confines of
federal legislation that restricts farmers from selling wheat and
barley on export except through the board.
If in the case of prairie pasta producers, farmers were able to
increase their incomes selling durum wheat by value adding it
into a pasta type product, would the member support having a
voluntary wheat board? It would allow growers of various crops
to value add to their crops in conjunction and in co-operation
with fellow farmers of the same attitude. Would he support a
voluntary wheat board to promote this diversification in western
agriculture?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question.
We on the government side have strongly supported the Canadian
Wheat Board over the years and will continue to do so in a very
effective and strong fashion. Recently the kinds of changes that
we have implemented support the Government of Canada's position
in this all important area, fully understanding how important
that wheat board is to Canadians.
I fail to understand from the Reform Party where exactly its
principles are and what is left of them when it comes to
agriculture. I was astounded to listen to the Leader of the
Opposition, or more to the point not to listen to the Leader of
the Opposition through the whole last session of parliament. How
many questions were asked in this House by the Leader of the
Opposition with respect to agriculture? The answer is one.
Imagine, of all the questions that could have been asked, only
one measly question was asked about agriculture. The Reform
Party really has to get its act together with respect to this all
important area.
1330
I was surprised that the very person who is moving this motion
today, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, was quoted not so long
ago as showing compassion for our pork producers when the bottom
fell out of the market. He told the CBC program Politics
on November 30, 1998 that cattlemen do not go crying for aid
every time the price of cattle goes down and neither should the hog
industry.
Where is the compassion? Where is their sense of what is right
for the agricultural sector? It is not there and Canadians see
through it every time.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to remind the hon. member opposite that the official
opposition asked dozens of questions but the government answered
none.
It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the motion which is before
the House. I would like to thank my colleagues who have spoken
today for their dedication to and hard work on the farm crisis
which exists in this country. It is because of their commitment
that the farm crisis issue is before the House today. If it was
left up to the government this issue would not see the light of
day in this place.
We are constantly reminded of the government's supposed
commitment to our farmers. Yet, we continue to wait for the
government to act in any meaningful way. I listened, as did all
members of the House, to the government's Speech from the Throne,
advertising to all its agenda going into the new millennium.
There was a very brief mention of the upcoming WTO negotiations
and the importance of those negotiations to the future of the
agricultural sector in this country.
I listened with great interest to the Minister for International
Trade in his reply to the throne speech for any new initiatives
from the government that would deal effectively and immediately
with the farm crisis that exists in our country. The minister
talked a great deal about the need for Canada to open up to the
world and that Canada is more open to trade than any other
leading industrialized country. The minister talked of a rules
based system and how Canada is one of the most active advocates
and promoters of a rule based international trading system.
The minister spoke of a system that would guarantee a level
playing field which would give Canadian businesses in all sectors
easier access to the world market. He said that the humanization
of globalization was the government's objective.
The issue of culture, the role of artists in our society and the
importance of cultural diversity were all mentioned as priorities
of the government by the Minister for International Trade. I
waited and waited for the minister to mention where our farmers
fit into the future equation of the government. I heard no
mention of the crisis on our farms in either the throne speech or
the trade minister's reply. I am truly saddened that the
minister has chosen to ignore the needs of our farm communities.
It has not taken long for the new Minister for International
Trade to tell Canadians what his true priorities are. Just last
week the minister proudly announced the government's commitment
to a global agreement which would protect Canada's cultural
industries. Where is the government's commitment to protect
Canada's farmers?
In the official opposition's dissenting report on Canada's
position in the upcoming WTO negotiations it urged the government
to make agriculture the number one priority and noted that tariff
and subsidy reductions are crucial to the future success of our
farms. Why is the government not working toward a global
agreement to eliminate agricultural subsidies?
We have asked the Prime Minister to use his influence with the
U.S.A. to eliminate its destructive agricultural subsidies. The
Prime Minister came to the aid of our defence and aerospace
industries in a recent trade dispute threatening our favoured
nation status in bidding for defence contracts.
I called for prime ministerial intervention on this issue months
ago when it looked like the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the
Minister for International Trade could not get the job done.
To his credit the Prime Minister did intervene and he did prevent
what could have been a disastrous situation for our defence and
aerospace industries.
1335
The plight of our farmers demands that the Prime Minister
intervene in the same manner for the elimination of the export
enhancement program and similar export subsidization programs
that directly impact Canada's ability to compete in global
agricultural markets.
We know that the European Union heavily subsidizes its
agricultural sector and has been opposed to any talks on
liberalizing its aggressive export subsidization policies.
In the long term, if there is ever to be a fair rule in place
for agriculture, it can only come from ensuring that agriculture
is a priority in the upcoming WTO negotiations.
The government talks about the importance of the Seattle round.
However, the government must adopt a clear position on this issue
and demand maximum market access for all countries, including
major tariff reductions for everyone and significant subsidy
reductions by all major players.
Up until now we have not seen the political will necessary from
the government to act aggressively in these negotiations. The
Minister for International Trade is off to Geneva this week for
talks with the European Union on the WTO position. Agriculture
must be his first priority in these talks.
The official opposition has called on the government to
immediately launch a team Canada mission to Europe; a delegation
that would include the Prime Minister, the Minister for
International Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food; a team Canada mission
dedicated to making a powerful argument to the Europeans that it
is in the best interests of Europe that subsidies be removed. We
must appeal to them that subsidies go against the very principle
of free trade that the European Union seems to espouse.
In the last two weeks alone there have been three decisions that
have forced Canada to expand and open its markets. We all know
of the auto pact decision. The WTO in effect said that the auto
pact discriminated against foreign automakers because only the
big three were able to import cars into Canada duty free.
The WTO also ruled that Canada has been unfairly subsidizing its
milk products.
In a mixed decision, the U.S.A. department of commerce cleared
our beef producers of being unfairly subsidized, yet refused to
eliminate tariffs on Canadian cattle.
Other countries are using mechanisms available to them to open
our markets to their producers and to protect their industries.
Why then is our government not acting in a similar fashion to
protect our agricultural industry?
Our government continues to react in a passive manner and
refuses to act aggressively in protecting and promoting the
interests of Canada in the global marketplace. If the government
is committed to free trade, as suggested in both the throne
speech and the reply by the Minister for International Trade,
that means more than simply knocking down our subsidies and trade
barriers here at home. It means aggressively knocking down trade
barriers that exist in countries around the world.
Our farmers are calling for the government to develop lasting
solutions to the agricultural crisis. The usual do nothing
approach advocated by the government is simply not good enough
any more. The government cannot continue to be broadsided by
decisions like the auto pact. Until this government acts our
farmers will continue to operate at a disadvantage
I would like to wrap up my comments today by saying that the
government's inability to deal with foreign subsidies is killing
our farmers. Why is the government refusing to deal with this
issue? It is more concerned with protecting our culture and
appeasing the Maude Barlows of this world than it is in fighting
for the future of our Canadian farmers.
It is clear that the new international trade minister's
priorities lie elsewhere. I question whether the government's
position on agriculture going into the WTO negotiations has any
real teeth at all.
It is truly disgraceful that the farmers of this country are
paying the ultimate price for a government that does not have the
stomach or the political will to participate forcefully in
today's global market.
1340
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the agriculture minister said, agriculture is a joint
federal-provincial responsibility under the constitution. The
Reform Party has always championed the issue that the federal
government should stay out of areas of provincial jurisdiction.
“Get out of the provinces' faces” has been the Reform Party
attitude.
I have some figures here. In the years 1995, 1996 and 1997
support payments by the federal government to Saskatchewan alone
were $779 million, and to Manitoba, $258 million. That is two
and a half times more than the provinces put in during that same
period. What the Reform Party is saying right here and now is
that it wants more federal intervention and more federal money
for the provinces. I would like to know how the Reform Party
reconciles that with its policy of the provinces first, the
federal government second.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind
the hon. member that it was the federal government which cut
transfer payments for health care and education to the provinces,
forcing them into a financial crisis in which they could not
address this issue. Nevertheless, Alberta has just given $100
million to its farmers.
The bottom line is, what is the federal government doing about
it? The issue is that the higher subsidies of the European Union
and the U.S.A. are killing farmers in this country. That is what
we are asking the government to address at the forthcoming WTO
negotiations in Seattle.
What we have heard is the weak statement that, yes, we will talk
about it. We would like to know exactly what is the position.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really think we should shed a tear for
truth. The hon. member from Alberta is suggesting that we have
been indifferent to killer subsidies imposed by the European
Union and the U.S.A.
Let me remind the hon. member that in the past year the
government has hosted and led an unprecedented number of meetings
with all of the agricultural and agri-food stakeholders on what
their input should be with regard to coming to a Canadian
position on the WTO negotiations. All of the industrial
stakeholders were very impressed with the kind of program which
the minister of agriculture put together in the past year to come
to a determination of what our country should say at the WTO
negotiations beginning in Seattle next month.
In this debate we should have more facts and a little more truth
so that people can understand what this debate is all about.
Those are the facts.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, that is the usual Liberal
rhetoric. The government can have as many meetings as it wants,
but it has produced zero. Nothing has happened.
The official opposition is asking the Prime Minister to lead a
high level delegation to Europe to explain the damage which the
subsidies are causing to their industries as well as ours, as
well to free trade. That is what the opposition is calling for.
Maybe the hon. member could advise his government to do that.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
really enthralled with my hon. colleague's comments. He was very
astute and very much to the point.
What is it that has really been accomplished by the Liberal
government to help our farmers build into the secondary
processing industry? There is so much value added that could be
done by our farmers. What help have they been given? Instead,
the government has reduced the ability of farmers to have the
money to do the things they want to do. It has increased the
costs for services rendered. It has increased their taxes
instead of cutting taxes. All of these things go against farmers
being independent.
I wonder if the hon. member would speak to that.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that
farming prices today have been rising. That is because of the
government's high taxation policy. As well, it has not addressed
the issues. It is a do nothing approach again. It takes a slow
approach. Nothing happens. If something does happen, then the
government wakes up to the fact that something has happened. It
is the usual do nothing approach which has resulted in the farm
crisis we have in our country.
1345
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to speak on the issue of the farm income crisis in
Canada. I am proud to say that the Reform Party is sponsoring
the debate today because we know how critical the issue is to
hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It is about time we debated
the issue in the House of Commons, and it is time the government
started paying attention.
I will reiterate something my leader said today. He said that
we would like to see the Prime Minister take a personal interest
in this issue. It is an extraordinarily important issue but we
never see him anywhere on it. He can attend the opening of a
plant somewhere that may contribute a few million dollars to the
economy but when it comes to agriculture, which has a
multibillion dollar impact on the economy, he is absolutely
nowhere to be seen.
I want to address a couple of things. I want to first address
an issue the agriculture minister raised when he spoke earlier
today. He said that on average things on the farm are pretty
good. As my leader has said on more than one occasion “if your
hair is on fire and your feet are in a block of ice, on average
you are doing okay, but it really does not go to the issue”.
The issue is that thousands of farmers are going broke today and
the government has no plan. It does the easiest thing it can. It
says that it will put together some kind of a program, and even
though it will be deeply flawed and will not help at least half
of the people out there, it can at least say that it is doing
something. It has completely failed to deal with the issues that
are a little more difficult to deal with. It in fact retreats
and runs away from them.
I will now deal with two issues: European subsidies and taxes.
I will talk a little about the subsidy issue. We have seen the
Prime Minister make extraordinary trips around the country for
all kinds of things that he should not be doing. His time should
be more valuable than that. We have seen him go on trade
missions for the photo opportunities so he could stand there and
sign agreements that were put in place months or years before. He
just has to get there, get on the bicycle and ride along the
Great Wall of China for the photo op. That is what he does.
He should be leading trade delegations to Europe. He should be
using Canada's privileged place in the world to demand some kind
of agreement on the issue of subsidies. What do we get? We get
him running around the world as he pursues the photo
opportunities. It is an absolute disgrace that he is not
engaging in a serious way in the debate today given how much is
at stake and given that half the country, especially western
Canada, is in a very difficult position right now. It is
absolutely disgraceful.
My colleague argued a few minutes ago, as did my leader earlier
today and in his response to the throne speech, that the
government should put together a super committee of cabinet
consisting of the Prime Minister, the agriculture minister, the
foreign affairs minister and the trade minister to give this the
priority it should get. That is a common sense approach
considering that Canada is a trading nation. We do depend to a
large degree on the trade we do with the rest of the world. We
have a small domestic population of 30 million people and we
depend on trade for about 40% of our economy. We must do a
better job of dealing with trade issues. Canada could be doing
more about the irritants and barriers to trade that are out
there.
The issue of tariffs on beef is one barrier that affects my
riding. We have pleaded with the agriculture minister to make
some very small changes that would allow more American beef to
come into Canada. In the spirit of goodwill, we would, as a quid
pro quo, then expect the Americans to not pursue the complaint
they have against Canada. As a result, we would save millions
upon millions of dollars in tariffs that are being charged
against live Canadian beef going into the United States.
What do we get? We get stonewalling from the government and all
kinds of reasons why it cannot move quickly.
1350
I distinctly remember that when a law was struck down by the
courts respecting the wheat board, the cabinet moved within two
hours to change the law. However, it cannot change in a few
months some regulations respecting the import of American beef.
It is time it quit pretending. It should take the issue
seriously because we need it addressed.
I want to talk for a moment about taxes. We stand in the House
day after day saying we need to have lower taxes. The government
says that it is working on it and it is getting there. The
provinces are taking the issue so seriously today that they are
seeking a meeting with the government because bond raters in New
York and other places around the world are so concerned about the
government's high tax and high debt policies that our economy is
suffering as a result. We have higher borrowing costs and a much
weaker dollar because the government cannot get its act together.
We are arguing that a common sense way to help farmers would be
to lower taxes. Every year the farm population spends millions
of dollars on fuel costs and fuel is 50% tax. Every year,
whether or not crops are good or bad, they have to spend a lot on
fuel because that is what they do. They have to put the crop in
the ground. The government could help immediately by beginning
to lower the taxes on fuel.
Although there have been some tough years for farmers in the
last few years, when they do have a good year they spend an
outrageous amount of money on income taxes. Over a 40 year
period on the farm, I argue that the government takes hundreds of
thousands of dollars in extra taxes from farmers. That is
shameful. It should be lowering taxes.
In Europe they have high subsidies and high taxes. In Canada we
could subsidize every taxpayer by cutting taxes. We could give
our people a huge competitive advantage by lowering taxes but the
government refuses to act. It continues to spend more and more
every year and we never do get the tax relief that would help
everyone.
Consider the taxes that are embedded in the cost of fertilizer
and chemicals amounting to billions of dollars over the course of
a farmer's lifetime spread out amongst all farmers. We are
saying that the government should start to reduce taxes so that
those input costs go down. If it did, farmers in Canada would
have a fighting chance, but with this government in place it
seems like it does not care. It is falling on deaf ears. This
is such an obvious way to help not just farmers but everyone that
I cannot understand why it does not move to do it immediately.
We see instead that taxes are going up. On January 1 we will
see a big CPP tax hike and a personal income tax hike because of
bracket creep. We will see the small business exemption eroded
again because of bracket creep. We will see the $500,000 capital
gains exemption eroded because of bracket creep, which affects
farmers. The government is raising taxes when we are already the
highest taxed country of all of our major trading partners, one
of the highest taxed in the world and they are still going up.
That does not help farmers. That does not help anybody.
The government must put the effort into ensuring that Canada's
trade interests are protected. It is not doing it today. In
fact, the Americans and the Europeans are eating our lunch while
the Prime Minister effectively holidays around the world. It also
has to start to lower taxes for the sake of everyone. It is the
fair and compassionate thing to do.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly have thought about the comments made by my
colleague across the way. He makes it sound as though Canada's
agricultural sector is really going down the tubes.
I would point out to him that annual exports in agriculture have
risen from $13 billion to $22 billion over the last five years,
the term of the government. That seems to be quite an increase
in the amount of production and quite a success story for a major
section of the economy in agriculture.
1355
I would also like to point out that our supply managed
commodities sector economy is doing very well at the same time.
We are up $250 million in exports from 1995 to 1998, a three year
time period. We are up $1.3 billion last year alone. Dairy
receipts have increased by $299 million.
When we talk about the increases in the millions and billions of
dollars in exports—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I
guess that was more in the form of a statement. Does the hon.
member have a rebuttal?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, what I heard was the
member denying that there is a problem for so many farmers today.
Many farmers are going bankrupt. I wonder if he understands what
that means on a personal level.
I happen to represent a rural riding. Many of the people who
phone me are completely desperate because of the low commodity
prices, thanks to European subsidies which my hon. friend failed
to address, and because they are facing such high input costs, in
part because of taxes, they simply cannot make it.
My friend did not address whether or not those exports he
referred to meant more profit going into the pockets of farmers.
Well, of course, the answer is no. There may be lots of exports
going out, but if they cannot be done in a way that leaves people
profitable, how does that benefit farmers? My friend over there
is denying reality.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again the Reform Party continues to confuse people.
The member continues to say that the government should lower
taxes and that lowering taxes is the answer to the farm problem.
At the same time, his leader says that we need a comprehensive
subsidy to protect our farmers from distorting trade practices
around the world. What he is saying is to spend more money on
subsidies and, by the way, reduce the taxes. Now let us be
serious. The member cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is very
serious. We want to see the government re-prioritize its
spending.
Why is the government giving billions of dollars in subsidies to
profitable big businesses every year? I wonder if my hon. friend
would answer that. Companies that are making profits of $200
million a year are still getting subsidized by the government.
We are arguing that should not be happening.
We are saying that there should be a trade distortion adjustment
program put in place that protects farmers from the hurt caused
by unfair foreign subsidies. We believe that it should be
financed to a large degree by farmers. I do not think anybody
argues with that. We want to see a long term program put in
place that is GATT green and that protects farmers in the long
run and not this ad hoc, trade distorting approach that the
government is currently engaged in that ultimately helps one in
two farmers. The farmers who do get some help sometimes are
getting $8 cheques from the government after spending $500 to do
the accounting for these stupid programs.
The Speaker: We will take up the debate after the
question period. We will now proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE LATE CHARLES MERCIER
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
September 30, 1999 the life of 34 year old, senior OPP Constable
Charles Mercier was taken in a tragic highway accident while he
sat in his cruiser in St. Catharines, Ontario.
Anyone who knew the 13 year OPP veteran knew that he was a kind
and gentle man, with a good sense of humour and keen negotiating
skills.
But Chuck Mercier was not just a police officer. First and
foremost, he was a loving husband to his wife, Joyce Pavelich, a
dedicated father to his children Michelle and Nicholas, a loyal
son to his mother Hélène, and late father Clermont, and a good
friend to his brothers Pierre and Paul.
To the Pavelich, Mercier and OPP families, I would like to
express my deepest sympathies. During this time of unspeakable
grief and sorrow, may they take comfort in their memories of an
honourable man who chose an honourable profession. He will never
be forgotten.
* * *
SURREY SPIRIT OF YOUTH MURAL PROJECT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to acknowledge the work of the youth involved in the Surrey
Spirit of Youth Mural Project.
Last summer over 50 students designed and painted 16 murals
throughout the city. The project has now produced 23 murals
depicting various themes reflective of our community, including
the environment, multiculturalism, heritage and the celebration
of youth.
The prime mover behind the project is the Surrey Crime
Prevention Society under Jim King and Peter Maarsman. The
project visionary and driving force is Marc Pelech, a high school
art teacher.
1400
Many local organizations and businesses contribute materials and
funding, with support from all levels of government. The Spirit
of Youth mural project is a good example of how people with
vision can come together with business and government to enhance
the communities we live in. I invite members to visit its
website at www.surreycrime.bc.ca and click on the mural project.
My congratulations to all those involved, especially to the
young artists who spent the entire summer, much of it under
tarps, providing us with 16 more reasons we are proud to call
Surrey home.
* * *
SLEEP-WAKE DISORDERS CANADA
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that October 25 to
30 has been designated National Sleep Awareness Week.
This week coincides with the changing of clocks to help remind
us how important sleep is to our everyday lives. Over two
million Canadians suffer from sleep disorders and in several
cases many people are not even aware they are affected. Sleep
disorders decrease the quality of life of many Canadians by
decreasing alertness and the ability to perform effectively on a
daily basis.
Sleep-Wake Disorders Canada, a national voluntary health
organization, responds to the needs of people with various sleep
disorders, ranging from the most common insomnia to sleep apnea
where breathing stops several times during the night.
Sleep-Wake Disorders Canada recruits and trains many volunteers
through chapters across the country that help people suffering
from sleep disorders to improve their quality of life. The
organization also distributes information, encourages research
and establishes local self-help groups.
* * *
CANADIAN PSORIASIS FOUNDATION
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, October is Psoriasis Awareness Month.
One million Canadians suffer from this non-contagious skin
disorder. It is an unpredictable disease affecting both men and
women of all ages. Psoriasis can have a devastating impact on a
person's life, both physically and emotionally. One in five are
hospitalized frequently.
The Canadian Psoriasis Foundation is helping by providing
support and teaching those affected valuable coping skills. The
foundation supports and encourages research activities to find a
cure while also promoting public awareness of the disease.
I encourage all members of the House and all Canadians to
support the work of the Canadian Psoriasis Foundation and to wish
it a successful awareness month.
* * *
[Translation]
TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
an agreement to reduce the number of hours worked by truck
drivers will be concluded in the next two weeks between the
partners in the Canadian transportation industry.
Mr. Vaudreuil, the president of the CSD, in Quebec, feels that
reducing the number of hours worked is a noble principle as far
as health and safety are concerned. He is, however, worried
about its effects on the income of the 900 trucker-owners in his
association.
If the rates remain the same, the independent truckers will
simply be earning less. This is less of an issue for the
thousand or so unionized drivers in Quebec.
In order to settle the income issue, a consultation committee
must be struck to bring together representatives of industry and
of the various levels of government. According to Mr. Légaré of
the independent trucker association l'Association des
camionneurs artisans du Québec, the solution in Quebec depends
on truckers' right to unionize or on the creation of a trade
association to represent them.
* * *
[English]
FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to extend again my personal invitation to all members
of the House to attend the second annual Diwali celebration on
Parliament Hill on Thursday, October 28.
Last year's celebration marked the first ever Diwali celebration
on Parliament Hill and was a tremendous success due to the
overwhelming support of the Indo-Canadian community. Again this
year the community is joining together from coast to coast to
celebrate the Festival of Lights.
This event is wholly sponsored by the Indo-Canadian community.
Over 400 people are expected from across the nation. Regretfully
the Liberals have brought politics into this important
celebration by trying to undermine the event, but then they are
famous for creating division among communities.
The event is being celebrated in room 200, West Block, on
Thursday, October 28. The community would appreciate the
presence of members.
* * *
[Translation]
DR. KÉVORK BAGHDJIAN
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Saturday, Dr. Kévork Baghdjian, master defender of the Armenian
cause, passed away in Montreal.
He leaves not just his own family members but also the entire
Armenian community, to whom his death represents a monumental
loss. The Armenian people has lost one of its most famous sons.
Dr. Baghdjian devoted his entire life to defending the rights
of the victims and survivors of the Armenian tragedy of 1915.
For many years, Dr. Baghjian headed the Fédération des groupes
ethniques du Québec. That position made him a defender of the
rights of all cultural communities making up the mosaic that is
Quebec and Canada.
1405
A proud Canadian, he took a public stand in favour of Canadian
unity in the referendum debates on Quebec separation. Among his
many distinctions, he became a member of the Order of Canada in
1978.
On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to express my condolences to
his family and to thank this great Canadian for his untiring
efforts on behalf of tolerance.
* * *
LIBERAL CANDIDATE IN HULL—AYLMER
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the conduct
of Marcel Proulx, the Liberal candidate in the riding of
Hull—Aylmer, leaves something to be desired, to say the least.
Even the government's complacent ethics commissioner is obliged
to admit that Mr. Proulx has stretched the rules of ethics a bit
too far by not revealing his financial problems when he became
Marcel Massé's chief of staff.
The allegation against Mr. Proulx is not of a criminal nature,
of course, but his conduct says a lot about the lack of ethics
he has shown in recent years.
Mr. Proulx certainly does not engender pride among the citizens
of Hull—Aylmer, any more than he engenders pride among the
members of the Liberal Party of Canada, even though Liberal
supporters are trying to explain to the people of Hull—Aylmer
that Mr. Proulx's behaviour is not so serious and that he can
justify it.
The fact remains that Mr. Proulx has just entered politics with
at least one strike against him already.
* * *
PRESCOTT GALA OF EXCELLENCE
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday evening, the Prescott business community held its gala
of excellence with over 280 people in attendance at the Knights
of Columbus hall in Alfred.
Daniel and Linda Lalonde, a brother and sister heading the Dan
R. Equipment firm of Plantagenet, received the Prescott award of
excellence, while a number of other people and businesses were
given honourable mentions or similar awards.
I would therefore like to thank the organizers of the gala out
for this opportunity to honour individuals and businesses in
Prescott who went the extra mile in the past year.
* * *
[English]
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Leader of the Opposition has long called for a review process for
potential candidates to the supreme court.
Today we see that the Premier of Ontario has joined Alberta in a
call for provincial input into the appointments of supreme court
judges. Academics and legal scholars as well as retired supreme
court justice Gerald La Forest also agree.
Having the supreme court appointments made solely on the
political preferences of the Prime Minister is a process that
does not serve Canadians. The Institute for Research on Public
Policy has revealed that 92% of Canadians do not support the
Prime Minister having the sole authority to choose judges.
The charter of rights and freedoms requires Canadian judges to
make rulings based on what is “reasonable”. The Reform Party,
political leaders and Canadians know it is also reasonable to
have greater public scrutiny and input into who occupies the
seats in the supreme court. This change must happen.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTES
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on Friday, the Liberal government honoured a commitment it had
made in the latest budget by announcing an investment of some
$65 million over two years in Canadian health research
institutes.
The research institutes will be working to put in place the
means to prevent the brain drain to the States, by, among other
things, improving support to experienced and new researchers.
The creation of these organizations opens the way to a new era
of research and innovation in the health field and to an
improved quality of life for Canadians.
In the end, the people of Canada will reap the benefits of the
work done by Canadian health research institutes.
* * *
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on the eve of
the meeting in Calgary to discuss the social union framework,
Ottawa's unilateral decisions were providing fodder for
sovereignists' claims that Canada was inflexible.
In order to avoid duplication, the NDP is proposing a model of
open federalism based on shared decision-making.
Shared decision-making would allow the federal government and the
provinces to establish pan-Canadian standards jointly, while
giving the provinces the authority to develop and administer
shared cost social programs.
Because of the unique challenges it faces, however, Quebec must
be free to decide whether or not it will participate in shared
cost programs. To that end, Quebec must have the right to opt
out with full compensation.
Instead of the confrontation of the Liberals, and the separation
of the sovereignists, the New Democratic Party is proposing a
constructive solution for a united Canada, a solution based on
openmindedness.
* * *
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it seems
pointless to ask the Liberal government questions. It is under
investigation.
The Prime Minister is unable to answer for his actions during
the APEC summit; there is an investigation under way.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of National
Revenue are unable to answer questions about Telefilm Canada; an
investigation is under way.
1410
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport are unable to
answer questions about the airline industry because the Canadian
Transportation Agency and the European Union are conducting
investigations.
One wonders whether the entire government is not under
investigation. To every question of the least sensitive nature
posed by the opposition, it seems that there is an investigation
in the works that prevents the government from replying.
Yet the government's answers are one of the only forms of
accountability it faces in our democracy. The government's
refusal to answer is not serving democracy, on the contrary.
To what question will the government reply now? The bets are
on.
* * *
[English]
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is a very special day for
parliament. October 25 marks the anniversary of a giant step
forward for all Canadians. We have destroyed a $42 billion
deficit. Unemployment has gone down from 11.2% to 7.5%, the
lowest rate in 10 years. We have seen 1.7 million jobs created
since 1993.
On top of all this Canada has been ranked the best country in
the world in spite of the Reform Party, and we have held that
title for seven years now.
All Canadians can share in this pride and celebrate the Canadian
way. Yes, today is the sixth anniversary of the Liberals taking
office. We put Canada on the right track so let us clear the
track for Canada.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker,
recent Statistics Canada data on changes to the employment
insurance program indicate that St. John's, Newfoundland, was one
of the hardest hit among Canada's 28 large cities. The EI
changes are costing the economy of St. John's about $78 million
annually, with only 40% of the unemployed in the St. John's
region qualifying for benefits at all.
The Liberal government has made it more difficult for workers to
qualify for benefits and those workers who do qualify receive
fewer benefits for a shorter period of time. Many workers have
been eliminated from the benefits system altogether. This is
unconscionable, given the massive surplus in the EI fund.
What has happened to the employment insurance fund for the
unemployed? It is high time that EI became UI again.
* * *
ALICE TAYLOR
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the chapel was full last week as Ottawa paid tribute to
Alice Taylor. Mrs. Taylor was the only Canadian ever to be
called upon twice to represent Canada's Silver Cross mothers at
the National War Memorial service on November 11.
Her husband, Richard, was a World War I veteran and their son,
Richard, made the supreme sacrifice for his country at Caens on
August 17, 1944.
To the day of her death just weeks before her 102nd birthday,
Alice Taylor's zest for life was an inspiration to all who knew
her.
When she gave up bowling a few years ago it was not because she
was not physically able to continue but because her eyesight had
become too bad to allow her to win as often as she liked.
To her son and his wife, her three grandchildren and her many
friends, especially those at Regina Towers, we extend our sincere
sympathies on the death of Alice Taylor.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Winnipeg South has
demonstrated the arrogance and disdain toward decent law-abiding
citizens that is the hallmark of the Liberal government.
The Canada Family Action Coalition, decent concerned Canadians,
is pleading for the government to take parliamentary action
against the possession of child pornography and the perverts who
are part of this disgusting practice.
How did the member for Winnipeg South respond? He said
“Protests from groups such as this coalition contribute to a
lynch mob mentality that does not produce results”. What a
shocking display of arrogance.
The Canada Family Action Coalition is comprised of decent
Canadians who simply want to protect our society from child porn
predators, obviously something the member for Winnipeg South
cares little about.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has repeatedly denied any personal
responsibility in the security arrangements for the APEC
conference. “I was not personally involved” was his story both
inside the House and outside.
Now in documents obtained by the RCMP Public Complaints
Commission, Superintendent Wayne May is quoted as saying, “Right
now the Prime Minister of our country is directly involved”.
I would simply like to get a straight answer from the
government. Whose story is true? The Prime Minister's story or
the one that is now coming out of the APEC inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister gave his position earlier today in
the scrum just outside the House. I want to add that the
commission is being carried out by a very distinguished former
judge. It is up to him to run the inquiry, look at all the
evidence in context and reach his conclusion.
The hon. member, if he is serious about the work of the
commission, will let the commission do its work.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals have answered a thousand times before to
let the commission do its work. The commission has done its work
and it has produced a story which is a complete contradiction of
what the Prime Minister has said and what he has said in this
House.
If the Prime Minister is so determined to stick to his claims of
innocence, will he repeat his story under oath in front of the
APEC inquiry in Vancouver?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of our hon. friend's question is not valid.
The commission has not ruled on these documents. They have
simply been entered into the record before the commission. It is
up to the commissioner to weigh them along with everything else
before the commission.
Furthermore, and I will end on this point, it will be up to the
commissioner, Mr. Justice Hughes, to decide how to manage the
hearings of the commission. It is not up to the Leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the security arrangements at the APEC conference were
prejudiced by the Prime Minister's concern that Canadian students
might embarrass some foreign dictator. He was prepared to
suspend the democratic rights of those students rather than
embarrass a foreign despot. His response when things turned ugly
was a few pepper jokes and deny, deny, deny any responsibility.
I will ask again. How does the Prime Minister explain the
discrepancy between his story and the story that is coming out of
the APEC inquiry, if in fact he is telling the truth?
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh.
The Speaker: Order. Colleagues, we are coming very close
now so please, let us back off just a bit.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think members of this House and Canadians will reject
the sleazy innuendo in the hon. member's question. Furthermore,
if the hon. member wants to be taken seriously, then his question
should be based on truth rather than what he is trying to get
across wrongly in this House.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it turns out that the Prime Minister is not the only one being
hung out to dry now that we know some of the facts. His former
operations director, Jean Carle, gave evidence that contradicts
the facts that are now in the public domain. It is not just the
fact that the Prime Minister squashed Canadians' rights, it is
the cover up.
When Jean Carle gave evidence repeating the Prime Minister's
claim of innocence, was Jean Carle not telling the truth or was
he just covering up for the Prime Minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated his position inside and
outside the House. Mr. Carle has testified as a former member of
the Prime Minister's staff, as have existing members. All this
is before the commission. What the hon. member says are facts
adverse to the position of the Prime Minister have not been found
as such by the commissioner. Let the commissioner do his work.
1420
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the reality is that the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways.
He has repeatedly stated that he was not involved in the APEC
affair, that he was not involved with the RCMP, yet the
transcripts of Superintendent Wayne May state the contrary. Is it
the government's position that Wayne May is a liar?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all I know about the transcripts is what I read in a
newspaper. I invite the hon. member to look at the excerpts from
the transcripts very carefully. I do not think they support the
unwarranted innuendo and insinuation in his question.
* * *
[Translation]
GREENHOUSE GASES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
Kyoto, in 1997, a number of countries, including Canada, made a
commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 6%.
We learn now that Canada, far from being a leader in this area,
is adding to the problem and is at the bottom of the list of
countries with a 13% increase in these emissions.
Beyond its fine speeches on the quality of life, is the
government intending to take specific measures to achieve the 6%
reduction objective and how does is it intend to do so?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes, currently, members of the private sector and of
various governments are looking together at ways Canada could
act in order to achieve the level of 6% below that of 1990.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
would like to congratulate the minister, but we have been
hearing this speech for a long time. There has been no 6%
reduction; there has been a 13% increase. So we are 19% behind
the objective sought. This is a miserable performance.
What specific measures will he propose at the upcoming Bonn
conference?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, growth in the Canadian economy has increased the level
of CO2. It is true we have had considerable economic growth,
but at the same time, we are now working with the private sector
to define and establish the best ways to achieve the 6%
reduction below the 1990 level.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government's lax attitude toward greenhouse gases and its
inability to make a commitment in the areas under its
responsibility are yielding disastrous results.
Will the government admit that its negative performance in
connection with greenhouse gases, the significant increase in
CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, is directly linked to the
government's spinelessness, to its lack of planning of any
concrete measures to reduce industrial emissions in Canada?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker, the plan we established several years ago is in place.
We will continue with what we have decided to do.
I should add that the period during which the Kyoto objectives
would be in effect would be from 2008 to 2012. There are a
number of years left until then.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
government not understand that, because it caved in to Alberta
quite simply to get some votes, Canada is in the process of
gaining the worst reputation on the planet for the reduction of
greenhouse gases.
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the problem to which the hon. member refers is that
of a rapidly expanding Canadian economy. On this side of the
House we take pride in the fact that our economy has performed
very well. There has been a great increase in the number of jobs
in all provinces, including Quebec.
On the other hand we do have to achieve those Kyoto targets. We
fully intend to. That is why we are working together with the
private sector and the provinces to make sure we do put ourselves
on the path to achieve the Kyoto targets of minus 6% of 1990
levels in the years 2008 to 2012.
* * *
1425
APEC INQUIRY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at the
APEC inquiry today, Staff Sergeant Hugh Stewart takes the stand.
The question is will Hughie also take the fall?
The Prime Minister has not agreed to testify, but let me put the
question that he would be required to answer if he did. Did the
Prime Minister ever discuss with any RCMP official the subject of
the APEC protesters? If not, how is it that so many police
officers seem to think he did?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has already dealt with that question
as recently as this morning outside the House. Also, Sergeant
Stewart has not testified as yet, at least I have not received
any reports of his testimony.
I do not know why the hon. member and other opposition members
want to have a parallel system of inquiry in the House. Are they
trying to undermine the APEC inquiry? Why do they want to do
that?
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians know who the real Sergeant Pepper is. The reason that
they know is that RCMP transcripts show the Prime Minister's
hands all over the grinder.
Since the Prime Minister refuses to answer to this House, will
the real Sergeant Pepper come forward and volunteer to testify at
the APEC inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat, there is an inquiry under way headed by a
distinguished former judge. He is listening to evidence. He is
studying documents. I do not know why the hon. member wants to
try to undermine his work. Let the commissioner do his work.
Why not support the commissioner?
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, recent inquiry evidence has left Canadians wondering
who is telling the truth about security at APEC. Transcripts
from Superintendent Wayne May clearly indicate that police
removed student demonstrators on the Prime Minister's orders. May
states that there were no security risks but political pressures
were real. Conversely, the Prime Minister maintains that
allegations of his involvement are based on no facts at all. The
facts are real.
How can the Prime Minister continue his intransigent denials
over the evidence of three senior RCMP officers who claim the
interference came from the PMO?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I invite the hon. member to look at the article in the
National Post which led to all this discussion. If he
looked at the extracts quoted there from the transcripts in
question, he might have a different conclusion than the one the
hon. member alleges in an unwarranted way.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, if we wanted the Gray line, we would take the bus.
The preprogrammed responses of the solicitor general and the
Deputy Prime Minister are getting tired.
With the mounting evidence that points to direct political
interference from the Prime Minister's Office and growing
inconsistencies between him and the RCMP, will the Prime Minister
himself request to testify at the APEC inquiry, or is he prepared
to further undermine the confidence and credibility of our
national police force to hide his own involvement?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a matter for the commissioner to decide how the
commission hearings are to be run. Let us let the commissioner
make these decisions.
Speaking of a bus, it is obvious that the wheels have come off
the Conservative bus. If that was not the case, they would not
be asking these questions that have no relationship to the lives
of Canadians. The Conservatives, like the other opposition parties,
must feel we are doing a wonderful job when it comes to the
economy, when it comes to interest rates, when it comes to
lowering taxes. Otherwise they would ask questions about these
matters.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister claims he did not directly contact the RCMP. Yet
his chief of staff and his chief of operations both visited on
site to talk with the RCMP about security arrangements. In fact,
the Prime Minister was scheduled to go along with them to discuss
those security arrangements and only cancelled that meeting at
the last moment.
Throughout his career the Prime Minister has told Canadians that
the buck stops with him. Now that it has been proven that his
senior staff were directly involved with security arrangements at
APEC, would he have us believe that they were doing this all on
their own, or is he just trying to pass that buck?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the senior members of the Prime Minister's staff in
question have testified before the commission. They have answered
questions fully and freely.
I suggest the hon. member refer to what they had to say. I
think if he looks at those answers in a dispassionate and
open-minded way he will be satisfied with the answers.
1430
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
looking at the facts fairly, it looks very damning for the Prime
Minister.
We have land that was leased by the federal government for what
it calls security purposes. We have Jean Carle, the chief of
operations, who toured the site. We have the chief of staff who
toured the site at the request of the Prime Minister, and the
Prime Minister was scheduled to go with him.
How can the Prime Minister say that he was not intricately
involved in the security arrangements at the APEC site when all
of those facts point directly to the Prime Minister's Office and
directly to his involvement?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the staffers from the Prime Minister's Office in
question have testified at length before the commission.
I suggest to my hon. friend that he review their evidence and I
think he will have the answers he is seeking.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last week the Minister of Canadian Heritage told us that MUC
police would meet with the RCMP, officials from her department
and officials from the Department of National Revenue in order
to discuss the issue of television production and of subsidies
given out to companies that used other people's names.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. How does
the minister explain the fact that the meeting scheduled for
last Thursday with her officials and representatives of National
Revenue did not take place as she had announced it would?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for seven days now, the member has been making
wide-ranging and unfounded allegations, but he does not have the
courage to repeat these allegations outside the House.
That having been said, I again urge the member to contact the
authorities directly, because he is well aware that an RCMP
investigation is already under way.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is amazing. There was an investigation in 1997 and the
minister has done absolutely nothing about it since then.
Since there is a police investigation into federal production
subsidies, should there not also be an investigation by the
auditor general into the administrative procedures in use at
Telefilm Canada in order to cover all aspects of this matter?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would urge the member, who is still making
allegations, to listen to his leader, Lucien Bouchard, who had
the following to say in Los Angeles two days ago “I do not wish
to comment on all that. Unless the facts show otherwise, I do
not think that CINAR is being specifically targeted”.
If he will not listen to me, please listen to Lucien Bouchard.
The Speaker: I remind members that they must always address
their remarks through the Chair.
The hon. member for Skeena.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the taint of
closure is already attached to the Nisga'a treaty because of the
way the provincial NDP administration in Victoria rammed it
through that legislature.
We were scheduled for two days of debate on the Nisga'a treaty
in the House this week but we now find that we will only get one
day, and that is tomorrow.
Is it the government's intention to invoke time allocation
before we have even had one minute of debate in the House on the
Nisga'a treaty?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question of the time
allocated for debates is negotiated among House leaders. There
is a question put in the House on Thursday afternoon with respect
to the agenda for the following week.
I would invite the member opposite to consult with his House
leader. If they are not on good terms I will gladly act as an
intermediary to ensure that they can speak to each other.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that was a
perfect non-answer, so I will try it with the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development.
Today is the deadline. Today is the day that the Musqueam
leaseholders are told to pay up their $70,000 to $80,000 leases
or get evicted from their houses.
There is still time to reverse that decision. Does the minister
intend to evict those people or will he revisit that decision,
reconsider and tell those people that they will not lose their
homes?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know of
any deadline today, so I do not know what the member is talking
about.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a letter
sent recently to the Minister of Health, 200 federal experts on
food quality and safety argued that significant gaps existed in
research on transgenic food.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the fact
that 200 experts are telling the Minister we lack the means to
assess the quality of the food we eat every day not enough
reason for the government to act as soon as possible to resolve
the problem?
1435
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I explained to the hon. member in this
place last Friday how the food inspection system works in Canada.
The ministry of health sets the standards and the guidelines, the
Canadian food inspection system monitors and enforces them and
the ministry of health audits and monitors the work of the
Canadian food inspection system. There are checks and balances
between the ministries to ensure that the food provided to
Canadians is safe.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the
minister prepared to review his policy on assessing GMOs,
genetically modified organisms, in response to the concerns of
scientists and the public at large?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ensure the hon. member that all genetically
altered foods are submitted to the Department of Health, and
that a team of experts evaluates the situation with each product
in order to determine if safety standards have been met.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was asked
whether the Marshall decision regarding the native right to fish
also affected natural resource areas. This was his response:
“In my mind I think it does”.
He has magnified the fallout of the Marshall decision. Does the
minister believe that the Marshall decision applies to Sable
Island natural gas as well?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am working very closely
with my provincial colleagues to get to the negotiating table
with the Mi'kmaq people to come up with an Atlantic specific
solution to a very complex issue. We are working very closely
with them and we would like to, if we could, have this
negotiation with the players and not with the opposition in the
House.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind the minister that opposition parties are here
to get to the bottom of it, and it is policy on the run over
there.
The government has an obligation to bring clarity to the
Marshall decision. The Indian affairs minister has refused to
seek that clarity. The Marshall decision is bringing significant
problems to the management of all natural resource industries.
Thousands of jobs are at stake and the government is turning a
blind eye.
Why is the government allowing chaos and the courts to define
its natural resource policies? Where is the leadership and the
vision?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the
question posed by the member is very simple. We in this place
have had a number of court rulings on aboriginal rights defined
for us in a very limited way. It is now the role of governments
to go to the table and negotiate with first nations what those
rights would mean in a very modern context, and that is what we
propose to do.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the past the government has taken steps on several occasions
to keep a second airline alive on life support, on the pretext
that the country needed two carriers, in its opinion.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Given the several
occasions on which it has kept Canadian Airlines alive
artificially, how can the government now be preparing, under the
pretext of allowing market forces to operate freely, to change
the rules in order to favour one group over another?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, many things have changed in the last year or so.
First, the position of Canadian Airlines has become very
vulnerable. It was the chief executive officer of that airline
who talked about the inevitability of having one national flag
carrier but with strong regional carriers to provide competition.
This is one of the many complex issues we have to look at in the
coming weeks and I know the hon. member would like to pursue that
line of questioning tomorrow when I go before the committee.
* * *
1440
INFORMATION HIGHWAY
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. The minister has
stated a number of times his goal of making Canada the most
connected country in the world with respect to the information
highway. Adults in small and rural communities who have missed
out on training programs are feeling even more left out of the
new information highway.
How can the minister ensure that Durham as well as other rural
areas across the country are being plugged into the information
technology of the 21st century?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, raising the needs of rural communities across this
country is a vitally important aspect of the connecting Canadian
strategy. I think of organizations like the Bowmanville Centre
for Individual Studies in the riding of Durham, as well as others
across the country where we have already connected over 4,000
rural and remote communities through public access Internet sites
in those communities.
On top of that, as of March 30 we had connected the last of
Canada's schools. Every school in this country is now connected
to the information highway. We are the first country in the
world to have accomplished this. We will be putting 250,000—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
bond rating agencies who judge the nation's finances are giving
the throne speech a big thumbs down. That is what they are
telling the provinces. Likewise, they know that the government's
phoney tax cuts are actually tax hikes. Now Alberta, Ontario and
Quebec are so concerned about the government's high debt-high tax
policy that they are seeking an extraordinary meeting with the
finance minister next month.
Why does it take the provinces to bring this to the finance
minister's attention, a problem that everyone recognizes except
the finance minister and the government?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the
finance minister is very much looking forward to a meeting with
his counterparts from each of the provinces. He sent them an
invitation over a month ago.
I and members on this side would put on the line our record in
terms of proper fiscal management, having brought our nation's
finances into order. At the same time as we have cut taxes in
each and every budget, we have made strategic investments in the
things that are going to make us strong in the 21st century.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government's record is a criminal record. The people who are
being robbed blind are the Canadian taxpayers.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I know that the hon. member is coming to his
question now.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, everybody wants to see
lower taxes in Canada: the provinces, the bond rating companies
and certainly the public.
When is the government going to quit playing let's pretend and
actually start to lower taxes?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the first
budget we cut taxes for Canadians with disabilities. We cut
taxes for the voluntary sector. We cut taxes for families with
children. In the last two budgets we cut $16.5 billion in
personal income taxes. This year Canadians are paying $5.25
billion less in EI premiums.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
just attended an Ottawa luncheon where the minister responsible
for homelessness helped to launch a new “just add water” food
product for food banks. Food banks deserve all the help they can
get, but we cannot build homes just by adding water.
The minister said at the luncheon that she dreams about a day
when homelessness will not exist. Feeling sorry will not help.
Nice words will not help. When is the government going to end
homelessness by simply building good social housing?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since my trip finished on August 10 my staff have not
had a weekend or an evening off. We are considering every report
that we receive. People have told us what needs to be done. My
report will be presented to my caucus members. This caucus takes
homelessness and children very seriously.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
think the homeless and people in need of housing are fed up with
waiting. We have heard not one peep and not one unit of housing
has been built since this tour.
1445
What is the minister's solution? Why is Canada the only
industrialized country without a national housing strategy? Is
the solution to just add water and forget the housing?
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members not to use props in
the House.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada is investing $1.9 billion in social housing on an annual
basis.
We continue working with the provinces. We are investing $300
million in the RRAP. Last year, in our public-private
partnership program, we built 2,100 new units of affordable
social housing. We are continuing to work with that program and
this year another 3,000 units will be built.
I am working with my colleague who is the co-ordinator for the
homeless. Just last year in Toronto we spent over $13 million on
the homeless. Maybe the hon. member should look at that.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Health.
Instead of the GST being scrapped, what has been scrapped in
Canada, in Quebec in particular, is the health system.
I would like the minister to confirm that the principle of
accessibility to which all Canadians have a right is being
respected, when tens of thousands of people are either on
waiting lists or being forced to go out of the country for care.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, we
firmly believe in the principles of the Canada Health Act. Some
months ago, all provincial premiers reiterated their commitment
to those principles.
It is our intention to ensure that everyone respects these
principles. We recently increased transfer payments to the
provinces in the health field in order to ensure they would be
in a position to delivery quality services to everyone.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would simply
like to know whether the minister feels surgeons are wrong in
saying that waiting lists are growing by the day and that they
are being made martyrs of those lists.
This morning in Chicoutimi, 2,857 people were on surgical
waiting lists. It is not all to transfer funds, national
legislation must be enforced. The Canadian Health Act exists
and must be enforced.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
must respect its principles and we must administer the system in
such a way that services are available.
Yes, we are having problems within the health care system, but
Mrs. Marois and the other ministers of health are working at
this time on finding solutions to those problems.
* * *
EAST TIMOR
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
thousands of East Timorese displaced after the independence
vote, the situation in East Timor is still serious.
Humanitarian organizations are having trouble responding to the
needs of the Timorese, who are homeless and suffering from
malnutrition.
Will the minister tell the House what action is now being
contemplated to respond to the humanitarian crisis in East
Timor?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada's response to the humanitarian crisis in
East Timor has been speedy and effective.
[English]
Today I am pleased to announce an additional $1.5 million to the
money that was announced some time ago with respect to assistance
in East Timor. This brings Canada's contribution to $2.9 million
since the crisis in East Timor started.
Canada's contribution will, among other things, assist the
victims of violence and provide them with the very much needed
food and shelter.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government is doing a lousy job in
reducing taxes, according to an internal poll of Canadians from
the finance minister's own department. The poll came out after
the government's alleged tax relief program came into effect.
Why is there no plan for real tax relief when Canadians are
saying that the government has done a lousy job in reducing their
taxes?
1450
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we
better look at what Reform is really asking for. Its budget
plans have called for $52 billion in tax cuts and debt relief in
its third year.
Last session, we asked the Reform Party time and time again what
it was going to cut to pay for it. I would like to suggest that
maybe in this session of parliament it will come clean with
Canadians and tell us what it is going to cut. Is it going to be
health care? Is it going to be equalization payments? Is it
going to be education? Is it going to be aid to western farmers?
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The minister maintains that the parental leave announced by her
government will actually meet women's needs.
Does the minister not understand that the 700 hour minimum to
qualify for EI benefits is much too high for most claimants and
that it must be lowered to 300 hours if the minister truly wants
to see more women benefit from parental leave?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, through our
monitoring and assessment report, we have learned to become
concerned about some of the unintended effects of the 1996
reform. We are working on those. Our first announcement has
been to double the parental benefits allowable under EI for
maternity leave. We are also examining the question of hours at
this time.
* * *
TOBACCO
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, a report released today shows that the 1994 Liberal
rollback of cigarette taxes and the cave-in to the tobacco
industry is killing our kids. More young people are smoking
today than when the Liberals took office. What a legacy for the
millennium.
I know the Minister of Health has had his own trouble standing
up to the tobacco industry but it is not too late to start
standing up for young people.
What level of taxation on cigarettes is he recommending to his
cabinet colleagues? What measures is he taking to ensure that
the government has a policy for linking pricing and prevention?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ever since we
brought in our national strategy against smuggling in 1994, we
have been very strongly in favour of increasing the taxes on
tobacco products. As a matter of fact, we have done this three
times already.
We are currently in negotiations with our four partner provinces
to bring these taxes even higher. We will raise those taxes just
as high as the circumstances relating to smuggling will permit.
* * *
[Translation]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, why does the Prime
Minister not admit what we already know: his direct culpability
in the way security was implemented at APEC?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
reject out of hand the premise on which the hon. member's
question is based.
Let us allow the APEC inquiry to do its
work. All these questions are up to the Hon. former Justice
Hughes to decide. So let us allow the tribunal to do its work.
Why does the hon. member want to hinder the important work of
this inquiry?
* * *
[English]
ELECTIONS CANADA
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 19 Elections Canada will be hosting a vote in schools
across Canada. This exercise will require all school-aged
students to select the right, as defined in the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child, which they feel is very important.
Given the controversial nature of the convention, why is
Elections Canada involved in this exercise, and why have
Canadians not been informed of this?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada and UNICEF
together offer a simulated election program to young Canadians to
help our future citizens in understanding and participating in
the democratic franchise.
This exercise, of course, is binding on no one. It is merely a
simulated election. It is part of the mandate in the Elections
Act which we, as a parliament, have given to Elections Canada in
terms of public education for our future citizens.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government has made the ridiculous
claim that it cares about people but its high tax policies hurt
people.
1455
The government chooses to take $6 billion in income taxes from
low income people earning less $20,000 a year. Where is the
proper fiscal management in that? Where is the wisdom for the
economy? Where is the compassion for people? Where is that in a
high tax policy?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are the
government that has taken 600,000 low income Canadians off the
tax rolls. We are the government that has extended the child tax
benefit by $2 billion, up to a total of $7 billion.
The Reform Party's program calls for $52 billion in cuts. How
do Reformers get this figures? Is it because there are 52 weeks
in a year? Is it because there are 52 cards in a deck or did
they just pull it out of thin air? That is what is criminal
about that party.
The Speaker: I wish we would stay away from the word
criminal today and for the rest of the day.
* * *
[Translation]
TELEPHONE SERVICE
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week,
the CRTC refused to create a national access fund for residents
served by Québec Téléphone and Télébec. According to the CRTC
in its decision, these subscribers will have to face increases
in basic telephone service rates.
The Minister of Industry has shown his insensitivity to rural
communities in the past in the matter of parabolic antennae and
is showing it again today in the case of rural telephone
service.
Does the Minister recall that the Telecommunications Act
provides that rural populations like urban ones are entitled to
basic affordable telephone service and that he has the power to
act and correct the situation?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government's real priority is to ensure that all Canadians have
access to quality telephone service. It may be said that over
98% of Canadians currently have ready access to one of the best
telecommunications systems in the world at prices that are truly
affordable compared with all of the world's other countries.
We have received this decision by the CRTC. There may be an
appeal, and I cannot comment.
* * *
[English]
NAV CANADA
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the transport minister.
When Navigation Canada was privatized the Yukon was assured that
there would be no reduction in service. The traffic controllers
have been laid off. The new VOR navigational system that was
installed does not work. Planes have been turned back. I was on
one of those planes. It is not half an hour's drive to Vancouver
from Whitehorse.
The suggestion was made that the problem was that Canadian
Airlines' standards were just too darned high. It could land
those planes without any visual assistance and without an air
traffic controller.
Will the minister make sure that every plane can land safely in
the Yukon?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, not only can every plane land safely in the Yukon,
but anywhere else in Canada because safety is the top priority
for Transport Canada.
Nav Canada, as the hon. member knows, was commercialized some
time ago. It now makes its own judgment on what staff to deploy
in what circumstances following very technical requirements that
are approved by Transport Canada.
On the specifics, I will certainly have a look at it to assure
the hon. member that safety in the Yukon is really a priority.
* * *
[Translation]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the PMO must be
pretty worried about Staff Sergeant Hugh Stewart's testimony
before the APEC inquiry. It was expecting the RCMP to assume
responsibility.
Is the Solicitor General of Canada going to allow an independent
judiciary inquiry into the extent of political interference at
the APEC summit?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware of the
Public Complaints Commission. It is an independent body and it
is entirely inappropriate that this member and other members want
to conduct this hearing on the floor of the House of Commons.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Friday in
this House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage told us that the meeting she had announced
between the RCMP and her departmental staff had not taken place.
Today, when asked why it did not, she told us that we are
making unfounded allegations.
Why is the Minister of Canadian Heritage taking such care to
sidestep our questions on an issue of such fundamental
importance? What exactly does she have to hide?
1500
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again during Oral Question Period, the hon. member
is trying to make unfounded allegations.
Last week I asked him, not once, not twice, but three times, as
did the parliamentary secretary, to deal directly with the RCMP
if he has allegations to make. The RCMP will look into them and
will then report to us.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, earlier in
question period I asked the Indian affairs minister about his
eviction notice to the Musqueam leaseholders which expires today.
He told them that they have to pay their leases today or they are
out of their houses. He said that he was not aware of a
deadline.
I have a copy in my hand of a letter signed by the department of
Indian affairs confirming that deadline. Will the minister
reverse that decision, or will he see these people evicted out of
their homes and on to the streets?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I sent a demand letter
asking the leaseholders from Musqueam to pay their rent. After
the 25th we will look at our options.
There is no eviction notice, and quite frankly the member should
get his facts straight.
The Speaker: I am looking at a few more statements on a
question of privilege. I would ask the hon. member who brought
forth the question of privilege or contempt to be very concise in
what she will say.
The reason I say this is that I do not want to get into a back
and forth debate. I realize, and I can say this, the hon. member
was not here the other day through no fault of her own when the
government House leader made his statement. That is why I am
permitting the hon. member to intervene now, but I would ask her
to be very precise in what she has to say.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to
respond to the comments of the government House leader of
Thursday, October 21, 1999, concerning my question of privilege.
Most of the comments of the government House leader in arguing
that this was not a question of privilege concerned the CSIS
answer to Question No. 36 on Document No. 17.
1505
I wish the government House leader had read further in my
submission of documents. If he had he would have seen document
20 which shows that in responding to question 36, CSIS provided
an inaccurate answer by not mentioning the 107 press releases,
newspaper clippings, and radio and television transcripts as part
of the material that CSIS forwarded to the plaintiff.
At document 21, in responding to question 36, CSIS claims that
videotapes were passed to the plaintiff in response to a request
from him. Yet in the plaintiff's own sworn testimony he stated
“They were provided to me without my asking”.
At document 22, in responding to question 36, CSIS claims that
it provided only one CSIS policy document to the plaintiff. Yet
in the very affidavit that CSIS was being cross-examined on it
listed five separate policy documents.
In this one answer CSIS has provided three separate inaccurate
responses, yet the government House leader would have us accept
this very same answer as the authority that CSIS did nothing
wrong.
On the topic of collection of information by investigative
bodies, I would like to bring the following to the attention of
the House. Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 98, states in
part:
Members have raised, as a matter of privilege, the question of
police files being maintained on members.
The Speaker refused to recognize these as questions of privilege
unless the charge was specific and unless the dossier referred to
the individual as a member of parliament rather than as an
ordinary citizen.
My circumstances are certainly specific. Not only are we
aware—
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would like to hear what the hon.
member has to say.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, not only are we aware that
CSIS collected my press releases but also newspaper clippings,
radio and television transcripts of my comments. I have provided
the House with a list of 107 such documents that CSIS collected.
It is also clear that every one of those documents referred to me
in my role as a member of parliament, not as an ordinary citizen.
In 1971 in the House the then solicitor general mentioned that
the RCMP held files on some members of parliament. A question of
privilege was raised by Ged Baldwin, the member for Peace River.
Speaker Lamoureux ruled on April 20, 1971, as reported in
Hansard at pages 5071-2, that:
However, he went on to state that the matter was very serious
and if any special circumstances were brought to the attention of
the House and the Chair to the effect that members were in some
way intimidated in their work or prevented from discharging their
duties freely and without hindrance, there would be no hesitation
in recognizing the matter as a breach of privilege.
I contend that the circumstances in my case are exactly the type
of special circumstances to which Speaker Lamoureux referred. I
remind the Chair that when that incident took place CSIS did not
exist but was in fact the RCMP security service.
Thus I suggest that there is precedent that the mere collection
of information by the police or similar agency is sufficient to
find a breach of privilege. However in my case there is so much
more.
In his comments the government House leader stated that the CSIS
disclosure of information was not improper. He made no reference
to section 19 of the CSIS act which is found at document 9 and
specifically prohibits unauthorized disclosure.
He also failed to refer to section 3.7 of the chapter on conduct
in the CSIS human resources policy manual, which is document 10
and states:
Employees must not support or oppose any person, organization or
product by using information obtained through their employment by
the Service, except when authorized by the Director.
1510
The government House leader did not even attempt to defend the
CSIS abandonment of the non-partisan role of the public service
by taking an active role in the preparation of a lawsuit against
a member of parliament, including having its legal counsel
provide the plaintiff and the plaintiff lawyer with advice.
Nor did he attempt to defend CSIS for its efforts to frustrate
my ability to resolve the lawsuit by misusing its extraordinary
authority to protect national security and by being twice
sanctioned by the federal court for misconduct and deliberately
misleading the court.
Instead the government House leader says I should take my
complaint to the Security Intelligence Review Committee just like
any other Canadian. However in my role as a member of parliament
I am not just like any other Canadian. Members of this House and
the House of Commons in Great Britain have for centuries
recognized the need for members of the House to protect their
rights and privileges if they are to carry out their duties in an
effective manner.
Speaker Sauvé confirmed the need for such protection in 1983
when she found that there was a prima facie question of privilege
when a newspaper accused a member of a criminal offence. The
parallel to this case is that there was another avenue open to
that member, namely the courts, and in my case the government
House leader is suggesting that I have SIRC available to me.
In her decision of March 22, 1983, as reported in Hansard
at pages 24027-8, Speaker Sauvé found that the authorities and
precedents agreed that even though a member can seek remedy in
the courts “he cannot function effectively as a member while
this slur upon his reputation remains”. Since there is no way
of knowing how long litigation would take, the member must be
allowed to re-establish his reputation as speedily as possible by
referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections.
While I do indeed have the right to complain to SIRC, it is more
important for myself, all my colleagues in the House and those
who follow us that we make a clear statement in defence of our
rights and privileges as members of parliament. If we are to
follow the advice of the government House leader then we are
abrogating our responsibilities and abilities to protect our
rights and privileges. Thus there is absolutely no reason why we
should feel compelled to defer the protection of our rights and
privileges to an outside body.
I believe the defence of our rights and privileges can only be
accomplished with your finding a prima facie case of privilege
and/or contempt, Mr. Speaker, and I urge you to do so.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member. Now I will
deliberate on all the facts that have been put before me and I
will come back to the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-260, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act
(warning labels regarding the consumption of alcohol).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill was first introduced to
parliament and continues to be before parliament since June 20,
1995.
The bill seeks to establish a requirement to have health warning
labels placed on the containers of alcoholic beverages to caution
expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol
consumption. Alcohol is the only consumer product in Canada
which can hurt if misused and does not warn the consumer of that
fact.
I am pleased to reintroduce the bill and I seek the support of
all members for this important health initiative.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT SUPERANNUATION ACT
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-261, an act to discontinue the
retiring allowances payable to members of parliament under the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to include
members of parliament in the Public Service Superannuation Act
and to discontinue members' tax free allowances for expenses and
include the amount in members' sessional allowances.
He said: Mr. Speaker, although the timing is accidental, it is
probably a good time to reintroduce my private member's bill
dealing with pensions. The bill has two simple parts.
The first part is to implement the Blais commission
recommendation to discontinue the tax free allowance, grossing it
and taxing it as regular salary. Members of parliament will be
taxed like all other Canadians and will feel the impact of any
tax changes.
The second part is to eliminate the MP pension plan in its
entirety and to enrol all MPs into the superannuation program so
they too will be affected by whatever changes in legislation
affect that. Members of parliament would have the same pension
as all civil servants including their own staff. I believe that
is a fair and equitable way to end the controversy on this once
and for all.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-262, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (impaired driving causing death or injury).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a practical change that would
affect the ability of police officers to gather samples of blood
at an accident scene. It could be used in the prosecution of
impaired driving cases before the courts. This is a very
practical change. It would empower police officers to deal with
the very serious and increasingly dangerous situation that exists
on the roads and highways of this country.
I would encourage all members of parliament to consider
supporting this private member's bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the
House gives its consent, I move that the third report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to
the House on Friday, October 22, 1999 be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
with the motion at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
BILL C-260
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier I tabled a private member's bill which I indicated had
been in the last parliament. That bill went through second
reading and was passed. It went to committee and had hearings
but died as a result of the prorogation of the House. Therefore,
I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the bill
reinstated to the same position it was in at the time of
prorogation of the first session of parliament.
1520
Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Chair's
guidance on this. I thought this was allowed under the rules. If
it is allowed under the latest version of the standing orders,
why is the member asking for unanimous consent?
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair was seeking clarification
as well and it has not been forthcoming. In order for the bill
to qualify under the rules to go back to where it was, it has to
be in the same state it was in at the time of prorogation. I
have been unable to ascertain if that is the case. In the
absence of ascertaining that, the Chair is unable to reinstate it
to where it might otherwise have been.
The hon. member for Mississauga South may be able to assist the
Chair in that regard. Alternatively there could be consultations
and if it is brought to the attention of the Chair that this is
the case, it may be possible for such reinstatement to occur.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the answer
to your question. At the time of submitting the bill to be
reinstated or to be submitted to the House, another member had
taken the bill as it had been as his own. As a result the
private members' drafting office had to make some minor changes
to make the bill somewhat different but effectively the same
bill.
The original bill prescribed the actual language of a health
warning label. In the bill that I could only table in the House
I had to yield that it would be the minister who would designate
the language in the bill. The essence or substance of the bill is
that health warning labels be required on the containers of
alcoholic beverages.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member suggesting that
another bill in the same form as his old bill has been introduced
in the House already this session?
Mr. Paul Szabo: No, Mr. Speaker. The member submitted it
to the private members' office and never has tabled it at first
reading. Therefore, because of the date and the timing, I was
unable, or they refused to allow me, to have that bill because
another member had put it in the morning before I did.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I could make a suggestion
to the hon. member and to the House that would solve the problem,
if there would be agreement. If the hon. member would seek
unanimous consent to withdraw the bill he has just introduced
now, he can always reintroduce it at a later date.
Possibly with some consultations with the clerk, the bills could
be compared and perhaps we could come up with an answer for him.
Is it agreed, if the member is willing, that he withdraw the bill
by consent, without prejudice of course to his right to
reintroduce the bill another day?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, there is only one bill and
it is the bill that I have tabled. The other bill exists but it
has never been tabled in this place. If I withdraw it, then this
bill does not exist on the order paper and I would be left in
limbo.
I am asking the House to reinstate a bill that was passed at
second reading during the last parliament, had full public
hearings and never had an opportunity to come back to the House.
The Deputy Speaker: The only alternative is to put the
question to the House. Is there unanimous consent to reinstate
the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
PETITIONS
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition with 70 pages of signatures from residents of
Saskatchewan in most cases.
1525
The petition states that the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board has failed to protect the true needs of the
western Canadian farmers, and that the federal minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has failed not only to
meet with farmers but also with business people and concerned
groups in his constituency.
Therefore the signatories would like the minister replaced with
a minister who has a better understanding of the issues that are
being dealt with right now by these people, western Canadian
farmers and the Canadian Wheat Board.
STREET LETTER BOX
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the
honour to present a petition signed by 25 concerned seniors.
The petitioners note that there is still no street letter box
conveniently located to serve almost 80 seniors living in my
riding in two senior buildings operated by Peel Living in
Mississauga, Ontario. Therefore the petitioners pray and request
that parliament encourage Canada Post to seriously consider
installing a street letter box directly in front of the seniors'
residences at 7340 and 7350 Goreway Drive in Mississauga.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you
know, for many months now I have been presenting petitions from
the people of Peterborough who are concerned about cruelty to
pets. This concern reached great heights this summer when a dog
was dragged for one or two kilometres and was very badly hurt.
I have had letters in which people have been asking for a great
increase in the penalty for such crimes. In particular, they
point out that there is mounting evidence between animal abuse
and domestic violence. They also point out that our statutes in
this regard have not changed since 1892 and that they regard
animals as property.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to work toward
swift and effective action that works to modernize Canada's law
dealing with crimes against animals and that the penalties for
such offences be made strict enough to act as a deterrent against
such behaviour.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FARM INCOME
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think there was still a little time left for questions
and comments after my speech but I am not certain.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member had about
five minutes. The best information I have, and I was not here,
is that the hon. member's time had expired. Therefore, we will
resume debate with the hon. member for Durham.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to participate in the debate on the motion brought forward by the
member for Selkirk—Interlake.
I spent many years farming. Although I cannot claim to be a
full time farmer, I can certainly sympathize with a lot of our
farm community, especially those in the west who are suffering
significant economic hardship today. I can remember receiving a
cheque for a grain shipment and wondering why it was that the
total amount of the cheque did not equal my fertilizer bill. I
can imagine that some farmers can take that one step further and
wonder how they are going to feed and clothe their families based
on such low income levels.
I am amazed a little about the shape and form of this debate in
the House today. I have listened to the members opposite who
talked about all the things we should do as a government to solve
this problem.
Some of the pork producers in Durham suffered through the low
commodity prices for pork just last year. They had severe
economic hardship.
1530
A number of things were totally beyond their control, mainly due
to a high cycle of productivity and the collapse of international
prices for pork. The government came forward and addressed the
issue. It listened to the concerns of farmers all over the
country and implemented an AIDA program.
I am certain that there are those who have concerns about the
AIDA program. I heard some members opposite talk about the
problems of making application for these funds and the
administrative process. Quite frankly I am surprised by the
opposition. It has not taken into account the necessity for
accountability in our framework. By that I mean we chose a
methodology of program delivery that required farmers to use
their income tax returns in order to prove, to hypotheticate and
to understand the nature of their income support levels. I will
be sharing my time with the member for Chatham—Kent—Essex.
This process became somewhat cumbersome. A lot of people have
concerns about it. There is a time delay between cashflow
problems and when the cheques arrive. We know of the reverse
situation where governments got into program delivery where they
simply wrote cheques and told them later about whether one could
prove the necessity for or need for the program.
These programs are disastrous in and among themselves. The
worst thing governments can get into is paying out moneys to
people with income problems and turning around a year later and
saying they overcontributed to the program and need the money
back.
I am sure members understand that there are idiosyncrasies about
the program. I am sure a lot of farmers are discouraged by the
fact that they have to fill out these forms. I have to admit
that I am an accountant but I have never had to fill them out. I
understand their concern with my profession which makes money
filling out these forms. I share and sympathize with the
problem. It should not be that complicated. Indeed I do not
think it is that complicated. Many of my constituents tell me
that they complete these forms by themselves.
We listened today to the Reform Party telling us two or three
different points. I cannot seem to reconcile the messages. It
was telling us that part of the solution was to form a regime
that would protect farmers from the disparities of international
subsidies and subsidy programs. At the same time it was telling
us that we should reduce taxes. It did not take long to
understand that these two policy choices were in direct conflict
with each other.
Many other businesses in the country are subjected to the
disparities of international subsidies. I only have to think of
our aircraft industry, steel imports and many other industries
with concerns about tariff and unfair subsidies in other
countries. It is not within our economic or physical ability to
protect every interest in the country from distorting trade
practices in other countries. As a government and a people we
could go to countries within the World Trade Organization and
other forums to argue that we need fairer trade practices.
Surprisingly enough, today the leader of the Reform Party and
the member for Lethbridge, if I recall, talked on and on about
how terrible it was that the Prime Minister would go on trade
missions and not be in the House. The way we deal with these
trade distorting practices is to go and talk with people in other
countries.
Not long ago I was able to go to Taiwan. At that time I was
concerned about what I considered to be the unfair trade
practices of the Taiwan government that favoured American imports
of beef over those of Canada.
We talked about how we could find some way to liberalize that
regime and narrow it for the benefit of our farm community.
1535
Many other speakers have intervened in this issue, but the
reality is that our exports of agricultural products are at an
all time high. Canadian farmers have been very successful at
producing agricultural products efficiently and cheaply and at
being able to export them into world markets.
I do not think it takes a lot of brains to understand the way
the world is going if we look at the Asian community. Quite
frankly the conclusion is that the world is going into an era
where it will not be able to feed itself. Certainly communities
in Asia and others will not be able to feed themselves. It is a
good opportunity for our agricultural industries.
One issue today was about government concern in this regard.
Strangely enough, suddenly the Reform Party is greatly concerned
about agricultural issues. My research tells me that the Leader
of the Opposition in the last session of parliament never asked
one question about agriculture and in this session he has only
asked one.
We heard members of the Reform Party today. They are very
concerned about the agricultural plight of the west, specifically
Saskatchewan, yet the questions were on APEC, about the hurt
feelings of a few people involved in the APEC inquiry. Farmers,
whether in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta, were the least
thing on their mind when it came to question period.
We are here today talking about some of the programs available
to farmers. The NISA program has been in place for many years.
It is a tremendous program where taxpayers attempt to match
contributions to the fund by farmers to allow them the ability to
smooth out their income over peak years.
Because of the drastic downturn in commodity prices and some of
the climatic conditions that have impacted on the production of
agricultural products in the west this system is not adequate
enough. When we are designing income support programs we should
find out where to put the safety net and how much we can afford
to support the safety net.
Situations occur, whether in agriculture or other industries,
where there is oversupply and undersupply and a rationalization
going on in the market. Agricultural producers in my riding are
not looking for free handouts. They are not looking to the
government to subsidize them, unlike what the Reform Party is
seemingly suggesting today.
If I went around my riding and asked the farming community
whether it would would be happy with a program which protected
them from all things in the world, which is what the Reform Party
is proposing in the motion, my constituents would tell me no.
They are big people. They are very confident they can
effectively run their farming operations. Farmers want us to sit
down at the trade tables to negotiate a reduction in
international subsidies which gives Canadians the ability to
compete in worldwide markets. I suggest that is what the
government is doing.
We have a World Trade Organization meeting coming up in Seattle
next month. The government is working very hard at the position
it will put forward to reduce agricultural subsidies throughout
the world. The best we can do for Canadians is not create
another regime of subsidies and support like the Reform Party
would have us do but reduce the unfair practices of today.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, to be quite honest, I am absolutely astounded by the
hon. member's comments. He seemed to want to use his entire 10
minutes of presentation to slam the Reform Party.
I agree with one point the member made. Farmers are not looking
for a handout. He is quite correct. I think that is universal
all across the land.
1540
The reality is that farmers do not have a level playing field.
It is fine for the hon. member to talk about taking a strong
position in the WTO and negotiating it, but what do farmers do in
the meantime. That is what the motion is all about.
Whether or not the hon. member wants to get out of Ontario and
face reality, the reality is that farmers are going broke while
the government talks and designs a program with so much built-in
accountability that it does not deliver any help to farmers.
Why does the hon. member not wake up, smell the coffee and
understand what is happening on farms in western Canada?
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon.
member a bit about reality. First, the people of Ontario have
gone through tough times in the past. Second, we do not start
equalizing tariffs by saying that we will increase ours. That is
not a negotiating tool.
It does not make any sense to say we want them to reduce their
tariffs and the way we will get them to do it is to increase
ours. Quite frankly that is why we have had a long and heavy
international regime of high tariff laws. As we put up ours
somebody else puts up theirs and by the time we are all through
we are all worse off. That is the plan of the Reform Party. It
is just a no-brainer. It has not worked in the past and it will
not work in the future.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too am astounded the Liberals cannot see there is a
real contradiction in what they are saying.
The member opposite asks how we can subsidize everybody that
deals in the international marketplace. I think the member has a
big blind spot. Reduce the tax burden on all Canadians including
farmers and the government will not have to subsidize farmers and
other businesses. Our high taxes built right into all the input
costs like fuel, fertilizer, chemicals and capital expenditures
can be reduced.
My question is for the member. Would he not agree that a tax
reduction would help increase the bottom line for all farmers?
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the
hon. member is saying about taxes on input costs within the
farming operation. We all know that the biggest tax cost is
income taxes.
Once again the Reform Party is telling me how irrelevant it
really is. We are talking about people who are losing their
farms, not making any money and obviously experiencing huge
losses, and the Reform Party is arguing that we should have
income tax reductions. It does not make any sense at all. It is
ludicrous.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. It
is my understanding that we are going into the WTO negotiations
in a very different way this time and that in fact the government
and various commodity groups have got together at least for the
initial position.
Would my colleague care to comment on how he thinks that will
affect the outcome of this round of negotiations?
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very
much for his intelligent question. Clearly trade agreements take
some time to evolve. The way we do that is through compromise
and conciliation.
The role that the government has now taken, as the member
suggests, to enter into a pre-consultation process to try to get
some agreement on how it can move forward is the only intelligent
way to deal with the distortion issues the Reform Party talks
about. Creating a regime of new tariff laws within Canada is not
the way to create that conciliatory process.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
could not agree more that tariffs are not the answer. Certainly
subsidies are not the answer.
My question is for the hon. member. In areas other than Ontario
agriculture we recognize that approximately 45% of western
Canadian farmers may well not be able to farm next year. Is the
member suggesting that we simply negotiate the subsidies and the
tariffs and not worry about those 45% of farmers who may not be
able to make it into the next year. If he does not believe that,
what are the alternatives?
1545
What is his government's alternative, other than a very flawed
AIDA program?
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks
about a very flawed AIDA program, but the fact of the matter is
that the government has ponied up and has put $900 million on the
table. As I understand it, of the applications that have been
made for assistance, over 50% are from the province of
Saskatchewan which has been the most hard hit by this time
factor.
Are we going to be all things to all people? Are we going to
help every single farmer 100% of the time? I do not think so.
In my own riding people who have applied for the AIDA program
complain that it does not do everything they would like it to do.
However, I think when they sit back and think about how far we
expect governments to reach into their wallets, all they are
really doing is reaching into the wallets of other taxpayers.
What is the level of support that we can afford in this country?
The reality is that we cannot be all things to all people, but we
can try to do the best we can with the resources we have and I
think we have been very effective at doing that.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I really appreciate having the opportunity to debate
this very important issue on farm income.
The federal government is committed to a strong, healthy, viable
agricultural sector. Looking at the sector as whole it is
exactly that, a strong, healthy and viable sector. That may
surprise some people because that is not what we have been
hearing in the news lately. One of the things I hope to do today
is to give my colleagues and those who are listening a better
understanding of this whole farm issue. It is very complex. It
is not a simple issue, as many people have tried to say.
I am not suggesting that the sector is without challenges. Some
farmers in pockets throughout our country, in western Canada in
particular, have had many problems to face this past year.
Farming is affected by weather and the marketplace, and
sometimes, as we have witnessed in the past year, both factors
collide at one time.
In this case the farmers' bottom line has felt the impact of a
whole range of circumstances coming together at one time. The
crisis in the Asian and Russian economies and the downturn in
Latin America caused some markets to shrink. Declining commodity
prices and an overproduction of wheat in the world also had an
impact. We experienced at the same time difficult flood
conditions in one region and drought in another. Needless to
say, the effect on income to farmers, particularly those in
grains, oilseeds and hogs, was severe.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has responded to that
situation and is continuing to work to put the tools in place to
assist the producers, especially those who are most in need.
There are a number of tools which were put in place by this
government to help producers through difficult times, as the
minister of agriculture has pointed out in his remarks. However,
often the challenges farmers face throughout the country are as
diverse as the commodities they produce. As the Minister of
Finance said in his budget speech earlier this year, a government
that pretends it can be everything to everybody is a government
that in the end will do nothing for anybody.
What a government can do is create conditions for a productive
and competitive agricultural sector as a whole. That is what
this government has done and that is what this government will
continue to do. While doomsayers would have us believe that
there is a crisis in Canadian agriculture, overall and across
this great nation the agricultural sector is strong.
Overall Canadian farmers are among the most productive and
efficient in the world. Farm production has been going up and so
has farm net worth. Overall farmers have adjusted to constantly
changing international markets. Their success is obvious when we
look at our export numbers. Agricultural exports have risen from
$13 billion to $22 billion over the last five years and even with
the economic challenges of this past year they will be up
slightly from 1997, which was a record year. Horticultural
crops, special crops and red meat all had increases last year.
Trade is most important to growth in this sector. About half of
the average farm gate income to Canadian farmers is the result of
trade.
That is why the government is working on the international front
to bring order and stability to world markets and to provide
better access to world markets. Despite the commodity market
challenges, the outlook for Canada's agriculture and agri-food
sector is positive.
1550
Our industry has also met the evolving demand for specialized
processed products. Our exports of value added products are
surging. In fact, they grew by almost 9% last year. Processed
goods means processing plants and jobs, jobs that add to the
sustainability of our rural communities.
The industry itself has a lot of confidence in its own
capabilities. Already Canada has about 3.3% of the world's
agri-food trade. The Canadian Agri-Food Marketing Council, or
CAMC, has set a goal to increase that to 4% by the year 2005.
CAMC, which is made up of agriculture and food representatives,
has also set a target of increasing processed agricultural
exports over and above bulk commodity exports. By current
indicators, there is no reason to think the goal will not be met.
Our supply managed commodities are faring well. Farm cash
receipts for chicken, for example, went up about $250 million
from 1995 to 1998 and were about $1.3 billion last year. Egg
receipts have increased slightly, while dairy receipts grew by
$299 million to close to $4 billion for that same period.
Furthermore, for many commodities that have been affected by
weak prices there are signs of gradual improvement, with
indications that prices have hit a cyclical bottom. Red meat is
doing extremely well and feedlot levels are at an all time high.
The worst situation a farmer can experience is foreclosure. It
is the last thing anyone wants to see happen. Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada provides a financial review to producers through
the farm consultation service and, for a stay of proceedings,
financial counselling and mediation through the farm debt
mediation service. These services have been extensively
communicated to producers and creditors. While there is some
increased activity at this time under these programs,
applications are not at a high rate across Canada. Fortunately,
we are not seeing thousands of producers experiencing financial
difficulty, although there are reports which say that is
happening.
The Government of Canada knows how important the agriculture and
agri-food sector is to Canadians in general. The Canadian
agriculture and food industry accounts for close to one-tenth of
Canada's gross domestic product. It employs 1.8 million people
either directly or indirectly. I would say that is a pretty
solid business.
It is an industry that is varied and offers many interesting
careers for young people. While we know the hard work of
Canada's farmers helps to drive the entire economy, it is
becoming more obvious that there is a wealth of other rewarding
and worthwhile paths available to young people in this sector as
well. Graduates from Canada's agricultural colleges and
universities have jobs lined up before they graduate and there
are even signing bonuses for some who are graduating. This is
another sign of an industry that is strong and growing.
Canada has a worldwide reputation in agri-food products. It is
unsurpassed anywhere in terms of high quality and safety. No
matter where we go in the world, when people see a label with the
red maple leaf, it is recognized for its quality, which is second
to none. We continue to build on that reputation with team
Canada missions and exhibitions at international food shows and
by attracting buyers and investors to Canadian industry as we
will be doing when we host the North American Salon international
de l'alimentation.
The agriculture and agri-food industry has gone through a great
deal of change over the last decade and has proven over and over
again that it can meet the challenges and tackle the
opportunities presented to it as it moves forward in the new
millennium.
There are certain areas of the overall sector that are facing
difficult times and the federal government is providing those
producers with the tools to overcome these difficulties. Success
is not a solo effort, nor is failure. By working together, the
industry and all levels of government, this industry will
continue on a path of growth and success.
1555
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
listening to the hon. member speak, I thought to myself that if I
was looking for a career what I would do is go into agriculture
and start farming. It is the growth industry of Canada according
to the hon. member. Egg production is going up and the price is
going up. It is all the way down the line. Red meat is better
than it has ever been. It is just a wonderful, rosy picture.
How can the hon. member make statements like that when there is
all kinds of evidence to the contrary?
We heard from the people who are representing the farmers of
Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta. All of them said
that these people are in trouble, and this gentleman has the
audacity to tell us that they do not have a problem, that there
is just a bit of a problem here and there in isolated little
pockets. We are not talking about isolated little pockets; we
are talking about an industry that is in trouble in very many of
its areas.
Exactly what is the hon. member trying to tell us about
agriculture? Does he believe there is a problem, or does he
believe there is not a problem?
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out early in
my comments, oftentimes there are disastrous issues that happen
in pocketed areas of Canada. I also mentioned the difficulties
which western Canada is experiencing today. There is no question
that we have a sliding of price in the commodity market and there
is no question that they have had difficult weather to deal with
over the last year. However, let us not say that a whole
industry is in trouble because of one sector of that industry.
What I am trying to say is that Canada's agricultural industry is
steadily improving. There are opportunities for young people.
In my riding there is a tremendous number of dollars in
agriculture and people are working very well. As a matter of
fact, it is difficult to find agricultural workers in my riding.
We are looking for more and more workers all the time. There is
a strong element of agriculture in the country. The unfortunate
part is that colleagues across the way narrow their perspective
to look at one very small issue.
I am not underplaying the fact that it is important to those
people who are affected; I am underlining the fact that members
opposite do not look at the entire picture. They only look at a
very narrow section of Canada. They have not spoken of Ontario
in the time they have been talking today.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, through the AIDA program I think we have seen some
very significant payouts to other parts of the country, excluding
Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I suppose that AIDA provides farmers
in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada with some substantial
subsidies, but we have a huge problem.
The hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex may not know this, but
in western Canada approximately 46% of our farmers are grain and
oilseed farmers who may not be in business a year from now
because of the policies of the Liberal government.
Could the hon. member share with us the secret with respect to
the AIDA program that pays such great amounts of money to farmers
everywhere except in Saskatchewan and Manitoba? Why is the AIDA
program targeting and persecuting farmers in Saskatchewan and
Manitoba while helping farmers in other parts of the country?
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be
stated here and now that those agreements which have been worked
out with the federal government, the provincial governments and
the producers are in place to help producers. There is
absolutely no question that it is not just the federal government
which is part of the AIDA program.
The reality is that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in
this House announced $900 million for the farm community. As I
understand the facts, another $600 million will come from the
provinces. As a result, $1.5 billion will go into agriculture
this year.
The reality is, as one of my colleagues pointed out to me, that
very close to half of that money will go to the western province
of Saskatchewan. The reality is, there are large payments and
there is support going to western Canada. There is no question,
that is in place.
Sometimes people can say that what is being sent is not enough,
and that is reality. However, it is a fair amount of money if
one stops to think about $1.5 billion.
1600
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have an entire presentation that could probably take
all afternoon if I really wanted to do justice to this issue.
Unfortunately, I know you are not going to allow me that kind of
time to address this issue that seems to be of such little
importance to the members opposite.
Quite frankly, sitting here and listening to the presentation by
the hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex who just spoke, one would
think that there is no problem. At the culmination of his
presentation he had the audacity to say that there is just a
little wee problem in one part of the country. That little wee
problem happens to be the breadbasket of Canada. It happens to
be the western prairies.
When he says it is not an entire industry that is affected by
these low commodity prices, just little pockets here and there, a
little wee problem that the opposition seems to be narrowly
focusing on to quote the hon. member, I cannot believe it.
We are talking about an entire industry. Wake up over there. It
is an entire industry called the grain industry. It is all the
commodities in the grain industry that are affected by these low
prices because the government has not done its job in defending
farmers at the WTO in the trade negotiations.
I used to be a farmer, unlike the hon. member who is sitting
across the way laughing about this problem. I am sure that is
going to be comforting to farmers in western Canada. Farm
families that are faced with losing their farms right now would
be comforted to hear him laughing.
The reality is many members in the parties on this side of the
House used to be farmers. I know there are a few on the other
side as well and they should understand and empathize with this
issue.
I had the pleasure this fall of actually spending a couple of
days in therapy. I spent a couple of days running a combine and
helping to harvest on my brother's farm in the Peace River
country in British Columbia. It was therapy from this unreal
world that is Ottawa to get back to the farm and actually sit in
a combine and do something productive for a few days, unlike what
the government is always trying to do which is totally
unproductive from the viewpoint of the farmers.
I had the opportunity to run a truck for a day or two and haul
grain for the elevators. Farmers are usually very upbeat during
harvest time. They are very optimistic people. Despite all that
mother nature can throw at them, despite everything that is
beyond their control, usually they are very upbeat especially at
harvest time. Harvest time is usually paycheque time after an
entire year of energy, effort, blood, sweat and tears that goes
into farming. That is usually when farmers get some return for
the fruits of their yearly labour, which is really a labour of
love, a love of the land, but that return was not there this
year.
What does the government hold out? It holds out speeches like
the one we just heard from the member for Chatham—Kent Essex
that downgrade this whole issue and say that it is not a problem
at all, that it is addressing the issue in the small pockets
where it is a problem.
That is going to be very small comfort to the farm families of
western Canada who face losing their farms right now. They are
looking for some small ray of hope from their government in
Ottawa, some ray of hope going into the new millennium.
In addressing this issue today, I want to interrupt my remarks
to quote verbatim a couple of letters I have received from two
farmers in the Peace River country. One is from north Peace and
one is from the south in my riding of Prince George—Peace River.
The farming and agricultural area of the riding is split by the
Peace River.
The first letter states:
Now that harvest is done I wanted to drop you a line and let you
know how things are. This was our 11th harvest, we had decent
wheat and canola and the barley yield was down a bit. The
problem, as you know, is the prices. When we sat down this
spring and made up our seeding plans, canola was at almost $9.00,
now it is below $6; barley was up to $2.25 but it has dropped
back to $1.65.
This kind of volatility makes it very difficult to make our
cashflow work properly. We end up living on our line of credit
almost year round. I know people say you should contract for the
prices when they are high, but we had no harvest in 96 and 97 and
the thought of having to make up the shortfall in contracts that
a person could not deliver on as well as the blow of no harvest,
keeps us from being too anxious to contract grain we have not
grown yet. We do enough gambling just to get the crop in and out
again!
We, of course, are enrolled in all the safety net programs that
are going and in the short term, Crop Insurance and WFIP have
been helpful. Crop Insurance has never quite been enough to pay
the basic input costs on a complete loss. The 60% ceiling is not
making it, I think 75 or 80% would be closer to the mark. As for
WFIP, it worked well for us for the first year, but it is not
designed to make up for price disasters, more for physical
disasters. Also it does not work if the disaster goes on for
more than 2 years as the reference margins then get so low that
you don't generate a claim. We don't have enough cash to put
more than our allowed minimum in NISA so it is taking a long time
to build up enough of a cushion to have any kind of saving effect
on a farm our size (1,600 acres).
All in all, it is quite discouraging that we can be doing our
job to the best of our ability and coming up with a good product,
that we then have no control over the price that we get for that
product. All other businesses that I can think of have a profit
margin built into their product that reflects the cost of
producing that product and allows for some profit to build your
business and to live a decent life on. Why is this not the case
in Farming? We are hoping that since you've been in the
business, you'll understand our concerns and be able to put them
forward to the people who might be able to get things changed.
1605
It is signed by Rodney Strasky from Farmington, British
Columbia.
The other letter reads:
As a Peace River grain farmer I continue to be a survivor of
Canada's cheap food policies. Other farmers have not been so
fortunate. I feel that my energies are subsidizing my urban
cousins as statistics show that Canadian consumers pay only 10%
of their income on foodstuffs. This is the lowest in the world.
Citizens of other countries pay 15% up to 100% of their income to
eat. This means that Canadian farmers have given Canada the
highest standard of living in the world. How can I continue to
compete with the American and European treasuries who are causing
our unrealistically low grain prices?
For example, in June 1988 I sold barley for $3.00/bushel, while
today the price is a paltry $1.71/bu. We farmers have invested
in new technologies and methods to be more efficient and to grow
a quality safe food product for consumers. For the past 10
years, my yearly reward has either been a negative or minimal
return. There have been increased machinery costs—new combines
now cost 1/4 million dollars. Other inputs have also increased.
Fertilizer and herbicides continue to increase. Diesel fuel
alone has increased 11 cents/litre since Jan/99.
Directed proactive strategies are needed immediately to allow
our vital food producers to survive. If we can't receive higher
prices then give us lower input costs.
I am requesting that your party urge the Government to:
1) Reduce or eliminate all indirect and direct taxes from all
farm inputs, i.e., fuel, fertilizer, machinery, etc.
2) Provide tax incentives for farmers to invest in new
technologies.
3) Get tough at the WTO table. Canadian farmers are losers in
these power struggles.
4) Provide more R&D; monies for agriculture.
5) Eliminate or reduce the 19 year competition shelter that
Pesticide companies use to artificially price pesticide products.
A sheltered period of 3 years would give the companies
sufficient time to recapture their costs and develop profits.
6) Take international initiatives to ensure that international
companies such as Monsanto are unable to obtain genetic patents
in perpetuity on plant and animal life systems. Remember that we
are members of the Animal Kingdom.
7) Provide a business taxation system that targets and supports
primary food producers.
Thank you for pursuing these and other issues that I have
brought to your attention.
The letter is signed by Arthur A. Hadland from Baldonnel,
British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I see I have only one minute left for my remarks.
In summary what does this disastrous drop in commodity prices
really mean? We heard Liberal member after Liberal member quote
statistics about how things are actually quite rosy, but they
were not really interested in talking about statistics.
1610
We want to talk about all those in the farm communities who rely
on farmers, the fuel suppliers, the pesticide and fertilizer
outlets, the equipment dealers, the grain companies and railroads
and all their employees. We want to talk about the parents who
cannot afford to pay the fees to have their sons in minor hockey
or their daughters in figure skating this winter. We want to talk
about farm families that are losing their homes and livelihoods.
They are sometimes second and third generation. We want to talk
about what that means in real human terms.
We can stand here and quote statistics all we want. The reality
is that real people are suffering because of the inadequacies of
the government's policy.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too resent the suggestion that it is only farmers in
little pockets of the country that are in financial trouble.
Farmers who grow wheat in Ontario are allowed to export a
portion of their product outside the Ontario wheat marketing
board. Would it not be beneficial for western Canadian farmers
to export their wheat outside of the Canadian wheat marketing
board in addition to voluntarily marketing through the wheat
board if they so wish?
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.
Farmers are looking for some options or alternatives in addition
to some short term help to get them through the present situation
which has seen their incomes drop so drastically through no fault
of their own. That is certainly one area.
Ironically enough, there are government policies in place in
Canada that pit one area against another, and the way the
Canadian Wheat Board operates in western Canada is one of them. I
have had personal experience with that.
My brother and I operated a 3,000 acre grain farm in the Peace
River country. For a few years we tried to market our own grain
on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. We used to truck the
grain over there ourselves. After doing some research, we found
out there were small areas of British Columbia on the other side
of the Rocky Mountains that were outside of the Canadian Wheat
Board area which got to sell their wheat directly to milling
companies. They had the advantage of the domestic price which was
considerably higher than what the Canadian Wheat Board would pay.
Yet if we tried to do that with our wheat and trucked it down at
our own expense, it would be illegal and we could be fined and
charged.
That is one area in which the government can look at making some
changes. We have certainly advocated that for some time. Yet we
see the government is unwilling to give farmers the tools they
need to help themselves. That is why it is ironic that the
member for Chatham—Kent Essex was adamant in talking about
giving the industry and producers the tools to do the job. In so
many ways the government has proven to be reluctant to do that.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to speak to this very important issue. I am very
disappointed in what I have heard so far from the members
opposite. I hope they will pay more attention to the debate and
offer some useful input as we go along.
This situation is very serious. It is not something that
affects a few people in the hinterland of western Canada. This
affects most of the farmers and certainly all of the grain
farmers in western Canada. Hog farmers have gone through
extremely difficult times. I know it also affects farmers in the
rest of Canada. I cannot understand the attitude of the
government when it comes to not treating this issue as a serious
issue.
I rent my farm out on a crop share basis. I understand very well
what the markets are like. I have my income to offset losses
from my farm but a lot of other farmers do not have enough off
farm income to offset their losses. These losses have been
ongoing. In some cases farmers have been feeling them for years,
especially in cases where there has been flooding year after
year, as the member from the Peace River country referred to, or
in cases of drought as there has been in the area I am from.
Farmers are not asking for handouts. They are not looking for
money from the government just because things are difficult. They
are looking for fair treatment. They want the government to take
serious action to deal with the trade issues that are so
dramatically depressing prices.
1615
The government, the minister and others have paid lip service to
this issue, but what have they really done about it? They say
one thing and do quite another. They really should be ashamed at
the way they are looking at the issue.
I would be happy to stand here today and say that the Liberals
are doing a good job but it simply is not true. I also cannot
see that they really care a lot about it.
I want to talk a little about the situation right now so that
the Liberals understand it. We understand it well. It is such
serious situation that in Saskatchewan alone farmers will
experience losses of $50 million this year. That means there
will be no profit. They will not even have enough money to cover
their year to year expenses, let alone make payments on the land.
This will be the situation in many cases.
The situation is particularly serious in western Canada. It
less so in Ontario and in the rest of the country but I believe
it is still serious. The reason it is more serious in western
Canada is that Ontario has the GRIP which is still in place and
is much richer than it ever was in western Canada. It was given
special treatment from the start. I do not say this by way of
attacking Ontario farmers. They have done their work and this is
what they wanted. They fought for it and were successful.
However, the government seemed for some reason to give this to
the farmers from Ontario where it would not give the same thing
to farmers in western Canada. It clearly viewed farmers from
western Canada with less seriousness.
Supply management, which is more prevalent in central Canada,
fixes prices based on cost and for that reason farmers will not
suffer as much in Ontario. It is a serious situation that I
recognize in Ontario and the rest of the country as well.
When looking at the current situation, it is important to look
at how the situation affects people. It affects farm families.
It affects small town business people who depend on what farmers
earn to make a living themselves. It affects people right across
western Canada and stretches right into the major centres of
western Canada: Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina and
Winnipeg. The impact is felt even in those larger centres. We
are not talking about a few people. We are talking about a very
serious situation.
I think back to when I was a farm economist and worked for
Alberta agriculture with farmers. Through the 1980s, I worked
with dozens and dozens of farmers who were going out of business,
many going broke. I sat down at dozens of kitchen tables with
farm wives and husbands who were in tears and desperate. Their
children saw the tears in their eyes. I thought that once we got
through this situation it would never happen again. Sadly, it is
happening again as I speak and it is because there has not been
the action that was required on the part of government.
What has the government done? Looking at the short term, it put
in place the AIDA program which farmers say is not going to work
and the government has to know that.
The government has raised taxes. I heard a previous member say
“Why are you talking about income tax? If you do not make any
money you do not pay income tax”. Where is his head? There are
taxes on everything these people buy. It drives prices up. Taxes
account for half or more of fuel costs. I cannot believe a member
would say something like that when talking about the tax load.
They just do not understand.
New user fees have more than doubled since the government has
been in place. The government dumped the freight subsidy, with
little compensation. Nothing was put in place to help deal with
the situation.
It has actually limited marketing options and has done nothing to
reduce the red tape. It has in fact increased it. It is a
shameful record.
1620
What does Reform propose? The House will know it is a top
priority issue with Reform by the number of debates we have
called for, the emergency debates we have called for, the supply
days we have used to discuss the subject for a committee and all
the other work that the Reform MPs have done. I guess one would
expect that from a party that has more than 20 members of
parliament who either right now have direct connections with a
farm or have owned farms and farmed in the past. It is a serious
issue with us but we do not see the same level of commitment to
the issue from the member's office.
What Reform is proposing is much more substantial than just
talk. Starting in 1990, I was a member of the first Reform
agriculture task force, along with the current leader of the the
new United Alternative in Saskatchewan. We were among seven
people who were committed to making things better for
agriculture. We called for the elimination of the Crow subsidy,
but we called for part of the capitalized value of the Crow. We
were looking at maybe $3.5 to $4 billion, maybe half the
capitalized value of the Crow, to be put into what we called a
trade distortion adjustment program which would compensate
farmers for damage done due to unfair trade in other countries
around the world. This is not talking about handouts, just fair
treatment.
We have called for a trade distortion adjustment program since
coming here literally hundreds of times in the House and in
committee. We have explained what it is. We have encouraged the
government to put this in place but it is not going to happen. I
have given up trying to pretend the government is ever going to
fix the problem.
Had that program been put in place, farmers would not be in the
situation they are currently in right now. Liberals usually are
good at stealing the concept and talking about good ideas.
Unfortunately their flaw is that they do not implement the good
ideas completely. This was a good idea. I wish to God that
these people had taken that idea and implemented it. I am sad
today that they did not.
As well as that program, which would have gone a long way to
solving the problem, when Reform forms government, and I believe
we will in the next election because the country needs us and
more people are recognizing that, we will lower taxes and that
will help farmers in a very real way. We will lower or eliminate
unfair user fees. We are not against user fees as a whole but
they should be fair and reasonable in the context of the services
being provided. We will open up options for western Canadian
farmers and for farmers right across the country. We will open
up marketing options and make the wheat board a voluntary board.
We will open up options in transportation. We will make things
better for farmers because I know the government is not going to.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech
across the way. I have actually been listening to his rhetoric
for the last six years and not much has changed.
The Reform stated in its 1998 Blue Sheet-Principles &
Policies of The Reform Party of Canada that it was going to a
phased reduction and elimination of all subsidies and support
programs.
The taxpayers' budget of 1995 called for $640 million to be
saved by downsizing the Departments of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Industry, Fisheries and Oceans, and Natural Resources. It also
called for a further reduction of $690 million to be saved by
cutting other regional and sector specific funding through the
Departments of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Environment and
Industry. It even asked for an additional $1 billion in savings
by cutting 15% from the overhead cost of all departments in the
government.
1625
I really have to ask where the member is coming from. I think
he is talking through his hat. We at least, on this side of the
House, have taken a serious approach. He is talking about
renting his land out. I am an active farmer. I happen to be in
supply management, which is one of the things the hon. member
says he wants to do away with.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect I will
ever get through to the member. I have been trying for six
years, as he says. Quite frankly, he is not listening. When we
talk about reducing subsidies, we are talking about reducing the
cost of the bureaucracy in Ottawa. Everyone, including him,
knows that the bureaucracy should be cut back.
We are talking about tax reduction, so there is a trade off.
When some of the subsidies are lowered there is tax reduction.
That has not happened. We are talking about opening up marketing
options so there will be more money for commodities. Instead, it
continues to limit.
In the end, the only way we will solve the problem is to
eliminate the Liberals. That sounds like an awful partisan
statement, and maybe it is, but I am fed up with Liberals who
either do not understand because they do not want to or
deliberately make it look like they do not understand what we are
proposing, as the member has just done.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I heard an hon. member across the way say that this
should be good. We have of course all become accustomed to any
time a Reformer stands up in the House, it is indeed quite good.
I was present in the Chamber this morning when the Minister for
Agriculture and Agri-Food made his brief presentation and that
certainly was not good. It did not hold any hope for farmers in
western Canada. They were looking to their minister of
agriculture going into what promises be one of the toughest
winters on record and certainly the bleakest look ahead to
Christmas for farm families in western Canada.
Can the hon. member comment on some of the facts the minister of
agriculture laid before the House during his short presentation.
He talked about the $1.5 billion the government has put together.
Of course even that is not totally accurate because the federal
government has only put in $900 million, the rest is from the
provinces. He said that $220 million has been paid out so far,
averaging a little less than $15,000 per farmer.
With the wealth of information the hon. member has, both as a
farmer himself and as a farm economist in his past life before
getting into politics, can the member tell us what that amount of
money will do for farms such as it is?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister
talks about his $1.5 billion. That figure really means nothing
to farmers. The reality is that after more than a year since the
minister promised quick action on the issue—and I remember him
calling for quick action—only $72 million has been paid out in
Saskatchewan, the province that was supposed to receive a bulk of
the money.
The minister implies that it must be because farmers are not
bright enough to apply for it or something. He implies that if
farmers applied for it they would get it. He should give a
little more credit to the farmers in western Canada. If he would
understand farmers at all in western Canada he would know that
they are well-educated people. They are very intelligent, hard
working and they understand business. The minister gives no
indication that he understands any of that.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will sharing my time with
another member.
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. While my
colleagues are, quite rightly, addressing what the government is
doing for farmers, I will speak about our commitment to the rural
communities that are so much a part of our great agri-food sector
and many other sectors.
1630
Rural Canada is the backbone of the country. Rural Canada is
home to about one in three Canadians. It is the small towns,
villages, outports and aboriginal communities that together form
the backbone of the country. Rural communities may depend on
fishing, tourism, manufacturing or resource based industries for
employment, but in many parts of Canada agriculture is the
cornerstone of the rural economy of an area.
As the farm goes so go the implement dealer, the seed and
fertilizer merchant, the co-op, indeed the whole town, and often
right back to the steel mills. Income earned on the farm ends up
paying for the health, education, recreation and cultural
services that healthy communities need. When the farm sector is
in financial difficulty the whole community suffers.
Right now in a number of regions in Canada farm families are
having financial problems. Some of them are brought on by local
droughts, floods and other climatic problems. Other farm
families are suffering because of the depressed prices caused by
international trade issues. Individual farmers have no control
over these problems.
As others in the House have mentioned, the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food has been working within Canada to shore
up our domestic farm safety net programs. He has been working on
the international stage as well to get rid of the production
distorting subsidies that are driving prices down. In addition,
the federal government is providing support to the agricultural
sector through its $60 million a year CARD fund, the Canadian
adaptation and rural development fund. In so doing we are also
supporting rural communities that depend on the sector.
Some of the support is helping farmers directly in acquiring new
production and marketing techniques. Other support is helping
develop management skills that can be transferred to off farm
activities and contribute to the capacity of a community to
engage in other economic activities beyond primary agriculture.
Farm safety programming and leadership skills developed for
farming are examples of initiatives that provide significant
benefits to world communities. The adaptation programming
provided by CARD not only strengthens farms and food enterprises
but enhances the role individuals in the agri-food sector play in
their communities.
Beyond strictly agricultural related programs the federal
framework for action in rural Canada has been developed, laying
out an approach for the government to follow in its support of
rural communities and the sectors that sustain them. This
framework draws on the programs and services available through
other federal departments and agencies. The government is
looking at how we can bring together a range of activities to
help the farm sector at this time of need.
In three consecutive throne speeches our government has stated
its commitment to a rural Canada made up of vibrant communities
and a sustainable resource base. With rural Canadians themselves
in the lead we are building a rural Canada where residents have
access to the tools, information and skills they need to make
informed decisions and to take full advantage of the
opportunities for personal community development, a rural Canada
where citizens have access to science and technology,
infrastructure and services to be full partners in Canada's
knowledge based community and society.
Two weeks ago the governor general put some more flesh on
commitments that will help bring rural Canada into the 21st
century. First, the government will harness the energy and the
knowledge of our youth, both rural and urban, to help connect
rural and urban communities to the information highway. This is
part of an overall commitment to a knowledge based economy where
distance is less of a taboo. Distance will not be a barrier in
the future. In the words of the governor general, technology
enables urban and rural Canadians from the Atlantic to the west
to the north to compete globally. In five years we will be the
most connected nation in the world.
It is not just the high technology that will empower the economy
of the new century. We will also need the physical
infrastructure to move people and goods. The federal government
will also work with the provinces and the private sector to
develop and implement a five year plan to improve our
infrastructure in small, remote and rural communities as well as
in all cities. I am sure that very popular upcoming program will
have the support of all members of the House.
These are very tangible commitments for Canadians living in
rural remote communities. They fit into a pattern that the
government has been following since it took office. We have
steadily focused on making sure that rural Canadians share in the
benefits of being part of this great country. After all, they
helped make it great.
In August the Prime Minister appointed a Secretary of State for
World Development. Again I thank the Prime Minister for the
great vision he shared with us.
This appointment serves as a strong signal of the importance the
government attaches to rural Canada.
1635
The government has also developed the rural lens to make sure
the impact of policies and programs for rural Canadians has been
given full consideration at all levels of the decision making
process.
One size does not fit all when it comes to developing policy in
Canada. The Secretary of State for Rural Development will have
an opportunity with his cabinet colleagues to ensure the rural
lens is being applied when policy discussions take place and the
challenges and priorities of rural Canadians are understood and
taken into account both in our current initiatives and in our
long term planning.
Another important element of the government's work in rural
Canada is to ensure rural Canadians see tangible results. We
have already started to do some very specific work at the
community level by introducing a number of pilot projects across
the country. So far the Government of Canada has invested $3.8
million through Canadian rural partnership to initiate 68 pilot
projects all over Canada. The CRP funds allowed project
proponents to lever another $10 million from other federal
departments and various other sources.
One project in Saskatchewan, for example, is aimed at developing
and implementing an alternative to the current grain handling
system to generate more returns for producers. The government is
now assessing proposals for a second round of pilot projects. I
am certain it will find other gems to enable rural Canadians to
continue to make a valuable contribution to Canada's future
successes.
Beyond the CRP pilot projects the Government of Canada has also
made great strides in rural communities with the community access
program, SchoolNet, Community Futures Development Centres and
Health Canada's office of rural health where Dr. John Wooten is
the chief executive director.
The government believes that the choice to live in rural Canada
should not be a choice that results in reduced citizenship
rights. Simply because people live in rural Canada does not mean
they should have to put up with an inferior level of health care,
an inferior level of social safety nets or inferior access to
government services.
Rural Canada is the backbone of a large part of our economic
wealth. It is a great place and full of great energy and
ingenuity. The resources of the producers of fine food are
shared with all Canadians. Healthy rural communities are
essential to a healthy agricultural food sector. The government
is working to build a strong foundation that will ensure the
future of both the sector and rural Canada as a whole.
I call on all members of parliament to work with us to make the
future as bright as it can possibly be. The Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-food has played a very important role.
Members of the committee from all five parties have worked very
hard and very well together. We have much left to do. I ask for
all people to co-operate and work together.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question for the Liberal government member refers
back to supply management. Who was it that negotiated up to 1993
article 11 and supply management, changing it from a quota system
of imports to a tariff system designed to be reduced
incrementally, eventually eliminating supply management?
Was that the Conservatives and Liberals, or was it the Reform
Party that did that?
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate any
questions about supply management because I will personally
defend it the very best I can. It is working. We all agree that
we have the best quality of food and the safest supply of food in
the world. It is less expensive today to buy milk or to buy
butter in Canada than it is in the United States.
The government will fight to protect our producers. Yes, a
previous government worked at it but Reform was not there showing
support for farmers since supply management. I would ask its
members to talk to their western colleagues in the supply
management business.
Supply management is the only part of the agriculture sector
that has been healthy each year in the past, and I ask the member
to support it.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
bothered by one point. We hear the government say that it will
provide $900 million for farmers. That sounds great, but we read
documentation that says the problem with AIDA as it is currently
designed is that it denies those benefits to many of the
producers it was originally supposed to help.
1640
As currently designed the AIDA program will not distribute the
$900 million the federal government committed to farmers over the
next two years. It is a fallacy to say that $900 million will be
provided. It could be said that $60 billion will be provided,
but if the program is designed so that no one receives it what
good is it?
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, the government's $900
million will be invested in rural Canada and I hope we can work
toward investing more.
I notify the member and all members of the House that the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which is well
represented by members of the Reform Party and of the
Conservative Party, invited the top officials of AIDA to appear
before it, I believe, tomorrow morning. I am sure it will be a
vigorous session. I look forward to asking some questions.
On Thursday of this week we have invited the ministers of
agriculture for Saskatchewan and Manitoba to appear before us for
a limited amount of time. We want to work with people. Commodity
prices is a very serious situation, but the situation is
worldwide. We are committed to the best we can do for rural
Canada.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make a comment on the member's glowing
infomercial on the throne speech.
He talked about the government's commitment to rural
communities. Everyone is to have Internet access, technology and
all that wonderful stuff. I am wondering how rural families can
make use of this technology and all the wonderful things the
government is to deliver to them when all these towns end up
being ghost towns.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this
would be the time to share one of my passions, which is spending
my personal time chasing around the ghost towns of Canada for the
last 30 years. I do not want to see any more ghost towns come
about.
In Manitoba and Saskatchewan today there are communities that
are very much at risk. That is why we invested money into
community access sites so people could go to the libraries and
the schools to get the information they need.
We want to do the very best we can for our people. I have
spoken to many people in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta this
year. There is a crisis there that we need to work on. The
government caucus has worked on it for several months. We look
for the support of the House when we bring forward any new ideas.
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
speak to the debate this afternoon, although I am somewhat
reluctant to get involved in it. From what I heard in the House
today it has unfortunately turned into a partisan debate. Members
on all sides seem to be saying that those on the other side do
not understand the debate or do not care, that somehow it is just
a western problem, or that the government is only looking at the
problems of farmers in central Canada.
I come from an agricultural area, one of the richest and most
diverse agricultural areas in Canada. It is in southwestern
Ontario and I represent about 90% of tobacco farmers in the
country. A number of my farm families and communities have been
hurt because of the downturn in a certain commodity so I know
somewhat from where I speak.
I say that also knowing there is a major problem in terms of
this issue. Farm families across the west, also somewhat in
central Canada and the east, are really feeling the pinch of some
of the international problems in agriculture. I am not sure that
I buy the argument totally that it is somehow all the
government's fault or somehow the government is not standing up
internationally at the trade table to protect Canadian farmers.
I recognize that some of the actions of countries around the
world, in particular the Europe and United States to the south,
with the use of exports subsidies have had a major impact on the
prices of commodities. As a result they have had a major impact
on what farm families are receiving for their products.
That is only one of the problems.
1645
There is also a problem of overproduction. It has always seemed
funny to me that there can be overproduction in a world where
people are starving, but it is said that there is overproduction
of the products that people are willing to buy. There has been a
problem over the last couple of years. It may seem funny to say
this is a problem, but there has not been a major drought
throughout the world and as a result there is overproduction.
There is too much product on the market which has had an
influence on the price.
We all know the impact the Asian financial crisis has had on
different commodities. It certainly has also had a major impact
on the price. The bottom line is that farmers across the country
are not getting the amount of income from their products that
they received in the past.
The government has responded in a number of ways. As was said
earlier we have responded by sitting down with the provinces and
the farm organizations and working out a package of aid for
farmers. That was a year ago and I think there is some debate as
to why more money has not actually gotten into the hands of
farmers. That is a legitimate debate. Certainly people on all
sides should sit down to figure out why it is that those farmers
who have needed that money have not gotten the full amount of
money they need.
It is not only a problem of getting the funds to the family
farms at this time. There is an overall problem that the
government, I agree, needs to resolve. We need to do it by
sitting down with the affected parties and the provinces. It is
not just a federal government problem. The federal government
sat down with the provinces concerned and worked out AIDA. I
would argue that maybe some of the provinces should have put in
more money. That is a legitimate argument. I do not think it is
totally the federal government's responsibility to do that. That
is something which is being worked on. It is hoped that when the
premiers come from western Canada in the next week to sit down
and talk to the government, they will come up with more money and
try to figure out a better way to get it into the hands of
farmers immediately.
On the trade side, over the last couple of years we have sat
down with the provinces, with the industry, with groups in
western Canada and all throughout Canada to work out a trade
position. We hope it will help address some of these concerns of
export subsidies, particularly with the Europeans and the
Americans.
We have a strong position which we will be taking to Seattle. We
will sit down with other countries from around the world and try
to get them to stop subsidizing their products so that Canadians
can get better prices for their products. That is the right
approach. We have pulled the agricultural commodity groups and
the provinces together to put forward a strong and united front.
I think that will work.
However, that will not solve a problem in the short term. Within
the next few weeks the provinces and the federal government need
to figure out how to get more money into the hands of farmers
immediately.
What was said earlier mostly by my colleagues in the New
Democratic Party, is that we should not have these trade
organizations, that we should not have the WTO. I would argue
frankly that this is a good example of why we need it.
Canada is a relatively small country in terms of our
international trade. We face groups like the Japanese, the
Europeans and the Americans who have large economies. It is
difficult for us in these circumstances to sit down on a one to
one basis and try to get them to stop their subsidies.
1650
We can do that at international meetings, for example at the WTO
around the table when we have like-minded countries that will
stand up with Canada and tell the other countries that what they
are doing is hurting our economies. We have had success in the
past. We hope that over the next two or three years at the next
round of negotiations we will get these countries to stop their
direct subsidies which are hurting not only our grains and
oilseeds farmers but farmers in other commodities as well.
I say sincerely to all Canadians who are listening that this is
a problem for farm families. This is not a cyclical problem
although as members have said, it always seems to come and go. It
is more than that. All Canadians, particularly those who shop
every day at the supermarket, need to know that Canadian farmers
are not getting their fair share of the food dollar. Canadian
farmers over the past number of years as a result of some
international practices and other issues have been getting less
and less for what they actually produce.
It is incumbent upon consumers in this country to get involved
in this debate. If they want a Canadian agricultural system, if
they want food that is safe and which is grown in Canada, they
will have to get involved and know what the issues are. They
should also be part of the solution.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if you will pardon the pun, the member was saying that
Canada is small potatoes when it comes to international trade. He
talked glowingly about needing to convince the Europeans and the
Americans and to use incentives to convince them to give a darn
about the situation of Canadian farmers.
Could he give us a brief outline of what those incentives would
be if we are such a small player?
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have
to agree that the Americans have an economy that is ten times the
size of ours and the Japanese and the Europeans, all of them put
together, are large players. The only way we can move some of
these large players is to form with other groups. An example is
the Cairns group.
In international meetings we sit down with a group like that and
state our interests. It is in our interest to stop these
international battles. When we go to certain meetings, whether
it is the OECD, the Cairns group meetings or APEC, all the
countries get together and say “Look, you have to stop this”.
That is one of the ways we can change international policy.
There are not a lot of things. We cannot shoot missiles at each
other, as some of the American friends have been saying. We have
to sit down at those international meetings and get a coalition
of countries to force the larger players to listen to what we are
saying. That is one of the main things we can do.
We can also make sure that when we are giving these arguments we
are not breaking international rules ourselves. That is one
thing we also try to do.
Some may say that we are being Boy Scouts, that the other guys
are cheating and that we should be cheating too. But we are
trying to stop those people from cheating. Sometimes what is
said to be cheating really is not. What a lot of Europeans and
Americans are doing is well within the confines of what they have
been able to do.
Unfortunately for us we are small and the Americans are fairly
large. Many times they will take over at these meetings and set
the agenda. One way to change that is to get out front first.
That is what we have tried to do. That is why having a united
front, having all the agriculture groups in Canada and the
provinces all onside with a united position is the best way to
make a difference internationally.
1655
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was very pleased at some of the concluding remarks
made by the member opposite. I was pleased to hear him
acknowledge that there is a problem.
I would like to ask a question of the member opposite. It is a
question people in my riding have been asking me. Why do the
people in our cities not recognize the problem that exists in
rural Canada? Let me explain and the member can have some time to
formulate his answer.
Many of the people in Saskatchewan feel that little attention is
paid to the farm crisis because they are only a small minority of
Canadians and unless we can demonstrate somehow that this crisis
on the farms impacts on the people in the cities, the government
will do very little.
The question they want me to ask the government is: How can
farmers get the message to all Canadians that our farmers are
important to the country, that the problems they have are very
severe and that something needs to be done?
Every time someone sits down to have a meal they thank God, but
they should also thank a farmer. It affects everyone in their
daily lives. How can we get the message to people in the cities
to recognize this problem and assist us in the solution?
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, one way we can do that is
by what we are doing now. We debate the issue and make it more
public in a non-partisan way to show Canadians that it is
important.
One of our former colleagues, the hon. Ralph Ferguson, put out a
study called “Compare the Share”. He took it upon himself as a
member to try and put across to the consumers that farmers were
not getting a fair share of the food dollar. Things like that
help. Not only Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, but other
government departments, including the rural secretariat and our
department, are trying to make this more public. They are trying
to make consumers aware that it is important to them that we have
a solid agricultural industry in Canada. We will continue to do
that.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Sackville—Mosquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, Native peoples; the
hon. member for Vancouver East, Homelessness.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in western Canada in my constituency of
Yorkton—Melville life on the farm has become very tough. Many
farm families are struggling to get by.
We know that the incomes in Manitoba and Saskatchewan will drop
by 98% this year. Projected net farm income in Saskatchewan for
1999 will be minus $48 million.
The Liberal government's lack of compassion and hard-hearted
attitude is probably in part because it does not see the real
people behind these statistics. It sees the numbers but it does
not see the faces. We hear these numbers day after day, but we do
not hear how these numbers are impacting the family farm.
I would like to take this opportunity in a somewhat different
way than my colleagues, to pass along some of the comments that
have been received in my office from families that are struggling
to get through the worst crisis since the Great Depression. I
only hope that the government will listen to these people and
listen to their stories as I try to represent them here in the
House.
The government talks about what it is doing for farmers but
these comments will be clear evidence that it is not. Here is a
producer in the northern part of my constituency explaining how
discouraged farmers are these days:
I am having great difficulty meeting financial obligations. I am
a young farmer who took over a small family farm. I have cattle
and my wife works in town as well but it is very difficult and
stressful trying to make ends meet with two young children. Maybe
welfare is the answer?
Farmers are hardworking individuals who are proud of what they
do. When farmers start talking about welfare, we know that life
is getting very bad on the farm.
Here is a producer from Hudson Bay who is reeling from the
effects of the farm income crisis:
Stress, financial uncertainty, family unrest. How can one plan
for the future of their family when there doesn't appear to be
any future.
1700
There is another quote from a farmer in Kamsack, who said:
Myself and three brothers farm 6,000 acres. We keep 120 cows and
feed 120 calves all winter. We work over 300 days a year, half
of them are 16 hour days. I am having a hard time supporting a
wife and two kids. I have no family life.
These are all real people with faces. This is not a faceless
problem. The family is the one that ends up feeling the effects
of the current farm income crisis. This government in its Speech
from the Throne talked about how it is helping the children of
this country. Saskatchewan farm families are not benefiting from
the government's agenda.
I received a letter from the wife of a farmer in the Kamsack
area the other day and it touched me deeply. I would like to
share it with the House. It reads:
My husband has had to go out and get a job to put food on the
table and support the family. He would get up at 4:00 a.m. and
work on the field till 2:00 p.m. then go to work so he could
provide for his family. He couldn't afford to take time off so
some days he would work around the clock with only one or two
hours of sleep. This has deteriorated his health with him losing
a great deal of weight and he has become so withdrawn trying all
possible ways to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I love
him dearly for this but I want my husband back, not a walking
time bomb.
I have had to take a job also and now have to leave my children
without a mother figure. This is very hard and I cry every day
that I leave, wondering if they are okay and if they need me. My
baby cries as I leave and I feel terrible to be going, he needs
me.
My daughter has been having trouble at school and she has a hard
time adjusting to things around her. She hears the calls from
collectors and wonders if we will be okay or not. She has
complained of being sick so she can spend time with her parents
who she misses.
My son has had to go see a therapist because he knows times are
tough and he worries about all of us. He also complains of being
sick so he can be near us. Many nights he would be sleeping at
the foot of our bed. When asked why, he said I just wanted to
see my dad.
We had an education fund for our children when the times were
good but had to remove the money to pay the bills. Now will my
children go to college? I don't know the answer.
We are all suffering. Is there anyone listening?
These kinds of stories really tug at our heartstrings and they
put real faces to this crisis.
This letter could have come from a number of families that are
trying to make a living on the farm. This is really impacting on
children as well.
The focus should be to create the right environment where the
family farm can prosper. Why is it so important to maintain the
family farm? If the nation's food production is in the hands of
a few corporate farmers, those corporate farmers will have
control over the food supply and will have a great deal of power.
This is what a farmer from Carragana had to say:
Protect the family farms first. If you lose us you will have big
organized corporations run by chemical and fertilizer companies
who will be able to unionize globally. Then you can kiss your
cheap food good-bye.
Maybe this is an answer to a question I posed earlier. How is
this going to impact on people in the cities? Maybe if they
realized that this is going to have a severe impact they would
begin to take notice.
Another constituent said that the Liberals just cannot seem to
see past their noses and that our children in the future are
going to suffer because government is not handling our present
crisis properly.
The agriculture minister talks about how the government has put
$900 million into a farm aid package called AIDA. Very few
qualify for support under this package. Why has it been so
ineffective? I think it is because the program is designed for a
drastic drop in income in 1998 when compared with farmers'
previous three year average. The problem is that most farmers
have not had a drastic drop in income.
A farmer from Canora put it best when he said:
1705
I crunched some numbers in various scenarios and nobody in my
neighbourhood qualified except for one 10,000 acre corporate
farm. The only small family farms that qualify are the southern
durum producers who have just come off three consecutive years of
all time record high prices and should have some cash resource.
The small to average farms in the black soil zone who have been
hanging on by their fingernails the last three years will be left
to slip into the hole even further.
It shows the basic unfairness of the way the government
structured the program.
The government has to rework this AIDA package and make it so
that farmers can get some support from the program. However,
that is not the entire answer. Over the last 30 years government
has mismanaged the entire agriculture sector, which is why a long
term strategy has to be looked at. Otherwise we are just going
to go from one crisis to the next. I would like to emphasize
that a long term strategy is really needed.
A farmer from Foam Lake talked about the need for a long term
solution. He said:
I think that in place of an emergency aid package the government
should look at the longer term solutions like lowering freight
rates which is the biggest expense. Check into prices of farm
inputs. Why are the costs rising? Fuel expenses are a direct
government responsibility and could be instantly lowered.
I have a lot more that I could read.
This has to be done immediately. I emphasize that. The long
term solutions such as taxes on inputs can be dealt with
immediately. The government has to look at user fees charged to
farmers, foreign subsidies and the high cost of transportation.
This farm crisis has thousands of faces. Real people are being
severely impacted by the drastic drop in income caused in part by
the huge tax burden that is built right into a farmer's input
costs. My comments today are to impress on the government that
it is destroying people's livelihoods. Behind the statistics are
many faces; faces of real people. The government deals with this
issue as if it is faceless and just another problem. It is not.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
commend my colleague for a very excellent speech. He told some
stories which I think are duplicated in all of our ridings. I
have had heard of similar situations.
I had a phone call from a young married woman who, with her
husband, is trying to make the family farm work, having taken it
over from his father. It was really tough to pay the bills so
she got a part time job to try to pay the farm bills. Lo and
behold, unexpectedly this young lady found herself with child.
She kept on working at her part time job, helping her husband as
much as she could on the farm.
When the time came that she could no longer work because of her
impending childbirth, she applied for employment insurance, to
which every person in this country is entitled. This young lady
was told that because she was part of a farm family and their
income last year was x number of dollars she did not
qualify. She was told that she would not get employment
insurance. While everyone else is not asked how much money their
husband made or how much their partner made when on maternity
leave, here is a farm family trying to make ends meet, which
needs employment insurance, and it is disqualified by the rules
of the Liberal government. Those stories abound.
I really want to commend my colleague for bringing that
dimension to this issue. It is exactly the kind of story we are
hearing.
I wonder whether the member would like to enlarge somewhat on
the kinds of programs that the Liberal government puts out that
claim to be supportive of families, supportive of children, which
in fact run exactly the opposite.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, when I was giving my
speech I did not intend it to be some partisan rant against the
government.
I feel that the government and many people across the country
have to recognize this problem. I was trying to portray this as
a crisis that is impacting on real people and has to be dealt
with immediately.
1710
My colleague makes a good point. Farmers are not treated the
same as other people within society. They do not qualify for a
lot of the farm programs that are available, nor do they qualify
for a lot of the provincial programs that are available because
of the nature of their business. Farmers would be the first to
say “We do not want that. We want to be treated fairly, the
same as everyone else”.
A lot of farmers do not pay a lot of income tax. One of my
colleagues opposite said that if they were paying a lot of tax
they would be making a lot of money. They are paying a lot of
tax, but not income tax. They have property taxes. They have
taxes built into all of their inputs. For example, when the
government has a program by which it raises Canada pension plan
premiums, or uses the employment insurance plan to raise money
for whatever programs it wants to implement, farmers pay an
inordinate amount of the rise in that tax. I am going to call
them taxes because they are put into general revenues. They do
not feel it is fair that they should have to pay that.
They pay in ways that the public does not realize. For example,
they may have a capital cost on a machine they buy. Every
company that employs someone pays Canada pension plan premiums.
However, they really do not pay them. They pass that cost on in
the price of the machine or whatever product they produce.
Farmers have to purchase that. They have no choice as to whether
they pay those Canada pension plan premiums that the company has
to pay. Built into that particular price is a cost that farmers
have no control over.
If the government makes a decision to raise Canada pension plan
premiums or employment insurance premiums, farmers end up paying
that because they cannot pass that cost on to anybody else. They
are caught in the international marketplace. The prices they get
for their product are dictated elsewhere. Other companies which
subsidize their farmers dump their excess on the world market,
depressing prices, and farmers cannot make a living.
Many Canadians do not realize the high amount of tax that
farmers pay. The government collects fuel tax. Farmers pay a
lot of tax on fuel, as well as fertilizer. Probably 50% of the
cost of natural gas is tax. Certain fertilizers are made from
natural gas. Therefore farmers pay that 50% tax which is built
into the fertilizer they buy.
I was going to talk about child care and how farmers cannot
access a lot of these programs. There are many government
programs that farmers end up paying for and many Canadians do not
realize that this is an unfair way of dealing with the situation.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is certainly with mixed emotions that I rise today to
speak on behalf of my constituents of Battlefords—Lloydminster,
Saskatchewan regarding the crisis in agriculture which is raging
across this country, most critically in the west. In
Saskatchewan and Manitoba we have seen incomes at an all time
low. I say mixed emotions because my constituents are
increasingly frustrated by all levels of government. Everybody
takes a little blame for the seeming lack of understanding of the
magnitude of this crisis.
They are angry with governments over the ineptitude they have
displayed with their pat answers. It is always someone else's
fault. If they wait a little longer the program will work. It
has almost been a year and we are not seeing any results.
The federal agriculture minister has told farmers to quit or to
walk away from farms that have been in a family for generations,
or to walk away from years of blood, sweat and tears building and
maintaining a dream that has been in a family forever. What
advice to give to farmers who like to roll up their sleeves, get
in there and solve problems. What an absolute insult. I have
had farmers calling me, saying that this fellow just does not
understand what is going on.
The harsh reality is that it is not just the farm families any
more that are in trouble. It has gone past the farm gate. It is
now encroaching into Main Street, Saskatchewan, into Manitoba and
other parts of the country as well. It is affecting all of the
agriculture related businesses, whether we are talking about
inputs, farm fuel, fertilizer, chemicals or the seed companies.
Everybody is starting to feel the pinch as their receivables
escalate and skyrocket into numbers they have never seen before,
with no end in sight.
1715
I have received hundreds of calls over this past year at my
constituency office and not just from farmers. It is escalating
into the businesses supplying the farmers and their input costs.
It is escalating into veterinarians supplying services and so on
to cattle and pork producers. It has gone on to affect just
about everybody out there in rural Canada.
Why is this? Why are we facing this crisis now? It has been
building for a number of years. The main culprit was and
continues to be an agriculture minister and his government that
just will not move very far on this issue. He promised us a
bankable program by last Christmas. That is almost 10 months ago
and to date there are too few farmers qualifying for too few
dollars to make any difference. We have heard numbers like $220
million out of a $15 billion program that has actually reached
the farmers out there. It is just a little too late and not
nearly enough dollars. Just in the nick of too late is what a
lot of people are saying out there.
Farmers that I have talked to are averaging five to six months
for a response from the complicated forms they have sent in.
Their accountants are frustrated by filling out the forms to the
best of their ability and coming up with a number that seems
acceptable to everyone, only to have it rejected by the AIDA
committee working with the NISA committee and the Revenue Canada
committee. By the time the circle is done and they have jumped
the hoops and hurdles that are tossed in front of them it is a
bureaucratic nightmare. It goes on an on.
A good percentage of farmers that applied in April and May last
year are still waiting to receive some money. They have received
nothing. It has certainly been a problem.
Bankers in western Canada, to their credit, have been great.
They have turned out loans and taken interest only payments on
those loans to try to help farmers stay put. It is a bit of a
different story when it comes to farm credit, that old boondoggle
that was created federally years ago. They have been a little
more hardhearted when it comes to tossing farmers off their
ground.
This mess is compounded in Saskatchewan because our input costs
have gone up with the demise of the Crow rate and with a
provincial government that kind of let things slide a bit further
than they should have done. We are seeing a tremendous disparity
between what the net incomes of Saskatchewan farmers have
bottomed out and our neighbouring province in Alberta. It is
creating quite a controversy out there.
We have this crisis in agriculture. What it comes down to is
that no one has a magic wand. What will we do about it? How can
we address these issues? Everybody blames a different villain.
We had the Asian flu a year ago and markets collapsed. We have
European and American subsidies. We cut but they did not. They
have actually increased their funding to farmers. We have to go
to the WTO and the GATT negotiations with a little bigger stick.
We have a low dollar. All of our inputs are based on American
currency. The fertilizer, fuel, chemicals, farm machinery,
repairs, everything that comes out of the States and up here with
67 cent dollars buying it. Not totally. A lot of inputs are
based on American money whether or not they are manufactured
because there is a lot of that trade back and forth.
We have had both flood and drought in Saskatchewan, opposite
ends of the scale, which has led to a lot of farmers getting
little or no coverage by crop insurance because of that multiple
year problem. Their premiums have gone sky high and the coverage
they are able to get has gone way down. There is no way to add
or make use of a NISA with negative margins. New farmers that do
not have a three year average and so on do not qualify for any
type of AIDA program.
A combination of low selling prices for agricultural commodities
and escalating input costs have put people into jeopardy. There
are six billion people in the world now. We had a big
celebration a short time ago when the six billionth baby was
born. There is a tremendous amount of hungry people out there.
We grow great product here. It is safe. It is ready to go to
market, ready to be used, but we cannot seem to find buyers for
it even with a 67 cent dollar.
The Prime Minister said that a low dollar was great for trade.
We do not see that stimulant adding to Canadian exporters. It
just failed to deliver anything out there.
Another thing that has added to the situation is an agricultural
system that has been in transition. Farmers followed the
buzzwords of the government. They diversified, changed the way
they did things, upgraded, worked the land a little differently
and so on. They are extremely vulnerable at this time. A lot of
people made those changes and were kind of caught in a catch 22
situation with payments to make on the new way of farming and no
commodity prices to support it.
1720
What can we do? What can governments do? In the short term I
guess we have to prop up Canadian agriculture with a subsidy,
cash in hand. It is the only way to get everybody back to the
starting line. Canadian farmers are starting out a relay race 10
yards behind everybody else, so we have to give them some cash in
their hands to get them back to the starting line.
We are also looking at tens of thousands of jobs that can be
affected because agriculture is definitely a primary industry. It
affects everybody on the input and on the purchasing sides. We
need an aid program that delivers cash, not platitudes.
The program should be simplified. I know that goes against the
grain of a lot of government bureaucracies that like to control
everything to the end, but we have to simplify it. We have to
get the money out there in a timely fashion. No more studies. No
more excuses. Let us just get it done. We have Christmas
coming up again and I would hate the agriculture minister to be
the grinch two years in a row.
In the mid-term let us rethink government involvement in
agriculture. Taxes on input costs are exorbitant, as the last
member talked about. The major input cost of a lot of
fertilizers is natural gas and 50% of that is taxes. Last year
the fertilizer institute talked about 20% of its costs being
government taxes on its product. All that comes off the bottom
line of farmers.
We know what taxes on fuel amount to. Some $5 billion or $6
billion a year. A lot of that is coming right out of the pockets
of farmers. These are not profit generated taxes, much like
property tax. In Saskatchewan we have seen property taxes go up
by 52% in the last little while and the bulk of that is paid by
57,000 farmers paying two-thirds of the property tax. We have to
look at the way that is done. Interprovincial barriers to trade
should be removed. Another $5 billion disappears from people in
the west every year because of trade barriers that we have
developed between the provinces.
In the longer term I guess we have to take a bigger stick to the
next WTO and GATT negotiations. We cannot and should not
tolerate unfair subsidy practices. They are killing us here at
home. We have to go with more people, with a bigger group, to
get our ideas across.
Let us get serious about implementing value added processing in
the prairies. We have seen freedom of choice on marketing and
delivery of our products being non-available to people. The Crow
rate is gone but we did not see deregulation. This government
and the provincial governments must look at all existing programs
and propose changes and updates to and based on what is in the
best interest of producers.
Farm families are hardy. They are good pioneer stock. They are
adaptable folk. They have a proud heritage of standing up to the
challenges, rolling up their sleeves and finding a solution. Let
those of us in government at all levels be part of the solutions
rather than a major part of the problems.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the province of
Alberta recently put some more money into the program for its
producers. It was very welcome.
I want to question the previous speaker and other members of the
Reform Party, many of whom are from Manitoba and Saskatchewan,
two great provinces, on whether they have asked their provincial
governments to put more money into the program. As I said
before, the top AIDA officials will be coming in front of our
committee tomorrow and the ministers of agriculture for both
Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be appearing before the House of
Commons agriculture committee on Thursday.
I ask the member to continue to look for all possible support in
his own provincial government areas so we can work with him.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I certainly agree with him that part of the problem
has been provincial. As I said in my speech, Saskatchewan is
seeing huge disparities where Saskatchewan farmers have bottomed
out compared to those of Alberta next door and even those of
Manitoba, which is somewhere in the middle.
The Alberta government created a program called FIDP which not
everyone loves. That is the nature of the beast with government
programs. It certainly has held its farmers at a better level
than those of Saskatchewan. We have been in a free-fall. Our
crown corporations have been building kingdoms elsewhere in the
world without staying at home and looking after the little guy.
Our farmers have taken a hit at all levels and will continue to
do so.
The premiers are coming here. That is great. They can talk and
be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I look
forward to the interventions at committee stage.
The GRIP program disappeared out of Saskatchewan. The
provincial government disappeared with about $140 million. The
federal government saved about $230 million. All they have to do
is put that money back and we would have about five times what
the AIDA program will do for us.
1725
Let us go back to the future. We do not have to reinvent
anything. We saw just a short time ago what rural voters in
Saskatchewan thought of the agriculture policies of the NDP
government. They turfed the NDP government out of rural
Saskatchewan, and rightly so. It was not listening. It has to
get out there and start to help with the situation, not add to
it. Rates for SaskTel, SaskPower and Sask Gas and Energy will go
through the roof. It is compounding the problem and not helping
us.
We have infrastructure that we can hardly afford to drive on. We
have a seatbelts rule in the province just so we do not get
bounced off the seat. It has nothing to do with safety. The
situation we are facing in rural Saskatchewan is absolutely
ridiculous. It just gets worse and worse.
All levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal,
must get in there and work together. Let us forget the partisan
crap. Let us all get in there and make it happen.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I can help out a bit. The former provincial government
of Manitoba, the provincial PCs, gave out $50 an acre for the
flooded natural disaster acreage. It was doing something. The
NDP Government of Saskatchewan has done nothing in the way of
extra money. We are waiting to see it come forward with money.
I have a quick question for the member. The banks have been
fairly lenient with farmers in trying to help them out a little.
Farm credit has been tough. I have also had calls that the
Canadian Wheat Board is pressuring farmers over the cash advances
they received in previous years. I see no leniency there.
Should the Canadian Wheat Board be more lenient on the cash
advances than what it appears to be doing?
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Selkirk—Interlake for his intervention. I agree. Large
corporations can follow the example of the banks and give farmers
a break. There is no way that they can buy back land that is
coming up this year with the low commodity prices. No one has
had a chance to put any kind of cash reserves aside to make the
down payment required to buy back the land.
Farmers do not want to lose any of their land. It is part of
the viability of their operation. Whether one loses a quarter,
five quarters or all five sections really does not matter. It is
a chink in the armour. It is a chip away at the bottom of the
dike and everything else will break loose from there.
We need to revisit that situation. We need to look long and
hard at avenues that will allow farmers some breathing space to
put a few nickels back in their jeans and make that down payment
to stay viable.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the
debate. I remind members that I represent a riding in downtown
Toronto. There is not a single farm in my riding.
Having said that, I have always believed that national
politicians should be sensitive to issues not just in our own
riding or our own community but in every region of the country.
Today is an example where this debate affects the people of my
riding, not only in an indirect way but in a direct way.
I listened attentively to the member for Yorkton—Melville
earlier. He described in very dramatic detail what was happening
in his community. There were families with children facing the
stress of watching their mothers and fathers working 80, 90 to
100 hour weeks and not making ends meet. He said that this was
not a faceless problem, that these were real people.
He also asked one question I want to try to answer. What can we
do to make the people who live in cities understand what is
happening on the family farm? That was the question he asked.
As a downtown Toronto member of parliament I will attempt to
answer that question. The basis of my answer comes from an
experience that I had in the House 10 years ago when I sat in
opposition. We had an agriculture critic from
Lambton—Middlesex, the hon. Ralph Ferguson, who is a farmer to
this day.
He developed, at his own expense, a program entitled, “Compare
the Share”. When I go into a store and buy a bag of cookies for
$5, the program shows what the retailer gets, what the wholesaler
gets and what the manufacturer gets. The family farm gets two
pennies on that $5. On what we pay for a quart of milk the
farmer's share is 11 cents. On a loaf of bread the family farmer
gets six cents. When we buy 10 pounds of potatoes for $1.50 the
farmer gets 12 to 15 cents.
1730
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for
Egmont.
As someone who has spent most of my life as a city person, I had
never seen that package before. One day we decided to put up a
display at my constituency office, which is on a very high
profile street in downtown Toronto called the Danforth, showing
the various shares on a quart of milk, a bag of cookies, a
package of pasta and a loaf of bread. We then showed how much a
farmer pays for his land, machinery and equipment.
I can tell the member for Yorkton—Melville that the city people
were shocked. They had no idea the number of hours that farm
families put in to get the two cents out of that $5 bag of
cookies.
We kept the “Compare the Share” display for about a month to
six weeks and then obviously we had to change it. That was one
little section of a downtown area in Toronto, one of 22 sections.
The member asked what we could do to make city folk understand.
We have to revive “Compare the Share”. Even for our own rural
members in the House, there are probably a lot who would not be
up to date on the current share that exists on a whole line of
products.
We also have to go as far as re-examining the packaging that
goes on products. Maybe we should not just be doing “Compare
the Share” in our offices. Maybe we should use our power in the
House of Commons to explore the notion of putting the approximate
share that a farmer gets on all of the packaged goods. What is
wrong with that?
The reality is that if we, in three, four or five years from
now, lose the contribution of the family farm in the country, or
if we discover four, five or six years from now that we no longer
have any young people who want to work on the family farm because
they are tired of working for $2 or $3 an hour, what will we do
as a nation? Without the family farm, the quality of food, which
today is second to none, and even in terms of consumer price is
as competitive or more competitive than most places in the world,
we will find ourselves stuck.
This is a good debate today but we must not treat it as a
partisan debate. I know most members have not. Let us get
together and do something constructive. I really believe the way
to get the city people mobilized is to educate them about exactly
what the farm family gets for every little contribution they make
to the quality of life we have in our cities and in the whole
country which is ranked number one in the world.
1735
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
very pleased to see that the member from Toronto recognized the
important contribution made by farmers to the food supply, which
is safe and certainly among the best in the world. I was also
pleased to hear his idea on how to get city people to recognize
the input of farmers. I really appreciate that and think it is a
good idea, but it still does not deal with these severe, critical
problems that we have.
It does not deal with pushing European countries and putting
pressure on Asian countries to remove or reduce their import
restrictions. It does nothing to pressure the United States to
reduce its unfair subsidies which make it very difficult for our
farmers to compete because they are not competing on a level
playing field. They are competing against just too many odds.
Our farmers have become so efficient that they can compete
against an awful lot of odds that one would think they just would
not be able to deal with, but they can.
The Liberals have not dealt with the tax problem other than
making it worse. They have not dealt with the restrictions on
farmers to develop more options for markets except by making it
worse. They have made things worse rather than improving them.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to be
constructive in the debate. I will not get diverted from where I
am coming from. I feel passionate as a member of parliament that
we should do something to help the family farm in the country,
especially those that are in deep economic and psychological pain
right now.
What I am saying is that if we educate a majority of people in
the country on just how the family farm is getting screwed—I
will put it in direct terms of getting screwed—my sense is they
will understand that through education in a way that is sort of
understandable. City folk are not going to understand. I heard
everybody stand up here today to talk about AIDA. How many
people in the city understand what AIDA is? I am trying to help
here. Using that language is not the way to help.
The way to get city people mobilized to help the family farm in
the country is to educate them on how they are getting screwed.
Once that becomes a reality in their minds, then I think we can
deal with all those other things very quickly.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
were two members opposite who seemed to have an understanding of
what farming is all about and what is really needed to be done.
I wonder if the hon. member who just spoke would be able to have
the same kind of impact on the other members opposite and let
them understand exactly how significant the family farm is.
I appreciate the effort that he is trying to make to help.
However, we need to recognize that although we might recognize
how important the family farm is, there is also the income
structure that exists with the people who live in the city who
buy that food. If the tax burden is such that over 50% of it
goes to taxes of one kind and another, it does not matter how
well they understand the farm situation. They recognize it but
say “Well, look, I have to buy this stuff”. If we are going to
get this into some kind of a decent balanced situation there has
to be the wherewithal to do this.
The farmers are taxed too heavily. The consumer is taxed too
heavily. No matter which way we put this thing together, it
seems that the education that takes place has to be a little bit
broader than just the farm situation. We have to get into the
whole business of taxation and how we get together.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full
well that he has never had any debate with me on the notion of
comprehensive tax reform. I have spent 12 years on the issue and
I pray and hope that one day the executive of the government will
become seized with that issue.
1740
We all have issues that we feel passionately about. I agree
with the member that comprehensive tax reform is something we
need. However, I am not separating tax reform from any part of
any issue in the House of Commons. It is critical and it needs
dealing with.
The question the member for Yorkton—Melville asked me today was
what can we do to make city folk realize the family farm is in
this deep pain, and that is where I was coming from.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate
the member for Broadview—Greenwood for his contribution this
evening to this very important debate.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the concerns surrounding
the level of farm income this year. I share with farmers and
members of the House their concern over the difficult realities a
number of farmers are facing.
I want my colleagues across the floor to understand, as I
believe they do but I want to remind them, how closely the
minister of agriculture and the government have worked with
producers and with other levels of government to put in place an
effective system of safety nets to protect farmers and their
income. That is something that does not come across in what hon.
members are reading in the papers and seeing on television. Too
many people want to make this a federal government problem when
in fact it is everyone's problem. The government has been
working with all the players to balance all the interests and
develop solutions that are acceptable to all the partners.
Partnership has been the hallmark of farm safety net policy over
the last half decade. In December 1994, after a year of
consultations with farm groups, the minister of agriculture and
agri-food of the day achieved a national consensus for a new
Canadian farm safety net system, one that is income based and
established on the whole farm principle, a system predicated on
balancing the needs of all regions and all sectors.
Partnerships yield results and our safety net system is proof of
that. Working together, producers and governments developed one
of the most predictable, effective and reliable systems of farm
income protection in the world, and this system is still
evolving. Contributions to both design and funding come from
farmers themselves, from the federal government and from all the
provincial governments.
Improvements are being sought on an ongoing basis.
Unfortunately, today's market conditions are one of the driving
forces behind the effort to improve safety net programming.
However, Canadian farmers have a solid foundation on which to
build and the federal government is continuing to work with them
through the national safety net advisory committee to develop
these improvements.
Currently farmers in the country have a safety net system made
up of crop insurance, the net income stabilization account or
NISA and specific provincial initiatives. As things stand now,
the Government of Canada invests $60 million each and every year
to these programs with the provinces spending an additional $400
million.
The NISA account and federal-provincial crop insurance are
designed to help farmers deal with normal market risks and
weather. NISA is a voluntary program designed to help producers
achieve stable incomes over the long term. It provides producers
with the opportunity to deposit money annually into their income
stabilization account and receive matching government
contributions so their account grows. In lower income years
producers are expected to bring their incomes up by making
withdrawals from the funds they set aside in previous high income
years.
Currently there are 105,000 Canadian producers with a total of
$1.2 billion available in their NISA accounts. They can withdraw
that money at any time. Up until October 14, 24,000 Canadian
producers had withdrawn $261 million. These funds are helping
many farm families weather the current market downturns.
The existing safety net system was designed to deal with the
normal cyclical risks that markets and mother nature present but
the minister of agriculture has recognized that what has been
happening over the past year and a half has been exceptional.
All the cycles essentially bottomed out at the same time and a
number of other factors came together to make the situation even
worse. Many farmers' revenues plummeted as prices fell from the
highs of the mid-nineties to dramatic lows.
1745
That is why the Government of Canada responded with the AIDA
program. It was developed in consultation with industry and the
provinces. It is providing $1.5 billion with 60% coming from the
federal government and 40% coming from the provincial
governments. This money has been paid out over two years to help
farmers through an income crisis.
In announcing AIDA in December 1998 the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food said:
The objective is to target the farmers in Canada who, I am
confident, will succeed in the long term but need help now, due
to circumstances beyond their control.
The AIDA program builds on NISA, crop insurance and other
existing risk management mechanisms. It was designed to meet the
green criteria of the WTO agreement on agriculture.
Because of our international commitments and obligations, I do
not believe answers can be found by stepping back 10 years into
the past with a repeat of ineffective, inequitable and
unaffordable subsidies. Such measures cannot be financially
sustained nor are they suited to an agri-food sector that is very
dependent on the world marketplace.
Instead the government will continue to defend the interests of
Canadian farmers in the international trade arena. We will use
the upcoming world trade negotiations to work toward removing
trade distorting subsidies so our farmers can compete on a level
playing field in the global trading system.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has a long history of working
with farmers and the agri-food industry to achieve those things
which make our industry thrive. Despite recent challenges, our
sector as a whole is remarkably strong. Our existing safety nets
and now AIDA will help ensure it stays that way.
That said, the Government of Canada understands that the current
programs can be improved upon. We are currently in the process
of considering additional modifications to the AIDA program for
the 1999 tax year. We are setting out the parameters for the
long term safety net options for the future. All changes to AIDA
and/or the development of any long term safety net options will
be done in consultation and in partnership with the provinces,
with the minister's national safety nets advisory committee and
also with farm organizations.
Canadian producers have faced adversity before and have come
through it, thanks to their own strength and innovation and
thanks also to the efforts of all governments working together.
The ability of the agriculture and food industry to overcome the
current challenge rests on the strength and stability of its
foundation at home. Over the past year we have been working hard
to provide that stable foundation by improving the existing
safety net system and by developing new tools like AIDA. That
work continues.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member's comments, coming from the parliamentary secretary,
really concern me.
I heard no reference whatsoever to some of the key issues that
are affecting farmers, such as tax reduction which would help
immensely in improving the bottom line, and such as dealing with
the unfair trade practices of other countries which would do more
than anything else the government can do. These programs are not
going to cut it. We have to fix up the problems in trade.
I heard no reference to reducing user fees which have been built
up by the government at an unbelievable pace over the past six
years, or reducing regulation and red tape so farmers do not
spend half their winters working through the maze the government
has set out for them.
None of these things were talked about. No solutions were
offered by the parliamentary secretary. That certainly does not
respond to the concerns that farmers have.
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member for
Lakeland was listening to the speech. I made specific reference
to the efforts Canada is making through the World Trade
Organization to reduce subsidies.
In the world at large, Canada is not a great big player. We are
not a powerful player in the international agricultural field. We
have to design and push with all our might to have a rules based
system of trade so Canada can compete equally with other more
powerful nations like the United States and the European common
market.
We cannot afford to match them dollar for dollar in the subsidy
game. We are not in that game. I believe the Reform Party
agrees that we cannot do that.
1750
I know the Reform Party's situation in regard to agriculture and
agricultural assistance is evolving, the same as our AIDA program
is evolving. If we work together we will come up with a very
good solid basis for a safety net program in Canada.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in the parliamentary secretary's remarks earlier he
said, “We will continue to defend the interests of farmers in
international trade negotiations”. That is what he said.
Four years ago when the WTO said that countries should start
looking at a 20% reduction of subsidies in their agricultural
sector, the Liberal government, as the parliamentary secretary
said, defended the interests of farmers by not taking 20%, 30% or
40% off the subsidies in Canada. It took 100% of the subsidies
with respect to grain and oilseeds production in western Canada.
Does he sincerely believe what he just said, that he will
continue to defend the interests of our farmers in the future?
They are reeling from the Liberal policies of the elimination of
the Crow benefit and other subsidies. How can he possibly hurt
the farmers any more? We would like to know because the farmers
should be getting ready for the onslaught and the butchering of
their agricultural life by the government. Can the parliamentary
secretary answer how he is going to continue to defend those
types of attacks and persecution of our farmers?
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, those comments come from a
member of the fourth party who is from Saskatchewan and whose NDP
government has been very tight in supporting its farmers within
its own provincial boundaries. For him to sit back and criticize
the efforts we are putting in through the federal treasury to
support his farmers in Saskatchewan leaves much to be desired.
We are putting in $600 million every year in safety nets and
$900 million in the AIDA program. We are looking at adjustments
to that program so we can free up more money for the farmers. I
would say that we are coming through for the farmers of Canada.
That type of comment coming from a member from Saskatchewan
leaves a great deal to be desired.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
farmer in my riding sold 161 tonnes of malt barley and received
$20,330. That is pathetic to start with. However, he paid $699
for terminal cleaning. He paid $4,546 for freight. He paid
$2,026 for handling. He paid $64 for a malt barley levy. He
paid $146 for administration. Thirty-seven per cent of his cheque
was gone before he got it.
What is the government going to do about reducing input costs
and reducing these types of bills that farmers are paying?
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, everybody recognizes that
the reason we are in this jam right now and probably into the
next year or so, is the low commodity prices experienced
especially by the western grain farmer and people who export
agricultural products. That is something we have to face as a
country. It is not something that is faced just by the federal
government or by the producers, but it is also faced by the
provincial governments.
By working together we are addressing the situation. Through
our combined efforts we will be there for the farmer in his hour
of need.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House of Commons today
to discuss the farm crisis in western Canada and other parts of
the country. This country has a farm income crisis that is
unprecedented and has not been seen since the depression of the
1930s.
I represent an urban rural constituency. There are 37 rural
communities and a number of farm families who live in and between
those communities. They are having a very traumatic time with
respect to their industry, their livelihoods and their futures.
1755
I want to say a number of things today about what has transpired
and what may transpire in the future. I want to focus on the
priority of helping farm families and keeping our agricultural
way of life. I want to talk about that and the four reasons that
we are in this situation today. Everyone knows why we are in this
situation. I want to elaborate on a few of the reasons. There
are four major reasons.
One is that the commodity prices are in the dumpers. They are
way, way below prices that we have ever seen before. Today
farmers are getting for grain what farmers got in the 1930s, the
same dollar, not the same dollar value. That is a very serious
situation.
Two, we have seen a huge reduction in subsidies and supports for
farmers while other countries have maintained their supports.
Three, we have seen large increases in huge input costs over the
last two or three years. They have gone unfettered in terms of
taking away farmers' potential earnings and so on.
Of course, the fourth reason is natural disasters. There have
been a lot of natural disasters. We will get to all of them, but
I want to talk first about the crisis.
It is my view and the view of the farmers in western Canada that
the Liberal government has abandoned western prairie farmers.
There used to be the Crow benefit, a transportation subsidy. It
was provided to our western farmers in perpetuity by law because
of the $14 billion to $20 billion in assets that we gave the
railway companies to provide that Crow benefit.
What have we seen over the years? Successive Liberal and
Conservative governments have allowed the railways to spin off
all those assets, the mining companies, land companies and all
the other assets that were given to them to subsidize some of
that grain transportation. Governments have encouraged them to
spin these companies off. They have left the railway companies
all by themselves trying to make a profit on the farmers' backs.
On top of that governments have deregulated the railway industry
to a degree where they have allowed the railways to do whatever
they want concerning branch lines. They have abandoned branch
lines all over the place.
The government is abandoning its obligation to support western
agriculture after successive governments have allowed billions
and billions of dollars to be sucked out of the western
agricultural industry.
Four years and four months ago I was at the Council of Europe in
Strasbourg, France. I went there as a delegate of this
parliament. For members who do not know, all the European
countries meet four times a year. Their members of parliament go
there to talk about issues which are common to their countries
and common to the world, actually.
I went to the agriculture committee. I asked the members of
that committee in Strasbourg, France what they would be doing
with their subsidies for agriculture. At the time the Liberals
said that WTO makes it mandatory and we have to eliminate our
subsidies for farmers. That is what farmers were told. The
Liberals eliminated the transportation subsidy. Those farmers
from Europe told me “We will not reduce our subsidies for
farmers. We have five years to address the subsidy issue for our
farmers. If you think for one moment we would sacrifice our
farmers for the U.S.A., you are gravely mistaken”. That is what
they told me. It is in their Hansard.
Here we are four years and four months later, the only
government out of the 38 members of the Council of Europe, the
U.S.A. and Canada that has abandoned its farmers. The only
country is Canada, the best place in the world in which to live,
for everybody except farmers.
Here we have one of the major reasons for the crisis out west.
There has been nothing in terms of supporting that.
The second reason is the drop in commodity prices. Commodity
prices are dropping because every other country has received
subsidies. My colleague from Palliser spoke this morning about
the subsidies. The Americans have committed $23 billion to their
farmers plus another $13 billion, for a total of $36 billion to
the American farmers. That is supporting their farmers.
Are our Liberal ministers going to the states saying “This is
GATTable. This is against the WTO. This is terrible”. Not a
peep, and on top of that not a dollar for western grain farmers.
The Liberals talk about the AIDA program and the $900 million
they are giving. Everybody got it, except Manitoba and
Saskatchewan farmers and some Alberta farmers as well.
1800
When I was in Strasbourg, France, four years ago talking to the
farm oriented members of parliament for Europe, they told me that
their subsidies were in the vicinity of 55 cents to 60 cents on
the dollar. Ours with the Crow benefit was 19 cents, and the
Americans at that time were at about 42 cents.
Now we are getting six cents on the dollar for every dollar
farmers earn and the Europeans are getting 56 cents, almost 10
times more than Canadians, and the Americans are getting six
times more at 38 cents on the dollar. Is this how our government
has negotiated?
My colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys made a
speech in the House not long ago when he showed Canadians the
negotiating position of the Liberals. He was on his knees for
most of the speech because he was talking about the Liberal
negotiating position.
We have seen a betrayal in terms of the loss of subsidies to our
farmers. It is totally unacceptable.
One farmer told me that in this current world of the Liberal
agricultural policy he feels like a kamikaze pilot with a two
ship quota. That is what all western farmers are feeling right
now because of the ineptitude, the betrayal and the purposeful
abandonment.
For the first time since the 1930s we have seen the Liberals
encourage farmers to demonstrate and to protest how they have
been treated by the federal government. They are demonstrating
across western Canada.
My fear, and farmers tell me this, is that if continued betrayal
happens we will not have demonstrations, I fear there might be
violence. I do not want to see that. I tell my farmers not to
do that. I do not know what they will do until they get some
support from the government.
What do farmers get for their commodities? When we go to the
grocery store and buy a $4.50 box of shredded wheat, farmers get
less than four cents out of the $4.50. Where does the money go?
It does not go to farmers. That is part of their problem.
The third reason we are in this pickle is because of increasing
input costs. There is a fuel tax on diesel fuel for farmers.
The federal government takes about 12 cents a litre on that tax
and it does not spend a dime on roads or transportation in
western Canada.
My advice to the government is that when it is looking at how it
deals with western farmers maybe it should put some of the fuel
tax into an agricultural support program.
We have seen transportation costs skyrocket. I talked the other
day to a farmer near Craik in my constituency. He sent three
carloads of barley to the marketplace. One carload of the three
was for his transportation costs. Now we have serfs in our
country working for the railway and grain companies. All the
farmers want to do is make a living for their families. They are
prepared to pay their fair share, but they want some respect and
dignity from the government opposite.
We have seen fertilizer, chemical and pesticide costs increase.
Taxes on those should be reduced or eliminated for our farmers.
The most incredible increase in costs has been the downloading
of equalization payments and moneys to the provinces in health
care and education. They have been downloaded directly to the
farmers. They have to pay higher costs for education and health
care from their properties, businesses and family farms because
the government was, in the words of the minister, continuing to
defend the interests of farmers. With friends like that we do
not need any enemies in western Canada.
The farm crisis is totally invisible to Ottawa. The throne
speech did not have one reference to the farm crisis. We are
hoping that there are some people opposite who are prepared to
support our rural farmers.
The fourth reason we are in this pickle is because of natural
disasters. We have seen floods, frost, drought, hail and
pestilence, but the greatest natural disaster has been the
Liberal government opposite. It does not seem to understand how
to put an agricultural emergency program together.
Some 13 months ago I raised the question of assistance for
farmers in the House of Commons. We called for an emergency
debate. The government opposite turned it down. About 18 months
ago my colleague from Palliser, our agricultural spokesperson,
raised questions in the House about the impending crisis. It
fell on deaf ears because the Liberals were too busy doing other
things.
We see a Liberal government opposite which does not have an
understanding of what agriculture is all about.
1805
I was at the airport the other day when a cabinet minister came
up to me and said “What is it you have in your hand?” I said
“What do you think it is?” He said “Is it rice?” I said
“No, it is grain. It is wheat”. He did not understand what
wheat was. I found that quite incredible.
We need an agricultural program like AIDA which has to start
covering negative margins. It has to start covering a longer
term, not just three years but over five years. The government
would be well advised to take the advice of the farmers out west
who say if we are going to have an emergency agriculture disaster
assistance program, then maybe it should help agriculture
producers directly.
We have seen in Saskatchewan and Manitoba that less than half of
the farmers are qualifying for AIDA. I had a call from a farmer
just last week who was in tears because he has had a negative
income for the past two years. He received a call from AIDA in
Winnipeg saying “We can't give you any money because you don't
qualify”. He told me that he will be finished by next spring.
Unless he receives emergency aid his farm will be gone.
That is one of hundreds of farmers with whom I spoke over this
last summer. These farmers are desperate. Their eyes are gaunt.
They look like they have been abandoned by the federal
government. All they want is an opportunity to play on a level
playing field in order to produce a product which is necessary in
this world, food. That is all they ask. They do not want to be
subsidized all the time. They want to have a fair, level playing
field.
We have a government that does not seem to get it. Instead it
sends Mr. Kroeger around, who says that what we should do is take
the cap off the transportation of grain. We have already seen
transportation costs triple since the Crow benefit was
eliminated. The government, in the words of the parliamentary
secretary to the minister of agriculture, continues to defend the
interests of farmers in international trade negotiations.
The government is really doing a great job. Railroads are
expanding in the United States and we are helping them. We have
two railroads in this country, one that we paid for but never
owned and one that we used to own but never paid for. Now we
have two railroads that we have paid for in both ways and someone
else owns them and they are expanding everywhere. When I asked
the railroads if they would give the farmers a break on their
transportation costs because they are making all of this money,
they said “Maybe, but maybe not”. Now the government is asking
for the freight rate cap to be taken off.
The NDP is the only party in the House of Commons, and in this
country, which supports the retention of the cap on freight
rates. There should actually be a rollback to make farming more
affordable for these people.
We have three kinds of farmers in Saskatchewan. One-third of
them are making it year by year. If they have a bad year they
might make it to the second year with certain supports. For the
middle third, if they have a couple of bad years in a row they
can still make a go of it. The other third does not have any
land or equipment debt. That is the structure of the
agricultural community in Saskatchewan.
What is tearing at my heartstrings and what I am pleading with
the government to listen to is that I am talking to more and more
farmers in that top third who have no land debt and no capital
debt who are telling me they may farm one more year and then they
will be gone because they now have to borrow on about one-third
of their property assets to put in the grain next spring. They
have to buy fertilizers and other inputs. They are going
backwards.
If the top third are in jeopardy, or contemplating leaving, what
is happening with the other two-thirds?
I am told by many sources that up to half of our farmers in
Saskatchewan alone, in Manitoba and probably Alberta as well, may
be out of business in the next 12 months if something is not
forthcoming that is fair to them in this competitive world.
I talked to members of the co-op boards. This does not only
concern farmers. We know that the Liberals wanted to restructure
agriculture. When the member for Wascana, the Liberal natural
resources minister, was parliamentary secretary to Otto Lang from
1974 to 1979, he and Otto Lang tried to get rid of the Crow
benefit. The member for Wascana, who was re-elected, came back
and did it himself single-handedly, thanks to the good training
of Otto Lang. The only party that opposed that move was the NDP
in the House of Commons.
1810
Here, unfortunately, four years and five months later we are
saying that it has been a disaster, as we said it would be. We
are asking the government to reconsider that approach and to help
our farmers as soon as possible.
I spoke to a farmer near Govan, Saskatchewan. He has 10
quarters of land that he has been farming for 30 years. There is
no debt on the land. His equipment is paid for. His children
have moved away from the farm. He told me that he may have one
more year left to farm and then he is out of it. That is a very
serious situation.
If the Liberals are not listening to these points, I have one
more they should pay attention to. A former federal Liberal
candidate in the 1984 election who farms in my district said to
me that last July or August he sent in his Liberal Party
membership card. He was a colleague of government members. He
ran with them shoulder to shoulder in an election campaign in the
past. He is a farmer and he is saying that he is sick and tired
of the Liberals. They have abandoned, betrayed and butchered
farmers and he is done. He is no longer a Liberal card carrier.
He sent his Liberal membership back to a cabinet minister.
There are some very serious situations. I do not know if the
dramatic situations that farmers are talking about will
materialize. However, in local newspapers, such as the
Davidson Leader, which is a newspaper in my constituency
and in that of one of my colleagues in the Reform Party, the
headlines say that the minister of agriculture should resign.
The Davidson Leader is a very important newspaper in the
rural community that I represent.
Mr. Dick Proctor: It is almost as big as the Moosomin
World-Spectator.
Mr. John Solomon: It is almost as big as the Moosomin
World-Spectator. It is probably bigger than that.
There are some very serious implications. I said earlier that
it is not just the farmers who are hurting. Let us look at the
spinoffs. Just imagine if half of the farmers are out of
business in the next 12 months in western Canada. What will
happen to the co-operatives, the credit union boards and those
businesses? What will happen to the hairdressing salons, the
cafes, the gas stations and all of these other businesses and
small businesses in the communities? The A & W in Davidson, for
example. I guess that is going to be gone. There are all kinds
of important implications to this.
When that happens, the tax base is lost and, voilà, we end up
with no transportation system at all, or one that is crumbling
faster than it is now. We end up with an education system that
is at risk and potentially will not withstand the upcoming
disaster. We will see our health care system totally collapse in
rural districts. It was a way of life that many people preferred
to choose.
I have letters from all kinds of people. A few are from
children who are in school. They are students in grades 7 and 8.
A student from Creelman, Saskatchewan wrote to the Minister of
Finance, saying:
Farmers need financial assistance soon or many will go bankrupt.
Without farming many other people in agriculture related jobs
will also be without work. Rural Saskatchewan as we know it will
not exist. Please help our farmers. In doing so you will be
saving our province.
I have letter from another student. He talks about being a
fourth generation farmer.
The possibility of me farming is very slim. Both my parents work
off the farm and have rented their land out.
The purpose of my letter is to discuss the farming situation in
western Canada. I live in southeast Saskatchewan. In the past
four years, our family has had poor crops, poor prices, and
escalating costs of machinery, fertilizer, chemicals, and fuel.
Every cent they had went into the farm.
Here we have a young generation that will not be farming because
of these agricultural policies initiated by the government
opposite.
Companies such as Flexi-Coil, which used to employ 1,800, is now
employing 350 or thereabouts.
What do we need? Farmers need immediate cash. In Saskatchewan
alone the number is at least $1 billion.
Second, we need stronger representation at the WTO to have other
countries reduce their subsidies in the longer term.
Third, we need tax cuts on fuel, fertilizer and chemicals. We
need to address those sorts of taxes.
Fourth, we need to cap the freight rate on our transportation
system for grain.
Finally, we need a fully financed AIDA program which will be
there as a whole farm income plan in the event of future
disasters.
1815
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his comments on the issue. I know he is from
Saskatchewan and cares deeply for the farming community there.
However, I am somewhat surprised by his comments. I would hope
he might pass his comments on to those in his party who developed
the campaign promises. As he knows in the last election, out of
the $17.6 billion in new campaign promises only $11 million went
to agriculture. I might suggest that he pass that on.
I have a question for him regarding international trade. He
said that one of the problems that is creating this crisis is the
fact that somehow we have not stood up to the Americans or the
Europeans in terms of subsidies. Is it not his party's position
that we should pull out of the WTO? Is it not also his party's
position that we should not be negotiating at all when it comes
to Seattle?
I wonder how he expects us to put forward a strong position on
these issues if we are not part of the World Trade Organization
or if we were not in a position, with meetings like Seattle,
where we can pull together different countries from around the
world that have a similar position to ours. I would think it
would be in Canada's interest, given the size of the country, to
be able to draw together certain groups of countries to put
forward a strong position on these very issues. I wonder if the
hon. member agrees with this.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary
secretary dealt with two issues, the first being that the New
Democratic Party has had a very strong agricultural program in
every election since, as I can recall, 1952. We have program
cards. I was looking at one the other day that was from the 1953
or 1954 federal election. In every campaign since 1953 or 1954,
we have supported the Canadian Wheat Board and have said that we
would fight to retain the Crow benefit. That has been in every
one of our policies including our policy of the last election.
However, the Crow benefit is gone.
In response to his second question, yes, we do believe the WTO
is an important organization for our country and all countries,
but the problem we have had is not with the hon. member opposite
but with his colleagues before him who were trade ministers and
gave away the farm. They had no strength with which to
negotiate. They said that 20% was a good idea but that they were
going to do 100% because they were good. And they were good,
really good. They were so good that they have sacrificed half of
our farm population in western Canada, and that is bad.
What we are looking at here is an organization that does have
opportunities for us. We have to go to Seattle and try to get
the subsidies on agriculture readjusted so they are more fair. In
the interim until that happens, because it will not happen
overnight and will probably take years, I would suggest to the
parliamentary secretary that he stand with us and with the
farmers. The member represents a rural constituency and he knows
the importance of these sorts of programs. He should stand with
us and help our farmers out west to get what they need to survive
at least another year. It is certainly what they deserve.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments.
The NDP member would have a lot more credibility if his
government in Saskatchewan took agriculture a lot more seriously
and supported the farmers. That is one of the real problems we
have when we come to Ottawa. Many people here ask us what the
provincial government is doing and we have to say “very, very
little”. That is one of the key problems.
I do not want this to be too partisan, but I want to make some
points here. When the member pointed out some of the problems in
Saskatchewan he failed to mention that the provincial government
there has taxed farmers to death. We complain about federal
taxes but the taxes in the province are just as bad. For
example, the member talked a lot about the high cost of fuel. It
gets a lot of headlines back in the province. However, he failed
to mention that the provincial fuel tax is the highest in the
country.
Why not reduce that? There is no reason he cannot put some
pressure on his friends in the provincial government in
Saskatchewan to do that.
1820
The Province of Saskatchewan also makes huge profits off farmers
through its crown corporations. The natural gas is all handled
by a crown corporation and farmers have to pay the taxes on that
natural gas. The electrical power is supplied by a crown
corporation. It is making huge profits. The telephone company
is a crown corporation making huge profits, in fact, expanding
around the world. The member complains about what is happening.
This has to be rectified and the member should begin to address
the problem.
We can talk about property taxes and the downloading of all the
education costs on farmers through those property taxes. I could
talk about transportation costs: $50 million every year because
the Government of Saskatchewan failed to put pressure on the
restructuring of the railroads. It did virtually nothing on
that.
Those are four areas where nothing was done and farmers are now
paying the costs because of the mismanagement back in the
province of the NDP. I think the member should answer some of
those questions.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to
answer questions about the provincial government in Saskatchewan,
although this is not the correct forum.
The member raises a number of issues. He talks about
credibility. I have some little quotes by him and other
colleagues of his in the House of Commons from various policy
books about how the Reform Party wants to eliminate the
agriculture subsidies faster, harder and quicker so that there is
not even the six cents on every dollar the farmers are receiving
now. Reform wants them to have nothing, not just six cents.
What Reformers are looking for in this forum are tax cuts
because it is the honourable thing to do. They talked about
their priorities. They are so busy cashing CNR and CPR dividend
cheques that they do not have the interests of the farmers at
heart.
There are some tax situations in Saskatchewan that are higher
than most. I remind the Reform member that it was his coalition
of Reformers, Liberals and Tories who bankrupted Saskatchewan in
the first place. They were elected in 1982. They took a
province that did not have one dime of debt and $2 billion in
heritage funds, and in nine years put the Saskatchewan government
$16 billion in debt for one million people. Now they are saying
there are high taxes. They should be embarrassed and ashamed of
themselves. They are the ones who put the people of Saskatchewan
in this pickle, along with their colleagues across the way.
Let us talk about credibility. The member for Yorkton—Melville
says that Saskatchewan has the highest fuel tax in the country.
He is not only incorrect, he is wrong. Saskatchewan actually has
the fifth lowest tax regime on fuel which should be directed more
into the agriculture situation. Out of the 15 cents a litre that
is collected in Saskatchewan on gasoline, about 80% goes back
into the transportation programs such as highways and roads.
Maybe it should use the whole 100%, as I have advocated here that
the federal gas tax should be used 100% on rural transportation
in rural Canada, not just in western Canada.
I want to point out for the record that it was their government
that gave away the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan in 1980
which provided $100 million a year in revenues to the Province of
Saskatchewan. That was for potash that was sold outside the
province. There was new American and foreign money coming in
with high wages, high production and great revenues, plus another
$150 million a year profit that it was making. They gave that
all away. Guess what? Jobs were lost and the debt increased.
They left the debt with the taxpayers and gave away all the
assets.
We now have Chuck Childers, the now retired president of the
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, going around the country
saying what a great success this privatized corporation is. There
are no more revenues going to the province. His salary is paid
in U.S. dollars. He will not take Canadian dollars. He hired
American vice-presidents to work with him and they are getting
paid in U.S. dollars. I am not saying that is good or bad, I am
just outlining this as fact. That is the way it is now under a
Reform kind of crown corporation system.
I think the people of Saskatchewan would look at that in a very
negative way. They did not support this in 1991 or 1995. I do
not think they support it now.
1825
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I would like the hon. member to table the document he was
referring to with regard to the tax on fuel in Saskatchewan being
lower than in other provinces.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to
provide the member with that information. Reading might give him
a new dimension in terms of the facts. The Canadian Petroleum
Products Institute provides this information which shows all the
provinces across the country. Saskatchewan is about the fifth
lowest when one considers all those that have gasoline taxes. I
think it is very important for a member like him to start reading
some of this.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments
has expired. Resuming debate.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I requested the
tabling of a document.
The Deputy Speaker: The difficulty is the hon. member
cannot table the document unless he gets unanimous consent in the
House because he is not a cabinet minister. He has offered to
give the hon. member a copy and I think that is probably the best
he can do under the circumstances. That is why I did not pursue
the matter.
Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Since this is a non-votable motion, there is no question to be
put. Therefore, I ask that we see the clock as 6:30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we call it 6:30
o'clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 o'clock, it is my duty
to inform the House that the proceedings on the motion have
expired.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, again I rise in the House in the
late show to discuss the crisis that is happening in the Atlantic
fishery.
The other day the government appointed Mr. Mackenzie as a
federal mediator to go down to Nova Scotia to discuss the
situation between non-native and native fishermen after the
Marshall decision of September 17.
Unfortunately the representative down there now has absolutely
no trust in the people he is talking with. He even admits that
he knows absolutely nothing about the fishery. Why would the
federal government send someone down to Nova Scotia to discuss
the fisheries crisis when the individual in question knows
nothing about the fishery?
Another thing we found out today is that since the Marshall
decision has come out, besides the chaos and uncertainty this has
created in everyone's lives in the maritime region, on March 8 of
this year the Mi'kmaq nation came to Ottawa to discuss the
proposed Marshall decision with the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans and the minister at that time.
They came here to give the government advance warning that if
the supreme court was going to rule in favour of the aboriginal
people, they would like to give the government enough time to
come up with a short term plan to initiate the transfer of
getting the aboriginal people into the fishery. They came here
and the government basically told them to go away.
The government did not want to talk to them because it was going
to wait for the Marshall decision. That means the government did
not want to plan ahead. It did not want to discuss the future or
the possible crisis that may happen as a result of the Marshall
decision. The government told the Mi'kmaq people who came here
in good faith to go away.
This is typical of the government and past Conservative
governments. They have consistently told aboriginal people who
have had legitimate concerns across the country to go away, to
pound sand, to take their case to court.
Three straight court decisions from the supreme court have ruled
in favour of the aboriginal people. Every single time, the past
governments and this current government have stood there like a
deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck. The
government really does not know what to do.
Meanwhile the livelihoods of thousands and thousands of people
and their communities, their children are at stake. The resource
itself is at stake. This government just stands around and says,
“Go away, we do not want to talk to you”. Now it is scrambling
around. This party has offered the government sound advice.
Other parties have given the government advice as well which it
has completely ignored.
1830
It is ironic to notice that the previous minister who is now the
environment minister must have known the decision was coming
down. If the DFO was the stock exchange we could almost accuse
him of insider trading because he left the portfolio fairly
quickly and went into another one.
Now we have a brand new minister who readily admits that he does
not know much about the Mi'kmaq people. He does not know much
about fisheries as the head of one of the most volatile
departments. I call it one of the most out of control
departments in Ottawa. It has cost us billions of dollars in
TAGS adjustments. The stock itself is in chaos. The auditor
general said last April that the DFO and the government were
managing the shellfish industry in the same manner that they
managed the groundfish industry: right into the ground.
My question for the hon. parliamentary secretary is quite
simple. Why did the government shut the door on the Mi'kmaq
people on March 8 and in the ensuing weeks when they tried to
initiate their conversations? What will it do to resolve the
situation immediately?
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member
for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore on behalf of
the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
concerning the federal response to the Marshall decision on
fishing and treaty rights.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has already spent two days
in the maritimes meeting with aboriginal leaders, with commercial
fishers and with his provincial counterparts. Both ministers met
on October 18 with the executive of the Atlantic Policy Congress
which represents all the Atlantic chiefs to discuss issues
arising from the Marshall decision.
All parties at that meeting agreed that a made in Atlantic
solution is required and that the fishing issue should be given
first priority. They also began to consider a process for
dealing with the broader impact of the Marshall decision.
On October 27 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development will meet with the Atlantic chiefs in Cape Breton to
continue the discussion launched last week. In addition, the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development consulted
with the ministers responsible for aboriginal affairs in the
maritime provinces on October 21. DIAND staff is actively
involved in reviewing the Marshall decision, its implication for
first nations and its implication for all people in the
maritimes.
Two additional steps have also been taken. First, the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans has been designed as the lead federal
minister on the immediate issue relating to fisheries while the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will lead on
the broader resource issue relating to the 1760 treaty and other
historic maritime treaties.
Second, the government has appointed a respected Nova Scotia
lawyer, Mr. James Mackenzie, to serve as the federal
representative in discussions arising from the Marshall decision
both on fisheries issues and on the longer term implications of
the court ruling on aboriginal access to resources. Mr.
Mackenzie began meeting with east coast chiefs and with
non-aboriginal fishers last week.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are both actively working with
aboriginal leaders, with the provinces and with other
stakeholders. We intend to continue working co-operatively with
all parties to reach a constructive solution.
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if
Canadians were asked if they believe that housing is a basic
human right they would answer with a resounding yes. Most
everyone understands that without the basic provision of safe,
secure, affordable housing it is pretty hard to make anything
else in one's life work.
Most everyone gets that fundamental point but apparently not the
Liberal government. Despite the Golden report, the report of the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Housing and
Renewal Association, my own report from my travels across Canada
this winter, the report of the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee,
CMHC itself, and so on, we are still living with the terrible
record of being the only industrialized country without a
national housing strategy.
I asked myself how could this be when in 1990 the Minister of
Finance, then in opposition, decried the fact that poverty and
homelessness existed in Canada. “It is reprehensible in a
country as rich as Canada”, he said. How can it be that we
still have a housing disaster in Canada today when a minister of
homelessness was appointed in March of this year? How can a
country as wealthy as Canada be condemned by the UN for its
appalling record on homelessness, particularly for aboriginal
people?
These shameful conditions exist not because of the fault of
individual people who are without housing or are homeless but
because of deliberate, conscious public policy by design that has
created a housing crisis.
1835
Let us make no mistake. What we see today on our streets, in
the waiting lists for co-op housing and in every community where
housing is threatened is a direct result of a terrible decision
made by the government in 1993 to dump housing and end
construction of social and co-op housing. We are living the
consequences today of the decision made in 1993 to abandon social
housing. I implore the federal government to look at what is
going on today.
The minister responsible for homelessness and I were at an
Ottawa luncheon that launched an instant food hot pack and a
corporate sponsorship drive for the Ottawa Food Bank. The Ottawa
Food Bank needs all the help it can get, but the people forced to
rely on charity in this wealthy country need real solutions, not
band aids or hot packs.
My caucus has strongly supported the 1% solution for housing
advocated by the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee and now
supported by organizations across the country. We in the NDP
have made very clear and will continue to demand that the federal
government take responsibility for housing.
Housing Canadians is important. We want to see a national
housing strategy. We want to see the 1% solution. I have a
motion coming before the House that is soon to be debated and
speaks to this matter precisely. I urge the government to do the
right thing, to show responsibility, to work with the provinces
and to implement a national housing strategy so that no man, no
woman, no child or family is lacking this basic human need. Will
the government do that?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is
concerned about the growing number of homeless people in
communities across the country, the increasing number of
children, youth and families struggling to survive day to day.
Municipalities across Canada have produced countless reports
that identify problems, that articulate the root causes and seek
solutions. Municipalities are concerned. In addition, community
groups from across the country are coming together to discuss
their approaches and share successes.
Earlier this year the Prime Minister asked the Minister of
Labour to co-ordinate the activities of the Government of Canada
related to homelessness, to bring together the information from
these reports and to tabulate the documentation received from
community groups.
Communities, municipalities and provinces have an important
contribution to make and must understand that they need to be
prepared to share in the responsibility for addressing the issue.
We all need to be part of the solution.
The Minister of Labour spent the summer travelling to over 20
communities from Vancouver to Halifax and spoke directly to
Canadians who are homeless, to Canadians who work and volunteer
their time to help the homeless, to businesses that are
concerned, and to mayors and councils that are committed to
eliminating homelessness in their communities. The minister is
compiling what she heard from the communities and from the many
reports that have been prepared by the municipalities. She will
be the voice for those recommendations in Ottawa.
Over the past few months we have made progress. The Minister of
Public Works and Government Services was able to augment the $300
million over five year RRAP program by $50 million, some of which
was targeted directly to homeless shelters.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has identified funds
under her department to address the needs of the homeless and to
work toward eradicating the root causes and leading to
prevention.
The network of federal facilities in cities across Canada will
initiate and co-ordinate a partnership process with provincial
and municipal governments as well as with the voluntary and
private sectors.
We recognize that the bottom line comes to partnership.
Homelessness must be a priority for all levels of government
working in partnership with the private and non-profit sectors.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been passed. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.39 p.m.)