TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thursday, April 28, 1994
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3609
Bill C-242. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 3610
Bill C-243. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 3611
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3617
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 3636
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 3644
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3648
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3648
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3648
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3650
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3650
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3654
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3655
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 3655
Consideration resumed of motion 3656
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3674
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 3680
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 3686
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 3689
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 3690
3609
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 28, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to three petitions.
* * *
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, on this national day of
mourning, I offer my deepest sympathy to Canadian workers.
We all remember friends, relatives or colleagues who died,
were injured or handicapped for life as a result of work
accidents.
[English]
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to say
that from year to year workplace safety and health have been
improving and that prevention measures have been
implemented with a high level of success. Unfortunately this is
not so.
In 1992 for example, more than 700 workers lost their lives as
a result of work accidents. Although the fatality rate generally
has declined over the past decade all the parties involved, the
workers, employers, unions and regulatory bodies, clearly have
to improve and take more seriously the question of workplace
safety so they begin to make a difference to all those who have
lost friends, relatives and family members to workplace
accidents.
Investing in safety and health is investing in people and in
prosperity and also avoidance of unnecessary tragedies. I am
very hopeful that step by step we can continue to enhance
regulations at the federal and provincial levels to increase
compliance and to improve our performance in protecting
Canadian workers.
To that effect, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health
and Safety located in Hamilton provides a very important
service of information, support and resources in protecting
employees and giving important knowledge to employers about
workplace safety.
[Translation]
I recently visited the centre, and took that opportunity to
announce that my government was giving the centre $100,000 to
help it maintain its toll free emergency phone service.
[English]
This very important service ensures that there is one central
place where individuals, employees and employers can phone in
to get up to date information. It would be my hope in the future
to continue to enhance and augment the role of the centre. I
believe it is one of the most important institutions in workplace
safety in the country.
I would also like to point out to members that occupational
health and safety is a broad international concern. When signing
the NAFTA labour agreement the three countries, Mexico,
United States and our own agreed that this would be the priority
issue. We have established as a result of that meeting a series of
major conferences on workplace safety, the first beginning in
Canada this summer.
We can now use the labour agreement under NAFTA as a
venue and a means by which we can both improve knowledge
and even aid those other countries by sharing information, by
sharing knowledge and looking at measures in key industries
like the oil and gas industry, engineering and others so that we
can begin to provide in a co-operative fashion mutual activities.
I am sure that all members join me in remembering those who
have paid the ultimate price in the workplace. I trust that they
will encourage their constituents to be more vigilant about
occupational health and safety. We can drastically reduce the
pain and suffering caused by accidents to the victims, their
families and friends if we all are more caring, more vigilant and
more concerned.
3610
(1010)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, according
to the Canadian Labour Congress bulletin on health and safety in
the work place, one thousand workers die annually as a result of
accidents in the work place, and another million are injured,
while thousands more die of diseases caused by toxic substances
used in the work place or as a result of various other problems in
their job environment.
The Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition, wishes to join in
this national and international day of mourning in honour of
those men and women who died on the job or as a result of an
accident or a disease contracted in the work place.
Speaking on behalf the Official Opposition, I must point out
that although the actual number of accidents has declined, the
situation is far from ideal. In fact, many job related diseases
have not yet been recognized as such and are therefore not
included in these figures.
It is also true that the work place is changing, and as we have
seen in the past, each new generation of technologies brings
with it new diseases and accidents. The same is true today.
Unfortunately, unlike other periods before the second world
war, the labour movement is not on the rise and is experiencing
difficulties in certain areas and even receding in certain cases.
That is why governments have an even greater obligation not
only to improve legislation but also its implementation.
Because of the pressures of globalization, there is an
increasing tendency to fragment the work place and have jobs
done by companies whose labour practices are irresponsible.
This means that we as parliamentarians must remain alert. Only
political will and social commitment will be able to stop these
terrible and unacceptable effects of the job environment. We are
concerned about the problems of the unemployed, but we cannot
ignore those who, because of current pressures in the work
place, must work under conditions that may lead to loss of life or
loss of physical or mental well-being.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, politicians are well
known for sitting behind mounds of paper and bureaucracy
dispensing advice to others. Seldom do they step outside their
hallowed halls to feel the pain and also the joy of aching muscles
and blisters from a physical day of hard work.
In my view it would be far more appropriate today if we had a
framer, a mason, a steeplejack, a buggy operator, a labourer or a
roustabout to offer a tribute in these halls.
I personally recall a powerful young mechanic severely
injured by a propane blast that took his sight in one searing
instant, leaving him disfigured and blind, his years of training
made useless, his life's experiences suddenly only memories,
his world a shambles.
Cliff and his wife never complain. In fact they are happy to
have one another's love and support. Occupational health and
safety are important. To Cliff and all his injured colleagues I
dedicate this national day of mourning. To those less fortunate I
offer a simple prayer.
* * *
(1015)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts. According to the committee, discussions on
the debt and the deficits should not happen only during
prebudget consultations but should be an ongoing process. The
committee suggests that all members of Parliament use, among
other things, the indicators proposed in this report to explain
more readily to their constituents Canada's financial and
economic situation.
The report tabled today reflects the basic consensus of the
committee and the dissenting opinion of the members for
Joliette and Chicoutimi concerning the addition to the report of
a series of prospective economic indicators.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee is asking the government to table a comprehensive
response to the report.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River) moved for
leave to introduce bill C-242, an act to amend the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code and the Young
Offenders Act (improvement to public safety).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to
reintroduce into this House this bill which amends the Criminal
Code, the Young Offenders Act and the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act.
The bill will close a significant loophole in sentencing laws. It
will lower the age of application of the Young Offenders Act. It
will outlaw so-called crack houses and other locations involved
in the trafficking of drugs. It will provide for stiffer bail
procedures. It will deny statutory release to repeat serious
offenders and will allow for the benefit of victims judicially
ordered blood tests for those accused of sexual assaults and
rape.
3611
I want to acknowledge the support and collaboration of other
colleagues in this and the previous Parliament and the assistance
of various victims groups throughout the country which
participated and collaborated in the construction of this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-243, an Act to amend the Department
of Labour Act (eligibility for assistance for long-service
employees).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mercier for
seconding the motion for introduction of this bill which seeks to
amend the Program for Older Workers Adjustment.
The private member's bill I have the pleasure to introduce
today in this House seeks to correct a terrible inequity toward
Montreal workers and all workers from a community having
more that 500,000 inhabitants. A laid off Montreal worker is
eligible to the Program for Older Workers Adjustment only if
the company laid off more than 100 workers in a single group.
But it so happens that, in Montreal, the industrial make-up is
such that the vast majority of companies employ 20 to 30
workers. As a consequence, 83 per cent of all applications under
the OWA program in Montreal have been rejected. This bill
seeks to change that situation. I hope it will be favourably
received by government members.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1020)
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind
as to call starred question No. 24.
[Text]
Question No. 24-Mr. Robinson:
Does the government intend to submit a brief to the International Court of
Justice in response to their request for briefs concerning the legality of the use
by a state of nuclear weapons in armed conflict? If so, what position will the
government take on this issue, if not, why not?
[
Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the answer be printed
in Hansard as if it had been read.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): The
government is considering this issue and will announce its
decision in due course.
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that the
remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the remaining
questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the
ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by
nine minutes.
_____________________________________________
3611
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est) moved:
That this House denounce the government's lack of action in the agricultural
sector, which is currently facing the most significant changes in thirty years.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague
from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for seconding this motion. I am
pleased to rise in this House for this motion:
That this House denounce the government's lack of action in the agricultural
sector, which is currently facing the most significant changes in thirty years.
I also ask all members of all parties present here to do the
same in condemning the government's inaction on agriculture.
A self-respecting society is one that recognizes the importance
of its agriculture. A country must first of all ensure that its
citizens have good food, hence the importance of stimulating
this crucial sector of our economy. Subject to the whims of
nature and buffeted by political decisions made here and
elsewhere, agriculture requires heavy investment, diversified
technical expertise and constant support from the government.
We cannot overemphasize that. Agriculture is a very
important industry in Canada. Agri-food accounts for nearly 8
per cent of the gross domestic product and almost 2 million jobs,
15 per cent of all employment in Canada. It produces some $64
billion of goods a year. Food processing industries alone gener-
3612
ate $38 billion, which is more than the automobile industry in
Canada, which generates about $30 billion.
In fact, every dollar of agricultural production generates
nearly $3 in economic benefits.
(1025)
Agriculture is, therefore, extremely important to Canada and
to Quebec. It plays a major role in our economy, serves as the
basis of our society and is an important component of our
national identity.
The 38,000 farms and 1,200 processing plants which make up
the agri-food industry inject roughly $3 billion into the
economy in the form of inputs, services and salaries. The
industry generates approximately 400,000 jobs, or 11 per cent of
the overall total, and accounts for $11 billion in shipments in the
manufacturing sector in Quebec.
This is nearly three times the shipments of the pulp and paper
sector. In fact, the agricultural and agri-food sector in Quebec is
much larger than the province's pulp and paper industry or even
the automobile industry.
Is it not time for our politicians and governments to pay more
serious attention to agriculture and to stop neglecting this sector
which provides a source of jobs and economic wealth?
What could account for this laxness and lack of action on the
part of the government? Because there is no question that
farmers are currently facing serious problems. With the
upheavals resulting from the GATT and the NAFTA, the
agricultural sector has undergone over the past few years some
of the biggest changes in 30 years.
No one denies that the GATT and the NAFTA have changed
the rules of the game in agriculture and it is hard to argue that in
the case of these agreements, the federal government was truly
successful in defending the interests of Canadian farmers.
The Canadian government lost out on GATT. First, because it
failed to maintain support for article XI and was unable to
cobble together a coalition of countries to defend its position
and ensure that article XI would be maintained. Not only did the
federal government fail to defend article XI of the GATT, which
provides for a highly equitable system for farmers and
consumers, it failed as well to gain a reasonable period of time
for farmers affected by article XI to adapt to changes in these
sectors.
The agri-food industry needs a reasonable period of time to
make the transition to a competitive world. However, the
government failed to win the industry enough time to make a
smooth transition to the new system.
By signing the GATT Agreement, the federal government is
subjecting the farmers of Quebec and Canada to time frames and
terms of change imposed from the outside, by their very
competitors.
In fact, the government's lack of action in the agricultural
sector has been obvious since the GATT Agreement was signed,
and in its trade negotiations with the United States in particular.
Not only did the federal government lose the battle for article
XI at GATT and give the farmers very little time to adjust, but
when it signed the GATT agreements on December 15 last, it did
not make sure our many trade disputes with our main trading
partner, the US, were settled.
Canada has since had to negotiate under pressure the
settlement of a large number of trade disputes in the agricultural
sector. Naturally, the United States has managed to drag Canada
into global negotiations of all issues pertaining to agriculture
instead of negotiating issues on the merits of each case.
In so doing, Canada had once again put itself in a position of
incredible weakness. The federal government's strategy is one
of damage control, a mainly defensive strategy. Our negotiators
keep complaining that the US is acting in bad faith.
Canada's position of inaction and passivity is also
exemplified by the fact it has accepted to negotiate a cap on
Canadian durum wheat exports to the United States.
(1030)
Given that Canada is doing nothing wrong under NAFTA, why
allow to be penalized with respect to durum wheat exports when
we know that the problems are on the American side?
There is a very long list of cases resulting from agreements
signed at GATT and from NAFTA in various agricultural areas
across the country which show how weak and soft this
government's administration of agriculture is. But we will have
the opportunity to discuss this in greater detail later on.
Canadian agriculture is faced with a serious problem, and the
government has not done anything to deal with it: that is the
considerable decline in the number of Canadian farms.
In Canada in the last 20 years the number of farms has fallen
by nearly 25 per cent or almost one-fourth. We lost close to
100,000 farms. This means that 170,000 men and women who
used to farm no longer earn a living as farmers. Even among
those who still farm, almost 40 per cent, and in some sectors
over 50 per cent, need a regular job elsewhere to survive as
farmers.
In other words, in Canada not only is the farming population
diminishing but it cannot even earn a decent living from farming
alone. Rural people need our support; rural communities are in
decline but everything we say on this subject seems to fall on
deaf ears. So far the government has not come up with any
proposal to improve rural communities and the fate of family
farms.
Our farmers are among the most sophisticated in the world in
several areas. Despite farmers' meagre income and reduced
numbers, average productivity has grown by 2.4 per cent a year
since 1981, which puts them in first place in Canada, far ahead
3613
of the manufacturing sector with a growth rate of only 1 per cent.
The excellent performance of farmers must be pointed out.
Canada comes first in the world for its capacity to feed its
citizens at the lowest cost. How would you like to live in
London, England, and spend 24 per cent of your salary on food
in Tokyo and spend 33 per cent or a third of your income to feed
your family, when Canadian consumers only spend 13 per cent
of their income on premium quality and surprisingly varied food
products? In spite of its problems and the lack of government
support, the agricultural sector does its job well.
We are losing our farmers at an alarming rate. Our
countryside is emptying and unemployment is going up. In
addition, farmers are getting older: 42 per cent of them are over
55 and they are hard to replace because farming requires an
enormous investment. Return on investment is low and working
conditions are hard and totally different from those experienced
by other workers in this country.
Who among us would be willing to start a business, invest half
a million and, in return, have to work 80 hours a week, as is
sometimes the case, without any vacation and for a salary which
only represents 80 per cent of the average income of the rest of
Canadians? The problem is not that there are no young people
willing to take over, it is that the current policy is conducive to
the dismantling of family farms.
(1035)
Right now a person who wants to transfer his farm to his child
must make great sacrifices. That person must be prepared to
accept a substantial reduction of the value of his farm, often on
the order of 50 per cent. In other words, it is the person who
worked hard for over 40 years, reinvesting all his earnings in the
farm to improve it and make it more efficient and profitable, and
who always deprived himself of all those little treats which
ordinary citizens take for granted-vacations, free evenings,
sleeping in, etc.-who must, when the time to retire comes,
sacrifice his pension fund to allow his offspring to take over the
family operation. Farmers should not have to subsidize the new
generation taking over. If we want an abundant and steady
supply of food items, the government must take its
responsibilities and initiate a farm transfer program. When will
the government do that?
The loss of a farm is a tragic event which accelerates the
deterioration of rural zones. We must put a stop to this terrible
pattern. We must do something to keep rural populations from
constantly decreasing. A healthy rural community is essential to
the well-being of our society. Losing a farm often means losing
a concession, a road, a post office, or a store. It can also lead to
the deterioration of our rural communities and massive loss in
investments, knowledge, money, training, expertise, research
and subsidies. Our rural communities are full of dynamic and
intelligent people who deserve better than what the government
is proposing. The time has come for our distinguished
colleagues opposite to introduce a rural policy that includes
farm transfers.
Besides worrying about who will take over from them,
farmers are concerned about their farm income which, as was
mentioned earlier, does not get them very far. How many of us
would be ready to spend our evenings, our weekends and our
holidays holding down a second job, because our boss does not
pay us a decent salary? In 1992-93, government subsidies
accounted for 42 per cent of the total net income of farmers. This
represents a significant decrease, since direct federal subsidies
dropped by $113 million in 1993. Things are getting better,
slowly but surely. However, these figures clearly indicate that
the government contribution is crucial to the survival of our
agricultural industry. Farmers need some support from the
government.
The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food has a budget of
some $3 billion, which represents less than 2 per cent of the
federal government budget. This is not a huge amount of money
when you consider the importance of this sector. Unfortunately,
the money is not always well spent. Take for instance,
agricultural research. In 1992-93, $300 million of taxpayers
money were spent in this area, which provides 3,000 jobs. At
first glance, this seems like a good investment. However, the
money may not have been spent efficiently.
The Auditor General said: ``The Department does not have in
place a system to monitor the use of the technologies it has
developed and transferred, with the exception of tracking the
usage of new seed varieties. Without an effective monitoring
system, it is not possible to determine how successful the
Department has been in improving the adoption of technology
by Canadian producers and processors''. Since 1986, the
department has known that until a responsibility framework has
been defined and implemented by means of fiscal systems and
performance evaluation mechanisms, it will be unable to
highlight effectively the connection between resources and
anticipated results on the one hand, and expenditures and actual
results on the other hand.
(1040)
Wasted money, ineffective research, much could be said on
the gathering of market information and the gathering and
compilation of statistical reports. It is incredible how
Agriculture Canada fails to meet farmers' needs. Information
does not always include conclusions, forecasts and data on
market opportunities, and I quote from the Auditor General:
``Dissemination of market information/intelligence is too slow
and fails to meet the industry's needs for timeliness''.
3614
Although rather small, Agriculture Canada's budget is not
managed effectively. The system has several deficiencies and it
is about time we do something about it. In 1994, there will be a
thorough review of the department's programs as a result of the
signing of the GATT and NAFTA agreements.
In the past, these programs were not well controlled. Again I
quote the Auditor General: ``Some key aspects of the
agreements, such as objectives, responsibilities, cost sharing
and accountability, are not clearly defined''.
So much money and effort has been spent to provide a service
that does not meet the producers' needs. There is waste also in
the duplication of programs, be it farm credit, food inspection,
income support, market development or marketing. These
duplications entail costs for the taxpayers, for such things as
staff, services or office space. The respective tasks of the federal
government and the provinces in trade exploration are poorly
defined. As for the information gathered by various
departments, when it is passed on to farmers, it is often too late
for them to take advantage of it.
There has been progress, of course, but there is still much
duplication between the federal and provincial levels, not only
in programs but also in data, as we can see in this blatant
example. According to Agriculture Canada data on hog exports,
the figure for 1992 was 72,000 for Eastern Canada; but
according to Statistics Canada, the figure for the same year and
the same region was 125,000, that is twice as much. This is at the
very least very bad data compiling, and it is very embarrassing
to see such nonsense.
The Chair is indicating that I have one minute left, but a
minute is not enough. It is unacceptable, all the more so since I
was getting to the core of the subject.
Beyond these many difficulties for farmers, the waste and the
many administrative duplications, there is something even
worse in the agricultural sector. There is a very serious inequity
problem in Canada between the west and Quebec, an inequity
that shows up in many ways and that has been going on for a long
time. There are numerous instances: milk, research, rural
diversification, transportation and GATT. For example-and to
sum up quickly since I do not have time to extrapolate-since
1980, the federal assistance share of the prairie provinces,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, has grown from 42 per
cent to 64 per cent of the federal budget, whereas financial
assistance for Quebec has decreased from 30 per cent to 10 per
cent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Since the hon. member
for Québec-Est is the first member to participate today in this
debate on a matter of great importance to the whole country, I
wonder if there would be unanimous consent to allow the
member to conclude his remarks so we can start off debate on the
right foot.
[English]
Would there be unanimous consent, seeing that the member
for Québec-Est is the lead speaker on this opposition day in this
very important debate on the subject of agriculture?
(1045)
[Translation]
I hope the member does not need more than two or three
minutes to conclude his remarks.
Mr. Marchand: I need five minutes, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Five minutes.
[English]
The member is asking for unanimous consent to extend his
intervention by five minutes. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: I thank all hon. members for their kindness.
I wanted to deal with the inequity of the situation in
agriculture because it lies at the heart of the problem, at least
from the Quebec viewpoint. There are numerous examples of
inequities between Quebec and western Canada.
Grain transportation is a case in point. Grain traffic on the St.
Lawrence seaway is constantly being eroded and diverted to
west coast ports. Since 1984, the volume of grain moved through
the seaway has been halved, dropping from million 12 to 6
million tonnes.
In 1993 the volume of goods shipped through the seaway was
32 million tonnes, a 50 per cent reduction compared with 15
years ago. Glen Stewart, the chairman of the St. Lawrence
seaway authority, says the Western Grain Transportation Act
encourages producers to ship their grain through Pacific coast
ports. That stands to reason since we have more buyers in the far
east, but why is it that millions of tonnes of grain shipped to
Africa and Europe also move through West coast ports and
Panama?
The dice are loaded because westbound grain shipments are
subsidized all the way to the Pacific coast whereas subsidies for
eastbound grain stop at the lakehead, which is still thousands of
kilometres from the Atlantic ocean. Would it not be normal that
such subsidies apply a mari usque ad mare, from coast to coast?
Why should western Canada get better treatment than eastern
Canada? Right from the beginning, Canadian agricultural
policies were developed mainly to meet the needs of western
grain producers and worked against the interests of farmers in
Quebec. To make up for the deficiencies of their policies and the
unfairness of federal transfers to Quebec, we Quebecers have
had to develop our own programs adapted to Quebec's realities.
3615
It goes without saying that this situation is very costly for
Quebec's taxpayers. The taxes paid by Quebecers for agriculture
have mostly benefited western farmers. As I already said, the
prairies' share of federal funds rose to 64 percent from 42 per
cent, while Quebec's share diminished from 30 per cent to 10 per
cent.
Of course the federal government spent money to help the
west diversify. In the last five years, hundreds of thousands of
dollars were spent to diversify western agriculture, while the
federal government never contributed anything to the
diversification of Quebec's agriculture.
There are a vast number of cases in which we can very clearly
see that the federal governement is less and less interested in
Quebec's agriculture. Maybe this is good for Quebec's
producers because they are very well organized. In fact, I
believe they will benefit in a big way from sovereignty.
This may be good but let us take the example of UHT milk
made in Quebec, a high quality product which held 40 per cent of
the market for this kind of product in Puerto Rico, where the
Americans tried to block Quebec exports of UHT milk and
succeeded. We are not selling any more UHT milk in Puerto
Rico. In this case, the federal governement did nothing to
protect this $40 million production. However, at the same time
in the beer dispute between Ontario and the USA the federal
government intervened very rapidly.
I mentioned diversification of agriculture, but there is another
example, the railways. In the west we maintain close to 25,000
kilometres of railway lines for the sake of national unity, while
we are abandoning thousands of kilometres of lines in the east,
particularly in Quebec.
(1050)
Here is another example. New Brunswick potato growers
know that their production is subsidized. Transportation for
their potatoes is subsidized at 50 per cent.
No other producers are subsidized at 50 p. 100 for the
transportation of their potatoes, so New Brunswick producers
can sell their potatoes in Quebec cheaper than Quebec
producers.
The same goes for Prince Edward Island, and there are more
examples like that one. It is as if the government wants to crush
Quebec. Once again poor negotiation strategies at the GATT
talks have contributed to scaring Canadian producers. We have
the feeling that the federal government does not want to protect
farmers, but rather create a very serious instability in quota
production. And here we have that crisis in the Ontario chicken
market where production is being considerably increased,
jeopardizing all quota production in Quebec.
I will conclude with these very brief words. I am convinced
that Quebec's farmers will be the first to benefit from Quebec's
sovereignty, because when Quebec recovers the money that it is
paying to the west to subsidize agriculture, that money will go
directly to the regions and toward social and economic
infrastructures, schools, education and services. That money
will reinforce Quebec's regions, promote agriculture and even
enlist Quebec into a democratization process, which is what we
wish for everybody.
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I did appreciate the hon. member's comments because I
come from a rural-urban riding mix as well and have a great
support for the agriculture sector, in particular dairy agriculture.
I remind the hon. member of two points that this government
has done. In the SEED program, which is summer employment
for students, a program that has just recently been introduced,
approximately one-quarter of my student applicants have
applied for jobs in the farm sector. I would challenge the hon.
member that the farm sector is still a vibrant sector in this
country, that our young people are returning to the farms and
that a nation that cannot feed itself is not a strong nation. I
believe Canada is going in the right direction.
The second point I would remind the hon. member of is that
with our budget in February of this year we retained the
$500,000 capital gains exemption for small business and farms.
Therefore farms could be passed on to the second generation or
provide a strength of security for the farm family in the older
days of their lives.
We have not done everything that we may, but we are going in
the direction to preserve the family farm and to maintain a
source of strong, excellent and healthy food supply for this
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the extra time
you gave me. I would now like to answer my colleague's
question.
[English]
Obviously Agriculture Canada has not done everything
wrong, I would not go as far as that. There are some things it has
done right. Certainly the $500,000 capital gains due to the
Minister of Finance is good, there is no doubt about it, and also
the encouragement for young people to return during the
summer months to work on the farm.
All sorts of things that Agriculture Canada does are worth
underlining, there is no doubt about it, but overall no, this
government is not going in the right direction for agriculture and
it shows. There are a great number of issues that could be
brought up.
3616
The loss of the number of family farms is an example. The
government is not doing anything to counteract this
development. I suspect that Agriculture Canada encourages
inefficient producing farms or family farms and is in agreement
with the American attitude in respect to agriculture. That is to
say it encourages well integrated systems, large farms which
will make it such that farmers will no longer be farmers. They
will become employees in large farms. Maybe they will make a
better salary, who knows, but personally I do not think that is the
right direction in respect of the family farm.
(1055)
I think the government could use more structural moneys to
help redress this. One could go on and on about just this one
issue. We could encourage large agricultural businesses situated
in Saskatoon or Quebec City, but what about the rural areas?
How do you encourage a population to occupy its rural area if
you do not encourage the family farm?
Agriculture is fundamental for that. The agricultural
population is not different from us. It needs all sorts of services
such as schools, education, hospitals and so forth.
In losing the farmers in the rural areas and losing all the other
services, these rural areas are abandoned and that is a big price
to pay for a country like Canada.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make
a couple of comments to the member opposite who has been
chatting with us this morning for a little while.
The last part of the motion refers to the agri-industry which is
currently facing the most significant changes in the last 30
years. I would agree with that but I would like to have him
recognize, which I think if he were very straight with the House
he would, that these changes are also opportunities.
Yes, there are challenges there. At no time in the history of
Canadian agriculture has the agri-food industry starting with
the primary producer, the farmer, going right up through the
whole chain, had the opportunities before it as the industry has
at the present time.
The opportunity is there to meet the challenges that are there.
It is like everything in life. Those challenges are not always
simple and easy, taking a snap of the finger to get them, but
those opportunities are there.
I would suggest to the member that he recognize that this
government has only been in power for the last six months. He
should look at what this government has done with regard to
trade initiatives, protecting the family farm, our success in
getting the tariff levels in place at the GATT talks, and I could go
on. Work is being done on the pesticide review and with regard
to the whole farm safety net program.
I remind the member that we have done a lot in the first six
months. He had better sit back and wait because we are not done
yet.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there has been an awful lot of
talk and a lot of studies. Even the parliamentary secretary for
agriculture is involved in one of these studies. However, there
has been very little action.
The little action the government has taken has been backward
in some respects, forced upon it by the earlier government, for
example in the case of GATT. We are dealing with the
consequences from GATT. I am not sure or convinced that this
agreement was advantageous for farmers in Canada.
I think we broke in, we broke down, we did not negotiate fully
or effectively. Now we are caught in a situation in which we are
having to give away an agricultural system, the supply
management system, which was an excellent system, the
world's best system. We are forced to give it away.
(1100 )
The agricultural community which was directly under the
supply management program now is forced to readapt very
quickly, in six years, for example. This is not an advantage to
those farmers. Farming is not like producing dingy bells or post
cards. You do not change agriculture from one day to the next.
You need long term planning and structural investment. You
have to know where you are going and this government does not
seem to know where it is going.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, coming from B.C. the subject of grain is not a big issue
in our area. However, I want to make a couple of comments to
the member about some of his statements regarding his concern
about the lack of grain or the decrease in grain passing through
the St. Lawrence seaway.
Clearly the member realizes that there has been a huge market
change in the demand for grain in the world. Europe, for
example, has gone from a net importer to a net exporter of grain.
This is a predominant factor in grain shipments throughout the
east coast ports.
I sit in the House every day and listen to the members from the
Bloc crying about how hard done by the province of Quebec is
and how things are so tough and they are being penalized so
much. The member should realize that for so many years the
pendulum swung the other way toward the province of Quebec.
We talk about the supply management system. Today in the
domestic market the province of Quebec enjoys a huge
protectionist advantage for shipping things like cheese and milk
products and some of the other items in the domestic market.
3617
In our province, for example, because of the supply
management system we are restricted to pretty much a local area
for selling our product. The member is once more bringing up
the hard done by Quebec issue and I think that his facts are not
exactly correct.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, Quebec certainly is not winning
by any means in this. For example, with milk definitely we have
a certain advantage in Quebec over the west, that is for sure.
Now obviously with the change in the GATT, Quebec is going to
have to realign itself and develop new markets.
In terms of grain transportation it is obvious that there are
millions of tonnes of grain going via Vancouver. It is not
because I do not want it to go via Vancouver but it is rather
illogical to transport grain to Vancouver ports in order to get to
Europe when the line is more directly toward the St. Lawrence
seaway. There is a very clear tendency there that seems to want
to favour it. I do not know why.
This is in line with the whole subsidy program. Why, for
example, are there many tonnes of grain that are subsidized
going to Thunder Bay and then back down the line to get to the
United States? Grain transportation is subsidized in such a
way-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know this issue,
as I mentioned earlier, is of great importance and I am sure that
members throughout the day will want to raise these issues.
(1105)
[Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
colleagues, the minister, the hon. Ralph Goodale, and the
parliamentary secretary, Mr. Lyle Vanclief, it is with pleasure
that I open the debate on the opposition motion relating to a vital
sector of the Canadian economy, that is to say agriculture and
the agri-food industry.
I would like to start by commenting briefly the wording of this
motion that I find absolutely ridiculous. I must tell you that I
was stunned-I could not believe my eyes-when I read this
motion. Just think, our colleagues opposite are asking that this
House denounce the government's lack of action in the
agricultural sector. The government's lack of action, nothing
less.
Ironically enough, while we are fed such cliches, while we are
criticized for our alleged inaction, my colleague, the minister of
agriculture, happens to be abroad on a mission to promote
agricultural trade.
In fact, that is why I am replacing the hon. minister here
today. As we speak the minister of agriculture is leading a trade
mission in the Asia-Pacific region. This region is an economic
zone undergoing phenomenal growth, one that looks like a
promising export market for our agri-food products and know
how.
The minister is accompanied by a delegation of 15 leaders of
the Canadian agri-food industry representing most areas in that
industry. After stopping off in Japan and Korea, they are now in
China and from there are headed for Hong Kong.
As recently as last Monday, the minister of agriculture left
Korea with a signed contract to sell wheat to Korea as well as
interesting prospects for the sale of pork meat and animal feed.
If that is called lack of action, there is something wrong with the
definition of the word. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that
not only the Bloc Quebecois critic for agriculture but also my
hon. colleague the critic for finance, a prominent agricultural
economist, will approve of the objectivity and capacity to
promote agriculture in the Canadian economy.
How can one dare talk about government lack of action when
this government has been praised by the industry for reacting
both quickly and firmly to the American decision to renegotiate
customs duties on wheat under article XXVIII of GATT? Our
government made it clear that we do not want a trade war with
the United States. We would rather negotiate. But we will go to
war if we have to. As the hon. minister indicated, no deal will be
made with the Americans unless this deal benefits the Canadian
agri-food industry as a whole as far as grain products,
processing and supply managed commodities are concerned.
Canada will not give in on one point to get more on another. We
refuse to play one group or region off against another.
[English]
Inertia my eye. This government takes great pride in the
exceptional work that our Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food has been doing since taking office in November. I
would congratulate my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to
the minister, for his intervention five minutes ago when he
talked about the positive things that we as a government and as a
country are bringing to this, one of the most important sectors of
our economy.
In the last five months the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food has travelled widely in an effort to meet all of the
pertinent players around the world, in Canada and in Quebec. He
has met with industry associations and stakeholders. He has met
with provincial and municipal governments as well as
American, Mexican and now Asia-Pacific agriculture and trade
officials.
These meetings were held in a spirit of co-operation and
consultation which has been the hallmark of this government's
approach to making Canada's agri-food industry one of the
strongest in the world.
The Canadian agri-food industry is a major employer. It is a
major exporter. It accounts for 8 per cent of Canada's GDP and
15 per cent of our jobs, three-quarters of which are found
beyond the farm gate. In fact, it represents work for more than
1.5 million Canadians on the farm, in processing plants and in
the food distribution chain. It also provides Canadians with safe,
nutritious food at reasonable prices. Agri-food exports are a
3618
significant source of income for Canada. In 1992 exports were
worth $13.7 billion.
(1110)
Our platform, the famous red book, says that our sector has
unique opportunities for growth and places great emphasis on
security for Canadian farm families. It recognizes that Canadian
farmers want that security to be built on the development of
solid domestic and international markets, on staying at the
forefront of innovation, on stewardship of our natural resources
and in the confidence consumers have in the safety and the
quality of our food.
I would like to take some time to review the work that we have
done to live up to our commitments, to follow up perhaps on the
intervention of the parliamentary secretary some minutes ago.
I would like to begin by reaffirming as a government our
commitment to research and to innovation. This is an area where
our government feels that the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food can work closely with other government
departments to build a framework that will make it easy for
firms in the agriculture sector to bring products successfully to
the marketplace.
Successful agriculture is a knowledge industry. Studies have
shown that the return on investment in some key areas of
agri-food research can exceed 50 per cent. This is one area
where Ralph Goodale is very keen to see government continue to
emphasize-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I hesitate to interrupt the
Minister of Finance. I just want to remind us all to refer to each
other by our titles or positions, such as the minister of
agriculture or minister of this, unless of course that member is
no longer in this Chamber, which is always regrettable. For all
those of us here in this 35th Parliament I know it is a tradition
that we will want to maintain.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, I am suitably
admonished. It is just that I am so enthusiastic about the work
the minister of agriculture does that I sometimes get carried
away.
In any event, this is one area, that is to say agri-food research,
in which the government is very keen to see us place even more
emphasis. Therefore, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will
give a very high priority to innovative research and to
collaboration with private research partners.
In our agenda for creating opportunity we have endorsed the
idea of providing matching funds for research proposed jointly
by the public and the private sectors. My colleague is looking at
a variety of options, collaboration with the private sector and the
public sector, including a plan to work with industry for
additional co-operative investment funding.
As for trade, which the critic discussed, from the day we took
office it has been our top priority. The focus of our government's
platform has been economic renewal, growth and jobs. A
number of the initiatives so far have been aimed at encouraging
small business, stimulating innovation in research and
development, providing stability for the future and in particular,
restoring confidence and stability in the agri-food sector.
In pursuing these goals we have set out two priorities:
concluding the trade deals and getting absolutely the most out of
new trade opportunities. That again is what the parliamentary
secretary referred to. Let us not only look at the problems but let
us look at change as something that will provide a very dynamic
agricultural sector with the opportunity to develop new products
and create new opportunities.
We hit the ground running by negotiating a successful GATT
agreement that will bring fairness and predictability to
international trade which Canada is so dependent on.
On January 1 we saw the introduction of the North American
free trade agreement which will provide an even greater
opportunity for our industry in North America. A more secure
trading environment will over time provide better stability for
our farm families and for our agri-food entrepreneurs. Our
challenge now is to take the utmost advantage of the
opportunities presented by these agreements.
(1115)
We already have a commitment from industry to work toward
the goal of exporting $20 billion in agri-food products by the
year 2000. That is a considerable leap from the $13.7 billion we
are now realizing. I am confident, as are the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food and the government, that we can do
it if we all work together. I would ask the opposition to join us in
that great effort.
The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food is reordering
its priorities to increase support for export initiatives. We have
placed agri-food specialists in selected embassies abroad to
provide better service for our exporters. The first ones are in
place in Mexico, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The response
we have had to their work has been very good.
To further consolidate our trade efforts in Mexico, we will
soon open a Canada business centre in Mexico City to promote
our exports and to offer trade related services to our new NAFTA
partners.
Canadian farmers are very supportive of this focus on trade.
They want to earn their incomes from the marketplace, not from
the high subsidy levels that have prevailed over the past few.
years. They repeatedly tell us that they do not want subsidies,
that they just want a decent price from the market.
3619
The producers continue to need some protection from the
vagaries of the market and from external disasters. Our platform
promised to review all existing support programs to develop
farm income stabilization programs based on the concept of the
whole farm, a user friendly safety net based on income from the
whole farm.
We see farm income security as a consequence of the
marketplace more than as a result of government support
programs.
Development of the new whole farm income support program
has been a key part of our plan to create security for farm
families. We launched in Winnipeg at the beginning of February
a consultative process on refurbishing Canadian farm safety net
programs which will draw on the expertise of farm leaders from
across the country, as well as federal and provincial government
officials.
What emerged from that Winnipeg meeting was a strong
consensus to make a whole farm program available to all
commodities. There was also agreement that some sort of
additional support or companion programs would be needed to
deal with specific regional or commodity problems as they
arise. This will be part of our overall approach to safety nets.
We have already taken a few big steps toward safety net
reform. The first was establishing a national safety nets
committee made up of government and industry representatives.
The membership of the committee was established to ensure
that the agri-food industry had input in the policy and program
activities that will lead to the establishment of a renewed safety
net regime. The membership is charged with ensuring that the
input of all interested producers is brought to the table for
consideration. They are to ensure that the deliberations and the
conclusions of the committee are disseminated around the
country.
We need to develop a program that is GATT consistent,
market neutral, financially sound, affordable and effective. We
need to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent in the most
efficient way: to improve the industry's ability to adapt and to
compete while not distorting trade. We would like to be ready to
begin its implementation in 1995.
While not strictly a safety net issue, the question of interest
free cash advances must be considered when we are thinking
about safety nets, because there is only one source of funds for
agricultural programs. As the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food recently told several farm groups, our government is
quite prepared to move on our campaign promise to improve
these programs but first he wants to get the opinions of all major
farm groups.
It is important to note that the budget of the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food for all income support and safety net
programs is currently about $850 million. Historically interest
free cash advances have cost us $50 million to $75 million. If
$75 million is used for cash advances it means that much less is
available for other things. If we hear a consensus from producers
that it is the best way to spend that money, our government will
proceed.
(1120)
The finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois may tell his
colleague, the agriculture critic, that he does not think money
should be spent on agriculture. However we are going to do it
because we believe in Canadian agriculture.
We are asking farm groups to look at the basket of programs
we have in place, the new initiatives that may come out of the
safety net discussions, and the amount of money available to
support these programs, to tell us what is the best way to spend
our limited resources, our scarce resources. I know the financial
critic for the Bloc will support me in this effort.
Is the commitment to fully interest free cash advances the best
use of these funds? Are there ways to make cash advance
programs more effective at lower costs? That is the debate we
must have in the House.
Another element of security for farm families consists of the
programs in place to help farmers manage. There are a number
of them. Some are being questioned; others are aimed at helping
farmers adapt to changes in farm financial situations which the
critic raised in his remarks.
In some cases the provinces have programs similar to our
own. We need to assess these programs. We need to ask
ourselves what types of programs might be considered
companion programs and how they are best going to meet the
needs of the future. How can we eliminate duplication among
different levels of government? How can we provide
straightforward service to farmers? We will be looking at all
federal programs in this context.
Tied into the issue of security for farm families and
agricultural communities as a whole is the question of rural
development. A healthy rural sector is an important part of
ensuring a prosperous agriculture industry and vice versa.
The Prime Minister has asked the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food to promote and facilitate rural renewal using the
resources of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. As a result the
minister announced that a rural renewal secretariat was being
established within his department to provide leadership and
co-ordination.
3620
This secretariat is working with other departments, with
provincial governments, industry, communities, organizations
and grassroots stakeholders to address the challenges facing
rural Canada.
The key to this effort is partnership, the co-ordination of the
business of government, the vigilance and the political will to
ensure that rural people and rural issues get the careful attention
they need around the cabinet table and in the conduct of
government.
[Translation]
As for supply management, the new GATT agreement will
certainly require adjustments on our part, but we must
nonetheless recognize that substantial gains were made. We
have ensured that tariffs will be reasonably high, applied for a
reasonable length of time and combined to clear access rules so
as to allow product sectors to get by.
In co-operation with the provinces and the industry, we are
developing a supply management system which will be both
sustainable and responsive to the new market conditions. A
federal-provincial-industrial working group will be holding
consultations and developing a strategy to get the most out of the
new trading context.
[English]
Many agri-food enterprises are small or medium sized
businesses. A key part of our platform is directed at helping to
unleash the job creation potential in small and medium sized
businesses. We will provide one stop shopping for business. We
will provide the market development support necessary to
succeed in today's global markets. We will continue to cut red
tape and unnecessary regulation.
[Translation]
Change is now the order of the day. This Parliament must also
work in co-operation toward ensuring the prosperity of our
agri-food industry.
(1125)
Our government has not been twiddling its thumbs, whatever
the opposition says. I call upon its common sense and spirit of
co-operation to bring about positive change within the industry.
All Canadians will benefit from this.
[English]
I believe the farmers and business people of Canada recognize
the contribution the agri-food sector brings to the Canadian
economy. We all look forward to making the most of what I
know will be a better future for all Canadians.
In conclusion, that is why we on this side of the House
welcome this debate. This House is a dramatically changed
House from the previous one. On our side, as was evident in the
intervention of my colleague, there is tremendous interest and
expertise in agricultural matters. There is a very strong rural
influence running through the Liberal caucus.
As I look across the House, the Reform Party brings with it a
great deal of knowledge and understanding of western
agriculture. The agriculture critic for the Bloc Quebecois is an
acknowledged expert in the area, as indeed is its finance critic an
eminent and renowned economist in that sector.
There is an opportunity in the House to marry the tremendous
knowledge, desire and enthusiasm for Canadian agriculture
existing in the government with the sincerity of the opposition
parties. It is for that reason we are delighted to participate in the
debate today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I take note of the interest
of members who want to participate in questions and comments
with the Minister of Finance. I will attempt to recognize as many
as possible in the 10-minute period available to us.
I encourage members to keep their questions brief and the
minister to respond in the same fashion so that I may
accommodate as many members as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
thank you very much for this opportunity to address the Minister
of Finance. I had no idea that he could speak so eloquently about
farming.
Speaking for the minister of agriculture, the Minister of
Finance stated earlier that I supported a reduction in farm
subsidies. Given the enormous upheavals that the agricultural
sector in Quebec and in Canada is currently experiencing, I
would never have said such a thing quite the contrary.
The government should continue to support the agricultural
sector and perhaps even increase that level of support, not only
to the primary sector but to the processing sector as well so as to
improve the industry's current performance and prepare it to
face the challenge of global competition.
When we speak of the government's lack of action, here is
what we are talking about. Since 1986 and as far back as 1982,
when I was working for the federal Department of Agriculture,
there has been a great deal of discussion, at the federal level at
least, with the provinces and farmers.
Since 1986 discussions have involved the Conservatives
primarily. The current Minister of Finance says that he deplores
the fact that no decision is ever taken. Why is that? Because the
very same thing is happening today. Senior officials want to
implement agricultural policies across the board and coast to
coast. I have often questioned the minister of agriculture about
income security programs and the negotiations currently taking
place between his officials and market growers. His answer has
been to leave everything in the capable hands of his officials
whose job it is to deal with these matters.
3621
My question, therefore, is to the minister of agriculture.
When will real policies be drafted to give Canadian farmers the
ability to meet the challenge of global markets and when will the
government show some backbone in the face of constant trade
dispute threats from the Americans, as is presently the case with
respect to tariffs on Canadian durum wheat?
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly
the first to admit that I am not personally known as an expert on
agriculture, except that I should tell my hon. colleague that I am
a farmer.
I have a farm where I raise beef in the riding of
Brome-Missisquoi; it is one of the most beautiful parts of
Quebec and I invite him to come and visit my farm and really see
what it is to work the land.
(1130)
I also invite the agriculture critic of the Bloc Quebecois. I can
talk to him as to a Quebec farmer and I can certainly tell him
that, for me, as a Quebec farmer, not only the provincial
government is important, the federal government is important
too.
They ask when we will confront the Americans. It has been
done. I was in Washington two days ago. I met the Treasury
Secretary there, I raised the issue of the debate that we are
having here and I can assure the House that we will hold our
ground in these discussions with the Americans and we will win
because we are right.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the Minister of Finance speak
to the issue of agriculture. I appreciate his presence here
because a lot of the decisions affecting agriculture have a dollar
attached to them.
His speech was rather a motherhood one. I am sure that if you
glance through Hansard you would see similar speeches made
by agriculture ministers and finance ministers since time
immemorial both at the federal and provincial levels.
There was really nothing of substance that I can take back to
my rural riding and tell my constituents that I heard this from the
government and it would give them hope or at least help them to
prepare for the decisions they have to make to manage their
farming enterprises.
A crucial question we would like to have clarification on from
the Minister of Finance is-I am not talking in broad
motherhood terms-when federal financial support for
agriculture is justifiable.
Reform has very clearly stated the basis on which we feel
support is justifiable. I can mention eight areas. What about
countering international trade wars? What about transportation
issues? What about natural hazards? What about regional
disparities in agricultural sectors? What about variations or
instability in the marketplace returns from agriculture produce?
What about sustainability of rural Canada? What about research
and development? What about environmental and conservation
measures?
Specifically, does the government support funding for
agriculture in these definite areas because I am not sure there are
enough dollars to cover all of them. We need to know the
priorities of the government. Because the minister went to great
lengths to say that the federal agriculture minister was so
wonderful I am sure they have had considerable consultation
and have an action plan in place.
I would like to know what the priorities of the federal
government are with regard to consolidating federal programs.
The minister said it is an issue they may pursue. We want to
know what programs are going to be consolidated in the
agriculture sector. What can we expect from the government?
We also wonder if it would pledge to cut down administration
but retain funding in real dollars for actual agricultural
programs, except perhaps if savings could be accrued through
reduction or de-escalation in the trade war.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that
I dealt quite extensively in my remarks with exactly the points
that were raised by the opposition critic.
Our position on the trade war is very clear in terms of our
absolute preparedness to go to the wall to protect the Canadian
farmer. Indeed the agriculture minister has made that very clear.
We are right and we are going to win and let there be no doubt
about that.
I dealt with research and development extensively in my
remarks. We believe that if you look at the development, the
evolution of Canadian agriculture over the years, it is in fact
because we have invested heavily in research and development,
have developed new hybrid forms of grain, as an example, in the
area from which the member comes that we have been so
successful in world markets.
We have stated very clearly that the agri-food industry is an
essential part of the growing Canadian economy. It is one that is
worthy of support in world markets.
The minister is now on a tour of the Asian markets which are
crucial to the future of Canadian agriculture.
We have also said that the department of agriculture, as
indeed other government departments, will be cutting back on
the heavy cost of administration that we have inherited in order
to have more money to put into programs to support Canadian
farmers.
3622
That is part and parcel of the philosophy of the government in
terms of agriculture, in terms of defence, in terms of industry.
We believe that the huge government apparatus ought to be
scaled back so that scarce resources can be put on the front line
where the battles are being waged.
(1135 )
Yes, I did talk very enthusiastically about the minister of
agriculture, about the work he is in the process of doing. It is an
essential pillar of the economic philosophy of the government,
that Canadian agriculture not simply survive but that it grow.
That is because as the parliamentary secretary said, we see in
Canadian agriculture not only problems as do the opposition,
but tremendous, tremendous opportunity.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
agree perfectly with what was said previously. We enjoy having
the Minister of Finance talk about agriculture. He is a very good
speaker but primarily it is a lot of talk. That is very much in line
with the minister of agriculture, a lot of talk.
Take GATT for example. Canada lost out on GATT. In fact, we
are in this position because the federal government was not
strong enough in those negotiations. Take the export of wheat
now. Why accept a limit to the export of wheat to the United
States? This is what is being negotiated. If Canada really
respected itself it would not accept any limit. We would be
dealing according to free trade with the United States.
As far as the minister of agriculture's trips to China and so on,
of course that is a good trip for him. Hopefully it will be good for
Canada. All of these measures are really like motherhood; that is
to say it falls within the norms of what we expect from
Agriculture Canada and the federal government. However, we
expect a little more, not just the bare minimum. We expect more
and better ideas in terms of agriculture.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, I said in my
remarks, as did the parliamentary secretary, that in the program
set out by the minister of agriculture, we have been very specific
as to the actions we intend to take.
Yes, there are areas where we have said we are going to
consult because we think it is an essential part of the democratic
process that we go out and that we talk. Surely the members of
the Reform Party would agree that you go out and talk to
Canadians, talk to those who are involved.
I cannot believe the Bloc Quebecois members do not share the
same view that what government must do is consult with the
stakeholder before coming down with the final program. We
have nailed our colours to the mast. We have said what we are
going to do.
The final remark I would make in response to the critic's
remarks is with regard to what he said about GATT. I watched
the evolution of that negotiation. When this government came
into power we were dealt a very late hand. A previous
government had not faced up to the tremendous demands that
were out there; a previous government had not owned up to the
Canadian people about what it had said, and a previous
government had misplayed its hand very badly in Geneva.
Nonetheless, having been dealt that hand, we were able to snatch
tremendous victory from the jaws of defeat because of the
negotiating skills of the government.
The net result of GATT which could have turned out so badly
for Canadian agriculture is that in fact it has turned out to be a
tremendous victory. It has turned out to be a tremendous victory
because as a government we knew exactly what we wanted. Our
negotiators went over to Europe, sat down at the the table and
did not leave the table until they got it. I am sure that in the
private moments of his home the opposition critic knows that.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the whip of the Reform Party I would like to advise
the House that pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) our speakers on
this motion will be dividing their time with your concurrence.
I am really enthused about the hon. minister's speech this
morning. I would like to direct a few remarks to him before I go
into the details I want to present to the Liberal government.
I started farming because of farm programs like FCC and
MACC. I was guaranteed a low interest rate for 25 years which I
really appreciated. It was the only way I could acquire land and
continue to farm and later retire as a farmer.
(1140)
Why did the Liberal government in the 1970s change the farm
credit regulations to do away with those programs and allow the
banks to take over the financing for young farmers? Also during
that period, why did the Liberal government allow interest rates
to go to 24 per cent and force thousands and thousands of
farmers off their land?
I am so glad to hear the hon. minister is prepared to do some
fence mending on those issues. I hope he gets the fences built a
lot stronger in the west because they are getting very thin. If
something is not done for the farmers there could be a charge by
the big western farmers right down here into Ottawa to demand
some changes. However, I appreciate his comments and I hope
he will take them into account.
I am not going to be quite as critical of the government on the
issues of farm problems as my friend in the Bloc was. However I
would like to address some of the problems we farmers are
facing. I hope the hon. members in the government will take
them to heart, look at them and give us some help with them.
3623
My speech is mostly going to be directed toward
transportation. I would like to point out some of the problems we
are having today. We feel the car shortage on the railway system
is not due to something that has happened overnight.
I would like to point out to the government that in a letter
dated November 15, 1993 the Thunder Bay Harbour
Commission Port Authority warned the Minister of Transport at
that time that the rail car shortage problem had been some time
in the making and was due in part to the policy of dispersing the
rail car fleet into trades and routings outside its original
purpose.
In an October submission to the National Transportation
Agency, one of Canada's railroads confirmed there was in
existence as early as May 1993 an extreme car shortage
affecting its ability to supply cars. To be sure the terrible
situation we find ourselves in today was not without warning.
What did the railroads do? They chose to chase business in the
United States without first making sure they had enough cars to
handle the Canadian grain requirements. That makes money for
the railways but it certainly left the western agriculture
community high and dry.
Under the Western Grain Transportation Act brought in by the
previous Liberal government the railways are supposed to be
subject to sanctions if they do not meet targets for unloading
grain at Canadian ports.
However, this recourse proved useless when the senior grain
transportation committee decided not to pursue those sanctions.
I wonder why. Who sits on that senior grain transportation
committee and whose best interests do they have at stake?
Apparently it is not farmers.
I look at the people on that agency: They represent elevator
companies, terminal operators, the railways, everybody but
farmers. An article in the Western Producer states that elevators
shipped the wrong grain to the port of Vancouver just recently.
Why? They have all the stats and all the figures on trade at their
fingertips. They know what they need. Is the system so
inefficient that they cannot even load the proper grain?
Mr. Minister, I hope you look into that because it seems
ludicrous. It almost seems as if there is a conspiracy to shut the
system down.
William Stinson, chairman and chief executive of Canadian
Pacific Ltd. received a $448,000 bonus for losing less money
than the previous year. CP is trying to negotiate with two unions
right now and is asking for cuts and labour deterrents so they
will not go on strike, but this gentleman is given an extra half a
million dollars for losing $2 billion. How does he expect to get a
settlement with his unions?
It is imperative that the government start to look at these
issues and address them. One of these days we are going to have
a civil war if this is the system we are going to allow to go on. A
million and a half dollars for management and 50 cents an hour
for the workers. Is that fair, Mr. Minister?
(1145 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I was just wondering. For
one moment I thought maybe I had been forgotten.
Mr. Hoeppner: Well, you know-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): One moment, please. We
can only speak one at a time. While I am standing I would
suggest that the member take a moment to sit down. I know
people feel very strongly about all issues and this one is no
different from any other we debate on the floor of this House.
But I must encourage the member and I must ask the member to
direct his comments through the Chair.
Mr. Hoeppner: I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. Seeing the
minister was so impressed with the farm issues, it got to my
heart. I hope to simmer down a bit.
The railways are required by law to move these grains
according to the Western Grain Transportation Act. Why do we
not see them doing it? It amazes me when I see stats that the
turnaround on a hopper car today is actually a little longer than
was required in 1923. Is this today's modern system that is
supposed to help farmers survive?
With the negotiations having gone on for over a year, this
government failed to pass legislation to order the west coast
strikers back to work. We lost 12 days. Not only that, I was told
that during the Easter holidays there was again a four day
shutdown. There are 40 ships sitting in Vancouver drawing
demurrage charges on grain that cannot be shipped. When is this
government going to take action on this?
That has dealt a tremendous blow to the farm sector in western
Canada. Shipping $100 a tonne feed wheat to the U.S. which
takes twice as long as putting a car to Vancouver with $500 a
tonne canola just does not seem to make sense. When are we
going to get the right type of direction from some of our farm
organizations or our government to solve these problems?
Farmers need that cash to put in another crop. Farm programs
cannot look after all these requirements. We have to ship that
grain. We have to get our money out of that grain. I appreciate
that the hon. minister is listening and I hope that something can
be done about it.
The other serious issue coming out of this whole system of not
delivering grain is the lost sales. Japan today is encouraging
Australian farmers to plant more canola because the Canadian
system cannot deliver the product after it is grown. How long
can our economy continue to exist in western Canada if we do
3624
not start supporting the farmer who produces more efficiently
every year and then is not allowed to sell to get the funds out of
it?
It amazes me sometimes what modernization, with all the
computer technology and the efficiencies we have built into our
systems, has done to us. I will give one little example of an
experience I had. This is not with grain transportation.
Being a farmer I like to save as much money as I can because I
know I will need it. Just before I came back to Ottawa two
months ago, I got a telephone bill for $27.65. I wrote the cheque
for the due date on the bill. I said to my wife: ``Would you please
drop it off at the telephone office so it is there directly and I can
save myself the 45 cents''.
Lo and behold, a month later I got a returned cheque with a
notice on it saying ``insufficient funds'', charging me a $15
service charge for a $27 telephone bill. It is a provincial utility. I
went to see the banker, furious as can be. I have never had less
than $2,000 in that bank account.
(1150)
Somebody had punched the wrong figure and it showed there
were insufficient funds. To hide their mistake, they wrote out a
little slip which said: ``Due to insufficient funds''. It took me a
month and probably $30 worth of telephone calls to find out
where the problem was. Is this progress?
I said to my wife: ``I know what I am going to do with the next
telephone bill. I am going to put a stamp on it, mail it in Morden
because it will take the postal service at least six months to
figure out it is supposed to be delivered to Morden. It will travel
all across Canada. They will cut off my telephone before I get
back. Then at least I will have peace and quiet this summer with
Stats Canada phoning me every month wanting to know how
much grain I have left in my bins''. There is a way of getting
around this system, but how long can we continue to do it?
I apologize for the problems I caused you, Mr. Speaker.
Forgive me. I hope the hon. minister does listen to this.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
fully agree with what the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette
said.
[English]
I agree with the criticisms he made regarding agriculture and
those he addressed to the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance underlined the fact that Agriculture
Canada is in the process of consulting with farmers. Again, it is
a delay tactic. The farmers know what they want but this
government does not deliver.
In the GATT negotiation for example, the farmers wanted to
maintain article XI but the government did not deliver. When it
comes to grain transportation, again it is a crying problem in the
west. There are incredible delays but the government does not
deliver.
There may be ways to improve delivery of grain via the St.
Lawrence seaway, but that is not being taken advantage of. The
minister of agriculture has gone to Korea and China to sell more
grain but my goodness, if we cannot get the grain out of Canada
now when we have surpluses and markets across the globe that
we are losing because of our inefficient system, why go to China
to sell more grain?
We have a great deal of programs to improve in Canada. The
member for Lisgar-Marquette certainly does have reason to
criticize this government in its lack of initiative in setting up
better programs to serve farmers in this country.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a report
that was given to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food the other day to back up some of my figures, just
kind of arguing the point with the hon. member about going
through Thunder Bay.
When we had the PSAC witnesses on grain transportation,
they pointed out to us that in a two week period of officially
weighing grain which is done for Agriculture Canada, it was
detected that 341 rail cars would have gone through the system
with the wrong car numbers, putting the wrong grain to the
wrong customer. One hundred and sixty-nine had the wrong
initials on them, bringing the total to 510 cars in two weeks that
they had to correct.
In the same period, there were 26 mixes between different
railways, 45 mixes that were prevented by weighers and
assistants. Grain was left in receiving hoppers 10 times, 12
spills, overweight as much as 25 tonnes on a boxcar or on a
hopper car or underweight in some cases.
The total was 1,173 cars that were under the wrong procedure
in two weeks out of a total shipment of 13,000 cars. Almost 10
per cent of the cars that were directed to Thunder Bay had been
marked incorrectly by elevator companies. How can you have a
system deliver our grain under those circumstances?
(1155)
This is why I say we have a disaster. We have a calamity in the
transportation system. If this government does not correct some
of those problems we will never be able to survive on the farms
by becoming more efficient and producing more. It is senseless.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I open with the question that I hear most in my riding of
Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. Farmers ask me why they have not
heard anything about agriculture from Ottawa through the
newspapers or on television. I have to be honest and tell them we
are not talking about agriculture in Ottawa. Sometimes it is very
3625
difficult for me, being a farmer, to admit that we are not talking
or spending very much time on agriculture. That is the question I
hear most often in my riding.
I want to talk about two subjects today, safety nets and the
farm debt problem.
First, in many cases over the past years we have seen safety
nets that have been ill conceived, open to abuse, and poorly
planned. I do not believe there is a farmer in this country who
wants federal or provincial government agriculture subsidies.
All farmers want is a reasonable chance to make some sort of
decent living in this country. I do not care which part of Canada
they come from.
We have been in the situation over the past number of years
where we have been looking at world trade problems, weather
related problems and various other problems. That has shifted
the focus in many areas so governments have been trying to give
financial aid to farmers in poorly planned ways.
We have had safety net programs for many years. We have had
GRIP, crop insurance, FSAM, the grain stabilization program,
and any number of ad hoc programs, as many as we all care to
remember.
We have spent billions of taxpayers' dollars on agriculture
subsidies, and yet I still see farmers in Saskatchewan, and I
know this is true right across this country, who are losing their
farms. I ask myself how we justify spending billions upon
billions of dollars and whether there is any effect or any good
reason to pour dollars into farm subsidies when there is no
reasonable chance of hope for success.
In most cases the programs we have seen are open to abuse.
They encourage very poor farming practices. They lack
continuity. As I mentioned before, we have jumped in and out of
all sorts of different farm programs on almost a yearly basis.
That is generally the problem I see with those kinds of
programs. In all cases they are bureaucratic programs,
developed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. They have done very
little talking to farmers, listening and hearing what farmers are
saying across this country. That is something we need to change.
That is the area we need to move to.
As I have said many, many times, farmers are the people who
know what programs will work and what programs will not
work. They know what is the best way to market their grain. In
many cases they know the best way to transport their grain.
I am not being particularly critical of this government. It has
been governments of all stripes in the past. We have seen it from
all governments.
I generally like the idea of the whole farm concept of some
sort of farm insurance. The concept is realistic. The question I
have is, what process will be used to develop this program? Will
it be bureaucrats again, as we have seen so many times in the
past, or will it be consultation with farmers? If it is consultation
with farmers in the grassroots area, I am all for that.
(1200 )
I just returned from a meeting of the standing committee on
agriculture this morning and we had a group of people in from
the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. They did
a provincial summary in Saskatchewan last year listing some of
the problems they see with the GRIP and the NISA program.
I will quote the report: ``Declining support levels, premiums
are too high, not bankable, lack of producer consultation,
payment processes too long''.
When they talk about NISA they say it is too complicated, the
forms are too lengthy, it is poorly administered. They do not
trust government with their money; it does not cover all
agriculture income and is not suitable for young farmers.
Those are some of the comments the farmers in Saskatchewan
are making to groups in Saskatchewan, the problems they have
with farm safety net programs.
The second area I want to spend a couple of minutes on is the
farm debt problem. In Saskatchewan we have over $5 billion in
farm debt. That is Saskatchewan only. In the rural municipality
of Craik which is very close to mine, over 50 per cent of the
farmers have gone through the farm debt review process. In
other words, they have been in serious financial difficulty.
The largest municipal taxpayer in Saskatchewan is the Farm
Credit Corporation and the second highest taxpayers are the
chartered banks. That gives an indication, a bit of background to
the kinds of problems and how serious the debt problem is in this
country.
A few years ago we were all witness and subject to many
different farm rallies, most of which were held in western
Canada, because of the farm debt crisis. We have not seen many
of those in the past year or 18 months.
People will say that perhaps the farm debt crisis is over,
perhaps it is no longer a problem. We see that cattle prices have
gone up. We see that prices for special grains have gone up.
Perhaps the crisis is over. I do not believe that.
I believe that the debt crisis is still there and it is still as big as
it was before. I think the difference now is that farmers in this
country have come to realize if they are going to solve the
problems of debt, the problems of marketing and so on and so
forth, they will have to do it themselves.
Farmers have to take the initiative to help solve their
problems. They are no longer looking for government support
the
3626
way they did five or perhaps ten years ago. They realize the way
to solutions is to open up the process and let them handle their
own problems.
I believe farmers have decided they will take matters into
their own hands. That is why we see things such as the huge
influx of new crops in our country, specialty crops, crops that we
would not have believed we would grow five or ten years ago.
We are now growing them. We see a great increase in the cattle
industry. We see value added industry. In my own riding we have
a good number of various value added industries that are going
to be successful because they are farmer owned, they are farmer
controlled and they do not depend on government subsidy.
We see a huge increase in off farm jobs, off farm income. A
recent survey in Saskatchewan said that as high as 50 per cent of
the farmers in Saskatchewan have off farm income. I often
humorously say as a farmer that my wife teaches school to
support my farming habit. It is a fact of life out there. It is just
the way it is. I think that is good. People are starting to realize
they have to take matters into their own hands.
I want to spend just a minute talking about the Farm Credit
Corporation. It has a new lend-lease program, initiated this
year. The comments I have received from my riding, the initial
comments, are that it is a good program. Some of the negative
comments might be that the term of six years is probably too
short and should be increased to 10 years.
The other comment I get about the Farm Credit Corporation
which I want to finish with is that it has been very difficult, very
bureaucratic to deal with in its history. Many farmers in my area
have turned back their land or voluntarily transferred it back to
the Farm Credit Corporation over the past few years and it has
been very difficult negotiating, coming to terms.
In conclusion, I would like to say that farmers are now
preparing for their spring seeding. Right across this country they
are busy. They are on their tractors. They are listening to the
radio. I think more than anything else they would like to hear on
their radios as they are working this spring that there are some
specifics, that somebody will stand up and say this is the
program, these are the details. That is what they want to hear.
(1205)
I believe that agri-policy must be developed by farmers for
farmers. There is no other way in this country that we can solve
some of the problems we face in our industry other than by full
consultations with farmers.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, I take note of the
comments the hon. member and his colleague made in the last
few minutes.
I would like to assure the previous speaker that as far as the
whole farm and the safety net program are concerned we do have
a 17 person national committee. By far the majority of people on
that are farmers from across Canada. I do not think anyone can
say that in the development of the whole farm program in
Canada the farmers do not have a voice. We are consulting. I do
not know how we could consult any more on those types of
things.
In response to the speaker just before him, I would like to
announce to the House we know in government that we do have a
lot of problems at the present time with grain handling in
western Canada.
A number of us have spoken to the minister in China this
morning. The minister has asked me to announce that tomorrow
he will be inviting a number of key people from the grain
industry to meet with him immediately, as quickly as the date
can be arranged upon his return from China, to talk about all
those issues, all those problems and all of those challenges in the
grain handling situation in western Canada.
I hope the opposition will be pleased with that and will have
input for us as members on that matter.
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously well aware of the
national committee on the safety net programs. I do applaud the
government. I do believe there are some very fine people on that
committee.
However, by the same token and having said that, I also
believe we have to take it one step further. We have to have full
consultation with every farmer in this country. That has been the
problem in the past. We have had a select group. They have been
good people but they cannot always get the feeling of what each
individual grassroots farmer wants. We have to have the process
and take it right to the end. That is the way we will find success
in the program.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, in
response to the MP for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, he made a lot
of good comments which I applaud.
For example, the problem with newspapers, information in
the media in terms of agriculture, is big. It is probably one of the
elements we so quickly ignore or forget. There are not enough
specialized newspaper people dealing with the issue of
agriculture. Maybe it is because agriculture is not as sexy an
issue. In spite of the fact there is a lot of sex in agriculture, it is
not sexy enough to really draw a lot of attention.
The people from the west should at least be reassured by the
fact that there are a lot of newspapers and newspaper reporters
covering agriculture in the west, in Quebec and in the east. The
fact is they have decreased considerably over the past few years.
3627
In the case of farm debt in Quebec, it is quite high and quite
serious. In terms of revenues as well, the percentage of farmers
who have to have revenue outside of the farm is quite high.
As a last comment about the bureaucrats in Agriculture
Canada, my goodness there are too many who are not farmers.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is not a farmer. The
deputy minister and a lot of the other deputy ministers are not
farmers. One suggestion I would make to at least resolve the
problem of bureaucrats in Agriculture Canada would be to make
sure that over 50 per cent if not 75 per cent of the people who
work in Agriculture Canada are farmers.
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I want to very briefly state that I
think the hon. member has a valid point in the fact that in many
cases farmers in Quebec certainly do not understand the western
Canadian agriculture and vice versa. I do not think there is any
question about that.
(1210)
The media does play a very important role in our industry. We
certainly have enough media in our part of the world but, as I
mentioned before, sometimes it is misunderstood between
regions.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief.
My colleague and neighbouring member for Moose
Jaw-Lake Centre referred to safety net programs and the
ongoing problem. I am hearing in my riding of
Kindersley-Lloydminster that in spite of all this consultation
there is not the foggiest idea of what program will be replacing
GRIP which is currently being discontinued.
I wonder if the member has had the same problem in his
riding.
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. There is no question.
Given the fact that Saskatchewan will be opting out of GRIP
after this year, we are in a very short time span. By next spring,
one year from now, it is imperative to people in my province that
we develop something that will work. Certainly that is a major
concern.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I am very happy to speak today on the agricultural sector and to
debate the motion of my colleague, the Official Opposition
critic on agriculture.
I had the opportunity and the honour to work for a long time
for the farmers of Quebec and I can tell you that, since 1986 in
particular, the significant changes occurring throughout the
world, the GATT negotiations, North American free trade, et
cetera, have occupied a lot of their thoughts and forced them to
act in co-operation to deal with these changes.
They know where they want to go and what they, their partners
and governments should aim for. All that is left to do is make the
federal government move toward the clearly expressed goals
they set for themselves.
In February 1991, when the Farmers Union started a
reflection process called the rural summit
conference-incidently, I want to pay tribute to Jacques Proulx,
who until very recently was president of the Farmers Union. He
acted as a great leader in involving not only agri-food partners
but also rural partners in this wonderful rural summit
conference. Today I pay tribute to this great leader, Jacques
Proulx, former president of the Farmers Union.
What resulted from this? A strong desire on the part of
farmers and all rural stakeholders to take control of their own
destiny.
They talked about co-operation between local and regional
partners, about protecting and renewing rural resources, and
especially about redistributing political powers from the top
down.
What does this mean? It means a modern day approach to
managing agricultural and rural development policies. It means
decentralization, a word the people opposite do not know and
have never recognized, for better efficiency.
This exercise continued at the Trois-Rivières summit in 1991
where stakeholders in the Quebec agri-food sector met to decide
on a number of policies and commitments.
The decisions included, among other initiatives, more
research, as well as the transfer of new technologies, as part of a
strategy to conquer markets, because we have really developed a
liking for conquering new markets and making gains in the
context of globalization.
The various players in the agri-food industry also made very
firm commitments. Again, under the leadership of Mr. Jacques
Proulx, the former UPA president, commitments were made to
establish a more efficient link between research, technology
transfers and production, as well as better co-ordination of
research activities conducted by governments and private sector
universities.
Some very serious commitments were made. I am not talking
about meaningless speeches such as the one made earlier by the
Minister of Finance on behalf of the minister of agriculture. I
mean real commitments.
For example, it was decided to approve, upgrade and support
human resources training.
(1215)
A commitment was made to ensure the continuity,
development and growth of agri-food industries through the
identification of particularly promising sectors, not only at the
domestic level, but also internationally.
3628
Several commitments were made and, in particular, it was
decided to work hard at readjusting income security programs in
the agricultural sector so that they comply not only with
NAFTA, but also with GATT.
A commitment was made by all those involved in Quebec's
agri-food industry, including farmers, processors, distributors
and even exporters, to promote financing and self-reliance of
agricultural operations by ensuring the most efficient and
inexpensive transfer of farms to the new generation. Indeed, we
must not forget that to be productive a farming operation must
have a very high capital available as well as very modern
equipment. In short, farmers often have to borrow huge amounts
of money to be productive and more and more competitive on
the national and international markets. To promote and improve
programs aimed at encouraging young people to take up farming
is another commitment made at the Trois-Rivières summit,
which was an historical Summit according to all the key players
involved in the Quebec agri-food industry at that time.
From all the considerations, commitments and principles the
partners in the Quebec agri-food industry came up with, I
developed four avenues that the stakeholders should use and the
governments should support.
First, we should promote the autonomy of farming enterprises
and processing plants by supporting their efforts and not by
taking their places. We should make sure the government, for
example, support their efforts to help them adapt to the new
market requirements. When we talk about markets, we are
talking about the taste of the consumers who are becoming more
and more sophisticated and are asking for overprocessed
products, what we call high quality, flawless products.
The idea is also to promote the autonomy and performance of
enterprises trying to access new international markets. That is
the new creed. We cannot simply talk about globalization and let
the stakeholders down by saying the free market will take care of
things. We must organize and co-ordinate our efforts. The
expansion of our farming industry must be based on better
co-operation between all those involved in the agri-food sector.
Second, we should consider farmers to be entrepreneurs and
support regional entrepreneurship. In order to face the new
realities of the 1980s and 1990s like globalization farmers had
to get into management in a big way. I say this because I have
met quite a few farmers in my time, starting in 1982 when I was
with Agriculture Canada and especially between 1986 and 1991
when I was employed by the Union des producteurs agricoles.
Agriculture is a high risk sector. It is a sector in which it is very
difficult to perform well. Any farmer who wants to make a
decent living faces a number of factors that are beyond his
control, including often unpredictable weather conditions.
Operating in a high risk sector while also coping with
globalization and increased competition from outside Quebec or
Canada requires exceptional management skills. I want to pay
tribute to our 47,000 farm producers in Quebec for what they do
every day, because it is not easy to work for about 14, 15 or 16
hours a day to support a family, and I think we should respect
these great artisans of modern farming.
These great artisans also need ongoing professional training
because, when we talk about globalization, internationalization
and increased competition, these skilled managers must be
capable of keeping up with the increased competition,
especially since after the signing of the GATT agreements there
will be less and less protection at the border in the years to come.
In other words, there will be more and more competition from
food imports from the United States, Mexico and Latin America
generally, from Europe and even from new countries like
Ukraine, which at one time was, and may well again become, the
world's bread basket. Not Canada but Ukraine is, or at least was,
the world's bread basket until 1990, when the bureaucracy did
its work, as bureaucracies will do-and we are seeing today in
the federal government-and took over and made Ukraine lose
its position as the world's bread basket.
(1220)
There is a third option we should explore if we want
consistent programs to deal with today's challenges, and that is
decentralization.
As I said earlier, there is unanimous support for
decentralization in Quebec. When we talk about bringing
government closer to the grassroots, this also applies to
agriculture. There is a consensus in Quebec that has grown since
in 1989 at the annual convention of the Union des producteurs
agricoles a resolution was passed by 99.3 per cent of delegates
from all over Quebec and from every sector of the agricultural
industry that the federal government should cease its
involvement in the agricultural sector in Quebec. They said also
that we should repatriate all of the levers and budgets, but only
after these budgets are redressed and made more equitable.
As my colleague said earlier, the fairness of federal
interventions in the area of agriculture is certainly not going to
choke the federal government, for it certainly has not during the
last 15 years. Federal interventions have always been unfair to
Quebec.
Therefore, decentralization and repatriation of powers and
public funds in support of the farmers' efforts is a third
possibility we must look upon favourably since these elements
are not sufficient, given the new realities to which we have to
adjust.
3629
The fourth avenue is support for the transition toward
sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agriculture will protect and
help regenerate the resources used in the production of
agricultural goods while at the same time satisfying the
advocates of economic performance. Not only is sustainability
vital, it is also serves to promote agriculture, as does food
quality or safety.
Agriculture in Quebec, as in the rest of Canada for that matter,
will be competitive only if we can offer products that are not
only as good as those of our trading partners but even better. We
must increase support for the trend toward sustainable
development that Quebec farmers adopted a couple of years ago;
it is not easy for them to go from conventional farming or
breeding techniques to increasingly environment friendly
methods, but it pays. When it comes to adapting to a new world
order, I would say that it is a promotion tool without equal which
could rapidly be recognized as such by our trading partners.
I will give, as a recent example of this, the growth hormone
called bovine somatotropin, which produces a 15 to 30 per cent
increase in milk production, depending on the study. My
colleague will correct me if I am wrong but according to the
public hearings held by the committee on agriculture, we will
get a moratorium, and already American processors have been
telling us that if we do not use the bovine somatotropin in the
coming year we could benefit from it since it is being used by
American producers. Take lactose products for newborns, for
example; the use of a growth hormone such as somatotropin can
be detrimental to the image of companies such as Global and
other firms involved in the manufacture of that kind of product.
Therefore, the payback could be great for Quebec and
Canadian dairy farmers, for instance, if their products were
more ``natural'' and retained a healthier image.
(1225)
All the commitments from the agri-food stakeholders in
Quebec and across Canada and their boundless dynamism and
energy are confronted with the government's lack of action and
its laissez faire attitude, as mentioned in the opposition motion.
I listened to the Minister of Finance say a few minutes ago
that the government had received everything it wanted from the
GATT negotiations. Really, there is no better example of the
government's lack of action to help support the growth and
development of the agriculture sector in Quebec and Canada
than this one. We did not get anything in these negotiations. As
soon as the GATT agreement was signed, we were told that
Canada had won on all fronts, but it was all a show. The truth is
Canada lost section XI(2)(c)(i) of the GATT.
I repeat, we do not blame the government for losing article
XI(2)(c)(i). What we are blaming it for is trying to dupe the
farmers of Quebec and Canada by telling them that we have won
on all fronts. Over the last six years farmers have become
experts in trade negotiations, they are experts on GATT.
Do not insult their intelligence by telling them that we won
everything. Please let us show some respect for the farmers of
Quebec and Canada. They are willing to adapt; they do it
constantly and they have demonstrated their resilience. They
will adapt to this new situation, but enough of these triumphant
speeches on GATT and agriculture. Canadian negotiators under
the direction of the new Liberal government won absolutely
nothing.
The same is true for export subsidies for our colleagues, the
grain farmers of western Canada. The main objective of the
Uruguay round, which started in 1986, was precisely to
eliminate export subsidies, the source of many problems in the
grain sector since 1978. Instead, we are talking of a 36 per cent
reduction in subsidies over the next few years. These subsidies
should have been eliminated altogether.
There is another example of this government's lack of action,
again in the grain sector. Look at the way the government
behaves when faced with threats of American action against
durum wheat. Western grain producers, the first producers of the
best quality durum wheat in the world, are threatened daily and
unfairly with trade retaliation by the Americans. They are not
more subsidized than their American counterparts. Policies like
the Crow's Nest Pass Agreement relating to western grain
transportation are being criticized, while the Americans have
the same subsidies for grain transportation on the Mississippi.
Why does this government not defend itself by saying no way,
there is a limit? You are telling us that our durum wheat is
subsidized, you want to threaten us with export quotas on the
U.S. market while you are subsidizing your grain producers
perhaps even more than Canadian grain producers. I say perhaps
because only a study would demonstrate it.
That too is another example of the inertia of this government
toward agriculture in Quebec and Canada.
We can also talk now about bilateral negotiations between
Canada and the United States. Admittedly, I am concerned with
the new tariffication coming out of the GATT negotiations, one
that is supposed to apply to milk and farming industries. The
Americans are claiming since the beginning, since December 15
of last year, this new tariffication which will replace import
controls under article XI must be subject to the provisions of the
North American Free Trade Agreement, which provides for the
elimination of tariffs over the next 10 years. Even with a tariff
protection of 343 per cent for butter, contrary to what the
Minister of Finance was saying, we have gained nothing yet. We
3630
are still negotiating and the Americans are very tough in these
negotiations. Canadian negotiators, led by the present
government, have been behaving like pee-wees since the
beginning of the trade negotiations.
I see that my time is running out, but I think that I can give a
few more examples of inertia.
I look at what is happening in the chicken industry, in the
poultry industry in general. The bickering between Quebec and
Ontario is destabilizing the industry as a whole and is
jeopardizing the normal development of that industry, as well as
the implementation of measures allowing it to face world
competition. I see the lack of leadership in that issue.
(1230)
The minister of agriculture should show a little more
leadership, deal with the matter and act as a conciliator instead
of not giving a darn about it and letting people fight.
Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable and you can understand
much better what is meant by government inaction in the
agricultural sector.
It is the same thing with all the discussions going on about the
new income security programs in the agricultural sector.
I asked the minister of agriculture a number of times, as I
pointed out to the Minister of Finance this morning, to show
responsibility and to instruct his officials who are negotiating
the new income security programs, especially in the
horticultural sector, to proceed with the negotiations so that a
new income security program can be put in place for market
farmers in Quebec and Ontario who agree with that and to stop
buying everything senior officials say.
Unfortunately, those people will not show any leadership.
They go along with anything senior officials say during
negotiations and discussions.
I find that in the present circumstances it is very dangerous to
have leaders like that, political leaders who do not take their
responsibilities and who show no accountability whatsoever,
given the enormous challenges facing the agricultural sector in
Quebec and in Canada.
In closing, I wish that in the forthcoming months farmers in
Quebec and in Canada will be better served by their federal
government because they deserve to be supported for the
tremendous efforts they have been making for the past years to
meet the challenges of globalization, in particular.
As for Quebec producers, we are proposing to them, through
sovereignty, to take up the great challenge they talked about
during the discussions held over the past years, that is to give
Quebec an agricultural sector that would be strong,
environmentally friendly but above all that would provide a
living for farmers, men and women, in Quebec and in Canada as
well.
We are giving all those farmers, especially those living in
Quebec, a chance to take part in the agri-food program of their
own country.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Québec-Est will
straighten his colleague out when he gets a chance to talk to him
a bit and explain a few facts.
The hon. member for Québec-Est surely knows that the
United States of America did not challenge a single tariff
established by Canada.
It had until April 15 to do so. I have the list in front of me,
page after page of tariffs.
Therefore, this is the final list for agricultural tariffs and not
one was challenged by the United States. Did the hon. member
opposite know that? According to the comments he made
previously, I would say he did not.
Second, the hon. member talked about durum wheat. Does he
know that Canada won four times over that issue? If you will
allow an expression used in hockey, and we talked about hockey
last evening in this House, it is four to nothing. We have won
four to nothing.
The United States took us to the GATT and we have won four
times to date. If we were successful four times in a row, one need
not be a lawyer from Baie-Comeau to understand that we will
win a fifth time. The Canadian government is protecting
Canadian farmers, it is doing all it can for them. Therefore, to
describe the situation in such a way and to refer to sovereignty as
a means to end the debate is something else. Members opposite
may mix sovereignty with ice cream or with wheat, or even the
three together when it suits them, but the truth is a bit different.
We are talking about the loss of article XI of the GATT. I have
before me an article published in a francophone paper of my
riding and I call upon the hon. member to give an answer to all
this.
If what he is saying is true, how does he explain, for instance,
that according to some agricultural journals, and I will quote
only the title since time is running out: ``Despite the loss of
article XI of the Gatt, Canadian supply management programs
are safe''? I could read one quote after another from agricultural
journals stating that our quotas are safe. How does he explain
that quotas are protected in the opinion of the agricultural
community but not in the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois? Could
it be that the Bloc members do not support quotas?
(1235)
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I will start with the last question
because as usual the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has gone too far. He said that in
spite of the loss of article XI, supply management sectors would
survive, and so forth. I never said they would not. I said: stop
deceiving Quebec
3631
producers by saying that you won on all fronts. Producers are
now adjusting, and I can assure you that these are very talented
and ingenious people. They will adjust. They will get through
this rough spot, but I don't think you will in the next election.
We say stop deceiving the producers who know everything
there is to know about GATT articles. They know perfectly well
that article XI has been replaced by a tariff that will be reduced
gradually. It will not be easy to adjust, but they will. Nobody
said supply management was dead in the dairy sector and the
agricultural industry. You only hear what you want to hear.
I also think we should stop underestimating the intelligence of
farm producers regarding another issue raised by the hon.
member opposite. In referring to tariffs, we said that today,
negotiations were taking place between the United States and
Canada, and if the hon. member denies the existence of these
negotiations, he is contradicting what was said by his minister of
agriculture, his Minister for International Trade, his Minister of
Finance and his own Prime Minister.
On December 15, a Canadian task force was appointed by the
Prime Minister when the GATT agreement was signed. On the
American side, an American task force was appointed by
President Clinton to examine the implications of the GATT
agreement and the corresponding section of the North American
free trade agreement. How do we manage both?
The first thing the Americans said was that NAFTA took
precedence over the GATT agreement as far as tariffs were
concerned. In other words, the new tariff designed to protect the
agriculture and dairy sectors should come under NAFTA, which
provides that in ten years' time, tariffs will be phased out. If he
does not have the facts, I think he should stop talking nonsense.
Incidentally, last week I was reading a report from the Prairie
Pool and the Western Producer which said the Canadian
government should stand firm on the durum wheat issue. These
are not my words but those of western producers and editorial
writers. If the hon. member thinks we only read about what
happens in Quebec, he is wrong. We take our responsibilities as
the Official Opposition very seriously, and to us it is clear
Canada is not doing its job to protect western grain producers in
the case of durum wheat exports to the United States. That is the
subject of today's debate. I realize the truth may not be
palatable, but above all, I wish the hon. member would stop
talking nonsense. When one does not know the facts, one
refrains from commenting.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, it is
obvious that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
does not really know the agricultural sector, because when he
says that no tariff was disputed, he forgets that negotiations are
under way right now with the Americans, mostly concerning ice
cream and yogurt. That is mainly what these negotiations are
about. That is where we will really suffer. They want to reduce
tariffs by 200 per cent in these two sectors. It is criminal.
They really do not know what they are talking about. Huge
amounts are involved. It amounts to about 14 per cent of the
whole industry. If they think they won in the GATT negotiations,
why is the Ontario chicken market in a crisis? Why are farmers
subject to quotas in a state of panic? They raised their
production by 30 per cent. They are at war. They do not respect
the Canadian council's recommendations regarding chicken
production. Why? Because the federal government did not do its
job in the GATT negotiations. Because it did not win. It was able
to reach an agreement which seemed very generous for farmers,
but when they examine the facts in various fields and sectors
such as ice cream, yogurt or poultry, farmers soon realize that
there is no real guarantee of good revenues, on the contrary.
(1240)
For the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to
maintain that we won at the GATT table and that there is no
change considered concerning tariffs in some sectors subject to
quotas, I must tell him that I do not agree.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that
negotiations were ongoing on yogurt and ice cream, as my
colleague mentioned a few minutes ago. It is a very important
sector for Quebec since it absorbs around 48 or 49 per cent of
industrial milk, that is to say milk used to make yogurt and ice
cream.
On a national level, it is more like 15 per cent. Forty per cent
of the total Canadian yogurt production comes from Quebec,
that is why this sector is vital for the future of the dairy industry
in Quebec. I forgot to mention these negotiations, but I am quite
sure that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell did not
even know about them.
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
take part in the debate today. The pleasure will be to try to
educate, either in my comments or in answer to the questions
afterward, members across the way who obviously do not know
the facts about what is going on in agriculture today.
I have read the motion and have commented earlier today. I
say to members opposite that in one way I agree with what they
are saying in their motion. The agri-food industry is going
through some of the most significant changes in 30 years.
However, as I said before, those changes are positive. They are
challenges. They are offering things to the industry that were
never offered to that extent before.
3632
It is not inertia; it is just the contrary. A tremendous amount of
activity is going on. As we go through life there are challenges.
We have to prepare ourselves to meet challenges head on, to
manage those challenges that come before us. This is a time of
opportunity; this is a time of vision.
The government should be commended. I respect and agree
with some members opposite who have spoken today about
some of the good things the government has been doing in their
view. We have only been here for six months. We had to take the
hand that was dealt us, as the finance minister said earlier this
morning, in the agri-food industry as well as in many other
sectors and try to make the best of it.
We are well into the process of taking stock of what is going
on. We are consulting constantly with the players, all the
stakeholders. I remind members of the House and anyone who
might be watching today about the size of the agri-food sector in
Canada. There are 225,000 farms in Canada, plus or minus,
depending on the definition of a farm. There are about 425,000
or 430,000 people working on farms.
I remind the House of the title of the department. It is the
Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The agri-food system
in Canada employs over 1.5 million Canadians or about 15 per
cent of the Canadian working population.
When we look at its value, the $10.5 billion in input costs of
primary producers or farmers each year to start the system
evolve into about $13.5 billion in exports of either bulk or
processed agri-food products. In addition Canadians spend at
the purchasing or retail level. This does not include the cost of a
restaurant meal but the cost of the food that the restaurant
operator will buy. That $10.5 billion of input that primary
producers make each year multiplies to over a $70 billion
agri-food industry in Canada. In terms sometimes used in
agriculture, that is no small potatoes. That is a big industry.
(1245)
I have been involved in the agri-food industry all of my life.
At no time have I seen a coming together of the players in the
agri-food industry like we in this government have been able to
make happen in the short time we have been here.
We are bringing this with a tremendous amount of
co-operation, and a tremendous amount of reflection around the
situations that are there today. They are coming around the
table. They are sitting down together to talk about how we in the
industry, everybody, all the stakeholders, can collectively do
what needs to be done so that we are all successful as we go
down the road.
I wanted to make those comments. As well, I want to
congratulate those in the agri-food sector for the way they are
meeting these challenges. As has been outlined by some other
speakers today, it is not easy. It is not easy in any sector in
today's economy.
It is not easy in the agri-food sector as well, whether one is
out there today seeding, whether one is out there with one's
livestock or whether one is further along as a further processor
or wholesaler or retailer or whatever.
It is not easy but they are meeting those challenges. That is
because that industry is made up of people who are very capable,
highly educated, very well trained in the use and management of
technology and use and management in general, in marketing, et
cetera.
I praise them and congratulate them. We look forward in the
ministry and in this government to continuing to work with
those people to meet those challenges. I want to also remind
everyone today we in government realize that we are an
exporting nation. Agriculture for every dollar, that is farm gate
dollar we talk about, about 46 to 50 cents of that in the end is
derived from export.
It is important that as a government we have taken the
initiatives we have concerning the trade opportunities out there
for us. We know this government was involved in the GATT deal
in the last seven weeks of what turned out to be a seven year
round of negotiations which was supposed to be completed in
four.
We also found that maybe the previous government had not
been forthright with the industry in telling it about 24 months
before we got there as a straightforward and straight shooting
government that many of the supporters for supply management
had long left the table. The previous government had not
explained that as forthrightly as it could have to Canadians and
to the industry.
We had a choice. We made the responsible choice. We could
have walked away from the table and let the rest of the world
shape the destiny of the Canadian dairy, egg and poultry
industry, but that was not the responsible way to go. We took the
choice of sitting down and making the best deal we possibly
could.
We made a deal. Yes, it is tariffication. There is no deal,
whether it is a GATT deal or whether it is a contract to do
something else, with which everybody walks away from the
table happier. Yes, we would like to have had an article XI that
was there and firm, but I issue this challenge to everyone: If we
had got that strengthened and clarified article XI, whatever that
might have been, I would also think we would have to be honest
enough to say that it too probably would have been challenged
down the road.
3633
As we go about in the world today, we know the advantages of
freer trade in the world. We have been successful in putting in
tremendous amounts of protection for the dairy, egg and poultry
industry that still and by the year 2001 will have tariff levels at
85 per cent of where they are at the present time.
That is only a reduction of 2.5 per cent per year for the six
years after the GATT deal is implemented, be that January 1,
1995 or July 1, 1995. That decision has not yet been made.
(1250 )
Nowhere did we work as diligently than on that trade issue.
Without question we got the best deal we possibly could for
Canadian producers because as I said before fundamentally we
are a trading nation. On those negotiations and even now on the
negotiations on some bilateral issues with the United States we
have put forward our position very vigorously.
In the bilaterals with the United States that include wheat and
a few other products there will be-and we promise this to the
Canadian producers and to Canada totally-no deal unless it is a
good deal for Canada. That means a good deal for the grain
sector, a good deal for the processing sectors and for the supply
managed sectors.
We will not trade off one sector against another as some
people think we should. We say we will not because we should
not. There is no reason. We are negotiating and talking about
different issues at the table, but we are not talking about them
interconnecting with each other.
We have been steadfast and strong on our position. This is
emphasized by the fact that these bilaterals have been going on
now for many months. There have been three face to face
meetings and many meetings with officials in conversations
over the telephone by the ministers, the minister with the
secretary of state for agriculture in the United States, and we
have stood firm and we will continue to stand firm on those.
With the trade agreements that we have, especially with the
GATT agreement, we now have a set of trade rules that all
countries will have to abide by. We have the World Trade
Organization that we can go back to, any country can go back to
if it thinks it is being mistreated or mishandled or accused of
something by another country. One must never be so naive as to
think that challenges will not continue to arise.
When we think someone is not treating Canada properly we
will use the measures available to us to challenge that and to
question that. We also have to recognize that the reverse may
very well be true.
As the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell just
outlined, in the durum wheat issue with the United States the
score is four to zero. As we speak today the International Trade
Commission in the United States is having another hearing on
that and we are confident it will be five to zero when this is over.
What we are doing here in Canada is playing fair. We are
following the rules. We have been playing fair. We continue to
play fair and we will continue to win as we play with those fair
trade rules.
We recognize as well that we just cannot focus. It is very
important because if the primary producer is not economically
viable its chain is not going to pull. If the processor is not
economically viable, if the further processor, the wholesaler and
the retailer are not economically viable, we recognize that the
chain will not pull. We know full well that in all those different
stakeholder areas in the sector the efficient producer, the
efficient operator, must be economically viable for the sector to
be successful.
In light of that, if I could refer to the supply managed sector,
the opposition today is saying there is inertia, inaction. That is
far from the case. The minister of agriculture has given me the
opportunity to lead a task force in that industry. Some of the
opposition members are saying today that the stakeholders are
not involved which is far from the case.
In the supply managed sectors we have put in place five
commodity committees made up of primary producers,
processors, grocery products manufacturers, further processors,
all of the stakeholders. We first put together the list of the issues
and the process is in place to deal with them. Now those people
who work in that industry every day, not bureaucrats, are sitting
down together and deciding how we can best take advantage of
the opportunities that are now before us under the new rules of
GATT and under the new trade rules we have.
I do not know what more could be asked than to have that type
of participation.
(1255 )
We have made great strides as well in meeting the challenge
the ministers have put forward, provincial and federal. As far as
knocking down interprovincial trade barriers, we know that is a
tremendous challenge. It is just like everything else. Too often
people agree with it in principle and then when it comes time to
do something the walls start going up. We have to knock those
walls down.
We have to meet the challenge and we are forging ahead in
many different areas to meet the challenges as far as $20 billion
of export trade by the year 2000. The industry collectively with
federal and provincial governments says we can do that and is
welcoming the challenge.
As far as the inertia some people talk about, obviously they do
not know and should become more aware of what is going on in
this government. They need to do a little more reading. They
need to follow a little closer.
3634
I have talked about supply management. I have talked about
the bilateral discussions with the United States. I announced a
few minutes ago in the House, and I will comment on it again,
that some of us have been talking with the minister in China this
morning. We fully realize, could I say, the confusion and the
problems and the challenges in the western grain movement at
the present time.
The minister will be officially announcing tomorrow that he
will be bringing together as soon as he possible can on his return
from Asia a small group of key players in the western grain
sector. They will put their heads together around the table and
see what they can do to fix those problems out there and will
then go on from there to look at all of the issues out there in the
western grain industry, the Canadian grain industry. It is not just
a western problem. It has come to a head in the western area
right now, but it is a problem right across the country which we
recognize.
We have made some changes already according to our
platform. We have announced some changes in the Farm Credit
Corporation. We have probably made more strides with
pesticide regulation and the registration process in the last 60
days than the previous government did between the time it
tabled that study in December 1990 until fortunately it was
replaced here in Ottawa with the present government.
As well, we have placed some extra people in trade office
positions around the world, namely in Mexico, Japan and
Taiwan, and they are giving us good results. We have established
a new branch in the department called the market and industry
branch to work with producers, producers groups, processors
and the industry as we go about the world with the new
opportunities and challenges to market further processed
products.
We have been fairly successful, but not as successful as we
might like to have been in Canada in the past by selling bulk
products. The way we have to go now to create the jobs and to
take advantage of value added is to value add and further process
those here.
The minister, as we know, is spending a number of days in
Korea, Hong Kong and China not only talking about grain but
about beef, dairy and pork, reaffirming the connections and the
strategic alliances we have there. We know, and this is straight
from the World Bank, that it is saying between now and the year
2000, 50 per cent of the increase in world trade, including
agricultural trade, will take place in that part of the world.
That is not very long, between 1995 and the year 2000, 50 per
cent of the increase. That is because 50 per cent of the increase
in the wealth in the world is going to take place in that area and
we need to be there. We are working with everybody in the
industry in order to collectively take advantage of that.
One of the goals and the platforms this government ran on last
fall which we will fulfil is the agri-food industry. We want to
ensure financial security. We want to ensure food safety for
Canadians. We want to reassure Canadians that we will maintain
and improve the sustainability of the resources that mean so
much to all of us. We will do that by having adaptation and
development programs and consultation processes with
everybody in the industry. We will promote that growth through
market responsiveness and value added initiatives. I am proud to
say that we will do that while at the same time maintaining fiscal
responsibility.
(1300)
I am going to close with one comment that I always like to
close with and remind people of. Yes, we have a lot of important
sectors in the Canadian economy. Maybe it is because I was born
and brought up on a farm and maybe it is because after my
family my first love is the agri-food industry, but I want to
remind everybody in Canada and remind this House-and we,
the minister and the department are fully aware of that-as goes
agriculture so goes the economy of any country.
We are going to make sure, with the co-operation of
everybody, that agriculture goes well and therefore the economy
of this country will go well as a result of that.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief to the hon. parliamentary secretary. You
mentioned the breaking down of interprovincial trade-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I just want to remind
members to direct their questions through the Chair.
Mr. Harris: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
Could the hon. member specifically and briefly give me a
couple of examples of interprovincial trade barriers that the
government is working on that would begin to allow western
producers to have access to the Ontario and Quebec markets?
Are there one or two specific trade barriers he is working on at
the present time that would allow that?
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, because a number of these are in
the negotiation area and because, as I said, it seems to be a
delicate area that everybody agrees with in principle, when the
ministers get together they talk about different things.
The last time the federal and provincial ministers met
together they gave the officials very firm instructions. I had the
opportunity to be at that meeting. There were very firm
instructions to get together again and to continue their meetings
with each other to find some of those initial ones where we can
start to show that type of activity can work.
There has been some work done and some successes as far as
honey and some different things in the last few years. However
there are more major ones that I know we need to look at,
unfortunately not only in agriculture. We have too many trade
barriers between provinces. It seems that the will is there now
and the recognition is there more than ever. I guess like anything
else, the first thing you have to do to conquer something is to
recognize that you have a problem. I think there is more
recognition now than there ever has been and that is a big first
step.
3635
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the government member that, in final
analysis, the energy that exists in the agricultural sector must
come from its leadership.
However, it is well known that the problems do not come from
farmers, they come from the inability of the government to
defend them. It could not protect article XI and similarly,
protectionism is disappearing. The only argument I was given at
the Bélanger-Campeau Commission by the person who is now
Minister of Foreign Affairs was the Canadian system will
protect milk production in Quebec, but if you leave Canada you
will lose this protection.
This argument is no longer appropriate, because we now are in
a much larger market. Does the hon. member not agree that in
the North American economy, in the Canadian economy, eastern
and western agricultures have interests so different that trying to
defend them simultaneously brings about important problems
and situations almost impossible to reconcile? I will give an
example. In lamb production there were rules to control disease.
In my riding a sheep farmer had a problem because of a disease
in his flock.
(1305)
Previously, stricken animals were slaughtered and that was
the end of the problem. Now, under pressure from the
Americans, we have changed our procedure. We do not slaughter
the animals anymore, because they have such large herds out
West that the Americans insisted we change our procedure. In
Quebec where the herds are small, we must abide by
nation-wide guidelines which are not realistic for small flocks
of pure bred sheep.
We thus place in opposition eastern and western farmers even
though in this case it was not just to please western farmers, it
was under pressure from the Americans, and this is a problem
for Quebec.
I took this example to show that in the future the interests of
Quebec farmers and those of Canadian farmers will be difficult
to reconcile. Our interests are different and in the past we have
often been on the losing end. I think that in the near future
Quebec farmers are going to make a choice that will allow them
to work out more concrete solutions in the larger economic
market we now have.
[English]
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the specific
example of lamb producers the hon. member is referring to, I am
not familiar with that. I would be interested if he would explain
and chat with me about that. My guess is there is more to what is
being said. I am not accusing the member of not giving the
whole story.
I can give the example of what we in Agriculture Canada did
for our industries when we found the-and I cannot get my
tongue around the big full name-the mad cow disease. When
one cow died in Alberta last year because of that we sought out
and destroyed all of the animals from coast to coast in this
country that we thought ever had a chance of coming in contact
with it. We did that in order to protect the beef industry, and I am
sure we will take similar actions as far as the lamb industry is
concerned. I would be interested to follow that up.
As far as the protectionism in article XI, I just do not buy that.
There are concerns. I ask the member to consider this: If the
dairy industry and dairy producers are so concerned about their
future, I would ask him why they are paying more as far as
purchasing quota to have the opportunity for the right to
produce. I simply cannot understand if somebody is convinced
in their mind, as they are, that the industry is going some place
in a hand cart why so many people want to be in the cart.
It is very interesting. When we talk to producers, the dairy
farmers of Canada, we find it did not go exactly the way
everybody wanted it to go. We look at the level of protection, the
very slow rate.
What we have in the supply managed sector for the next six or
seven years is the opportunity to prepare to meet the challenges
of the market, the challenges of that very, very slow rate of
reduction. I remind members opposite that even in the year 2001
the tariff rate protection for all of those will still be very close
to, if not over, 200 per cent.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, this
government is indeed lacking in leadership. That is very obvious
because there has been lots of talk since this morning, and even
some mistakes made by certain members, including the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
The parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture has
just told us that the government is doing the best it can, in spite
of the split among farmers. However, even when farmers agree
completely with consumers, as is the case with bovine
somatotropin, what does the government do? What action has
the government taken in response to a unanimous
recommendation from the Agriculture Committee with which
some members of this House are quite familiar?
(1310)
I would like to ask this question of the parliamentary
secretary to the minister of agriculture. What is the government
doing? Does it plan to comply with the agriculture committee's
recommendation that a one-year moratorium be imposed on the
sale of this hormone, a move which is endorsed by all farm
agencies in Canada and by all consumer organizations?
3636
Mr. Boudria: Yes.
Mr. Marchand: As usual, the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is uninformed. Therefore, I will
put the question to the parliamentary secretary to the minister of
agriculture.
[English]
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the member opposite
to have a one to one debate on agriculture sometime with the
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I would suggest that
he be very well prepared before he enters into that debate.
As far as the government's response to the recommendations
of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
regarding the bovine growth hormone or BST or whatever term
you want to use-we know the product he is talking about-the
member knows full well because he is a member of that
committee and was there I understand when the
recommendations were put forward.
The government has 150 days to respond to those
recommendations. I know that the government, the officials, the
minister and I are already discussing those recommendations.
The member can be assured this government will respond well
within the 150 days in a very responsible way to the
recommendations made to the government by the standing
committee.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate. The
hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry has the floor. I would
ask him to help out the Chair by indicating whether he will share
his time or take the full 20 minutes.
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, I was just about to tell you. We will share our time
pursuant to Standing Order 43(2).
I would like to move on to the motion before us today, a
motion on agriculture.
The term ``lack of action'' was mentioned with regard to the
government opposite; I totally agree with the notion of ``lack of
action'' and I would like to add another term: inequity.
I think that in the last several years Quebec farmers have been
treated inequitably by the Canadian government; that is
unacceptable, in my opinion.
I dug out a few figures to support my arguments and to have
the word ``inequity'' included in today's non-confidence
motion because, when we look at government spending on
agriculture, it is clear that for the federal government
agriculture is limited to western Canada.
I will start by giving you an example. In 1980, Quebec was the
beneficiary of $300 million in federal agricultural expenditures,
compared with $1 billion in western Canada.
In 1987 Quebec received $410 million, compared with over
$4 billion in Western Canada. I think adding the word
``inequity'' to today's motion would be neither superfluous nor
inappropriate.
Another thing I discovered is that Quebec's share of federal
spending went from 16.4 per cent in 1980 to only 7.7 per cent in
1987, which amounts to half of Quebec's share of farming
revenues in Canada or 15.6 per cent.
On the other hand, western Canada's share of federal
agricultural expenditures went from 55 per cent in 1980 to 76
per cent in 1987.
Between 1980 and 1987, Quebec's share fell while Western
Canada's increased. It went from 55 per cent in 1980 to 76 per
cent in 1987.
Once again, I emphasize the terms ``unfairness'' and
``inequities'', all these expenditures to which Quebecers
contributed a big share through their taxes of various kinds; they
know very well that the federal government gets a lot from them.
We calculate that about 25 per cent of the taxes collected by
the federal government comes from Quebec, which means that
this money which Quebecers send to the federal government is
redistributed unfairly to our detriment, especially in agriculture.
From 1980 to 1987, federal spending on agriculture increased
one sixth as fast in Quebec as in the rest of Canada.
(1315)
During that period federal spending rose by 192 per cent. I am
glad that federal spending on agriculture rose by 192 per cent
between 1980 and 1987. The federal government thought it was
important to increase its spending to help agriculture. I come
back to my word ``unfairness'', and we will see how this 192 per
cent increase in federal spending on agriculture was distributed.
Spending increased 37 per cent in Quebec, compared with 340
per cent in Alberta, 292 per cent in Manitoba and 285 per cent in
Saskatchewan. Again I come back to the word ``unfairness''.
Such glaring differences are outrageous. An increase of 37 per
cent in Quebec when Alberta got 340 per cent, Manitoba 292 per
cent and Saskatchewan 285 per cent is unacceptable. I repeat
that a lot of this money, at least 25 per cent, comes from
Quebecers.
3637
In 1990, the federal government spent almost half, 50 per
cent, of its whole agriculture budget on research. I do not know
if it is by chance, but most of the agriculture research budget was
invested in grain production. We know that more grain has been
produced in Quebec in recent years, but nevertheless it only
accounts for 6 per cent of all our agricultural production in
Quebec. We were shortchanged in the distribution of the
research budget of the department of agriculture, considering
that the department invested half its budget in research on grain
and grain is only 6 per cent of Quebec's agricultural production.
When the time came to do research in three other sectors
where Quebec is much more active, namely the dairy, poultry
and pork industries, it only contributed 24 per cent. Yet, these
industries account for 59 per cent of Quebec's production.
Again, you can see the inequity. Ten per cent of the research
budget is allocated to the dairy industry, while the production of
this sector represents one third of the total. Quebec was also
penalized regarding research and development in agriculture,
since more than 50 per cent of that budget was spent in western
Canada.
Federal government policies unfairly benefit western
producers and adversely affect Quebec producers'
competitiveness, particularly regarding grain and livestock
production, as I just mentioned.
These unfair federal policies force Quebec to make greater
financial efforts to support the agricultural industry. Let me
explain how, because the province does not get its fair share
from the federal government, the Quebec department of
agriculture must rely on provincial taxes. In 1987, the Quebec
department of agriculture, fisheries and food had to allocate
$569 million to the agricultural sector, whereas the federal
government was only contributing $410 million. In other words,
the Quebec government spends more on its agricultural sector
than the federal government.
The injustice lies in the fact that Quebecers have contributed a
lot more to support agriculture in other provinces than in their
own province. In 1987, Quebecers contributed $1.3 billion to
agriculture in the other provinces. We paid for 25 per cent of all
federal expenditures in agriculture, which totalled at that time
$5.3 billion, twice the Quebec budget for agriculture. In other
words, we use Quebec taxpayers' money to spend $569 million
on our own agricultural industry and to send $1.3 billion to
Ottawa to support other Canadian provinces. That also is unfair.
I really want to stress that point. I want to show how utterly
unfair Canadian policies were to Quebec policies.
(1320)
There is a double standard in the federal agricultural policy,
and I want to give you some examples. Between 1983 and 1987,
federal subsidies reached an average of $32 a tonne for Western
grain, compared to $12.34 a tonne for Quebec grain. Why $34 in
the west and only $12 in Quebec? What was that all about? We
pay taxes like evernyone else. Why do we not get our fair share?
Pursuant to the act, the Canadian Wheat Board must, at the
time of delivery, pay to western grain producers an initial
payment set and guaranteed by the federal government. If sales
revenues do not cover the payments made, the federal
government makes up for the deficit. This system resulted in the
following: between 1985 and 1988, the federal government
spent $344 million to cover the difference between the sales
price asked by the Canadian Wheat Board and the payments
made to the producers. We ended up with a $344 million deficit
which the federal government covered with our taxes. The worst
of it all is that Quebec grain producers are not eligible for that
program. We pay for the rest of the producers, but we are not
entitled to these benefits.
In 1991 and 1992, under the western grain stabilization
program, western grain producers were guaranteed a net income
equivalent to their average income over the five previous years.
The federal government paid for three quarters of the
contributions for this program, and the producers paid the rest.
Western provincial governments did not take part in this
program. When came the time to implement the program in
Quebec, the federal government asked the province to pay for a
third of it. Why did the western provinces not participate in it?
Was it strictly between the producers and the federal
government? When the time came for Quebec to take advantage
of this program, Ottawa told the province that it had to pay for a
third of it.
Western grain transportation support is a real scandal. Since
1983, the federal government has been paying an indexed $658
million every year. In 1991-1992, it paid railroad companies 1.1
billion to transport western grain, whereas Quebec producers
were once again not eligible for that program. We pay taxes and
with our taxes, the government promotes farm production in the
west at the expense of eastern producers. It is in that sense that I
would like to add the words ``lack of fairness'' to the words
``lack of action'' in our motion. If I had more time, I could give
you more examples, but my allotted time is running out.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sorry, but the
member's allotted time has expired.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised
at some of the comments from the member on the other side. He
is certainly playing with numbers.
One of the principles in the country is that in times of need we
share in helping each other out of our difficulties. In terms of the
payments to the west, I remind the member that there was an
international grain price war. We had an obligation as a country
to support western Canada and that is what we did. By the same
token, when there were low prices in the hog industry and in the
3638
beef industry, which is more located in Quebec, the country
supported those industries.
The member opposite should understand that one of the
programs Quebec benefits from probably more than any other
province is the supply management system. Quebec has
benefited greatly. Its dairy production is somewhere around 46
per cent to 48 per cent of the total dairy production in the
country as a result of our great Canadian supply management
program.
I have a question for the member. If his party were successful
in moving toward separation, which I do not believe it will be,
what would that do to dairy producers in the province of Quebec
in terms of the loss of the great Canadian supply management
system we operate under?
(1325)
[Translation]
Mr. Lavigne: Mr. Speaker, I could have given you other
examples, but I think that the presentation I made just a moment
ago clearly showed that the level of Quebec's participation in
agricultural tax revenue, taxation money sent to the federal
government and reinvested in Canadian agriculture is I repeat,
unfair; we realized that numerous programs were unfair.
In reply to my colleague's question, I would say that if
Quebec were to separate and become sovereign, we could keep
all that money, that is approximately $28 billion in various taxes
sent to Ottawa each year, and redistribute it through our
different agricultural programs without being subjected to
federal inequity and discrimination. We would then offer our
own farmers many very profitable programs. I think, in that
case, we could be much more aggressive on the international
markets and carve our own niche for milk, poultry, eggs, grains
or anything else we would chose to produce in Quebec.
I think there would be no problem whatsoever. On the
contrary, sovereignty would solve a problem.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to speak the motion denouncing the
government's lack of action and its inequity, as the hon. member
said.
The government does not seem to have a specific policy for
agriculture, especially considering the post-GATT situation.
However, in line with the Quebec development model, several
years ago the agricultural industry in Quebec started to organize
and conduct round table discussions involving all players in the
industry.
The États généraux du monde rural held in February 1991 in
Montreal was attended by all Quebecers involved in regional
development and the agri-food industry. This exercise produced
a series of guidelines for future action. Here are some examples:
letting the agricultural community take charge of its own future;
respecting and promoting regional and local values; focussing
on local and regional concertation and co-operation;
diversifying the regional economic base; protecting and
regenerating resources; and achieving a better balance in
political decision-making from the bottom up.
As part of this process of consultation and co-operation,
Quebecers in the agricultural industry organized and looked for
ways to pool their resources. Round table discussions were
organized on a sectorial basis, including the dairy industry, the
pork industry, and so forth. At the summit in Trois-Rivières in
June 1992, these discussions produced a consensus on what
should be done to promote the development of the agri-food
industry in Quebec.
The Trois-Rivières summit, an unprecedent exercise for
Quebec, produced a series of commitments which included the
following: to increase research and technology transfers as part
of a strategy for acquiring new markets; to recognize, promote
and support the need for human resources training; to guarantee
the continued existence, development and growth of agri-food
businesses; to revamp existing income security programs based
on production costs by emphasizing risk sharing, productivity of
farm operations, sustainable development and an awareness of
market signals; to develop income security programs
compatible with the rules of international trade; to promote the
financing and transfer of farm operations in such a way as to
prevent massive debt; to consider assistance for non-viable
operations that could be reoriented within the industry and help
farmers who retire from the industry.
After this consultation process, what the industry needs now
is the right vehicle to make the new strategy for agri-food
development in Quebec operational.
(1330)
People in the Quebec farm community know what they want.
They do not need the federal government to come in and impose
policies which do not coincide with the priorities and the paths
they have set for themselves. These people want to be able to
make the decisions in the areas which concern them.
What we are talking about here is a massive decentralization
from top to bottom. Is this something the federal government
can offer? Is the government willing to give Quebecers the
means to make their projects come true?
The agri-food sector needs a reasonable period of time to
reach international competitiveness. Unfortunately, the federal
government did not do a very good job of defending Canada's
interests and Quebec farmers during the Uruguay round of
negotiations under the GATT. It was totally unable to preserve
article XI which afforded some protection to egg, poultry and
milk producers, concentrated mostly in Quebec. Despite
repeated promises by the Liberal government, last December,
federal negotiators were not able to rally enough countries to
defend and preserve article XI.
3639
Although the present import quotas will be replaced by high
tariffs which will gradually diminish over time, the
disappearance of article XI will seriously shake the Quebec
farming community.
By accepting to sign the GATT agreement, the federal
government submits farmers, in Canada and Quebec, to a rate
and mode of change imposed from outside by our competitors.
The agri-food industry must change very rapidly in order to be
able to face the new international competition.
The GATT agreement reduces by 36 per cent the amount used
to subsidize exports of farm products. This is a step in the right
direction, although it is rather modest. Each year, Canadian and
Quebec taxpayers will have to spend hundreds of millions of
dollars merely to compete on international markets with heavily
subsidized grain exports from the United States and the
European Union.
While grain exports remain heavily subsidized, the GATT
accords have forced the government to review its overall
domestic farm support policies.
Clearly, the agreement negotiated in Geneva on December 15
last was not the best possible deal that the federal government
could have obtained for Canadian and Quebec farmers. The
biggest threat to the interests of Canadian and Quebec farmers is
the outcome of Canada-U.S. trade negotiations in the
agricultural sector.
The federal government is being taken for a rough ride by U.S.
negotiators over the question of tariffs on products subject to
quotas-eggs, poultry and milk-products concentrated
primarily in Quebec and Ontario, and over the question of
durum wheat, yogurt and ice cream exports to the United States.
Government spending in agriculture does not promote
structuring. The government should be evaluating the
cost-effectiveness of its actions. Agriculture Canada is now
involved in the analysis, organization and dissemination of
information on agri-food markets. However, the Auditor
General notes that the information collected does not
necessarily correspond to user needs. The Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food should strive to develop a closer
relationship with its clientele in order to avoid wasting public
funds.
The government must further define its action areas to ensure
that there is no overlap onto provincial initiatives. In Quebec,
industry and government have been working together for several
years on implementing various market strategies. Since
developing new markets seems to have become a federal
government priority, it is essential that Ottawa bear in mind the
priorities set by Quebec.
The federal government should contribute financially to the
efforts of stakeholders in the Quebec agri-food industry,
particularly research and development efforts, to ensure that
new market challenges are met.
(1335)
The idea is not just to spend the taxpayers' money, but to
invest it so as to promote industrial restructuring while
maintaining the family farm system which is pivotal to
Quebec's farm economy.
Producers and processors are working together to develop
new markets and adapt their products to consumers' tastes. In
the agri-food business, competition is fierce and the industry
must react quickly to diversify production, all the while making
sure it has access to the best suited technology. This means
keeping in step with the rapidly changing technologies used by
foreign competition.
The government must do more than make funds available for
research and development. It must ensure close co-operation
between its departments, the private sector and the research
community. We hope the government will take positive steps to
make sure the money spent meets the priorities imposed by
market developments. Also, when it intervenes, it should be fair
and give the same importance, relatively speaking, to each areas
of the agricultural industry.
One of the best solutions for Quebec farm producers, it seems,
would be the decentralization of the decisions making process
and related budgets. In a word, it is another good reason for a
sovereign Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
note in the member's speech that he recognizes the benefits of
the supply management system that has been designed in the
Canadian context.
I again come back to a question I asked his colleague
previously. The principle that the program of supply
management operates under is basically managing supply to
meet effective domestic demand. Given the fact that Quebec has
46 per cent to 48 per cent of the Canadian production, how is the
member going to explain to his producers under his proposed
separation that they will be able to have in place this system that
he so admires?
The member mentioned the trade discussions we are having
with the United States. I think we have to recognize that the
ministers are taking a tough stance in the interests of all
Canadians. I certainly say to the hon. member opposite we on
this side would welcome a statement of support from his party in
terms of that tough stance our Canadian ministers are taking in
those negotiations in all of Canada's interests.
[Translation]
Mr. Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I endorse the reply my colleague,
Mr. Lavigne, gave our friend opposite. I would like to
emphasize that the crux of the problem for the people of Quebec
is really inequity because from where we stand we get the
impression that the government's attention with regard to the
Canadian
3640
agricultural industry is centred on the western part of the
country.
I would also like to mention a few things my colleague did not
have the time to mention earlier. Regarding lamb production,
Quebec has been unable to keep up with Western Canada, with
its livestock increasing by 8 per cent from 1981 to 1991, as
compared with 33 per cent in western provinces. Based on all
that has been said so far in this debate in this place, I think we
have one more reason to become sovereign in Quebec, to get the
legislative tools we really need for things to run smoothly in our
future country.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, as
for milk production in Quebec, the question was raised-
[English]
-at least two times. Of course under the supply management
system Quebec has been advantaged in terms of milk
production. It is the only advantage in agriculture Quebec has
had under the present system.
(1340 )
Because of the fact that the federal government has been inept
in maintaining article XI, supply management is the thing of the
past as the hon. member knows. The farmers in Quebec,
organized as they are, better than any other agricultural
organization in Canada, are positioned to make such that the
milk production will be sold in other countries. We cannot work
any more in the supply management sector, only because the
federal government has not.
One other thing about inequity in terms of the expenses of the
federal government is it is not as though people in Quebec are
not generous people. We recognize the principle that when one
province is poorer than the other we try to be generous. That is
not the issue. The issue is disloyal competition.
This form of inequity which has been going on for decades in
Canada has disadvantaged Quebec in a disloyal way. That is to
say, in those areas where Quebec has had a marked advantage
like in pork production, moneys were being used by the federal
government to develop industries competitive to Quebec in
other provinces.
That is not a question of simple inequity. It is disloyal
competition. That has been one of the problems with the farmers
in Quebec.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the colleague of the
hon. member for Québec-Est, the hon. member for Champlain,
want to add anything to his colleague's comments before we
move on to comments? The hon. member for Champlain has the
floor.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, some
members of this House often think that we cannot see beyond
Quebec but I think we are able to include western Canada in our
discussions. We must, however, point out this great inequity
toward Quebec in all areas.
We do not want to sound like whiners but we have discovered
so many inequities at Agriculture Canada that it must be pointed
out today.
[English]
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, it is with great
pleasure that I take this opportunity to speak to the House about
the accomplishments of our government with respect to farm
income and safety nets.
As a western Canadian representing a large farming
community with both supply management and wheat farmers,
the debate today is of particular importance. I welcome debate
from members of both the Reform Party and the Bloc on these
matters.
While the previous government's plan for safety nets was
simply a piecemeal approach, our government looks at farm
income and safety nets in a much more comprehensive
perspective. In our campaign commitments, this government
called for the development of a strong whole farm support.
Our approach is based on simple but effective principles.
Farmers and their families need a comprehensive set of
programs that will provide income security as they move to
adjust and take advantage of the new international trading
regime and to generate economic growth in rural communities
that is badly needed in this country.
Our government wants to provide farming communities with
the tools they need to succeed in the years and the century ahead.
I am pleased to report to the Chair that our minister is doing an
effective job in that regard.
As we all know, the system of safety nets in Canadian
agriculture is a tripartite approach involving producers,
provinces and the federal government. There is tremendous
diversity and need out there.
We recognize there are different needs in Quebec, different
needs in Atlantic Canada, different needs even within Manitoba
in the northern and southern parts of the province. My hon.
friend from the Reform Party for Lisgar-Marquette will attest
to that, being a farmer from that area.
The approach taken by the minister is very open and
transparent. Soon after the election the minister established a
safety net conference for all players to air their views and
concerns. This is the approach we want to take with respect to
the whole farm support program. We do not want to have one
separate program in Quebec, one separate program in British
Columbia and one separate program in Prince Edward Island.
We are looking at a
3641
comprehensive national approach. We are meeting with Quebec
leaders.
(1345)
I want to refer, for example, to the GATT discussions that
were raised. Our minister spoke to dairy farmers in Quebec and,
if I am not mistaken, received a standing ovation. I also want to
say that the Liberal government brought in supply management
which benefited Quebec farmers greatly for the past 20 years.
On the question of loyalty I think we have been very loyal, very
representative and fair in our approach to all farmers.
We want the kind of safety nets that will benefit all the needs
of our partners. Taxpayers want programs that are financially
sound and transparent. Our objective, therefore, is to develop a
whole farm support program which will provide equitable
support for all commodities, all producers and all provinces;
which will not distort based on market signals; which will not
influence production decisions; and which is less vulnerable to
trade actions. Certainly people in the wheat industry in western
Canada know all about trade actions, particularly those invoked
most recently by the U.S.
Farmers have seen tremendous safety net changes in the last
five years. Some have been good, and we acknowledge the good
work, but others have failed due to hasty implementation and
because there was no producer acceptance or understanding.
The government is committed to full consultation and
agreement on an approach that works.
The accomplishments since the safety net conference clearly
show that our comprehensive and consultative approach is
working. This is not an easy process. People need to talk through
their differences. We acknowledge again that there are
differences. The parliamentary secretary acknowledged we have
to sit down at the negotiating table to work out these differences
in the best interests of all Canadian farmers.
The work of the committee over the next six months will be
critical in shaping the industry's economic position. To seize
opportunities presented by trade accords and growing
international markets we need stability and confidence at home.
The importance of this point has been impressed upon us
particularly again in western communities because of the
possible trade war with the U.S.
Stability does not interfere with our capability to be
innovative and market responsive, stability that allows us to
preserve our resources, stability that works with fiscal realities.
During the electoral campaign our government promised to
reinstate interest free cash advances to strengthen the farm debt
review process. The minister is consulting with farm groups and
has asked the sector to come up with proposals. This is an
important issue.
In the committee on banking, for example, we have heard
from the farming industry of Quebec, Atlantic Canada and
western Canada. These farmers tell us that they cannot get
access to capital. Young men and women in Canada cannot buy
farms, their parents' farms, because the banks are not willing to
do business with them. That is why we as a federal government
have stepped into the process through agencies such as the Farm
Credit Corporation to open up avenues of resources to young
Canadian farmers.
The agriculture and agri-food department is currently
reviewing the farm debt review board program, along with other
programs, to ensure they meet today's needs in the sector. Again
I want to emphasize that we are consulting with the people.
Our government is comfortable with the idea that safety nets
help industries stabilize income and ensure against risks the
banks are not willing to take on the Canadian farming industry.
However more money is not necessarily the answer. At home
and abroad value added and niche markets represent big bucks
for those who seize the opportunities. This is precisely what our
industry is trying to do.
The GATT has created new possibilities for the Canadian
farming community. I want to respond to my hon. friend's
comments about the GATT. Our Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food stood in the GATT negotiations to fight for the dairy
industry. I have dairy farmers in my riding who I know were
pleased with the outcome. I also know that tariffication levels
almost as high as 300 per cent will protect dairy farmers in
Quebec and those in my riding of Provencher.
(1350)
It is obvious the government has accomplished a lot since it
took office last fall. When we consider all the players involved
in the safety net design, the complexity and the diversity of our
agricultural industry, we realize the government is living up to
its commitments.
We brought everyone to the table. Our process of developing a
new safety net package is on a tight schedule. We want to
implement it by 1995. It will be a key item on the agenda for the
next federal-provincial meeting of agriculture ministers. Our
minister is planning to present it to the House soon after that.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Provencher for his speech. I point out
to him that the cash shortages, the financing problems, are
severe.
If he had read the Winnipeg Free Press last night he would
realize that one window manufacturing company in Winnipeg
got a $370,000 interest free grant. This is the kind of money the
FCC needs to help farmers solve some of their problems. I
would appreciate his attention to that.
3642
Mr. Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for those
comments. Although I have not read the Free Press to respond
accurately to that suggestion, I just want to advise the hon.
member that in both his riding of Lisgar-Marquette and my
adjacent riding of Provencher the federal government has made
a number of investments in terms of the farm community.
He will recall that only two or three weeks ago I had occasion
to visit his riding under the PAMWI agreements. I am pleased to
report that we made an investment of $3 million under a
tripartite agreement, with the federal government contributing
$1 million out of its agricultural program to the good people of
Winkler.
In keeping with the theme of my friends in the Reform Party,
the policies of the federal Government of Canada are equitable.
If we give something to a window manufacturer in Winnipeg for
a tax break, we certainly have given the same opportunities to
the people of Winkler, the town in which my hon. friend resides.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member said that efforts have been made since they came to
office. Having travelled to the west and being from the east, I
can say that they are two different worlds. Lands in the west are
much bigger and look very different to easterners, especially to
someone from the Gaspé Peninsula. Sons cannot afford to buy
their fathers' lands.
In my region of Matapédia, we do not even have our own
slaughterhouse; producers have to send their animals 100 or 150
kilometres away. I would like to ask the hon. member what
concrete measures, not only plans to review the situation, they
have taken since they came to office to help farmers' sons who
want to follow in their parents' footsteps. What are you doing to
help us slaughter our animals in our own communities instead of
200 or 300 kilometres away?
[English]
Mr. Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
observations and questions. He referred to dairy farmers in his
riding and I want to tell him that I have dairy farmers in my
riding.
(1355 )
I also point out what I think is important for the purposes of
his question. The dairy farmers in my riding are concentrated
largely in French communities, primarily French speaking
communities. The dairy farmers in Provencher, the southern
part of my French communities, are very similar to those in his
riding. The operations in 1993 are much the same. I would never
suggest that the operations in my hon. friend's riding are
somewhat further ahead or further behind those in mine.
I point out again that dairy farmers in Canada, including those
in the hon. member's riding, have done quite well in the past 20
years under a Liberal program of supply management. Just to
provide the hon. member with ongoing assurance, the
government will continue to express that loyalty to the people of
Quebec, to provide help for them and to stand up for the dairy
farmers in Quebec.
On the second point about slaughterhouses, I am working on a
similar kind of proposal with my provincial colleagues in the
southeast corner of Provencher. We are anticipating that our
exports in the hog and cattle industry are going to double over
the next 10 years. We are looking at capitalizing on that in terms
of value added.
I would ask the hon. member to have his membership convey
their interest in terms of entering into secondary processing with
value added to bring benefits to the community. I welcome that
kind of interactive process. I can assure the hon. member we are
doing everything in government to ensure that young farmers in
his area and in my area have the same opportunities as their
fathers and grandfathers did under a Liberal government.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciated hearing the hon. member for Provencher
speak to this issue.
As he is no doubt aware, a very divisive issue in western
Canada has been that of the recipient of payments under the
Western Grain Transportation Act. Should those funds be paid to
producers or paid to the railways as they are currently being
administered? Does the hon. member favour the status quo of
paying the WGTA to the railroads? Would he favour paying that
transportation subsidy to producers? Or, does he have a new
initiative that he would prefer to see undertaken?
Mr. Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his
question. As he probably knows a payment panel has been
studying the issue for some time. The Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food is awaiting the response from the panel to have a
look at the proposal.
I assure him that my position is in the best interests of grain
farmers in my area. If they tell me they would prefer to use the
current system then I will believe them. If they tell me they want
to change the system and have a direct cash payment then I will
support that.
Just to provide some context, farmers even within my own
riding have different views on the issue. Different farmers in
close proximity to one another will have different views on what
is in their best interests with respect to the payments they
receive.
I assure the hon. member and the whole House that our
minister, as I said in my opening comments, will study the issue
in detail. We want to hear everyone's view on it. We want to do
what is in the best interests of western Canadian farmers.
3643
The Speaker: It being two o'clock the House will now
proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order
31.
_____________________________________________
3643
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I
take this opportunity to speak out against corporal punishment.
I believe corporal punishment is an inhuman form of torture
that should not be accepted by civilized government. I was
appalled to learn that a provincial court judge has recently
spoken in favour of caning as an appropriate punishment for
young offenders.
In Singapore caning involves victims being lashed on their
bare buttocks with a thick bamboo rod by a martial arts expert.
These victims bleed after the first lash and are scarred for life.
Recent events in Singapore have drawn the world's attention to
this colonial form of justice. We could not advance as a civilized
nation if we were to practise archaic methods of punishment
such as caning.
I strongly believe we cannot deter violence by the threat of
inflicting violence against individuals.
* * *
(1400)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Health, who cares so much about the health of Canadians and
Quebecers, as she keeps saying, in my opinion deserves the gold
medal for cynicism.
How can the minister denounce provincial governments
forced to reduce health services or allow extra billing when her
own government has extended the freeze on transfer payments
until 1995?
How can the provinces maintain the quality of health care
when her government is constantly reducing its share of
health-care expenditures?
When she was in opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister said
that federal financing was on a slippery slope and was creating a
crisis in the Canadian health care sector.
The crisis is here and the responsibility for prolonging it falls
squarely on her own government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, during the
Easter recess I had the opportunity to meet with government
officials from 10 different municipalities within my riding of
Crowfoot.
Each of these Alberta municipal governments told me that it
is operating in the black and has varying degrees of reserves to
draw upon if necessary.
What a novel idea. Money in the bank, no interest payments,
no out of control debt, no threat of bankruptcy and a credit rating
which is indicative of good fiscal management and
responsibility. Only in Alberta they say.
I commend the mayors and councillors of these Alberta
municipalities. When asked how they managed to run a debt free
operation, they shared with me their closely guarded secret.
They said they never spend more than they bring in.
Why can the local governments express such responsibility in
fiscal matters while the federal government has been such a
disaster?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, the sale of killer
games and cards in Canada suffered a serious setback last week
when the Minister of Justice presented a bill banning them in
this country for children under 18. Board games and collectable
cards on mass murderers have no place in Canadian society.
These products glorify criminals and their brutal acts. Many
constituents in my riding of Ontario have conveyed to me their
concern and repugnance over the sale of such items to children.
I wish to commend the Minister of Justice for taking this
initiative and I will be glad when the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs begins public consideration of the bill.
I also take the opportunity to congratulate the Catholic
Women's League of Canada and the churches in my riding on
their efforts.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to congratulate Club Roma on its
3644
recent 33rd anniversary celebrations. Club Roma is an
important Italian organization in the city of St. Catharines. As
Club Roma begins its 34th year, it is launching the greatest
expansion and fund raising project in its history.
The ambitious project has been aptly kicked off with the Club
Roma dream house raffle. The new expansion project is
evidence of the important role that Club Roma plays in the
community. Many organizations in St. Catharines have
benefited from the club's generosity, including every hospital in
St. Catharines.
Club Roma is also an integral part of the rich multicultural
heritage of St. Catharines. The club's success in the preservation
and promotion of the diverse heritage of our community has
contributed immensely to the city of St. Catharines and the
greater Niagara region.
I extend congratulations and good wishes to the president,
Angelo Mirabella, and to Club Roma for a successful campaign
and a successful 1994.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Labour Congress has declared today a
national day of mourning for workers who have been killed or
injured on the job.
The figures for workplace death and injury are frightening.
Each work day four Canadians die as a result of accidents,
unsafe conditions or exposure to harmful substances at work.
Disabling injuries have increased 17 per cent over the past 20
years. One in four women each year is injured on the job
compared with one in eighteen men. The cost of workplace
death and injury amounts to $10.6 billion a year.
No one can place a value on life or the suffering of family and
friends who have lost a loved one in a work related incident.
(1405 )
We should recognize today, April 28, as a day to pay our
respect to Canadian workers who have been killed or injured on
the job.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, the electronic highway is the major technological
challenge of the future. This highway will combine telephone,
cable and computer technology so that consumers can have a
wide range of interactive services.
Although the advisory committee was able to bring together a
strong team with expertise in electronic infrastructure, we must
admit that the creative artistic community was tactlessly left
out. This is an unacceptable omission.
The government cannot keep outside the decision-making
process the very people who produce much of the material that
will be carried on the electronic highway, especially since the
creative artistic community could have played an essential role
with its knowledge of such issues as privacy, copyright and
intellectual property.
If the minister and his government are really concerned about
protecting culture, they must correct this error and leave a big
place for the creative people of this country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to bring to the attention of this House a terrible
injustice in my home province of British Columbia.
A 78-year old woman was raped and brutally beaten by a
ruthless criminal. Although the judge conceded the DNA match
was conclusive, he ruled the evidence inadmissible because it
infringed on the rights of the criminal under the charter. The
criminal left this poor woman naked and battered yet he is the
one being shielded.
Police use breathalyser tests in drinking and driving cases and
yet we deny them the right to use this important tool to put
violent criminals behind bars.
DNA testing must be permitted when necessary. We have run
out of patience with ineffective political parties. The rights of
the victim must take priority over the rights of the criminal.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to congratulate the city of
Vancouver and Arthur Griffiths in particular for their successful
bid for a National Basketball Association franchise.
Vancouver joins an expanding and exciting league. Canadians
have been eagerly anticipating this favourable decision for a
long time and clearly it is much deserved. Much thanks must go
to Arthur Griffiths for his dedication and outstanding
commitment to realizing this goal.
The awarding of an NBA team demonstrates the significance
of Vancouver, how it has grown and developed into a socially
vibrant metropolis. There is a realization that Canadians have
much to contribute to the sporting world. Canadians are recog-
3645
nized as being among the most enthusiastic, passionate and
committed of supporters.
The new basketball team will be sharing the yet to be
completed GM Place with the Vancouver Canucks who,
incidentally, will be playing the Calgary Flames tonight at the
Pacific Coliseum.
I am confident the Canucks will handily even their series and I
wish them and Vancouver's new basketball team the very best of
luck.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
in the House yesterday during Question Period the hon. Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans stated that the groundfish licences of
bona fide professional fishermen that had been frozen in 1991
would be returned at once. He made it clear that not all licences
would be returned, only those of bona fide professional
fishermen.
This is a move that will be supported by the various
fishermen's associations. It is, I assure the House, most
gratifying to have a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who
listens to the fishing industry and to the fishermen.
These licences are most important to the diversified,
multi-licence traditional fishery and to the professional
fishermen in my Carleton-Charlotte constituency.
The minister has proven that he understands and cares deeply
for the traditional fishery. I would like to personally thank and
congratulate the hon. minister for this most sensible and
important move.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak
about the federal government's first home loan insurance
program.
In a surge of activity, over 33,000 homes were purchased by
first time buyers in the first quarter of 1994. The high level of
activity is a result of consumers taking advantage of almost
ideal home buying conditions.
The home loan insurance program is good news. It will help
Canadians realize their dream of purchasing a first home. As
important, it will stimulate the economy. Almost 60,000 person
years of direct employment have been created.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this initiative was successful and it cost
Canadian taxpayers nothing.
(1410)
[English]
Kudos to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and
Housing and to the other members of this government who so
ardently supported this program.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, at a fund raising cocktail where guests had
to pay $250 each, the Minister of Foreign Affairs accused the
Quebec director general of elections of not being impartial in
asking the federal government to comply with the spending
limits provided in Quebec's Elections Act.
By attacking the professional integrity of Mr. Pierre-F. Côté,
and by showing his contempt for Quebec's election rules, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs shows an arrogance typical of the
Trudeau years.
It is ironic that the minister would make such comments at a
fund raising cocktail. He would be better advised to implement
the commitments made by the Liberal Party regarding ethics and
to table legislation on the financing of political parties, based on
the principles of transparency and fairness contained in the
Quebec act.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, 30
years ago the Liberal government of Lester Pearson brought
medicare to Canada. Although there were concerns expressed at
that time about what the program would cost, the majority of
Canadians applauded the initiative.
In the years since, Canadians, including Reformers, have
come to put a high value on our health care system. It is tragic
that today health care is under threat from the very same party
that introduced it.
Health care is deteriorating rapidly and soon it may no longer
be the envy of the world. Our huge debt and deficits and this
government's refusal to update the 30-year old outdated Canada
Health Act are combining to undermine and gradually destroy
the system.
Canadians cherish their health care system. They demand
solutions from their government instead of rhetoric that is
hauled out of the archives from the 1960s.
Let us hope that in addition to the aluminum smelter museum
in Shawinigan, the Prime Minister will not have to consider
building a health care museum.
3646
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday this Parliament approved Bill C-212, a bill officially
designating ice hockey as our national winter sport and lacrosse
as our national summer sport.
Both of these sports have a significant place in Canadian
history and are an important element of our culture. Hockey and
lacrosse are just as symbolic of Canada as the maple leaf or the
Bluenose.
The passage of this bill is a good example of co-operation in
Parliament and of how MPs on both sides should work together
without the cross-checking, holding and interference that
usually occur in the House as they do on the ice, on the floor, or
on the field.
This bill brings all Canadians together, contributing to our
national unity. I am sure that all Canadians will be pleased with
the action taken by this Parliament.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, this
week is Holy Week for Canadians of Greek Orthodox faith. In
fact, it is Holy Week for all Eastern Orthodox religions. Sunday
is the day we celebrate our Easter.
[English]
All over my riding of Saint-Denis, Canadians of Greek origin
will be partaking in orthodox Easter traditions such as lamb
roasting and dancing, along with traditional foods which will no
doubt be in abundance. Families will be united and friends and
neighbours of other cultural backgrounds will also share in this
special day.
Saint-Denis is a riding where our differences, cultural and
religious, are celebrated and exchanged in an effort to better
understand one another. I am proud to represent such a riding.
[Translation]
I would like to conclude by wishing a happy Easter Day to all
my constituents in the riding of Saint-Denis, and to all
Canadians of Greek origin. Kalo Pasha.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, today,
April 28, is a national day of mourning for workers who have
been injured or died on the job.
[Translation]
Each working day, four Canadians are killed on the job.
[English]
Every seven seconds of every working day a serious injury
occurs. Every year workers die from workplace diseases that too
often go unrecorded and uncompensated. Health and safety
standards and their enforcement continue to be weakened by
governments nationally and internationally.
I call on this government to honour this national day of
mourning as passed in this House of Commons by fighting for
good labour standards for our workers and, in order to honour
our workers, that the Prime Minister agree to fly flags at
half-mast on this day of mourning for the workers of this
country who have lost their lives at work.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, on April 14 the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration stated: ``As vacancies arise, new citizenship court
judges will not be appointed''. On April 26 the Prime Minister
stated: ``We are working at substantially reducing the deficit''.
He referred to the millions of dollars being saved by the
citizenship court judge decision.
(1415)
As a result of the attrition in these appointments the estimated
potential savings for this year alone should be in the range of
$300,000. However, all attempts to have the estimates in this
one department reduced at all to reflect these savings to the
Canadian taxpayer have been stonewalled by the Prime
Minister's own caucus.
Similar to this government's first budget brought down in
February, we continue to hear promises from this Prime
Minister but see no action.
_____________________________________________
3646
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I will direct my
question to the Minister of Finance.
Reacting to the federal government's intention to reopen the
drug patent law, the Quebec minister of industry accuses Ottawa
of creating a climate of instability by threatening investments in
Quebec. He says that a drug company established in Quebec has
already postponed a $50-million investment in research and
development because of the federal government's intention to
review Bill C-91.
3647
I ask the minister if he admits that the government's
announced intention to review this law is already hurting
high-tech investments. Does he confirm that, for lack of
assurance from Ottawa about the law, a drug company
established in Quebec has postponed a $50-million investment?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
want to say that the government has already announced its
intention to keep our international commitments, as we signed
the new GATT agreement and NAFTA.
Moreover, I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition of
the provisions of C-91 which he supported. These provisions
include a clause to review this legislation. It is already in C-91.
The Bloquistes supported this bill. It is more than a little
hypocritical for the Leader of the Opposition to say now that the
bill is being reviewed.
The Speaker: The word ``hypocritical'' is somewhat
inflammatory. I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw this
word ``hypocritical''.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be rather difficult
to understand if I did not use that word. I would never want to
give the impression that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is a
hypocrite.
The Speaker: I would just like the hon. minister to take back
that word.
Mr. Manley: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that word.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the main thing is to determine whether or not this
government will reopen the law before it is due for review.
I have here in front of me a Canadian Press article published
in La Presse, according to which the minister said on April 26
that he would review the drug patent law. We know very well
that this law is not to be reviewed until 1997. We in the Bloc are
very proud to have voted for a law that will give Montreal an
extremely important pharmaceutical research centre-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1420)
Mr. Bouchard: -prouder no doubt than the Liberal Party,
which waged a fierce battle to prevent a real pharmaceutical
research centre from being created in Montreal.
I ask the minister to tell us today in this House if he does not
think he should reassure the pharmaceutical industry and if he is
considering announcing once and for all that he will not call into
question the 20-year patent protection, whereby a drug
developed and patented by a company cannot be copied by
others. I ask him to make that commitment here in this House
today.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, as I
just said, we are very aware of our commitments under GATT
and NAFTA. That is the basis of our position.
[English]
I want to make perfectly clear to the House and to Canadians
that this government is not going to be blackmailed by threats.
We made one simple commitment during the election campaign
on Bill C-91 and that was that we would review it.
As I explained yesterday both here and to the media, that
review consists of looking at the impact on prices of
prescription medications and on looking, second, at the
fulfilment of obligations made to the previous government with
respect to investment and research and development.
If the Leader of the Opposition considers it to be
inappropriate for governments to monitor performance
resulting from the passage of important pieces of legislation like
that, why does he not get up and say that companies no matter
what kind of companies they are can do whatever they want? We
believe that the best interests of Canadians need to count first.
That is what the government is endeavouring to do.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, there is nothing worse in politics, as in other fields,
than ambiguity, and I would like to give the minister the
opportunity to clarify specifically any ambiguity there might be.
Bill C-91 contains a statutory requirement for a review of the
provisions and application of the law in 1997; a statutory review
is planned for 1997.
I understood the minister to say that he will reopen the law
before the 1997 deadline. If so, let him tell us clearly: Will he
wait until 1997 or will he review it before then by a decision of
the Liberal majority in this House?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, the
Leader of the Opposition seems to be very nervous about this. At
least he is now acknowledging that he supported a review of the
legislation. It is indeed as he says scheduled to take effect no
later than the fourth anniversary of the passage of the bill which
would be the spring of 1997 as he indicates.
I think it would be fair to say that it is appropriate for the
government to monitor the results in the areas I have mentioned
in the course of performing this review. Perhaps we will have a
look at the results of that monitoring and will be able to give a
precise answer to his question later on.
3648
Let me say this as well. If anyone wants to talk about what is
causing instability in the investment climate in this country, one
does not need to look beyond the Leader of the Opposition.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, we gather
from the Minister of Industry's response that he intends to
review the legislation immediately and that is why he has made
that announcement. That is what his response leads to believe.
My question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
You will get a chance to respond. Just hear the question, then you
will get to answer it.
Reacting yesterday to remarks made by the Quebec minister
of industry and commerce, Mr. Gérald Tremblay, who was
outraged to see the federal government create a climate of
instability detrimental to Quebec, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs said that, instead of getting all excited, Mr. Tremblay
should have contacted him and he would have put his concerns
to rest.
(1425)
In light of the statements made by the minister of industry and
commerce, should the Minister of Foreign Affairs not take this
opportunity to make a reassuring statement in this place for all
of Quebec and Quebec's pharmaceutical industry to hear?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker,
every time I hear a question from the hon. member for Roberval
it calls to mind the words from Macbeth: ``a tale told by an idiot
full of sound and fury signifying nothing''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would appeal to all hon. members to sort of
lower our tone in the questions and also the words we use.
I would appeal to all hon. members both in the questions and
the answers to please tone down our voices and possibly not
crank up the rhetoric. I would appeal to all hon. members so that
we can get the questions and answers in today.
I take it that the hon. Minister of Industry is finished with his
answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the public
can see for themselves. These proceedings are televised and
widely broadcasted. They know what we are getting at. We know
why the Minister of Industry is nervous. He has nothing better to
do than to respond by insulting Quebec's legitimate demands.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to put his question
through the Chair.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, we are concerned to
see the Minister of Foreign Affairs answer out of order and then
fail to respond when questioned. Can the government, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Industry or the
Minister of Finance, one of the them, respond and tell us why the
people of Quebec should trust ministers of the government that
guided Bill S-31 through the House, a bill which tied the hands
of the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund and curbed
Quebec's growth? Why should we trust these people? We want
an answer from the minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
must point out that it is impossible for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs to answer questions on matters that do not fall under his
administrative responsibility. He could easily provide an
appropriate answer, but the Standing Orders of this House do not
allow him to respond.
I could add that the three ministers referred to by the
opposition leader have demonstrated that they have obviously
been working and will continue to work in the best interests of
Quebecers and Canadians in general. And this work will
continue to be positive and to promote the interests of
Quebecers and Canadians. That has been clearly demonstrated,
and the opposition's questions are not disproving anything.
* * *
(1430)
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
since you permitted a quotation from Shakespeare I am sure you
would permit one from Edmund Burke that says: ``Just because a
few grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their
importunate chirping, whilst thousands of great cattle repose
beneath the trees chew their cud and are silent, please do not
believe that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of
the field''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: If I may quote one of the great Speakers of the
House of Commons, would the hon. member please put his
question?
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the
Minister of Health. Yesterday the Prime Minister acknowledged
that there are serious problems in Canada's health care system,
but in the same breath he refused to consider the most obvious
measures to help our health care system to survive.
3649
My question for the health minister is this. If the federal
government cannot maintain its financial support of health care,
and if it will not amend the Canada Health Act to allow the
provinces more flexibility in paying for health care, how then
does the minister propose to solve the problem of financing
health care in Canada?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question. It gives me the
opportunity to set the record straight.
Actually the best news of the past budget was the fact that
transfer payments in health care were not cut. It was the one area
that was not. We guaranteed stability over the next few years. As
matter of fact transfer payments will be allowed to grow
somewhat over the next few years.
In light of the fiscal problems we are facing, that should send
a very positive message to all Canadians, that our health care
system is one we value above all else.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for her reply. However it does not take a
brain surgeon to figure out what is at the root of the financing
problems of health care. The total health care bill in Canada is
now over $70 billion with the provinces paying 46 per cent of
that bill, individuals and private insurance companies paying
about 28 per cent and the federal government now paying about
23 per cent. The federal government is no longer the senior
partner in health care financing. It has become a junior partner.
Will the minister today admit that health care transfers are
now insufficient to permit the provinces to meet the demands of
the Canada Health Act? Will she commit to amend the act to give
the provinces the flexibility they need to finance the major
portion of the bill?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
hard working Canadians who live by the rules, who pay their
taxes, gave us a very strong message during the last election.
They believe in the health care system as it is governed by the
Canada Health Act. That is our mandate and we will maintain it.
There is a role for the national government.
I would like to take this opportunity to tell all Canadians that
there is someone here, there is a government, that will make sure
they get health care not based on the size of their pocketbooks
but based on the fact that they are sick.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have one further supplementary question.
The minister's answer leaves Canadians wondering what it
would take to convince the government that health care
financing and the Canada Health Act need to be reformed. How
many more hospitals have to be closed down? How much longer
do the waiting lines have to become? How many more
Canadians have to go to the United States for health care?
(1435 )
How much further does the health care system have to
deteriorate before the government will agree to reform the
Canada Health Act and the financing of health care in Canada?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of most Canadians
that the health care system is one of the best. It is far better than
what you find south of the border.
Not only is it one of the best but it has given us a great
economic advantage. We will not reopen the Canada Health Act
in the short term. We are here to make sure that what we value as
a party, as a country, is maintained.
There will have to be some changes, and change is always
difficult. But it does not mean we have to let go of the principles
we really believe in.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who
is also responsible for regional development in Quebec.
The red book emphasizes the importance of developing
companies in high-tech sectors. The Liberal Party has promised
to increase incentives for leading-edge industries. We were
therefore amazed to hear that the government plans to revise
and, in effect, weaken Bill C-91, the drug patent bill.
My question is this: How can the minister co-operate with the
Minister of Industry on a strategy that will have a disastrous and
devastating impact on brand-name manufacturers in the
pharmaceutical industry who invest massively in research and
development and are mainly located in the Montreal area, where
the Minister of Finance has his riding?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker,
Bloc members are having a hard time understanding the answers
to the questions. As I just said, first of all, we are very much
aware of our commitments under GATT and NAFTA. Second, it
is very important for us to review the performance of companies
on the basis of their commitment to invest in research and
development, and we also have to-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Speaker, they are not interested, and they
are not even listening to the answers. Maybe that is why they do
not understand.
3650
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, a supplementary for the Minister of Finance and
minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, and I hope he will give me an answer. I
would like to point out that the minister, unlike his Liberal
colleagues at the time, did not vote against Bill C-91 because he
knows how important it is for Montreal, and I commend him for
that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister whether
he will finally speak for Quebec in Cabinet and defend this
important industry in the Montreal area by rejecting out of hand
any changes that would weaken the patent legislation. Will the
minister take a stand to defend the interests of Quebec and
Montreal against his colleagues or will he remain silent and let
the ministers from Ontario go ahead and undermine Quebec's
interests?
[English]
The Speaker: The question should be addressed to the
minister having the administrative responsibility for a
particular dossier and I go to the Minister of Industry.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, this
is a continuing campaign of confusion and obfuscation by the
Official Opposition. The member's question implies that this
issue simply divides along the Ottawa River. This is simply not
correct.
The brand name pharmaceutical industry is as important in
the province of Ontario as it is in the province of Quebec. In
addition the generic industry exists in the province of Quebec as
it does in the province of Ontario.
(1440 )
Furthermore, Canadians in all parts of the country are
profoundly concerned that governments look to the companies
involved in this industry, first of all to live up to the obligations
that they entered into. Second, Canadians in all parts of the
country are concerned about the impact of drug prices on our
health care system.
If members of the Bloc Quebecois are not interested in these
things, that is for them to say. However, as to the commitment of
the government to an innovative economy, that is clear and will
be pursued by this government with vigour and determination
across Canada.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. I can assure
you, Mr. Speaker, that our health care system is sick and the way
to find out is to go to a hospital.
Recently in my province of British Columbia the Prince
George Regional Hospital had to close one-third of its beds.
Vancouver General Hospital has closed 108 beds. Calgary
General Hospital is being closed down and the lights are being
turned out on Calgary's children's hospital, all because of a lack
of funds.
Because of the Canada Health Act rules and regulations, the
only solution to the health care problem the minister has offered
to the provinces is to withhold health care funding to rationing
and bed closures.
Does the minister offer any other alternatives to health care
funding in this country?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, no
doubt there have been problems in transfer payments. We have
had a different government. Now we are back to protect the
people of Canada.
There are many new techniques nowadays which often mean
we do not need to use all the hospital beds. To go out and spread
fear among the population is wrong. We still have a very good
system. We are going to work together to make it better and to
renew it. That is why we are going to have a national forum on
health.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, as a physician and surgeon who works in hospitals, if
you are sick and need a hospital bed and cannot get it, that is a
tragedy that does not belong in this great country.
Yesterday the minister told the provinces she is going to
withhold $750,000 per month in transfer payments for health
care. That is $750,000 less to treat the people of British
Columbia which means longer bed closures, less care for the
sick and the elderly and people are going to die.
We must get our heads out of the sand. What is the minister
going to do and what alternative does she have to get health care
and Canada on firm financial ground? It needs immediate care
now. What is she going to do about it?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
have the law of the land which is very specific. If a previous
government chose not to follow the law, then that was wrong.
This Minister of Health and this government take our
responsibilities very seriously. We will follow the letter of the
law. We will also send a message out that extra billing is wrong.
It is wrong because it hurts those who need help. Believe me, I
will fight to make sure that people who are sick get treatment
based on their illnesses, not based on the size of their wallets.
Any extra billing is a tax on illness and that is wrong.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, Ottawa
has yet to announce its decision
3651
regarding the construction of a new ferry to service the
Magdalen Islands. This project would certainly put MIL Davie
shipyards in Lauzon back on track.
Yesterday the Quebec minister of industry criticized the
federal government's attitude and stated the following: ``We are
entitled to have our ferry and to have it built here in Quebec. All
of a sudden, the federal government has taken an interest in this
ferry and wants to award the contract to a shipyard outside the
province''.
(1445)
My question is directed to the Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec. Can the
minister give us his assurance that he will do whatever it takes in
order to get the Prime Minister to rein in his Minister of
Transport so that he does not play politics at Quebec's expense
and divert the contract to build the ferry from MIL Davie in
Lauzon to Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd., which happens to be
located in the Minister of Transport's own province?
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked many
times in the House of the Minister of Transport and of the
Minister of Industry. The Minister of Transport is looking at all
options available for the replacement of this ferry.
No decisions have been made. We will take all considerations
into account and when a decision has been made we will advise
the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, we
wonder if there really is a Minister responsible for the Federal
Office of Regional Development-Quebec.
Are we to understand from the minister's silence that he
agrees with the statements of the Minister of Transport? Is that
why the Prime Minister refused to make any specific promises
to the shipyard workers in Lévis during the last election
campaign?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, we
are extremely aware of how important MIL Davie shipyards are
to the Quebec region.
As the hon. member knows full well, both the federal
government and the Quebec government have received a
business plan and we are prepared to consider it as part of a
long-term plan for the commercial viability of MIL Davie.
However, I have no doubt that the hon. member agrees with
the following statement: ``I hope that this policy, which calls for
the rationalization of shipyards, will adhere to the fundamental
principle which the government has always defended, that is the
principle of free enterprise. Any other approach would only lead
to lame duck solutions, and this would be to the detriment of a
shipyard that already enjoys a competitive position''.
These words were spoken by his colleague, the hon. member
for Richelieu.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Health.
In my home province of Alberta there are some creative
alternatives to the problems of the health care system. For
example, the world renowned private Gimbel Eye Clinic
provided cataract surgery to 3,500 people last year. That is
one-quarter of the cataract surgery done in Alberta.
In her zeal to enforce the three-decade old Canada Health Act
does the minister propose that 25 per cent of cataract patients
line up in a longer line?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let
me set the record straight here. When people go to the Gimbel
Eye Clinic they pay a facility fee. It costs approximately $1,000
for a person to go there.
What this means is that a person who has money can get the
cataract surgery ahead of others, but the person who really needs
it and probably does not have the money has to wait a lot longer.
What does that $1,000 do? Does it add to hospitals? Does it
help the system do a better job? Does it foster better utilization
of what we have in place? No. It allows someone to get richer.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, let me debunk the
myth that these are wealthy people going to the Gimbel Eye
Clinic. These are senior citizens, citizens who cannot see,
cannot watch television and cannot read. They are not rich. They
are poor.
The message the Minister of Health is giving us is that she
cares more about the law of the land than the health of the land,
and that is wrong.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, last night at a
$250-a-head Liberal fund raising cocktail party in Quebec City,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs publicly attacked the credibility
of Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer. He described Mr. Côté's
warning with respect to federal parties' involvement in the next
campaign as a biased and partisan attack.
3652
The Speaker: These questions do not deal with the
administrative functions of the government. Perhaps the hon.
member could rephrase his question so that it refers to these
functions; his question would then be in order. The hon. member
for Portneuf.
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, do you not think that the
minister should realize that he is going against the commitment
made by the Prime Minister on Tuesday that his government
would respect Quebec's election law and that his attack is petty
and contradicts what the Prime Minister promised, a petty attack
against the Chief Electoral Officer who, as you will agree,
oversees a fundamentally important institution in the
democratic life of Quebec?
The Speaker: I am sorry but in my opinion this question does
not deal with the purely administrative functions of the minister
who is here. I think the question is out of order. If the hon.
member has another question, would he please ask it?
Mr. de Savoye: I have already asked two questions. Mr.
Speaker, if the Prime Minister had been here, I would have been
happy to ask him a question, but he is not here.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and it concerns Rwanda.
Canada's reputation in Africa is very good. Therefore, why
not use our good offices with international institutions,
particularly the Organization of African Unity, to establish a
humanitarian corridor and allow the 20,000 people currently
stranded in Kigali to leave and seek refuge in Tanzania, until the
situation stabilizes and the slaughter ends?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to answer a question which concerns my
department and which is asked pursuant to the rules of this
House.
I want to confirm to the hon. member that our official in
Addis-Abeba made representations to the Organization of
African Unity, asking it to get more involved in finding ways to
help a population decimated by this totally unacceptable civil
war.
I can assure the hon. member that Canada is prepared to
participate in a humanitarian mission in that part of the world,
which needs it badly.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Four years ago a young offender by the name of Danny
Perrault was convicted of manslaughter in youth court and
received a three-year sentence. Last year he was transferred to
minimum security in an adult provincial institute to serve a
sentence for being unlawfully at large from the youth detention
centre.
Mr. Perrault walked away from the minimum security facility
and before being arrested he committed a brutal sexual assault.
Earlier this year he received a 14-year sentence for that crime,
which he is appealing on the grounds the judge gave undue
consideration to the protection of society.
Will the minister send an unequivocal message to the
Canadian legal profession, as well as to the Canadian public,
that the protection of society is a primary concern of the
criminal justice system?
(1455 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, there are three points in
response.
First, as the hon. member knows, because I have said as much
in the House, we propose to bring forward specific changes to
the Young Offenders Act within the coming weeks as we
undertook to do during the election campaign in order to deal
more effectively with crimes of serious violence. The steps we
will propose will be intended in great part to meet the concerns
addressed by the hon. member in her question.
Second, as to the facts of the specific case, I ask the hon.
member to bear in mind that while that issue is raised in the
appeal, the statute as it exists at present provides expressly that
protection of society is one of the governing principles of the
Young Offenders Act and is to be taken into account.
Third, we do not think for a moment that violent crime is
going to be resolved in this society by tinkering with statutes or
changing acts. The fact of the matter is that the criminal justice
system itself is not going to end violent crime. It only deals with
the consequence of underlying social problems. It is crime
prevention that must have at least the equal focus of the House
of Commons.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Solicitor
General.
3653
It was recently reported that despite the fact Danny Perrault
has twice terrorized the greater Vancouver area by being
unlawfully at large, current parole legislation would permit him
to go on unescorted day parole as early as December this year.
Is the minister prepared to change the parole legislation to
ensure the Canadian public that protection of society is a
primary concern of the criminal justice system?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
have already indicated to the House and to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that I intend to bring
forward legislation very soon to update the parole system and
the correction system in light of a number of public concerns.
In that connection I want to confirm what I have already said:
The priority will continue to be the protection of the public.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, I will address my question to the Minister of Finance
and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec on the off-chance that he will have
something to say today.
The government, which told us yesterday that it has already
spent $6 million on studies regarding the high-speed train, is
hiding behind some future study to avoid taking position on the
HST project, or even approving it in principle. The government
showed its lack of interest in VIA Rail's proposal.
How can the government, which claims to make job creation a
priority, show so little interest in a major project that could
create some 120,000 jobs in a high technology sector?
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question
with regard to VIA, yesterday the Prime Minister as well as the
Minister of Transport indicated to the House that the $6 million
report that is awaited and being done by three levels of
government, the Quebec, Ontario and federal governments, is
due some time this summer.
At that point the government will study the opportunities and
the alternatives available to it to look at the very intriguing
project of high speed rail.
We are not discarding anything, but it would be premature to
say anything at this point until such time as the study was
complete. Then we would be willing to work with all members
of the House to see whether or not it is viable and feasible for the
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, that is what you get for trying too hard.
Will the Prime Minister recognize that the HST project,
considering the type of equipment required and the type of jobs
created, fits perfectly in a strategy for the reconversion of the
military industry, which is a commitment made by the Liberal
Party in its red book and that is yet to be fulfilled?
(1500)
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the Bloc Quebecois constantly talks about the need to
co-operate with the provinces. The high speed train is a project
we are looking at closely with the governments of Quebec and
Ontario, and this is why these studies are necessary.
Consequently, if we are to follow the advice of the Bloc, we
should wait for the results of the studies and review these very
carefully. As the member for Windsor, I can assure you that I
have a real interest in this issue.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
It was reported in the Globe and Mail that the government
paid out $440 million in unemployment insurance benefits due
to fraud, abuse and mistakes in 1993. An internal investigation
and control audit identified a study which pointed to a better
focus on who abuses UI, but the use of this focus was prohibited
because it contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Will the parliamentary secretary confirm that the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, which was set up to protect law abiding
Canadians from abuse by government, is once again being used
to protect criminals at the expense of ordinary and law abiding
Canadian citizens?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth)): Mr. Speaker, as you well know the people on this
side of the House are the architects of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and we have a great deal of respect for the charter.
Everything that the government undertakes does reflect that.
In reply to the question, that is a very specific question on
which the minister has taken action. Of course everything we do
upholds the charter. The full weight of the charter stands.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have notice of two questions
of privilege which I am going to hear.
3654
I would appeal to all members in putting forth their points of
privilege to be reminded that privilege is very narrow in scope. I
would ask hon. members to identify the point of privilege which
has in some way been impeded so that I might get a better idea of
just what is the point.
I go first to the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs on a point of
privilege
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I fully understand your desire to ensure that all
members of this House enjoy the same privileges. I raise this
question because I believe my privileges as a member of this
House were breached during Question Period.
As House Leader for the Official Opposition, the member for
Roberval should be familiar with the Standing Orders and
should know that these prevail during Question Period. The fact
that he would put questions to a minister concerning a field for
which he is not responsible is not, in itself, an abuse of his right
to ask questions since another minister, the responsible minister,
may answer the question.
Where I feel my privileges were breached during Question
Period, and I would think the same was true for the Minister of
Finance, was not when opposition members rose and put
questions to us, knowing full well that we could not answer them
because they were not related to our ministerial responsibilities.
Other ministers simply took it upon themselves to answer the
questions.
(1505)
I feel my privileges were breached when, in the preamble to
their questions, both the member for Roberval and the member
for Laurier-Sainte-Marie made some gratuitous statements to
the effect that as a member and a minister from the province of
Quebec, I was avoiding answering the question and leaving this
task up to another minister from the province of Ontario.
It is totally unacceptable to allege dereliction of duty on the
part of a member of this House. By making such an allegation,
the members for Roberval and Laurier-Sainte-Marie were
hoping to cast in a negative light my work as a minister and as a
member of this House who defends the interests of his
constituents.
In conclusion, I ask that you reflect upon this situation and
review the questions put earlier by the opposition. I think it is
important that you check the blues. As the saying goes, when
you lie long enough, the lie becomes the truth.
The Speaker: I will certainly reread the blues and Hansard.
Some hon. members: And the newspapers.
The Speaker: Order.
I will take this matter under advisement and get back to the
House with-
Some hon. members: Good.
The Speaker: Order.
I will check Hansard and get back to the House with my ruling
tomorrow.
The hon. member for Roberval on a question of privilege.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question of privilege and a point of order.
If I may, I will start with the point of order since it is directly
related to what has just been said.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to have your opinion, which is part
of your mandate, because my colleague raised the question of
privilege in reference to comments made by a government
minister. I admit that he may not have been speaking about
something which falls within his area of responsibility but that
is not my problem. I can question as I see fit, and my colleagues
can also question any comment made by a member of the
government because they are supposed to act responsibly. If
they do not, that is a different problem.
I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on this, and take the
time to do the necessary research, so we can know whether the
Opposition is allowed to question in accordance with Standing
Orders any member of the government who has made a public
statement, even if this statement is not directly related to his or
her department.
I would like to have your opinion on this at your convenience
and, if I may, I will now move on to my question of privilege.
The Speaker: I will make enquiries. I will get back to the
House and give you my opinion.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the breach of
privilege committed in this House has to do with the industry
minister's comments, which I find totally unparliamentary,
unworthy of this House and unacceptable. In his comments, the
minister tried or seemed to criticize my attitude or the way I
phrased the question or the way in which he perceived me.
(1510)
I find it totally unacceptable that, within the framework of the
parliamentary game, a government minister's only way of
defending himself against the verbal jousting and the questions
asked in this House is to try to humiliate, discredit and or be rude
to a member of this Parliament.
3655
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you that, as the Opposition
House leader, I think that the Minister of Industry has violated
these privileges and I demand that he withdraw his comments
without further ado. That is what I demand.
The Speaker: As you know, I do not remember everything
that has been said today but, for my colleagues, I will certainly
go over what was said in context. I will take the request of the
hon. member for Roberval into consideration and get back to the
House with my decision.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to give a short response.
[English]
There are many traditions in this House. You, Mr. Speaker, are
the master of the rules of this House and you rule. I do not think
this is a point of privilege but perhaps a point of order that is
being made.
Surely we deprive this House of a great deal if it becomes
inappropriate for a member of Parliament to recall a famous
quotation from the Bard himself in response to a situation that
arises.
The Speaker: I will take under advisement the interventions
of members of both sides. I am not sure we have a point of
privilege but I will treat it as either a point of privilege or point
of information.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, unlike the minister, we do not want to make it into a
cultural issue. This is about the privileges of the hon. member
for Roberval. On the subject of culture, I could quote Confucius
who said something along the line of culture is like jam; the less
you have, the more you spread it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. At this rate we are going to start
singing songs.
[English]
I want to take a point of order from the member for North
Island-Powell River with a correction.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday under Standing Order 31, Statements by
Members, I talked about a new federal building of 120,000
square feet. I would like to correct the record. The correct
number is 40,000 square feet. In my metric conversion I cubed
rather than squared.
The Speaker: Your point of order will be corrected in
Hansard.
The question on business of the House. The hon. House
leader. First we need to have a question and then we are going to
have an answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, before you
recognized me to I could put that question, I indicated to you
that I would have a previous question. It is a simple inquiry
about the question of privilege I have raised.
I just wanted to ask you-and it is perfectly in order-if, after
ascertaining what words were spoken by the Minister of
Industry, you found that the minister had indeed exceeded his
rights as a parliamentarian and made unspeakable remarks, I
just wanted to know if you will then ask that he withdraw his
remarks, as I have requested?
(1515)
The Speaker: As I said earlier, I will review the matter
because I do not remember the exact words.
If unparliamentary language was used, I will then make a
decision based on this review.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask my hon. colleague, the government house leader, what the
business of the House will be for the days to come.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
in giving the weekly business statement I want to assure all
colleagues and you that I will not say a word about the subject of
culture.
Tomorrow the House will resume consideration of second
reading of Bill C-22 regarding Pearson airport. If that is
completed we will continue with second reading of Bill C-16
respecting the Sahtu agreement.
If on Friday we have completed second reading of Bill C-22
and C-16, only then on Monday will we consider second reading
stages of Bill C-23 regarding the Migratory Birds Act, Bill
C-24 respecting the Wildlife Act and Bill C-12 regarding the
Canada Business Corporations Act.
Tuesday, May 3 and Thursday, May 5 shall be opposition
days. On Wednesday the House will resume debates that have
already been commenced. I want to consult with my colleagues
opposite about this business at our regular weekly meeting of
House leaders next week.
This concludes my statement.
3656
3656
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon to speak
against the motion by the hon. member for Québec-Est.
Part of that motion talks about the government's lack of action
in the agricultural sector. I find this an insult to our agricultural
sector. I do not believe that farmers have the intention of coming
here with their hands out looking for favours from our
government.
I would like to talk about my riding, the riding of Durham,
which is a large agricultural sector. It includes Uxbridge,
Scugog township, Bowmanville and Orono. These places are
well known for their agricultural background and indeed not
only in the riding but throughout Canada. They show their cattle
at the local royal agricultural fair and compete with some
farmers from Quebec.
In my riding agriculture is the second largest industry, second
only to General Motors.
My years of living with these people and acting as an adviser
to them and farming myself has taught me of their great
independence and integrity. They do not depend on government
to run their local every day operations. Today I am sure that
many are out on the land cultivating and preparing for their
spring crops.
What is the role of government and how does it interact with
our farming community? What has the government actually
done to foster this development?
I would like to talk about three basic areas. One is trade. As
some will know, we have just recently culminated our trade
negotiations in GATT in which we have had a change in our
system from the supply management system to a tariffication
system. We spent a great many days and hours in this House
debating these negotiations. Indeed, our agriculture department
has been involved on an hourly basis dealing with this.
(1520 )
This even continues after the culmination of GATT as we try
to get side agreements with the Americans dealing with some of
our problems with durum wheat and so forth. In fact, the
government has been committed to representing the interests of
farmers. I can assure members that the farmers in my riding that
I have talked to are indeed happy and proud that our government
has stood up for their interests. They realize they did not get
everything they wanted from the GATT negotiations.
Having said that, I go back to my original premise. They are
proud and independent people. They look at the GATT
negotiations and the new trade opportunities as great challenges
for Canadian farmers. They look at things like NAFTA and new
markets created both in the United States and now in Mexico.
Only last week a number of farmers attended at my office.
Their promotion was not that they were upset with the actions of
the government, indeed not. They wanted to attend a trade
negotiation in South America. They wanted to find out more
about bean farmers in South America. I am happy to say that I
transferred those comments to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food who is considering this.
Another of these farmers had realized the great opportunities
presented by the North American market and developed a food
processing plant. Many of the farmers in the area got together to
support this. This production facility which basically fast
freezes vegetables ships 100 per cent of its output into the
American market. These are great opportunities that our farmers
are realizing.
I would like to speak of another area to do with research and
development and our government's commitment to Canadian
farmers in the areas of research and development. Our ability to
innovate depends on a commitment to research. Agri-food
research has produced some exceptional economic gains for
Canada.
Perhaps the best example is the development of canola. From
humble origins as rapeseed grown during the Second World War
to produce a marine lubricant, canola has become one of our
most important export crops worth almost a billion dollars.
The Cinderella story of canola is well known but it is still
worth noting that researchers at Agri-Food Canada used
selective breeding to reduce or eliminate undesirable aspects of
the oil and produced a high quality oil substitute for human
consumption.
There are many other good examples of innovative thinking in
agri-research. For instance the research centre in Lennoxville,
Quebec has adapted a technology that helps detect a generic
mutation in pork that reduces quality. This technology will help
pork producers sell their products into lucrative markets but also
very selective markets in Asia.
I should interject at this point to note that as we stand here the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is in southeast Asia
promoting new markets for Canadian agricultural producers. I
am proud to say that I have taken some of those initiatives to
heart in my own riding and suggested to some of our dairy
producers who export cattle around the world that they should
also be focusing on southeast Asia.
Furthermore, I would like to mention that CIDA has an
agricultural dairy operation testing in southern China at this
very moment. We hope that some of the benefits that will flow
3657
out of that are increased cattle production and shipment to
China.
Carrying on with research and development, the Saskatoon
Research Centre has developed a new type of sunflower called
sunola that is heat and drought resistant. This crop can be grown
further north than regular sunflowers and produces a healthier
oil. Contract production began in Saskatchewan in 1993 on
about 100,000 acres.
The department is also a major player in the development and
application of biotechnologies like natural pest controls for the
improvement of agriculture and agri-food products.
In these times of fiscal restraint expanding our budget for
agri-food R and D is just not possible. But the minister has made
a firm commitment to maintain current research funding levels
by absorbing administrative costs in other parts of his
department.
(1525 )
At the same time the department is ensuring that research
priorities are driven by market opportunities. Better focused R
and D is critical to global competitiveness and economic
growth. It is now increasingly important for us to develop low
cost processes and the new products we need to capture new
markets. The future holds great opportunities and potential
gains for biotechnology and from value added non-food
products such as ethanol.
Canada is not alone in this field. Our agri-food sector has a lot
of competitors. While Canada has a strong record on public
investment and R and D our competitors invest more overall,
that is public and private sector research and development, than
we do.
The main challenges the government faces are to keep R and
D funding at least at current levels to ensure that research
priorities are driven by market opportunities, to stimulate
industry investment, to look into ways of increasing the
accessibility of venture capital for new products and
development, to ensure that the right technologies get to the
right people as quickly as possible.
R and D unlike other expenditures cannot be turned off like a
tap. It requires careful planning. Because of inadequate support
for research in the past, Canada has already missed the
advantages of leadership in some areas. They will change
policies that act as disincentives to the private sector in
investment in agri-food technologies.
I would like to go on to a further section and that is to deal
with our taxation policies. In Canada we have a very favourable
tax policy toward farmers. It is called cash basis accounting. It
means that you can buy cattle and so forth and write them off for
tax purposes. This has existed in Canada and indeed Quebec for
many years. It allows our farmers to build up big inventories of
cattle and livestock without paying any income tax. This
program of course is being continued by our government.
I look also toward the last budget. There was much talk about
losing the $500,000 exemption for farmers. I am proud to say
that our finance minister has listened very well to the needs and
concerns of farmers and kept this in place.
I note also that we are debating through the finance
committee, of which I am a member, the GST. One of our major
concerns is to reduce and to avoid taxing farmers and try to make
that tax simpler for farmers so that they do not have to get
involved with the accounting and so forth for it.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, almost everything the
government has done has been for the best interest in advancing
the best interests of farmers.
I would like to go back to where I started and that is that this
motion is inconsistent and makes farmers feel they have to be
dependent on government for everything. This is just not the
case and it is unworthy of Canadian farmers.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the hon. member's remarks. Today's motion does not
really deal with research and development in Canada, but with
the department of agriculture's lack of spine, its lack of
leadership, and the lack of direction in agriculture.
It is quite true that in the R and D sector, scientists across
Canada are making all kinds of discoveries, and that is good.
Developments regarding new varieties of wheat and seeds are
desirable. As a matter of fact, we would like the government to
find more funds to support R and D. As the hon. member
mentioned, the opening of new markets depends first and
foremost on R and D.
The government is lacking initiative even when it comes to R
and D, the member admitted it himself; investments in that area
have been frozen. If it really had the interests of farmers at heart,
the government could at leat increase its funding of R and D for
agriculture. I repeat, the motion does not deal with Canadian R
and D, but with the government's lack of leadership and
initiative. We could give you many examples of this lack of
initiative such as the negotiations with the United States for
which some Liberal members tell us that the government has
taken a tough stand, when we know that in fact they are
completely caving in.
(1530 )
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for his comments. I am as sure as we breathe here today that
Agriculture Canada is undertaking research and development.
The hon. member is probably correct in the sense that we cannot
3658
increase funding and many aspects of our government have been
curtailed. That is just the way it is.
I can assure the member that research and development
continues as we breathe today. Indeed I find it very hard to
accept this concept of lack of initiative. As we stand here the
minister of agriculture is in southeast Asia promoting new
markets for agriculture in Canada. It seems unbelievable that the
member would think this way.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, my distinguished colleague across the way who just
gave us this very excellent discourse is an accountant by
profession. Obviously he knows how to count things well and
proper.
I wonder how he can reconcile for me the Bloc Quebecois
policy whereby on the one hand it is saying today that we must
reduce the number of specialists in agriculture and hire-as the
member for Quebec-Est said this morning-more farmers to be
in the agriculture department. A couple of hours later it was
saying hire more scientists in agriculture, which is the opposite
of the previous argument.
I wonder if he can also tell us what he thinks as an accountant
of a party that asks us to decrease overall budgetary
expenditures and at the same time today is telling us that we are
not spending enough.
Can he reconcile that kind of accounting for us, because I am
having some difficulty. Perhaps the professional judgment of
my colleague across can help us understand this Bloc Quebecois
modern math.
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. Of course I do not know if the math in Quebec is
different from that in the rest of Canada. It appears that perhaps
it is.
I do not know how it balances things from one hand to the
other. It seems that it lives in a different world than we do. It
must be a great place to be, it must be a tremendous fairy land in
some ways where you can have your cake and eat it too
constantly. I find that very hard to believe. I think we have to
have a more honest approach to these problems. I am sure
farmers in all of Canada want a more honest approach.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I certainly
welcome this opportunity to speak on this very important issue
of agriculture.
My family and I are actively involved in operating a 1,100
acre grain farm in northern Alberta and so agriculture is very
near and dear to my heart. Agriculture is important to my riding
of Peace River as well because it is a very large industry. No one
has any doubt that agriculture is crucial to Canada.
Although Canadian farmers have been hard hit with a trade
war that has lasted many years, in 1992 alone we still managed
to export over $12 billion of agriculture commodities. Wheat
and other cereals are our leading exports, with principal
destinations being China, Korea and Japan. Live animals, meat
and meat products are also important, with exports bound for the
United States and Japan. Oilseeds, mostly canola, go mostly to
Japan in raw form and to the United States in the form of
processed oil.
In 1991 a total of 867,000 people resided on farms in Canada
and total receipts from those farming operations came to $23
billion. We also know that agriculture has one of the highest
spinoffs in terms of job creation.
Today we are being asked to condemn this government for its
inaction with respect to the agriculture sector which is presently
being confronted with the largest restructuring it has faced in the
last 30 years.
(1535 )
Restructuring is something that agriculture and farmers are
familiar with and has happened since Canada has been
inhabited. My response to this question is yes, the government
can do more. However, in the area of trade we have made a very
good start even though it is only a start.
Canada is a trading nation. One out of every four jobs in this
country can be linked to trade. Therefore we must push for trade
liberalization both at home and abroad. This means moving
beyond what has been negotiated at the first phase of GATT. We
must work within the World Trade Organization to lower
remaining trade barriers at a faster pace so that those sectors that
have natural advantages can compete and win markets without
the support of the treasuries of those countries.
We welcome the agricultural trade rules that GATT has
brought us. Let us examine some of those rules.
Number one, overall tariffs on agriculture goods will be
reduced by 36 per cent with a minimum reduction of 15 per cent
for each specific product. Implementation will take place
between 1995 and the year 2000 in six equal annual steps.
Number two, countries will be compelled to reduce internal
support of their agricultural industries by up to 20 per cent over
six years where such support has the effect of distorting trade.
Countries will be committed to reducing export subsidy
expenditures by 36 per cent and reducing the volume of
subsidized exports by 21 per cent over the next six years.
Supply managed products will now be subject to tariff
barriers instead of quota restrictions. It is true that the supply
managed sectors need protection for a time to adjust to the free
market conditions. I would think that 10 years should be quite
enough time for that adjustment process to take place.
It was evident at the GATT negotiations that Canada had no
support for article XI. The world has moved beyond that. We are
3659
looking for liberalized trade throughout the world and Canada
simply could not sustain any argument for article XI support.
My concern is that having set our tariffs for certain products
at excessively high levels, we are inviting challenges from our
trading partners. Let me give members a run through on a quick
list. We have set our tariffs on eggs at 192 per cent; yogurt, 279
per cent; chicken, 280 per cent; milk, 283 per cent; ice cream,
326 per cent; and butter, 351 per cent.
I would like to elaborate a little on that last tariff. The
domestic price of butter in the United States is $1.54 per
kilogram. Once transportation and the 351 per cent tariff are
added and the American dollar is converted to Canadian, that
same kilogram of butter will cost $10.15 in Canada. That
compares with the Canadian support price of $5.32.
The tariff makes American butter almost twice the price of
Canadian butter. Is this not overkill? Is this not a reeling
example of overtariffication? Obviously the tariff is way out of
line. It is obvious we will not see any trade in butter for many
years to come. Yes, let us help the supply managed sector move
toward becoming a self-sustaining industry but let us be fair and
not jeopardize the trading opportunities of those agriculture
sectors that are competitive by suggesting blatantly high tariff
rates for dairy and poultry products.
I suspect the true test of these high tariffs may come from our
own Canadian consumers. Why should they stand for
excessively high prices? Furthermore, high tariffs seem to be a
contradiction to the spirit of the North American free trade
agreement whose benefits Canadian consumers are eagerly
awaiting.
I would like to talk a bit about the grain industry which I
believe will see slow but steady improvement. Here we must
push for a faster action to reduce overproduction, subsidies and
import quotas worldwide. As an example, western durum wheat
farmers are now facing restrictive import quotas from the
Americans who accuse us of subsidizing our wheat exports.
(1540 )
The truth is that on four separate occasions a binational panel
has dismissed these allegations by the United States. It is the
American's own export enhancement program which
encourages exports of Canadian wheat to other countries which
is at fault. This program has left the Americans with shortages
which Canadian wheat fills. Now American farmers are crying
that Canadian grain has filled their terminals.
This is the exact type of program that has so devastated the
agriculture industries in countries like Australia, Argentina and
Canada that had the small treasuries and cannot back their
farmers up to the degree that they do in Europe and the United
States.
I believe governments must move quickly to free trade.
Otherwise the initial optimism of the GATT signing will be lost.
The big challenge for the new World Trade Organization which
replaces the GATT in January will be to define what happens at
the end of the first six years. I say that our goals should be to
strive for a no subsidies, no trade barrier situation in a total time
frame of 10 years.
Unfortunately there is no time to address other important
issues in detail. I know that my colleagues here are going to be
speaking about some of those issues, although I do want to touch
on them briefly.
However, we have to have a responsive, deregulated
transportation system in Canada. I also believe the Canadian
Wheat Board should have a democratically elected board of
governors and a system that is market driven.
Canadian farmers are hard working, proud people who would
rather receive their income from the marketplace than from
government subsidies. Our farmers offer the Canadian public a
quality product and the security of a reasonably priced food.
Canadian farmers have a worldwide reputation for supplying
quality products.
What do farmers want from our government? They expect
protection from unfair trade practices of our competitors. They
want the protection of fair trade rules throughout the world.
They want our government to push to reduce subsidies
worldwide so that they can benefit from free trade. They want
governments to live within their means which will lead to lower
taxes and lower input costs. Finally, they want governments to
reduce regulations and unnecessary programs.
I believe Canadian farmers can compete anywhere in the
world, given a fair opportunity. I believe our Canadian farmers
will adapt and prosper under the new trade environment. I
believe they do not need more than 10 years to make these
necessary adjustments.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the
hon. member's remarks but I have questions on two issues that
he raised.
One is the deregulation of transportation which he has been
advocating. I wonder what the arguments are in favour of doing
that given our experience this past crop year in shipping into a
deregulated market, namely the United States which is
relatively deregulated in transport. Our hopper cars hauling
wheat and durum into the United States have a turnaround time
of something in the order of 40 days or more before they are
dumped and returned in a deregulated system. In Canada under
regulation the turnaround time is 13 to 15 days.
I wonder if he would comment on the advantages of
deregulation given that experience. Would he also explain a
little further why he was so critical of the proposed high tariffs
on butter and dairy products between ourselves and the United
States and
3660
other countries. In reality most of the likely trade in dairy
products will be between Canada and the United States.
Given the fact that it is impossible for us to export anything
into the United States by way of dairy products, the reality is
that its tariffs will be as high or higher than ours given that it has
had a GATT waiver all these years on dairy products.
(1545 )
This is one of the reasons that Canada was very loathe to
implement the GATT ruling that the U.S. got prior to these last
negotiations forcing us to open our markets to its yogurt and ice
cream. The facts of the situation are that if we had opened the
border we could have bought ice cream and yogurt, put it in the
freezer or fridge of our motorhome in order to go down to
Arizona and hit the border only to find that we could not take
those American products into the United States because it was
absolutely illegal to take dairy products the other way.
I wonder if the member would tell us about deregulation and if
he does not recognize that there may be some fairness to the high
tariffs on dairy products.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member for
Mackenzie has put his 14 years of experience to good use today
and I would ask the member for Peace River to reply.
Mr. Penson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member
for Mackenzie for those questions.
First of all I believe that deregulation in the transportation
industry is necessary. We have to have a very practical solution
to movement of products. They should move by whatever
method is the cheapest form and they should move in whatever
route is the most direct and cheapest.
I think when he talked about the hopper cars going into the
United States and the turnaround time, part of the reason for that
is the very regulated system we have with the crow rate where
we have seen grain going as far out as Thunder Bay and then
back into Saskatchewan and crossing the border. That does not
make any sense at all.
I believe we have to look at practical solutions to problems so
that Canadians can face the reality of the nineties and adapt to
the new trade environment.
In terms of high tariffs and why I am critical of the high
tariffs, I believe these tariffs are put in place as an adjustment
process to let our industries adapt over a reasonable period of
time from a system of supply management with a lot of
regulation to free trade. I think that can be done fairly quickly.
These tariffs are set probably high on both sides of the border,
but that does not excuse either side.
It is in our interests when we have just signed a trade deal with
the United States and Mexico that says we want to move to free
trade among all three countries in a short period of time to phase
these out very quickly.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege and a very great interest of mine to be
involved in a discussion in this House on agricultural issues.
Coming from the riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster where
most of us make our livelihood either directly or indirectly from
agriculture, myself included, I feel it is a very important issue
and I appreciate the chance to speak to it. I have chosen to
address the problems that many farmers face in the marketing of
their produce and the federal agency responsible for prairie
grain marketing, the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board should more appropriately be
called the prairie wheat board, as its mandate limits the board's
activity to the three prairie provinces and a small part of British
Columbia in the Peace River area. There is a similar
organization in Ontario called the Ontario Wheat Board. I find it
is one of the best kept secrets across the prairies that in fact the
Canadian Wheat Board is not a national board but a regional
board. Many producers I am finding in my part of the world did
not even realize there was an Ontario Wheat Board.
This Ontario Wheat Board is rather interesting. It was
established in 1958 by a vote of Ontario wheat producers. It
operates under the authority of the Ontario Farm Products
Marketing Act. There are 18,000 wheat producers in Ontario and
the Ontario board is run by 10 directors who are elected by the
producers. The board operates on a one producer, one vote
system. Each of the 10 directors represents a geographic district
within the province. Each district elects one delegate to the
annual meeting for each 250 producers within that district. The
directors are then elected from among those delegates.
The Canadian Wheat Board on the other hand has 137,000
producers or permit book holders, compared with the 18,000
farmers who control the Ontario board. Many opponents of a
producer control system claim that the government will not
guarantee initial prices for a depoliticized organization like the
Ontario Wheat Board.
However, the realities are that the initial payments are
guaranteed for both the Canadian Wheat Board and the Ontario
Wheat Board.
(1550 )
The wheat board act limits the Canadian Wheat Board's
activities to wheat and barley grown for human consumption.
The Ontario Wheat Board is mandated by statute to limit its
activities to wheat production and marketing within the
province of Ontario. This demonstrates that there are some
differences and some similarities in the scope and the influence
of a
3661
producer directed organization compared with one which is
government run.
The single biggest difference between the two is that the
Ontario Wheat Board is democratic and the Canadian Wheat
Board is run by a panel of three to five commissioners who are
appointed by the governor in council. This means that the
minister is usually the one who recommends the names.
The Canadian Wheat Board is a crown corporation and its
commissioners are political appointees. Nevertheless,
producers pay for all of the operations of the board through the
amount subtracted from the final payments for the producer's
grain. In fact, most agriculture marketing agencies, including
those in the supply managed sector, include producers in the
decision making and managerial process. The Canadian Wheat
Board is the odd man out, being a top down, government run
corporation.
Many farmers in western Canada are not happy with the
actions of the Canadian Wheat Board and the way it is run. Far
too much time and energy is spent in all places, from the courts
to the coffee shops, trying to determine what the powers of the
board should be, what commodities should be added or left out
of the wheat board's mandate, should farmers be selling their
grain on a contract basis or under the quota system or both, and
in that case what proportion for each.
There is much discussion about the board's monopoly power
versus the principle of marketing options. Perhaps one of the
biggest irritants today is the wheat board's involvement in grain
car allocation. My hon. colleague from Lisgar-Marquette
discussed that situation from the aspect of the western grain
transportation authority as well. There are many fingers in the
pot here. It seems like the end result is that the service is not very
good.
What sticks in the craw of so many producers is that these
complex issues to which there are no easy solutions require
solutions, but the producers have no substantial say as to how
these problems are to be solved.
Another great disadvantage to the Canadian Wheat Board
being an arm of the government is the way that new wheat prices
or final payments or price changes are announced. It was
common in years past for ministers of agriculture to play
politics with the announcement of either price increases or
decreases. Farmers were used as pawns, waiting for the right
kind of announcement so that the minister could get as much
political mileage or minimize the political fallout from grain
price announcements.
We as Reformers have been quite clear on the direction of
marketing reforms. It is paramount that the Canadian Wheat
Board be democratised. It must be accountable to the producers
it serves and producers must have the ability to change or update
the mandate of the board when they feel their interests could be
better served.
Producers must have control over how their grain is marketed.
We must remember that it is after all their grain. If producers
decide through a democratic process that the mandate of the
board should be expanded to cover other grains and oilseeds
then the act should be changed to respect the wishes of
producers. If this is done they may choose to provide opting out
provisions for niche markets. The purchase of grains on a cash
or pool basis might be considered to improve current marketing
arrangements. We would like to see the expansion of producer
contracts if farmers so desire.
Once the board is democratised the decision will be up to
producers to make, but we feel that the Canadian Wheat Board
should maintain its responsibility for initial payment shortfalls.
Government loan guarantees for export sales should also be
continued for as long as other nations do the same.
We have a responsibility to recognize that change is required
because present realities in the agriculture industry are different
from when the Canadian Wheat Board was brought into
existence.
My father was a pioneer. When he first delivered his wheat he
had to hitch up a wagon and a team of horses and haul that wheat
26 miles to a small community called Waldeck, Saskatchewan.
When he got there he did not know what the price was going to
be. He did not know what the grade of that grain was going to be.
There was a requirement for change in the way our products
were marketed and we saw improvements to the system which
enabled him to have some protection in the marketing of his
product.
Today's situation is different with modern transportation and
modern communications. In fact, we cannot maintain a system
that was intended for 30, 40, 50 years ago. We must be prepared
to look to new and innovative means of marketing our products.
(1555 )
We know from the Ontario example that a producer controlled
system is possible. That particular organizational model may or
may not fit on the prairies, but I feel that the principle of a
producer directed process does. If we give farmers the chance to
design, control and continually update their marketing system a
much more effective, fair and cost efficient Canadian Wheat
Board would result. As legislators we would give it the freedom
to act.
In conclusion, I would like to express my appreciation for this
time being allotted for a discussion of agriculture. The
government seems to have put a very low priority on agricultural
issues. On behalf of all the farmers of
Kindersley-Lloydminster and all of Saskatchewan, I am
grateful for the opportunity to try and solve some of the very
important issues facing rural Canada.
3662
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I am having
difficulty sorting out where the hon. member is coming from
relative to the Canadian Wheat Board. There is no question that
this government showed leadership during the campaign and
since the campaign.
I would quote out of the red book what we said on the
Canadian Wheat Board and that is what we were elected on:
``Canada's agri-food industry needs policies and programs such
as supply management, the Canadian Wheat Board and
stabilization programs to minimize the impact of market price
fluctuations''.
We ran on a campaign of strong support for the wheat board
and we are continuing to show that. I recognize there is a debate
taking place in the west. I have been inundated lately with
petitions asking to strengthen the Canadian Wheat Board and
expand its powers.
The member wants some components of the wheat board it
seems, but not its all. I am wondering if he has anything to
comment on in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory
committee. The Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee is
the legitimate, elected producers who act in an advisory
capacity to the wheat board. Clearly, during the last election
eight of the eleven were very strong, orderly marketers.
I am wondering what the member's thoughts are relative to
the Canadian Wheat Board advisory which is calling for us to
maintain the powers of the wheat board, that it is the sole seller
of export wheat and barley.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the
hon. member for Malpeque. I feel some affinity knowing that he
also has provided for his livelihood. He also chews gum like I do
and he forgets to do up his jacket like I do. I do feel some affinity
for the hon. member.
I am also very happy to respond to his question because I think
living in western Canada I am closer to some of the issues that he
is talking about. I would like to just remind the hon. member that
you cannot have it both ways. I know that his government was
committed to a referendum or a producer vote of whether there
should be a continental barley market. I favoured that when he
favoured it. That was before the decision was made that there
not be a continental barley market.
The hon. member and his government have changed their
minds since the court ruling has been reversed. In fact, the
continental barley market was ruled illegal. I have not changed
my mind. Neither has my party. We still believe that producers
should be in the driver's seat and make these decisions.
The hon. member on the other side is saying that as long as
things are going the way my personal philosophy dictates, I am
happy to put producers in the driver's seat. But as soon as my
own views and the views of producers begin to differ, then I want
to have control. I want to politicize this thing. I do not want to let
go of the administrative control of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I am saying to the hon. member that he cannot have it both
ways. You are either going to trust producers or you are not
going to trust them.
I would also tell the hon. member that I spoke recently to an
organization with which I know he is quite well acquainted, the
local chapter of the National Farmers Union. We discussed the
advisory council and it was of the same opinion as I am. In fact,
this advisory board is a rather useless organization because it
has no impact whatsoever as long as the wheat board is
controlled by the Government of Canada and the political
process rather than the producer, grassroots, bottom up process.
(1600 )
I thank the hon. member for his questions. I hope I have shed a
little light on where we are coming from on this side of the
House in trying to solve the problems of producers by trusting
them rather than taking over the decision making process from
them.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate
in this debate. I want to draw the attention of this House to the
policy and initiatives of the government regarding an important
sector of the Canadian economy. I am referring to the
agricultural and agri-food industry. More specifically, I want to
talk about the dairy, poultry and pork industries, for which
quotas are in place.
Mr. Speaker, as the member representing the riding next to
mine, I am sure you will agree on the importance of quotas in the
agricultural sector.
The main objective of the Liberal government's agricultural
policy is food security for Canadians and decent revenues for all
our farmers. Supply management, which is a system put in place
by a Liberal government almost a quarter of a century ago,
confirms the merits and the success of this policy.
You all remember former Liberal minister Eugene Whelan. I
know that the hon. member for Québec-Est knew him well,
because I think that at one time he worked in his office. Mr.
Whelan's daughter is now a member of this House and she also
does a very good job of representing the interests of farmers, as
do the hon. members for Haldimand-Norfolk and Prince
Edward-Hastings, and also the minister of agriculture.
As I said, in the early seventies, the Liberal government of the
time put in place regulated marketing programs for the dairy,
poultry and pork industries. This system is based on two basic
principles: domestic production quotas and, of course, efficient
control over imports to protect the quotas.
3663
Supply management stabilized farmers' revenues, and
ensured the supply of top quality and healthy food products to
Canadians, while also providing an important regional
economic development tool.
For the benefit of opposition members I would like to mention
again the considerable accomplishments of this government
regarding supply management. Less than six weeks after being
elected, the government had already negotiated an agreement
under GATT which is acceptable to the agricultural sector, and
which ensures that supply management will enable us to meet
the challenges ahead and take advantage of the opportunities
provided by GATT. This is what we call effective and concerted
action.
I would like to quote from an article written by Mr. Pierre
Glaude and published in the December 20, 1993 issue of
Agricom, a newspaper in my riding: ``The goal is the same'',
said the new chairman of the Union des producteurs agricoles du
Québec, Mr. Laurent Pellerin, ``only the means to reach it have
changed. The organization is trying to reassure its members.
Under the new GATT agreement, supply management programs
will be maintained through tariffs''.
In other words, contrary to what some members opposite have
said, the spokespersons for the Quebec agricultural community
consider that the measures taken by our government were
successful in protecting our quotas.
Not only in Quebec do farmers and their representatives make
such statements. In my riding, people agree. Representatives of
the farm industry maintain that the new tariffs will protect our
quota systems.
This may be the best argument I could use to show how much
Canadian farmers still have confidence in our quota system and
why members opposite should not try to undermine that. The
confidence of our farmers is what enables us to maintain the
value of our quotas. Quotas have increased in value since the
GATT accord was signed. What does this tell us? It tells us that
the agricultural community is confident and takes position that
supply management will be around for a long time. After all,
people do not buy quotas, and certainly not on credit, when they
expect these quotas be phased out very shortly. The agricultural
community believes, as we do, that quotas will be around for a
long time and will be protected by the new tariffs negotiated
with other countries.
(1605)
Speaking of tariffs, I have here, as I mentioned it this
morning, a list of the tariffs tabled by our government at GATT,
and I want to point out that the United States raised no
objections to these tariffs. We must have tabled hundreds of
pages of agricultural tariffs in Marrakesh, but no objections
were raised by the United States. In the dairy sector, tariffs of
around 300 per cent were mentioned, and I disagree with the way
the Reform Party Member calculated the price of those tariffs.
In any case, these tariffs will be reduced by 15 per cent over a
period of six years, not 15 per cent annually but 15 per cent over
six years.
In the Liberal red book, and especially in the policy paper on
agriculture, the government was committed to staunchly
defending our supply management programs at the GATT
negotiations. That is what the Liberal government did, and it
succeeded. It managed to obtain a tariff system under which we
will be able to maintain our marketing boards and supply
management and everything that entails. As a result, the impact
of fluctuating prices will be kept to a minimum and farmers as
well as food processors will be guaranteed a decent income.
During the Uruguay round, the Liberal government did
everything it could to defend Canada's supply management
system. We should remember that the position of the Canadian
government during the weeks leading up to the GATT agreement
was established in consultation with the agricultural sector.
Furthermore, the minister of agriculture worked very hard with
colleagues and senior officials to ensure that all sectors in
Canada's agriculture industry would not only survive GATT but
also be able to take advantage of the opportunities provided in
the GATT agreement.
Earlier, the Official Opposition's finance critic said that
everyone in the agriculture industry had lost at GATT, but
nothing could be further from the truth. The agricultural
industry made major gains at GATT, and all members opposite
know that perfectly well. They know about the US farm bill
which dates back to 1985 and which the United States used to
subsidize its agricultural industry and thus harm our exports.
Some US $70 billion were paid out during the first five years
of this American farm program, and we know that the purpose of
this program was to take away part of the market share held by
other countries, especially countries in the southern
hemisphere, but of course Canada was also affected by the U.S.
Farm Bill, though it was not the main target. The United States
wanted to react against overproduction and the fact that other
countries, after the crisis in Afghanistan, had tried to sell wheat
and other products to the Soviet Union and thus take over part of
the so-called traditional market share of the Americans.
(1610)
The members opposite know this, just as they know that our
farmers could no longer continue receiving large farm subsidies,
given the major losses experienced in the sector. Some members
opposite even admitted as much a while ago. That is why the
government had to work with other countries for the good of the
entire agricultural community.
3664
First, it had to work to strengthen the laws governing supply
management. As we know, there were problems with some of
these laws. You may recall the incident with ice cream and
yogurt, following the adoption in 1988 of the free trade
agreement, which moreover was endorsed by the current Leader
of the Opposition. Hon. members will also recall that the FTA
led us to lose our case with respect to quotas on ice cream and
yogurt. These were restored with the GATT agreement.
With respect to the grains sector, some of the subsidies from
other countries have been reduced, thereby allowing us to
market our products. New markets have been found for
Canadian products. Our ministers have worked hard and so has
the parliamentary secretary. The agricultural sector has been
well treated by our government and we have just begun our
work. We have only been in office for six months and we have
already accomplished a great deal. And we will accomplish even
more in the future.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
sometimes wonder if the hon. member who just spoke is really
from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and not an extra-terrestrial
being from the moon, because it is abundantly clear from his
remarks that he does not understand what effect the GATT
Agreement had. And he does not seem to believe the farmers, as
if they had not figured out what happened with GATT.
For example, to say that quota values had increased following
the signing of the agreement, or that the quota system will be in
place for a very long time, that is ridiculous. Especially since
farmers are aware that the quota system is under attack due to
tariffs and they may not be confident in what has happened, as
witnessed by the Ontario chicken producers. Why did they
increase their production by 30 per cent if not as a clear
indication of their lack of confidence in the system? They know
how the market works.
You have to do more than tell farmers that all is well, that
everything is perfect in Canada, to make things work. Farmers
understand very well what is going on. It is the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who, sadly, does not understand.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite tells us
that quotas will not survive. For 1995, the tariff for fluid milk is
283.8 per cent minimum and, by the year 2000, it will be 241 per
cent minimum. Does the hon. member mean to say that these
tariffs are too low? If so, how can he be so out of touch with the
agricultural community?
Let me tell you what André Chabot, the president of the
Franco-Ontarian Farmers' Union, had to say. I referred earlier
to what the leaders of the Quebec agricultural community had
said. I will now address the situation in Ontario. The hon.
member for Québec-Est is a Franco-Ontario, just like me. Mr.
Chabot's letter reads: ``Canadian farmers agree that Canadian
supply management systems are in no way threatened by the
new GATT rules. Some even see this as an improvement over the
situation under article XI''. Certainly a Franco-Ontarian like
my chum across the way can understand that.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, politics is a funny business. If the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell were sitting in the opposition, I
am sure his comments would be very similar to those of the hon.
member from the Bloc who has been speaking on agricultural
issues. It seems like the government has quite a different view
now of what has happened with regard to the GATT negotiations
it was involved in.
(1615)
I tell the hon. member and the House that Reform reviewed
the GATT situation two years ago. The same sources should
have been available to the hon. member. It became very clear
that article XI would become indefensible. We were quite frank
and honest in admitting that.
At the same time hon. members on the other side had not done
a reality check. They were trying to tell supply managed
industries that article XI was safe and could be preserved, and
that they would be the agent that would preserve article XI.
Reform on the other hand said it was obvious that article XI
would be gone and that tariffs would have to be put in its place.
Because of that attitude supply managed industries undertook
a very expensive advertising campaign involving millions of
dollars to try to speak to political parties and politicians and to
encourage them to take a strong position in defence of article XI
which was a hopeless cause. I would hope some members on the
other side would apologize for that action because these dollars
were hard earned and should not have been spent on useless
advertising campaigns.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will not apologize for standing
up for dairy farmers in my riding. It is not that article XI was
indefensible. The member has it wrong. That is not what
happened. If he thinks that is what happened he is mistaken.
I say to the hon. member and all hon. members that article XI
was clearly defensible. It was a very good system. We gradually
lost the supporters we had among other nations. That does not
mean the system was bad, but we ended up on the very last day
with 115 to 1. We were the only country that still wanted it. That
does not mean it was bad. It was still good. We were trading with
other nations and 115 of them were saying that it was no longer
there.
3665
It is like the National Hockey League deciding that every
team except one is to disband. We could wish the league to exist
but if it only had one team it would no longer be there. That is
easy for anyone in the House to understand, particularly after
last night's debate.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I say
to the hon. member that I too will not apologize for standing up
for supply managed commodities and for standing up for
farmers in my constituency. I do not need to apologize.
I was one who stood more than any member in the House and
fought for supply management. I know what I told my
constituents during election time. I made no promises that I
could save supply management. I told them, though, that I would
fight damned hard for it. That is what we did in this party.
I am proud of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The
Minister for International Trade with whom I have had
differences on this matter in the past stood up in Geneva and told
the world. Unfortunately, as my colleague from
Glengarry-Prescott- Russell said, in the end we could not do
it.
It is easy for the Reformers. They spend half their time in the
agriculture committee-and Mr. Hoeppner over there will know
he is not one of them-crapping on supply management.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know members
on both sides of the House feel very strongly, but I think a
moment ago the member was probably wanting to identify the
member for Lisgar-Marquette.
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, I was looking for his name. He is
the same guy within that party who has been unfortunately
knocking supply management. It is easy to say now, after the
fact: ``We knew, we knew'', but it would have been better to
have that party support us on this when the Americans were
fighting us. They were saying: ``Your party over there doesn't
want the wheat board, doesn't want any of these subsidies.
Members from Alberta don't want subsidies''. We kept arguing
that supply management was not a subsidy.
On the issue of subsidies I want to look at what Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada spends province by province. These
members from Alberta keep saying: ``We can do it ourselves''. It
is funny how much agricultural spending actually goes into the
province of Alberta. In 1993 figures the amount was
$536,315,000. That was well over the percentage of farmers that
they have. If I were as provincial as some members in the House
pretend to be and if I were just fighting for the province of
Ontario instead of for the country, I would argue that Ontario
with about 25 per cent of the farmers in the country is not getting
its fair share. However I understand some of the problems we
have in western Canada so I will not do that.
(1620)
In my speech today I want to talk about a few issues, one of
which is trade. Many of the problems we are having in
agriculture today and many of the problems the Reform Party
has in its own ridings are because of actions brought by other
countries. In a lot of cases it is the United States against Canada.
I feel they are very unfair actions.
If we are talking about the wheat issue, Mickey Kantor, the
international trade person in the United States, said before the
Senate committee last week that Canada was taking advantage
of a window of opportunity that had been created. The reason the
window of opportunity was created was frankly because of
something called export enhancement that the United States
uses. It is a two-price system which, by the way, we would like
to have in this country. However the Reformers fought us
against it and we do not have it now. It is a two-price system that
has been responsible for wheat going out of the country.
As a result Canadian producers have been shipping wheat and
have shown U.S. millers that we have high quality wheat that is
graded and will do exactly what it says it will do. As a result U.S.
millers have said: ``I like that better. I know and I am
guaranteed, because of the Canadian system of distributing
wheat, that I will get that wheat and it will do what it says it will
do''.
The U.S. has been complaining that some actions we take with
regard to wheat in western Canada and its shipment were unfair
subsidies. That is not the case. The U.S. International Trade
Commission found in 1990 that transportation subsidies were
not a factor in the competitiveness of Canadian wheat. The U.S.
General Accounting Office found in 1992 that there was no
evidence of unfair wheat board practices. Again in 1992 in a
unanimous decision of a binational panel, including a former
U.S. Attorney General and former Chief Justice Dickson, found
fault with the U.S. contentions.
However the panel recommended that an audit be done, which
results were released last month some time. That report found
that 102 of the 105 durum wheat contracts between 1989 and
1992 were fully in compliance with the provisions of the free
trade agreement. Clearly the U.S. has no strong position on this
matter.
I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for
the tough stands he has taken. Over the years I stood in the
House and watched the previous government negotiate with the
Americans. I always felt that somehow we were doing
something wrong in this country. I always felt as a farmer that
somehow Canadian farmers were not being fairly represented by
their government. I was very pleased at the GATT, with the stand
the minister took in Geneva, and with some of the tough stands
he has taken in terms of putting Canada's agriculture position
forward very strongly.
3666
I want to go back to the Bloc Quebecois now and the member
for Québec-Est, a very good member of the standing committee
who represents the views of his party well on the issue. I take
exception to the fact that he is denouncing the government for
lack of action in the agriculture sector. He sat around that table
with us in the agriculture committee, as well as Bloc members, I
might add, who add to the sense of the committee; it worked
very well. In recent weeks we have looked at some of the stuff
Agriculture Canada is doing. As one on the other side of the
House who criticized some of the actions of Agriculture Canada,
I recognized over the past little while that in fact a lot of those
actions have changed substantially. They have changed
substantially because the government has changed. We have
given a new direction to Agriculture Canada. That direction can
be found in the red book. It outlines clearly the direction we
want to take agriculture into the next century.
(1625)
Looking at the money Agriculture Canada is spending in
Quebec-and the hon. member asked for this
information-$371,723,000 have gone into the province of
Quebec. According to the chart, Quebec ranks behind only
Saskatchewan, Alberta, and a bit behind Ontario in this regard.
Obviously with the problems they are having in western Canada
with respect to wheat prices we can understand why a lot of this
money has gone there.
I really do take exception to the hon. member's contention
that we have not done anything. Frankly it has been six months. I
do not want to use that as an excuse, but we have made some
significant changes in those areas that particularly affect
agriculture. I have mentioned some of those in trade and the
good work the minister of agriculture is doing in standing up for
trade. I also want to talk about some of the stuff we have been
doing in rural development.
I come from small town Ontario, as you do, Mr. Speaker.
What we have found to be happening over the past few years,
especially in an area like mine that has been hit hard because of
certain commodities grown there, namely tobacco. In small
town Ontario unemployment rates have been rising. There has
been a loss of business in stores and other areas that help
farming communities. We are finding a bit of a drifting because
there are no jobs, with a lot of small town people moving to the
cities.
I was very pleased when the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food came forward with a plan to deal with rural
development. He indicated very clearly that rural development
was a top priority. This means rural development not only in
Ontario and Quebec but in the west also where small towns are
literally closing up in some places.
There is no huge pot of dollars; there is not a lot of money in
this promise. Frankly there is not the money there. Instead of
money the minister plans-and we had the department before
the committee today-to organize those parts of government
that are specifically directing their efforts toward helping small
towns and infrastructures. We are co-ordinating the machinery
of government.
It really is a grassroots participation. That is the final point I
want to make. The government and the minister have taken a lot
of time talking to ordinary Canadians, talking to ordinary
farmers. The development of the small town initiative, the rural
initiative, will be through the communities themselves.
That is one of the things I am proud of. We have done very
well to make sure that before we make any decisions Canadians
are consulted and that the views of farmers are heard. We will
continue to do that.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Haldimand-Norfolk is an excellent chairman of
the agriculture committee. He does an excellent job.
However today there are three points I would like briefly to
correct or bring to his attention. Basically the discussion today
is about the lack of leadership in government regarding
agriculture. What he said would indicate even more the lack of
leadership with respect to agriculture in government. For
example, he mentioned rural development, which is of course
extremely important, saying how the government minister
indicated that it was his top priority but he did not put any money
in it. What sort of top priority is that when you say it is really
very important and you do not put any money in it?
(1630)
Another example is trade. He mentioned that there are many
initiatives with regard to trade. Of course, the minister has gone
to China to sell wheat. However, in the negotiations that are
going on with the United States right now there is a problem that
was created by the Americans by their export enhancement
program and other issues. Of course Canada profited from this
situation. Of course Canada profited from free trade with the
United States, but why suddenly is Canada giving in to
American pressure and putting a cap on durum wheat to the
United States? It is lack of leadership.
Another example, again in dealing with trade with the United
States, which really is a big item, is instead of dealing sector by
sector so that we get the maximum for our bucks for Canada we
put it all in one lump package. This is what the minister of
agriculture is trying to deal with the United States, instead of
dealing sector by sector so that he would get the maximum for
his bucks. Lack of leadership. The examples were given by the
MP for Haldimand-Norfolk who is a very good president of the
agriculture committee.
Mr. Speller: Mr. Speaker, maybe that is one of the differences
between this party and the party of the hon. member for
Québec-Est. We feel that within government if we are going to
3667
make changes that really directly affect Canadians, in this case
farmers, changes that will work in their best interest, that
throwing a pot of money at them is not going to solve the
problem.
We think that by taking the money we have there and spending
it more wisely and making sure that money is not directed for
overhead or administration but is directed into the hands of
Canadians is probably the better approach.
In terms of his question on the cap on wheat, I am sorry I
missed the announcement. I have not heard that there was an
announcement on a cap on wheat. In fact if the hon. member
might be more honest with it he will know that in fact there is not
a cap on wheat yet. However, there is a question of whether or
not we should negotiate a settlement.
If anyone in this House thinks that world trade is fair they do
not have a clue on how the world trade system works. In fact it is
not a fair system. Canada represents a very small percentage of
trade done in the world. In relative terms it is important to us in
terms of our gross domestic product and its importance to
Canada but we are a small country. To suggest that we could
stand at a table one on one with the Americans, they do not have
to play fair, frankly.
The former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, who used to
sit in this House used to constantly say: ``The Americans never
agreed to a GATT decision because they didn't have to''. It is not
a fair decision. One of the points that the minister was making to
them was this. He said very clearly and he said it in this House a
number times that we are not prepared to trade one part of the
country off against another part of the country. We are not
prepared to trade one sector of this country off against another
sector of the country.
In fact, if you remember both the comments by the Prime
Minister and the Minister for International Trade, they were not
prepared to deal with this in one lump sum. They were going to
go sector by sector by sector. We feel we have a strong position.
We feel that the Americans will in the end give in on this because
they have to and because they are wrong. We are prepared to
stand forth and fight on behalf of Canadian farmers to make sure
that point of view is put forward.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, Bloc
members are very concerned with rural issues, especially
agriculture. I could not say the same about the members
opposite. My Bloc colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating
the inequality among the provinces and the federal
government's lack of action on Quebec's behalf.
(1635)
In particular, I will try to describe the situation that exists in
some rural ridings of the Gaspé Peninsula, where I am from, and
the lower St. Lawrence region. In the lower St. Lawrence region,
as in most rural areas of the country, agriculture should play a
very important role in regional development. There are 400,000
hectares under cultivation, over 260 agricultural enterprises,
and sales in the order of $190 million a year.
Our dairy products alone bring in 75 per cent of farm income
and account for more than 50 per cent of agricultural
enterprises. We also have 16,000 head of meat cattle, 20,000
sheep, and 30,000 pigs.
This translates into more than 7,500 permanent jobs and
thousands of seasonal jobs. Forty-eight per cent of the
workforce are under 40 years old.
Despite this profile, figures available for the Matépédia
Valley alone show that between 1981 and 1991, farmlands
declined by 22 per cent. In the same period, the number of farms
fell from 420 to 285, a decrease of 32 per cent. The main cause of
this reduction is the same as in other sectors.
Our regions produce raw materials for major centres, which
process them before selling them back to us. When are we going
to understand that, in order to grow, resource rich regions must
equip themselves with the infrastructure they need to process
and market their raw materials? It is much more important to us
than a few sidewalks and a little road paving.
Processing and marketing also mean jobs, which we do not
have unfortunately. Processing creates economic activities that
give confidence to people and encourage them to start their own
businesses.
We, for example, have the potential to develop beef
production. But Quebec, unfortunately, is still behind in this
area. Our cattle farmers must export their production outside the
region without processing it. They even export calves at lesser
cost without being able to finish them on site.
Over 100 valley producers have decided to spend more than
$160,000 of their own money to build a slaughterhouse so they
can process in their own region the animals they breed. Can you
believe it, Mr. Speaker?
That is a laudable initiative from the farmers themselves.
Such an enterprising attitude must be encouraged.
(1640)
In my region people got together and are now ready to act.
After a wide ranging consultation with those concerned, the
regional co-operation and development council targeted five
bio-food development priorities: processing and upgrading
bio-food products; diversifying crops; consolidating produc-
3668
tion; developing human resources; developing and marketing
regional products.
The people of Matane, Mont-Joli, the Matapedia Valley and
our regions know what they need to develop and know how to
succeed.
Centralized decisions and programs that apply unchanged
throughout the country are surely not the way for the
government to boost agriculture in our region. On the contrary,
decisions must be decentralized. Programs must be
decentralized and adapted to regional realities. Trust the men
and women who actually produce what people in the cities need
to live. Economic development takes place in the field, not in
the offices of senior bureaucrats.
I will give you a demonstration of this unhealthy incoherence,
which is demoralizing for the farmers in my region. In March
1995, the federal-provincial agreement which included a testing
and experimentation component will end. This program is the
most visible of those from the federal government. With the
funds it provided, this program helped farmers launch
productive activities with significant benefits for our region.
Ending this program will really hurt us and I say to the Minister
of Regional Development that he must take a stand as soon as
possible on extending it.
The regions must be given the wherewithal to do what they
decided to do to deal with technological change and changing
markets. To overlook the resource regions is to overlook what
we are: human beings who need to feed ourselves and live in a
healthy environment so that we can develop properly.
Another point that I want to raise immediately is
transportation subsidies. Most of them cause unhealthy
competition between the regions. They pay transportation
companies to send unfinished products to urban centres, instead
of encouraging local processing and helping people develop.
This shows the government's neglect. By wanting to
centralize everything, it hinders development. By wanting to
centralize everything, it makes people dependent. By wanting to
centralize everything, it kills any initiative from local people.
(1645)
When you know that, for almost a decade now, Western
Canada has been receiving ten times more than Quebec from the
federal government, you can ask yourself some questions. I
want agricultural producers from my region and all of Quebec to
get what they are entitled to, nothing more but nothing less.
Quebec farmers are striving to reach food self-sufficiency. To
that end, they have decided to: first, consolidate and develop
their potential; second, make full use again of agricultural land;
third, process their products themselves, to the extent possible.
These people, who generate over $4 million in annual
revenues, have the right to be considered job creators and major
contractors, like any multinational company which finances the
old political parties.
It is not because we live in rural areas that we cannot benefit
from collective prosperity or that we should be overlooked by a
system which favours big business.
Producers from the lower St. Lawrence are entitled to the
same support as others. They need that help to consolidate their
business, transform their products and make a profit with the
added value. They have the right to hope to expand as they deem
appropriate. They need help to be able to do so.
I will end with this. When game became scarce, man turned to
agriculture for survival, and nothing has since replaced the food
obtained from that activity. This is why rural regions such as
ours need help.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member said, when he
explained some of the problems of the farmers in his riding
which is in such a beautiful part of the country.
I have a question for the hon. member opposite. If we forget
the partisan comments which are of course part of the
parliamentary routine, and part of our job, I think he must admit
that for the past 20 or 30 years, Canadian agriculture has enjoyed
unprecedented growth.
I am sure he also realizes that for instance in Quebec and
Ontario, in my own riding, which is right on the border with
Quebec, we see outstanding farm operations which exist thanks
to the system introduced by Mr. Whelan, the former boss of his
colleague from Québec-Est, other Liberal agriculture ministers
and, of course, by ministers of other political formations as
well.
Does the hon. member acknowledge the tremendous progress
which has been made in the agricultural industry, in terms of the
use of technology on the farm, the standard of living of our
farmers, and especially in supply managed sectors and other
sectors? And will he at least, with his usual eloquence,
acknowledge the excellent job done by the former boss of the
hon. member for Québec-Est?
Mr. Canuel: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that a number of
things have been done, but it is also true that many, many farms
have disappeared.
(1650)
To expand, some farmers bought big farms adjoining their
own land. They modernized their operations and they used
technology, of course, but I say this is not necessarily a good
thing for rural communities. In a parish of 3,000 souls, if there
are now only four farmers when they used to be 40, this is not
necessarily a good thing. It may be the modern way of doing
things and perhaps this is inevitable. That means rural
communities will gradually disappear.
3669
If they do, small towns will disappear as well. Anyone who is
familiar with our part of the country will notice that, starting at
Mont-Joli, it is very hard to keep rural communities alive,
because most farmers have left the area, and although dairy
production has increased or remained stable, people are not
there any more. I think agriculture should be compatible with
rural communities, and I have no answers right now, although
there must be a solution and we must find it. I am sure that, when
we become a sovereign nation, we will find it more readily.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Lévis-Manpower Training; the hon. member
for Brome-Missisquoi-Hyundai Plant in Bromont; the hon.
member for Regina-Lumsden-Trade; the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve-Military Industries; the hon.
member for Matapédia-Matane-Unemployment Insurance
Reform.
Resuming debate, the honourable member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today during the first day of
debate in this House on agriculture. We will have to remember
that the official opposition is responsible for this first day of the
35th Parliament devoted to the subject of agriculture.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: We have the hon. member for Québec-Est
to thank for this.
Mr. Crête: Indeed, the originator of the motion is the member
for Québec-Est. In the past, he worked for a former Minister of
Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, but he came to realize during this
time, and probably because of his experiences, that Quebec had
no future in Canada, particularly where agriculture was
concerned. Moreover, you will recall that this Minister of
Agriculture had the good fortune of being sprayed with milk by
Quebec farmers because he could not grasp what they were
trying to tell him. The only way they could get their message
across to him was by spraying him in the face with milk.
On a more serious note, let them say what they will about
sales and milk production figures of all other sectors. The fact of
the matter is that rural communities are dying. The population of
our villages has been declining for a number of years. When it
has come to the point at which villages such as
Saint-Paul-de-la-Croix in my riding have taken to advertising
in the newspapers to attract families that may be willing to settle
in a rural community, we know that we need to make some
fundamental changes to the way we approach rural development
and agriculture.
Right now in Eastern Quebec we can see dairy trucks go by,
heading for Montreal, and that milk comes back in the form of
processed cheese. That is the sort of thing we would like to be
able to change so there could be a future in primary and
secondary processing in our region. The fact that our
communities are small does not mean that we do not have
expertise in the various agricultural productions.
My riding has been the home of Canada's biggest milk
producers for a long time.
(1655)
Fresh lamb is another area. It should be noted that
interestingly, 30 per cent of the fresh lamb consumed in Quebec
is processed in our region.
Also, farmers in Eastern Quebec, and my riding in particular,
have adapted successfully to changes in the agricultural
industry. The UPA may be confident in the future, but this does
not mean that all government's actions automatically have its
blessing. Their confidence comes from knowing that with their
skills and the ideas they have come up with, they will be able to
ride out this time of fundamental change brought about by
GATT.
A great deal of work was done in Quebec to prepare for the
future and make sure agriculture had the place it deserved in
Quebec in the 21st century. Take for example the ``États
généraux du monde rural'' and the Trois-Rivières summit where
a consensus was reached on the efforts required to ensure the
prosperity of the Quebec agricultural industry for the future.
I hope that the government will take that into account in
planning its next move and that it will make sure the interests of
the Quebec agricultural community do not get lost in the sea of
Canadian and Western interests. Care should be taken not to let
the durum exports issue adversely affect advocacy for farmers in
Eastern Canada, and Quebec in particular.
When the Bélanger-Campeau Commission held hearings in
the Lower St. Lawrence region, the Minister of Foreign Affairs
who was the Liberal Party representative on the commission at
the time, had argued that, should Quebec become a sovereign
state, we would lose any control we may have had on our milk
quotas. Since then, current world events have caught up with the
hon. member-who is now Minister of Foreign Affairs-and
quotas will be less prominent. Belonging to the Canadian
Federation may not be that beneficial for Quebec farm
producers after all. A more profitable approach is to make sure
we are able to sell our products abroad, and for that, we need
programs to promote processing.
We must also learn from the past. In agriculture, we went from
a period when many regions could be self-sufficient by
processing and selling their products locally to a new era when,
in the
3670
name of productivity, natural resources are sent outside the
producing regions, creating unemployment. Something can be
done to bring processing back to the regions, thus enabling
more people to live with dignity.
I would like to point out one of the abnormalities inherent in
the Canadian system. In lamb production, Canada, under
pressure from the United States, reviewed the way it treats sick
animals. Before, especially in the case of pure-bred lambs, we
used to slaughter all sick animals. We have now decided that
moderately sick lambs would not be killed but quarantined. This
can be appropriate for owners of very large herds like those in
the West, for whom quarantining a small part of their herd is not
a major problem.
However, in Quebec, where herds are much smaller, this type
of action is inappropriate. In my riding, for example, it pushed a
producer to the brink of bankruptcy. We had to intervene many
times to make the bureaucracy understand the situation.
Unfortunately, we have not yet managed to change the
regulations, the new practice adopted under U.S. pressure.
That is one example where implementing a practice across
Canada can harm the economy of one of Canada's regions.
(1700)
The other point that I would like to bring to the attention of the
House is support for exports. Much is being done to help people
who are long established, but there is not much room for new
exporters. For example, young people who would like to export
top-quality maple syrup do not easily find the government
program that could help them.
In agriculture, it is very complicated to find which program
applies to which crop since agriculture has always been a shared
federal-provincial jurisdiction; this does not make it easy for
those who want to be involved in agriculture.
In another area, the federal government is acting contrary to
the fine principles it has put forward, namely by cutting the
funding for regional agricultural fairs. While they say they want
to give regional agriculture a chance, this year they are cutting
the budgets for the 55 regional agricultural fairs in Quebec by 15
per cent and next year they want to cut them out completely,
which will eliminate these regional agricultural fairs that
promote high-quality livestock.
I think that such an example proves the government's lack of
leadership in agriculture. They just say the right words; what
they do is in fact contrary to the decisions that should be made.
Instead of encouraging agriculture, they are making drastic cuts
that will hurt agriculture instead of helping it to develop.
[English]
Mr. Althouse: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like the
permission of the House to speak for eight or ten minutes,
please, if that is possible.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Members have heard the
request from the member for Mackenzie. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I just want to make sure,
at the request of the hon. member for Mackenzie, that he can
share his comments with us for eight to ten minutes at most.
Would there be unanimous consent?
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Will
giving me the floor prevent a member who was supposed to
speak from speaking on this point?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The period should end at
5.30 p.m.; we would have to add nine or ten minutes, and the
minister's statement is scheduled for 5.40 p.m. So if a member
speaks, someone else will certainly be unable to speak. The day
must end at some point.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
privilege to speak in the House today on this debate on
agricultural issues. I am conscious of the fact that I represent an
urban riding but I remind the members of the House that not only
are the members of urban ridings consumers of agricultural
products but we are all interested in a healthy farm community.
It is in the interest of all of us and there are many of us in
Rosedale riding, those for example who work at the University
of Toronto in the research area and others, who make in their
own way a contribution to the health of the important
agricultural community in this country.
(1705 )
Since the last election probably the single most important and
dominant issue for our government for Canada's agri-food
industry has been international trade. That is a matter of great
concern to the foreign affairs and international trade committee
of which I happen to be the vice-chairman. As was pointed out
by the members for Haldimand-Norfolk,
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Peace River this has been a
very intense and challenging period in that area.
I think it is important for us to bear in mind that 1.5 million
Canadians, that is one in five, depend directly on exports for
3671
their livelihood. Trade in goods and services is equal almost to
half our GDP and in the agri-food sector for every dollar that is
earned at the farm gate exports generate about 45 cents.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, international trade in this sector has become
increasingly important for the province of Quebec. In 1991,
exports from this province amounted to 9 per cent of the
Canadian total. Today they are 13 per cent, an increase of 49 per
cent, for a total value of 1.8 billion Canadian dollars.
[English]
Exports to the United States are extremely important and new
markets and new jobs will arise from our entry into new
international markets. Although we are presently engaged in
difficult negotiations with the United States over trade in some
agri-food products which we hope to resolve over the coming
months, the bulk of our trade remains free of dispute and
continues to expand. Once a settlement with the United States is
reached we will have a more secure environment in which all
sectors can plan for the future.
I would like to take the opportunity today to look at some of
the impacts of the new trading arrangements and how our
government is working to assist Canada's agri-food sector with
its market development activities.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development has forecast that the new GATT agreement will
give the Canadian economy an additional $8 billion boost by the
year 2002. This government is determined to ensure that
Canada's agri-food sector is a major participant in that
economic growth.
The new development brings agriculture under effective trade
rules for the first time in history and will ensure that these rules
apply equally to all countries. Under the GATT as a result of the
Uruguay round members have agreed to cut agri-food export
subsidies by 21 per cent by volume and 36 per cent by value over
six years. Export subsidy programs like the European
Communities' CAP and the U.S. export enhancement program
which the member for Haldimand-Norfolk referred to this
afternoon are curtailed and international grains and oilseed
prices will gradually rise.
It is hard to describe the importance of these changes. The
anomalies that were created by agricultural subsidies in world
trade were absolutely extraordinary. We had this crazy situation
in the United States for example in which its export subsidies
encouraged its farmers to export wheat to Turkey. The Turks,
not being crazy, turned this wheat into pasta and sent it back to
the United States which then competed with the pasta
manufacturers in the United States which had to import
Canadian wheat. Meanwhile Canadians were selling subsidized
wheat to Italy which the Italians were turning into pasta and
shipping back to Canada.
These anomalies created by subsides riddled agricultural
trade. They have to some extent been brought under discipline
under the new GATT rules. The importance of this cannot be
under emphasized.
In that context we have to recognize that our supply
management system which will be preserved as a result of our
high tariffs came under attack under article XI, but this
government was able to negotiate those high protective tariffs
which will preserve the benefits of our farm management
system.
As the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell pointed out
we do not live in an isolated world. We are one member of the
GATT and 115 other members insisted that we change from the
type of quotas which we had used up to this time to a new and
different type of system.
(1710 )
This government recognizes that changes will be needed.
Changes will be needed to help the sector. To this end, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food is heading a six member federal-provincial industry
task force on orderly marketing. Its mandate is to consult with
all supply management stakeholders to identify the issues that
need to be addressed and suggest co-operative decision making
processes to deal with those in anticipation of the GATT
implementation in 1995.
Amendment to the GATT rules will allow for more
competition. But of themselves the rules will not ensure that we
take advantage of those markets. We have to work for those
markets and this government recognizes that. To help the
agri-food sector capitalize on these advantages, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada has a new branch, market and industry
services, with offices in all of the provinces. This branch is
specifically designated to work with the industry on enhancing
its global competitiveness and increasing its share of domestic
and international markets.
As well, the federal government has 55 trade commissioners
and commercial officers working on agri-food trade and
developing more than 150 foreign markets. This includes 18
agri-food specialists, five of whom were recently named to our
diplomatic posts in Taipei, Seoul, Singapore, Osaka and Mexico
City.
Here at home, an agri-food industry council will be
established to advise on all matters related to improving
Canada's market position, promoting economic growth and
creating jobs.
In addition, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will be
working with other federal departments and the provinces to
establish a single window marketing service for Canadian
industry. This
3672
will help facilitate access to programs such as the new getting
ready to go global program, which gives cost shared assistance
to food and beverage processors in developing competitiveness
strategies and initiatives, and the agri-food industry marketing
strategy program which helps agri-food associations develop
and implement marketing plans.
The government's plan is to concentrate marketing on those
areas of the globe which have the greatest potential for
economic growth and market expansion in the future. In that
context, the government is putting particular emphasis on the
Asia Pacific and Mexican markets.
The minister of agriculture and the Governor General are
presently on a trip to China and to Asia with industry
representatives to sell our agricultural products. I hope, having
heard the member for Peace River today speak of the importance
of international trade in agricultural products, he may bring
some discipline to bear on the member for Wild Rose when he
questions the costs of these trips and the Governor General
attending when important marketing initiatives can be made by
such initiatives.
The Asia Pacific region is the fastest growing economic
region in the world and it offers tremendous opportunities for
Canadian agri-food exporters. This government intends to
exploit that market and is doing so at this time. This represents a
potential for jobs. They are good jobs, high paying jobs based on
real markets in a growing part of the world.
Jobs, Mr. Speaker and other members of the House, I remind
you, in the export area involve not only the farm marketers
themselves but support services, banking and other areas, which
those who live in urban communities benefit from as well. That
is why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is in Asia
today and 15 leaders in the agri-food sector thought it was
important enough to be there with him.
With growing access to new markets around the world, it is
clear that the future of Canada's agri-food industry is full of
opportunities, the opportunity for growth and opportunity to
contribute to economic activity and jobs in all parts of the
country.
By working in close co-operation with the provinces,
industry and other stakeholders, and by continuing to support
the trade and marketing initiatives of Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada and other federal departments I am confident
that we can help the industry make Canada agriculture and
agri-food number one in the world.
In so doing, we will be ensuring not only the wellbeing of our
farm community but the overall economic health of our country
which includes important interests in our urban community as
well.
(1715 )
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to address this unfortunate
motion. However I would like to commend the opposition for
raising this issue because the agri-food sector is such a strong
contributor to our economy.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Mackenzie was not
allowed to speak by the opposition. The member for Mackenzie,
who is very interested in agriculture, often sits in on the standing
committee. While I may not always agree with his comments or
theories, I do feel sad that the opposition would not allow him to
speak.
The rules of the road for business are government regulations.
Regulations protect Canadians, ensuring them safe, nutritious
food. Regulations also play a very important role. They are a
way of setting standards. High standards mean quality and that
can mean Canadian agri-food products are attractive to world
markets because of their quality.
However times change and regulations that were helpful in
the past become an obstacle to growth today. In some cases, new
technology makes regulations obsolete as scientific tests
replace manual inspections. In other cases, various levels of
government have added layer after layer of regulation without
co-ordinating their efforts and without counting the cost to
industry.
We view regulations as a tool that can help the agri-food
sector produce internationally competitive products. But to be
an effective tool it must be honed and constantly sharpened to
keep pace with changing world markets and technology.
Regulations should be a tool which encourages innovation and
entrepreneurship, not one that blunts industry's integrity.
That is why the government is dedicated to reforming
regulations. Regulations are dry, technical and complicated.
Done wrong, they cost too much to the industry and to the
taxpayers but done right, they can create jobs.
As members know, the focus of the government's election
campaign last fall was economic renewal and job creation.
Building on this commitment in the February budget, the
finance minister announced numerous initiatives to help
improve the competitiveness of the Canadian industry.
One of the steps he announced was: ``We will intensify and
accelerate the effort to reform and remove regulations that
create confusion and costs by putting in place a task force to
provide on a fast track basis a better regulatory regime, one that
will not compromise compliance but rather improve the
competitiveness of business''.
The government has already done a considerable amount of
work in recent years to ensure that government regulations fulfil
a specific departmental mandate and that they enhance, not
hinder, industry's ability to compete. An interdepartmental
committee of assistant deputy ministers on regulatory reform is
3673
currently working to, first, provide departments with the means
to use alternatives to reduce the regulatory burden; second,
provide a greater variety of enforcement tools and options; and
third, improve the process of the regulatory development.
At Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the first phase of
regulatory housekeeping led to the elimination and amendment
of regulations through an omnibus regulatory package passed in
April 1993. This work is continuing. A second package of
regulatory amendments has now been prepared involving the
processed poultry regulations, livestock carcass grading
regulations, fertilizer regulations and egg regulations. A copy of
this package has been provided to the provinces for review and
for their comment. It is anticipated that it will appear in part I of
the Canada Gazette this summer.
(1720)
As part of this federal regulatory reform process, the
government, in co-operation with consumer groups and
industry stakeholders, also reviewed the current regulatory
requirements concerning best before dating and packed on
dating and looked at the subject of food date marking in general.
Under the food and drug regulations the labels of most
perishable and semi-perishable prepackaged foods with a shelf
life of 90 days or less are required to show a durable life or ``best
before'' date in a clear, non-encoded manner. Storage
instructions are required if conditions other than room
temperature storage are necessary. When packaged on retail
premises, perishables and semi-perishable foods are required to
show packed on date instead of best before date.
The intent of these requirements introduced back in 1974 is to
provide consumers with useful information regarding relative
freshness and potential shelf life of food. Foods which have
exceeded the best before date are still acceptable for
consumption but they may not be at their peak state of freshness.
During the reform process the government found strong,
general support for retaining present date marking requirements
for perishables and semi-perishables having a durable life date
of 90 days or less.
Consumers and industry believe these requirements to be very
effective and a useful way of informing consumers as to relevant
produce freshness.
We also found support for the voluntary use by manufacturers
of best before dating on foods with durable life of more than 90
days.
As a result of the review the following recommendations were
developed. Support the use of best before dating on products
with a durable life of more 90 days on a voluntary basis. Amend
the food and drug regulations to revoke durable life date
exemptions for donuts and commissary items. Review date
marking in respect to products with modified atmosphere
packaging. Review the need for date marking on low acid foods
packaged in hermetically sealed containers and on refrigerated
products and consider extending the requirements relating to the
statement ``previously frozen'' to all products which have been
frozen and thawed prior to sale.
In the last phase of the implementation process Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada's food production and inspection
branch, in co-operation with the Department of Health, will be
consulting on these recommendations with food industry
stakeholders, including industry associations, consumer groups
and other federal and provincial government departments.
Central to these discussions is Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada's inspection and regulation mandate. The department's
responsibility is to set and enforce standards to safeguard
human, animal and plant health and facilitate international trade
and to support the protection of the environment through
sustainable agricultural practices.
In line with these departmental responsibilities, the FBI
branch has been working in recent months to develop a business
plan which will ensure that its resources are directed to the
highest priorities, to ensure that only safe, wholesome food
enters the Canadian marketplace and that our inspections
program works to enhance the competitiveness of Canada's
agri-food sector.
The challenge is to maintain and improve the branch's current
food inspection programs while at the same time making the
best use of the taxpayers' dollars.
I believe our efforts to reduce the unnecessary regulations of
industry and to focus on our resources on a top priority of
ensuring food safety will pay off handsomely in every province.
Reforming regulations create new opportunities. It creates jobs.
It is a way to ensure that the agri-food sector is profitable. It will
remain a very important tool for making sure the agri-food
sector remains competitive.
(1725)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, just a short comment on what the hon. member said in
his introduction, in which he reproached us for not letting
another member take the floor.
I simply wanted to say that, for the opposition day we
requested on agriculture, we need all the time we are allowed to
voice the concerns of Quebec and those of farmers across
Canada, and we are prepared to consider the possibility of
having the hon. member speak when we have finished. All
members who expressed an interest in speaking in this debate,
members from the rural ridings who want agriculture to have its
rightful place in Canada and Quebec, should be able to speak,
3674
and that is why we felt this was important, because the treatment
of agriculture in Quebec has left much to be desired in the past.
Agriculture in Canada is to a large extent western agriculture,
and we want to say there is an agricultural industry in Quebec as
well, and that is why we want all our members who have
something to say about their ridings and certain expectations
they want to express on behalf of their constituents, to be able to
do so. We want to ensure that the concerns of the agricultural
industry, in Quebec and in Canada, get the attention they
deserve, and that is why we want to ensure that the entire debate
is used to discuss those concerns.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As you know, I have been
in the Chair all day for this very important debate and I
understand, as the hon. member just mentioned, that there are
still a large number of members would like to speak to the issue.
As some members have pointed out when the hon. member
made his presentation, there is a tradition in this House to the
effect that we do not reflect on a decision which has been made.
I imagine that we all learned something. I am convinced that
the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte will take note, as I
will, and I thank the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for his intervention.
[English]
Maybe the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte would like
to respond.
Mr. Culbert: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated the member for
Mackenzie certainly has tremendous experience in the field. I
also indicated that while I may not always agree with his
comments or his theories, I do feel he deserved an opportunity to
make those comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Of course the
House is always the master of its own destiny. It is a tradition of
the House that once a decision is taken, we carry on the business
of the day. It is not the tradition to reflect on a decision taken.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could assist the Chair
and the House by indicating that I have had informal
conversations with my colleagues of all represented parties in
the House at the present time and they have unanimously agreed
to extend the hours to allow the member to speak.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We are getting ahead of
ourselves here. I know that there are other members who want to
speak to the issue of the day.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the debate should normally end
around 5.40 p.m.
Consequently, since I will in all likelihood be the last speaker
on this motion, I would like to first congratulate again the hon.
member for Québec-Est, who is the Official Opposition critic
on agriculture, for tabling a motion which, as pointed out a few
moments ago by the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Témiscouata, is the first one on agriculture since
the opening of the 35th Parliament.
(1730)
We, members of the Official Opposition, are justifiably proud
to be the first ones to table such a motion and to show to all
Quebecers, and farmers in particular, that we are here to protect
their interests in every field and especially in the agricultural
sector.
Today, members from the Bloc have spoken brilliantly and
eloquently on the issue, and they have clearly demonstrated the
nonchalance of the Liberal government regarding the
agricultural sector since it took office. This lack of vision,
policy and decision is hurting agriculture in Canada, and
particularly in Quebec.
I want to take those few minutes to emphasize the importance
of agriculture. I will use my own constituency of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead as an example, since it is
essentially a rural riding where agriculture is the number one
industry. I have here some figures which I am pleased to
communicate to members and to Canadians, so that we can see
the impact, on this industry, of the measures taken by
governments, particularly the federal government.
There are close to 2,000 farms in the riding of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. According to Statistics
Canada, in 1991, expenditures and revenues related to the
agricultural industry in my riding were somewhere around $123
million and $156 million, respectively. These two figures alone
show how important that industry is for our riding and for all of
Quebec also.
Moving on, 2,500 jobs in my riding are directly dependent on
agriculture. Imagine, 2,500 jobs. One would have to travel to
several municipalities and to several ridings to find industries
which employ such a large number of workers. And for every
direct job, we can count on six indirect ones, which means that
farming in the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead
accounts for an additional 15,000 jobs in the eastern townships.
The agricultural sector in Quebec has evolved rapidly over the
years. I listened to the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who tried to get my colleague
from the Bloc who serves as agriculture critic to admit that
agriculture has flourished in Quebec because of federal
government policies. May I remind this House and point out for
the benefit of my colleague that agriculture underwent a
remarkable period of growth between 1976 and 1985, thanks to
the vision and energy of a government, but more especially,
thanks to one man, the MNA for Lévis, Mr. Jean Garon, who in
many ways sparked the development of the agricultural sector in
Quebec. Many people considered the MNA for Lévis to be a
dreamer. Some even thought he was a
3675
little crazy when he said his goal was to increase agricultural
self-sufficiency in Quebec from 50 per cent, the level it stood at
when the Parti Quebecois came to power in 1976, to over 70 per
cent. Within four years or one term of office, Quebec had
already achieved a level of self-sufficiency greater than 70 per
cent, all because of the government's policies. Since then, the
Liberal government which came to power in 1985 has managed
to bring the level back down to about 60 per cent.
(1735)
On the subject of agriculture, we should also mention certain
initiatives that were taken and the benefits that accrued to show,
as I said at the beginning of my speech, the impact of agriculture
on a region. I would like to point out three initiatives that I am
particularly proud of in my riding. First, the Centre d'initiative
agricole de Coaticook, which is basically a group of farmers
who not only put a lot of effort in their own farming enterprises,
but also provide training to other farmers. They have just set a
precedent by approving an agreement concluded with the local
school board to invest in farm training for our young people.
This deserved to be pointed out. They have been praised by all
socio-economic stakeholders in l'Estrie for this initiative.
There is also the agri-food table, la Table agro-alimentaire,
in the Haut-Saint-François RCM, which brings
together-somewhat like the group in Coaticook-a number of
farmers who have set out to develop the agricultural industry by
encouraging new farms to locate or get established in their
region and, to that end, by meeting students in our agricultural
colleges, in Saint-Hyacinthe and in the Quebec area, as well as
by inviting them to invest in the most beautiful riding in the
province, the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.
In conjunction with all economic stakeholders, they are also
setting up agricultural products processing industries to ensure
that our farm products can be processed locally, thus creating
employment.
One last example, before closing: farm tourism. It was barely
mentioned today, but its is nonetheless an important industry.
Let me give you one figure. In 1993, in my riding and the
Coaticook region, thanks to the concerted efforts of the
municipalities, the agricultural community and the tourist
industry, 4,000 European tourists, mostly from France, came to
visit us and were able to appreciate the state of development of
our agricultural industry as well as enjoying, of course, the
warm welcome Quebecers are renowned for.
(1740)
In conclusion, in the weeks and months to come, the federal
government must concentrate on an issue of major importance
not only to my riding but also to Quebec as a whole and even a
major part of Ontario. I am referring of course to the
negotiations scheduled to take place as a result of the GATT
agreement, particularly to set tariffs for milk.
Someone on the government side said earlier-and I will
close on this-that deals had already been made. We want, we
insist that the efforts made by our farmers over all those the
years not be compromised by negotiations, the outcome of
which are not known. We in the opposition will be extremely
vigilant in that regard.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent of the House to
extend the sitting hours by 10 minutes in order to permit the hon.
member for Mackenzie to address the House, and subsequently
of course to add 10 minutes to private members' hour to ensure
that it is not shortened and that the full hour be allotted to private
members' hour as is customarily the case.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): My thanks to you, Mr.
Speaker, and to the House for extending the session for 10
minutes. I am sorry that we had a misunderstanding a few
minutes ago when we tried to do the same thing and failed.
Being from the riding of Mackenzie, which is located in
northeastern Saskatchewan, we are very concerned about
agricultural policy and the terms that the government imposes
on agricultural policy in this country. We were faced with local
conditions that are quite unusual this past year such as flooding
and extra rain which has meant harvesting not completed from
last year and it means that many producers will not be able to
seed a crop this year because last year's crop is still in the fields.
There was a great deal of hope that a third line of defence
would be worked out given this circumstance in northeastern
Saskatchewan and northwestern Manitoba. However, no such
thing happened. The minister and his counterparts across the
country simply said that the crop insurance and the GRIP
programs that are in effect are going to have to be used.
We urge all farmers in the circumstance of perhaps losing two
crops to make certain they take advantage of that part of the crop
insurance program that covers inability to seed in the coming
year.
There have been other problems that these people have been
facing. They face the same problems that all Canadian farmers
have faced: low incomes due to low grain prices because of the
3676
grain wars that have erupted between the United States and
Europe; the United States' insistence upon using export
enhancement funds to depreciate the value of export prices to
the point that the only place Canadians can get a decent price for
durum wheat is in the United States, which is the only country
that has not been targeted for export enhancement funds.
In effect the market is $40 or $50 U.S. per tonne higher in the
United States than it is in any of the markets that we normally
sell to because the United States has been paying our old
customers $50 to $60 a tonne to take their durum wheat instead
and their other grains as well.
As well, for a short period of time a small window of
opportunity opened up in the U.S. market for barley and that
became the high value market. Canada sold barley into the
United States which has triggered a short skirmish in the
continuing skirmishes along that border in agricultural trade to
the point at which one of the senators from North
Dakota-although he says it was in jest-actually suggested to
one of the committees of Congress that the 300 Minuteman
missiles located in silos in North Dakota be reprogrammed to hit
Canadian wheat farmers.
(1745 )
Those problems will pass and they will be resurfacing again
from my experience in free trade with the Americans. We have
had free trade, I might add, in meats for over 50 years and there
have always been times when border access was very difficult
even though we have a program of free trade in pork and beef
between our two countries.
The challenge I want to speak about today in the short period
that I have is the global challenge that arises now that we have
had Canada-U.S. trade agreements, the North American free
trade agreement, followed by the General Agreement on Tariff
and Trade.
All of these agreements have substantially limited the power
of national governments to impose or to have their own
programs for agriculture or for production of any kind of
product whether it is manufactured products or a raw product
like most of the agriculture products that we export.
This has been assessed by various world trade experts and
economists who have concluded that in Canada's case Canadian
agriculture is going to have to get used to a lower level of export,
lower incomes and this means that we have a great challenge
ahead in rural Canada and at the federal level as well to find new
ways of reducing production costs.
Where I live our ability to export is highly dependent upon the
continuation of the crow rate which was there to entice us to
settle that region in the first place. We are a long way from
tidewater and cheap shipping. We are relatively close to
Churchill but none of our purchasers of raw products seems
interested in picking up products at Churchill so we have to ship
to Vancouver, Thunder Bay or Prince Rupert, very long
distances.
We are located about as far from those ports as it is possible to
get on the prairies. Yet the government has continued to pursue
the policy of the previous government of reducing the benefits
to the crow rate.
The panel has looked at who should receive that payment.
Though it has not made any recommendations the study shows
that there is very little to be gained by paying the payment to the
producers. It shows that if you paid the producers rather than the
railways barley exports would disappear. There would be very
little change in the production of meats, beef and hogs, which
has been the contention by those who wanted the payment made
to producers rather than to the railways. The government has
what will probably be a difficult decision because there is so
much politics behind the feeling among some farm groups that
they could do a better job of spending the money by paying the
railways themselves than the government paying the railways in
order to keep the rates down.
We are left with very few options in government policy for the
federal government. Under the new GATT arrangements it will
have to reduce its subsidies. We have a challenge of trying to
identify the subsidies of other countries so that we can make
certain that we are operating on a fair basis. The previous
government did not do a good job of that. It did not identify the
subsidies the United States has even though it spent a lot of time
negotiating the agreement with the United States.
We have some positive things we can look at. I am trying to
hurry because of the time. We can still use marketing boards.
There are great advantages to producers in gaining regulated
control of the products they wish to market. That has been
proven through the wheat board, the hog marketing boards, the
Ontario Wheat Board, as was mentioned, various milk
marketing boards, and the chicken and egg marketing boards
across the land.
(1750 )
These agencies do an excellent job of making certain that a
product finds a market, that it gets to market with the least
possible cost without running trucks and trains back and forth
across the country. It is the most efficient way to work.
Therefore I would urge the government to pursue those
options, particularly putting more grains under the Canadian
Wheat Board and expanding the jurisdiction of the Canadian
Wheat Board to go into eastern Ontario and the rest of the
country as it chooses as well.
I note that there is a need for revitalization. I was at a
committee meeting this morning at which the department
officials talked about rural revitalization. I note that there are a
lot of things that need to be done in this area and that can be done
even in spite of the GATT rules.
3677
We have taxation policies that favour the relatively wealthy,
medium and high income people, relatively old people, but we
do not have any RRSP treatment for the young which would
permit them to invest in their farms and businesses at a young
age to get some tax benefits. Instead, we wait until they get into
their middle years and older and then the tax system encourages
the investment in RRSP. We actually lose taxes as a result of
that.
Why do we not invest the tax treatment in the younger people
so that they can revitalize local communities and maybe back off
a little bit the tax advantages that we are giving to the medium
and high income people? We should be pursuing these and a
whole host of other things that I had on my list. Perhaps some
other time the House will grant me the privilege of presenting
the rest of those ideas.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.49 p.m., it is my
duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order
81(19), proceedings on the motion have expired.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3677
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider repealing
the Patent Act Amendment Act, Chapter 2, Statutes of Canada, 1993, to make
prescription drugs more affordable to Canadians and to encourage the creation
of jobs in Canada by generic drug companies.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to move
this motion in the House of Commons. Bill C-91 in essence
ended Canada's compulsory drug licensing system in place
since 1969 which helped make medicines more affordable.
Bill C-91 increased patent protection for the large
multinational pharmaceutical corporations. What that means is
that those drug companies were able to extend the monopoly
pricing for periods of up to 20 years for their prescription drugs.
Canadians are deeply concerned about the consequences of this
bill. What Bill C-91 has done is increase the cost of some
prescription drugs by about 120 per cent in the past three years.
As a result of this bill, for example, the Saskatchewan drug
plan, a government funded plan, has had to diminish its
coverage for Saskatchewan citizens quite significantly but still
pays about $10 million more a year for the plan because of
increased prescription drug prices.
The boost in the cost of provincial drug programs ultimately
means you pay more for drugs and increases Canada's
dependence on the most powerful pharmaceutical companies.
Bill C-91 also weakens Canadians generic drug companies at
the expense of foreign multinational pharmaceuticals. It also
sharply deteriorates our own pharmaceutical trade balance,
making Canada a warehouse for drug imports. The biggest
impact is on the consumer, in particular those people who
require prescription drugs, the sick, the elderly, people from all
walks of life.
The Eastman committee which studied drug patents and costs
in 1983 claimed that across Canada at that time the public saved
$211 million per year in drug costs from generics. In 1986 the
Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, which is the
organization of companies that manufacture generic drugs in
Canada, estimated that compulsory licensing saved us about
$500 million a year.
(1755 )
We do not have an updated figure but for health care plans in
this country which total about $70 billion in costs to the
government the components of the pharmaceuticals in that $70
billion cost is about 17 per cent, which means it costs Canadians
abut $13 billion or $14 billion a year. Estimates today indicate
that we would be saving between $1 billion and $2 billion a year
if Bill C-91 did not exist.
Not only do we save on the generic price but whenever a
generic equivalent is introduced to the market the brand name
product falls about 20 per cent to compete with it.
The Eastman committee at that time recommended a
maximum monopoly of four years. The government legislated
seven years for some drugs and ten years for others. Someone
from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said
we did not give them a nickel more than they asked for. Now it is
not just seven years or ten years or even seventeen, but Bill C-91
gives these pharmaceuticals 20 years of protection.
There is a well know drug, an antibiotic, that is marketed as
Septra by a company called Burroughs Wellcome and there is
Bactrim by another company called Hoffmann-La Roche. This
medicine is composed of two constituents that work together to
produce their effects in the urinary tract and in the respiratory
system.
One of these components is owned by the British drug
company Burroughs Wellcome and the other component is
owned by Hofmann-La Roche of Switzerland.
Not only do the components work symbiotically, so do the
companies. Wellcome makes enough of its product to supply its
own needs and that of the Roche company while the Roche
company makes sufficient of its own product to supply itself and
Burroughs Wellcome.
3678
Then each company advertises its own product as superior to
that of the opposite company and will produce research material
to even prove it. Yet the only difference is that the one company
markets this tablet in green and the other is coloured white.
There is a slight difference in shape but they both contain the
identical amounts of the same two drugs that came from the
same two companies. They come from the same machinery in
the same factories. Not only that, but they each thereafter supply
these components to generic drug companies who could produce
them under compulsory licensing at a cheaper rate and then
these pharmaceuticals have the cheek to call themselves ethical
pharmaceutical manufacturers.
An article in the Globe and Mail of January 20, 1993 cites the
chairman of a company that administers many private drug
benefit plans in Ontario. He told the Senate committee
investigating this matter that the average cost of a prescription
drug in Ontario in 1987 was $12.52. Five years later it was
$21.12, an increase of 75 per cent over five years for the average
prescription drug. He projected that by the year 2000, six short
years away, the average would be about $34.
Of course the federal government's rationale for C-91 was
that great big bogeyman GATT, the General Agreement on Trade
and Tariffs. Bill C-91 was retroactive to three years prior to the
GATT's being implemented before it took effect. My concern is
why should Canada have internal matters decided by foreign
governments?
As a matter of fact, Canadian drug manufacturers have
indicated in their research that under the present Patent Act
Canadian generic pharmaceutical manufacturers are prohibited
from producing for export products that are under patent in
Canada, even if the product is not under patent in the country we
wish to export to.
For example, given that many patents are granted in the
United States before they are granted in Canada, patents will
expire in the U.S. before they expire in Canada. The Canadian
generic pharmaceutical industry must now locate
manufacturing facilities in the U.S. when a patent expires there
before it expires in Canada.
This means we cannot continue to create jobs and produce our
export products here in Canada. In effect we are being forced to
export Canadian investment and jobs which we prefer to locate
right here. Unless this problem is quickly rectified we will be
forced to curtail more jobs in Canada and invest and create jobs
in the U.S., Mexico and other export markets.
The repeal of Bill C-91 would demonstrate to Canadians that
the Canadian government still has control over its domestic
affairs rather than the multinational foreign drug manufacturers.
If this bill is not repealed it will prove once again to Canadians
that the Liberals are no different than the Conservatives.
We have often heard in many jurisdictions in this country the
phrase ``Liberal, Tory, same old story''.
(1800)
My sense of it is that unless the Liberals who voted in
opposition against Bill C-91 repeal this legislation they will be
no better than their sisters, the Conservative Party. I think
actions speak louder than words. It is incumbent upon the
Liberal government to take action on this bill and repeal it so
that we can save a whole lot of jobs and a whole lot of money for
our drug plans and for Canadian consumers in the end.
When the Tories passed the drug patent legislation, Bill C-91,
New Democrats predicted it was a prescription for problems.
The legislation gave brand name drug companies a 20 year
monopoly to charge basically whatever they wanted for
prescription drugs. New Democrats said that the granting of
generic drug licences would be eliminated and that consumers
would bear the brunt of decreased competition and increased
prices. Without competition big name pharmaceutical
companies would be able to set the price of being healthy.
According to a 1986 Ontario report on drug competition when
five versions of the same drug were on the market the cheapest
generic drug was almost half the price of the original. Since Bill
C-91 was passed this type of saving to the consumer is a thing of
the past.
I have here some brand name-generic price comparisons for
the top 25 genericized products. For example, for the drug
Cimetidine which is an ulcer drug-that is the drug name, the
brand name is Tagamet-the generic price is about 80 per cent
less expensive than the original brand name. We are actually
paying 80 per cent more for the brand name of a drug which
produces the same ultimate result.
For Naproxen which is an arthritis drug, the brand name of
which is Naprosyn, the per cent savings if we use a generic is
about 76 per cent. There is a whole list of examples. Every one
of these examples is at least 15 per cent cheaper, and in many
cases up to 80 per cent cheaper by using generics.
What we can conclude from this is that the consumers in
Canada are being gouged by Bill C-91 which allows the
pharmaceutical corporations to gouge consumers. New
Democrats in this country, New Democrats in this House of
Commons, oppose this kind of gouging of consumers.
Even provincial drug plans will not be able to shield
Canadians from the high cost of being healthy. Cash strapped
provinces will be forced to delete more and more drugs from the
list of the products they pay for, creating a situation like that in
the U.S. where people are dying because they cannot afford
brand name drugs and they do not have an option to purchase
generic drugs.
3679
Saskatchewan was convinced that Bill C-91 was a severe
blow to health care in Saskatchewan. At that time it estimated it
would cost its drug plan between $6 million and $10 million
more each year. Not only has it proven to cost $10 million a year
more, but it has had to reduce the coverage because of the
massive increases in drugs.
The Tories argument in favour of Bill C-91 is that without
patent protection Canada is in danger of losing research and
development investments. In support of this claim Judy Erola,
former Liberal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and
president of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of
Canada, resorted to using blackmail as a rallying cry. She
claimed that the brand name industry would pass us by if patent
protection was not extended. While Bill C-91 is in effect the
promised drug jobs have not materialized and in fact layoffs
have occurred.
As recently as April 26, 1994 in the Globe and Mail it was
stated: ``Earlier this month Eli Lilly Canada Inc. of Toronto
scrapped a plan to add 150 manufacturing jobs and a major
expansion first announced at the time of C-91's passage. The
company says it still plans to pump more money into R and D but
shelved the $170 million expansion because of cuts dictated by
its U.S. parent, the Eli Lilly Company of Minneapolis,
Minnesota''.
Here is one of many examples of this wonderful Bill C-91
falling short from every single promise that was ever made by
the former government.
The problem with the arguments put forward by Ms. Erola is
that the drug companies are not legally obligated to use their
increased profits to conduct research and create jobs in Canada
and past experience points to the contrary. When Bill C-22 was
passed by the Tories in 1987 the same promises were made.
However, Stats Canada figures show that only 500 new research
jobs were created and these were offset by more than 1,000 jobs
lost in drug manufacturing. In addition, Canada has no large
drug companies with basic research facilities headquartered
here.
(1805)
We have some very serious problems in our health care
program in Canada. We have increased prices in drugs which
have skyrocketed since the implementation of Bill C-91. I have
chosen this motion because it is important not just to me but to
millions of Canadians.
I have presented in this House petitions from thousands of
people who are opposed to Bill C-91 and want generic drug
companies to produce lower cost drugs for their use in terms of
addressing their health problems. I have letters from a number
of organizations. I want to read one into the record. This was
sent to me by Mr. F.J. Lancaster, the immediate past national
president of the Federal Superannuates National Association,
which represent about 70,000 retired federal civil servants in its
74 branches across the country. He says regarding Bill C-91: ``It
is insidious legislation and more so because one 10-year
extension of patent rights on new drugs had already been
granted, I believe in the 1970s, and Bill C-91 was a further
sellout to the international drug companies. The costs of
prescription drugs have risen dramatically. That is hurting the
poor and aged on small incomes and causing some provincial
government medical plans to virtually remove from their health
care plans benefits related to prescription drugs because the
plans cannot afford the coverage''.
He continues: ``As a result, the users of prescription drugs
have had to assume an additional and very heavy financial
burden. While our organization is strictly non-partisan, we will
fight the government of the day on any legislation inimical to
our interests and we will support the efforts of any of our
parliamentary representatives who oppose such type of
legislation''. He represents 70,000 superannuates.
I received a number of letters, one addressed to the Prime
Minister from one of my constituents, urging the government to
immediately review Bill C-91. This was dated January 5, 1994.
I have not yet heard whether the Prime Minister responded. I am
sure he responded to this constituent. These are examples of
people across the country who are concerned.
Another example is on April 5, 1994 a motion was passed in
the Saskatchewan legislature, the province that I represent in
this House of Commons, which was unanimously supported that
read as follows: ``That this assembly urge the federal
government to repeal Bill C-91 because it provides excessive
profits to foreign drug companies, causes severe financial
hardships to prescription drug users, particularly the elderly,
and makes provincial drug plans economically impossible''.
The entire legislature, which is composed of 54 New
Democrats, 3 Liberals and 10 Conservatives, supported this
motion unanimously.
Not only is this evidence I provided important, but a poll
taken recently conducted with about 1,100 Canadians was done
by Insight Canada Research for the Canadian Drug
Manufacturers Association. In this poll they found that 63 per
cent of Canadian respondents are concerned about the high price
of prescription drugs. Seventy-nine per cent of those people
reside in Quebec. They say that 79 per cent of the Quebec
population are concerned about it, 71 per cent of the population
in the prairies are concerned about it and 77 per cent in Atlantic
Canada. It also found that 75 per cent of Canadians believe the
federal government should control the price of prescription
drugs. Eighty-seven per cent of Quebecers believe the federal
government should control the price of prescription drugs. They
believe they are too high.
I was curious to note in the House of Commons during
Question Period today the Bloc Quebecois member who stood
up and said: ``We oppose repealing Bill C-91. We want to see
this bill protected and actually enhanced and strengthened''.
They believe it is a good bill. That is not surprising because
3680
when they were in the previous Parliament they supported this
legislation.
What I cannot find a rationale for is that they really are
supporting the international pharmaceutical corporations at the
expense of gouging their own Quebec French Canadian
consumer. They have in essence betrayed their own people.
They got elected on a policy of so-called social democracy and
the first opportunity they have to protect their people, they knife
them in the gut. I think it is disgusting. All I can say is shame on
them for that kind of performance and that kind of stand on this
very, very important issue.
(1810)
Bill C-91 is a threat to medicare, it is a threat to our Canadian
generic drug manufacturers, it is a threat to consumers of
prescription drugs. Bill C-91 is a threat to our provincial drug
plans and it is a threat to the sick and the elderly.
It helps no one except the large multinational corporations. It
does not help anybody else in this country. That is why I believe
the government of the day has to support this.
I might say that in the previous Parliament many members
opposite who are now in government, including the Prime
Minister of Canada and the Minister of Health, opposed Bill
C-91. I am asking them in their positions in cabinet and
controlling the government to follow their instincts and their
position in the previous Parliament and to repeal Bill C-91.
I end by saying that I was very pleased to hear from many
members of Parliament who support this motion, including the
member for the riding of Ontario and, of course, the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
I know my time has ended. I reiterate by saying that I am
urging the federal government to repeal Bill C-91 for the sake of
our social programs, for the sake of medicare, for the sake of the
sick and the elderly in our country.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place
today to respond to the motion put forward by the hon. member
for Regina-Lumsden.
We share his concern over the impact of the amendments to
the Patent Act that were introduced in the last Parliament. The
laws that govern pharmaceuticals must balance many different
interests. They must serve the industry, consumers and
provincial governments whose health care plans account for
about half of prescription sales in this country. As a result, I
think it altogether appropriate that the government take a careful
look at the results of the changes to the patent laws that were
introduced by the last government.
We would like to remind this House that the compulsory
licensing regime for drugs was first adopted in 1923 following
the example of an act in the United Kingdom. Until 1969,
however, few compulsory licences were issued because the act
required that active ingredients used in the manufacture of the
generic drug would be produced in Canada.
That changed in 1969. In that year the Patent Act was
amended to allow generic companies to import active
ingredients. This allowed a generic drug sector to develop in
Canada.
Under the system that was established compulsory licence
applications were filed with the Commissioner of Patents who
determined the royalty rate to be paid by generic companies to
the patentees. The royalty rate was generally set at 4 per cent of
the sales of the generic product. This system continued for the
next 18 years.
Some have argued that the system served Canada well. They
would point out how the Canadian health care system benefited
from cheaper pharmaceuticals. Because the results of their
investment, hard work and innovation was not protected by our
patent laws, the makers of brand name pharmaceuticals were
reluctant to establish research facilities in Canada.
Back in 1969 this was not considered to be as important a cost
in light of the benefits of cheaper pharmaceuticals. For one
thing, it seemed unlikely that brand name pharmaceutical
companies would establish research facilities in this country in
any event. After all, most of the innovative pharmaceutical
companies were foreign multinationals and they tended to set up
their research facilities in their home countries.
Indeed, when a commission of inquiry on the pharmaceutical
industry, chaired by Harry Eastman, tabled its report in 1985 it
maintained that the innovative pharmaceutical companies were
not hurt financially by the compulsory licensing regime. The
profits of the industry from 1968 to 1982 were substantially
higher than for total manufacturing in most other industries.
In fact, the Eastman commission recommended that
compulsory licensing brought a competitive element to the
industry. It estimated that it saved Canadian taxpayers and
consumers $200 million in 1983 alone. The commission
recommended that compulsory licensing be continued but that
the royalties paid to patentees be increased to reflect the costs of
research and development to the innovator. The report also
recommended that patentees be allowed four years of market
exclusivity before generic companies would be permitted to
enter the market.
(1815)
The Eastman commission tabled its report at a time of
profound change in the worldwide pharmaceutical industry. Mr.
Eastman could not have anticipated some changes in the global
environment for research and development that were taking
place.
3681
The major multinational drug manufacturers were beginning
to invest their research and development dollars in countries
other than their home country. One of the assurances that they
sought in return for this investment was adequate intellectual
property protection for their products.
Around the world other leading industrialized countries
abandoned their compulsory licensing regimes for drugs.
Canada became increasingly isolated in trade discussions and
subject to pressure to repeal the compulsory licensing regime.
Many members of the House will recall the bitter debates that
took place over the amendments to the Patent Act that were
passed in 1987. Pharmaceutical patent owners were guaranteed
a period of market exclusivity of seven to ten years instead of
the four years that had been the case previously. In exchange, the
brand name pharmaceutical companies made a public
commitment to increase its research and development to sales
ratio from 4.9 per cent, which is where it was in 1987, to 10 per
cent by the year 1996.
In fairness to these companies the House should acknowledge
that they have been increasing their R and D. The House will
recall that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board was
created under Bill C-22 to control the prices of patented
medicines as well as to report on R and D investments.
As the House knows, the previous government was not
content to leave the patent legislation as it was amended through
Bill C-22. In 1993 after another very bitter debate further
changes were introduced through Bill C-91.
These amendments abolished the compulsory licensing
regime entirely. They did so retroactively. The amendments
rendered inoperative any compulsory licence not granted by the
Commissioner of Patents as of December 20, 1991. That was the
date the so-called Dunkel text of the GATT was made public.
The NAFTA also requires implementation on that date. These
two trade agreements, the GATT and the NAFTA, limit the
possibility for change in patent laws in Canada. Compulsory
licensing specifically for drugs is not allowed.
However some changes introduced in Bill C-91 went beyond
what was required by these agreements. The government is
taking a very close look at ways where it can harmonize the
interests within the pharmaceutical industry and among
consumers, provincial governments and drug companies.
I also remind the House that Bill C-91 strengthened the
powers of the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board. For
example, failure to comply with the board's orders now carries a
fine of up to $100,000 a day for a company and $25,000 a day for
an individual. Although the price tests applied by the board were
not changed, new price control factors can now be added by
regulation after consultation with stakeholders.
Another aspect of the act to amend the Patent Act should be
mentioned here. Regulations were adopted that prevent the
health protection branch of Health Canada from approving a
generic product before the expiry of the Canadian patents on the
brand name equivalent. These regulations have led to many
lawsuits within the pharmaceutical industry and the volume of
litigation arising from this provision is being reviewed.
These are matters the House must take into consideration
when dealing with the motion before us. It would not be
appropriate to look at just one side of this very complex issue as
the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden has done.
I understand the Minister of Industry has met with
representatives of the pharmaceutical industry. He is reviewing
carefully the current drug policy and its effect on investments in
Canada, job creation and drug prices. He will ensure that
consumers are treated fairly.
The challenge is to ensure that drug patent legislation
supports the development of Canada's pharmaceutical industry
while making patented drugs available to Canadian consumers
at affordable prices.
The government will not take the side of the pharmaceutical
industry over the side of health care objectives. It will take all
interests into consideration. That is what the government is
committed to doing. It is what Canadians expect of us. The
government is weighing very carefully the various issues at
stake and acting upon its commitment to review the drug patent
policy.
(1820)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, in the next
few minutes, I intend to share my comments and concerns about
the motion tabled by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden,
who is asking the House to repeal the Patent Act Amendment
Act passed by the House in 1993 and better known as C-91.
I must tell you right away that I strongly oppose this motion
and I will now explain to my hon. colleagues the reasons behind
my position.
To understand all the elements of this debate, we must go back
to the past to see what the situation was like in Canada before
Bill C-91 and its predecessor, C-22, were passed in 1993 and
1987 respectively.
In 1960, a royal inquiry commission found that drug prices in
Canada were too high and recommended establishing a
procedure to issue compulsory licences to import and sell
patented pharmaceutical products. That is what Canada did in
1969.
3682
This reform led to the creation of a number of pharmaceutical
businesses which, after obtaining the compulsory licences,
produced and sold generic drugs at lower prices than
brand-name drugs. Although the purpose of the reform, namely
to control and reduce drug prices, was achieved, it also had a
very negative impact. Research in the Canadian pharmaceutical
sector dropped dramatically.
To promote research and the growth of the pharmaceutical
industry, the federal government created the Eastman
Commission in 1984. In its report made public the following
year, the commission proposed a major reform which was
approved by the government and led to C-22, an Act to amend
the Patent Act.
This reform had an ambitious goal: to stop the exodus of
Canadian researchers to the U.S., convince pharmaceutical
companies to invest more money in research, and put Canada
back on the list of industrialized countries where high-tech
medical research is done.
Now that we know the background, we understand better the
various elements and the reasons that led to this trench war still
being fought between generic-drug manufacturers and
innovative companies. After supporting the former for over 25
years, the government lived up to the challenge of helping
innovative and research companies while ensuring that drug
prices remain under control.
We can identify three real consequences of this reform. First,
innovative companies made a public promise to increase
significantly their investments in pharmaceutical research.
These companies kept their word. So these two pieces of
legislation resulted in the biggest research and development
expansion program ever undertaken in the medical research
sector in recent history.
Before 1987, brand-name drug makers spent only 3.5 to 4.5
per cent of their sales revenues on research and development
activities. After C-22 was passed, the ratio of research and
development spending increased to 6.1 per cent in 1988 and to
9.7 per cent in 1991. The latest figures available, for 1993, show
a ratio of 9.9 per cent.
We see that investment on research and development has
practically doubled since the two bills were passed, from less
than $100 million to more than $400 million invested in medical
research, within less than seven years.
Just on this point, we can see that these two laws were a
success, but we must hope that drug makers will continue and
raise R and D spending to over 10 per cent of sales, to come
closer to American innovative companies that invest 14.2 per
cent in R and D and their British counterparts, who invest up to
20 per cent.
A second major consequence of this reform was to maintain
the price of patented drugs. That was the biggest concern of
opponents of C-22 and C-91. Even today, we see in this House
that it is still this aspect that seems to give the greatest concern
to opponents of this reform.
(1825)
We must admit that drug prices account for much of the health
spending of various governments. An aging population, greater
consumption of health care and increasingly sophisticated
research affect the kind and amount of drugs consumed and the
funds allocated for drugs.
To avoid sudden increases in patented drug prices, the prices
review board was created with the mandate, which it still has, of
ensuring that innovative companies do not jack up above their
actual value the price of patented drugs leaving the factory. The
board must therefore take into account the price of drugs sold in
other countries, the price of other medication in the same
therapeutic category and other factors to determine whether the
drug price is excessive. The Minster of Industry and the
provincial ministers have the right to intervene at the board's
hearings.
From 1987 to 1992, the price of patent drugs increased at an
annual average rate of 2.9 per cent, compared to 4.2 per cent for
the consumer price index. Since 1988, the price increase has
remained lower for patent drugs than for drugs as a whole. We
must therefore conclude that the Patented Medicine Prices
Review Board, with the added power delegated to it by Bill
C-91, was able to fulfil its role and prevent undue price
increases for patent drugs.
The third consequence of the reform is mainly the result of
Bill C-91, which is the legislation we are now being asked to
revoke. Yet, this consequence, which I would call global
realignment, is absolutely normal and was unavoidable. In these
days of trade liberalization and free trade zones, Canada must
provide its industries and its economy with a legislative
framework that will allow them to be competitive at the
international level. The two acts were passed with that objective
in mind.
It is interesting to make a comparison with other
industrialized countries. While, as a rule, patents for drugs are
granted for 20 years, some countries have gone even farther by
extending that 20-year period so as to absorb the marketing
period, which can sometimes be up to ten or twelve years. This is
the case with the EEC which, since June of 1992, may grant a
five-year extension, depending on the length of the marketing
period, so as to guarantee exclusivity to patent holders for 15
years.
Japan and Australia have also granted extensions of five and
four years. It is in Canada's interest, given its limited market, to
ensure that intellectual property laws are governed by GATT
proposals. Indeed, the primary objective of Bill C-91 was to
align the Canadian legislation on intellectual property of patent
drugs with the laws and regulations in effect elsewhere in the
world.
3683
The fact is that before Bill C-91 became law, Canada was the
only industrialized country which did not treat drugs like any
other invention. There is no doubt that in 1993, when it decided
to abolish the compulsory licence program for pharmaceutical
products and harmonize its policy on intellectual property with
the rules governing its major competitors on the international
scene, Canada gave itself one of the best tools to get the
investments it needs.
The motion asks us to repeal the 1993 act, better known as Bill
C-91, to make patent drugs more affordable. Clearly, the
provisions contained in the federal act can ensure the protection
of consumers against price increases for prescription drugs,
while at the same time promoting research and development, as
well as the creation of highly skilled jobs.
The protection provided by Canada to pharmaceutical patents
before Bill C-91 became law kept product manufacturers from
being competitive. While Canadian companies had a seven-year
protection, their American and European competitors were
being granted exclusivity for 14 years.
(1830)
Canada and Quebec cannot overlook the favourable
conditions offered by our foreign competitors.
I think I have shown that Bill C-91 also provides an
adjustment mechanism in this era of freer trade. This legislation
enables Canada to adjust and to harmonize its laws and
regulations with the international agreements to which it is a
party. Bill C-91 was the outcome of a reform which has had
positive and desirable consequences on the economy of Quebec
and Canada, and this is why I firmly oppose this motion.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is important today to put this whole debate
into context. First of all, the hon. member moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider repealing
the Patent Act Amendment Act, Chapter 2,-
This is all very well but what will we replace it with? You
know as well as I do how difficult if not utterly impossible it is to
undo an omelet. This debate reminds me a little of the one we
had on free trade a few years back. Even though I was one of
those who voted against the free trade agreement then, I think it
is impossible to go back, considering the investment decisions
that have been made since. Going on with the free trade analogy,
I think we should undoubtedly take into consideration, for
example, the fact that plants that have closed in my riding
because of free trade would not reopen if the agreement were
cancelled. And those that opened since would surely close their
doors. As you can see, when the eggs are broken, that's it! This is
what I am trying to explain to this House.
Today we are faced with almost the same situation. An hon.
member tells us we should cancel a measure which was
approved a year ago. And with what would we replace it? What
is the point now that investment decisions have already been
made? Will that lower the price of drugs? We do not know. There
is no proof of that. Will that encourage other industries?
Probably not. Will this make us lose investments which could or
should have been announced? This is quite possible. The
problem with that kind of motion is that it does not take into
account the constant evolution of things. Situations change.
Moreover, as parliamentarians, we must realize that the
situation changes not only in our country but all over the world.
I must say that, when we were debating Bill C-22 in this
House seven years ago, I did not give much thought to the
possibility that a GATT agreement would be signed in
Marrakesh on April 15, 1994, and even less to the provisions of
such an agreement. The same thing is true of Bill C-91.
I come back to Bill C-91 because there is something
important about it. A little earlier today, during Question
Period, the hon. members opposite said, and that is the other
extreme: How dare you say that there will be a review of Bill
C-91? You do not have to be a lawyer from Baie-Comeau-to
use one of my favourite expressions-to understand that under,
section 14 of Bill C-91, the present Act, there must be such a
review. It is not optional, it is compulsory, it is written into the
law. And guess who voted in favour of that bill? The hon.
members of the Bloc who where here during the previous
Parliament. They never proposed any amendment to remove that
provision from the bill. So I say to them: Do not get carried
away.
(1835)
Do not tell me that this legislation will never be reviewed.
You voted for a bill that provided for such a review without
proposing an amendment to delete this provision. I have here a
copy of Hansard for December 10, 1992. I have looked at it
carefully. No such amendment was moved by members of the
Bloc in 1992.
Members opposite, do not come and tell me that you are
against a review of the act in 1997. If you do, you are a little late,
like the rainbow. The rain has already fallen.
So, the act provides for a review to be conducted no later than
in 1997. That is reality. Since the members opposite voted for
the bill without moving an amendment to delete this provision,
we can assume that they were not against it.
Of course, members of my party, including myself, proposed
a series of amendments at the time. My amendments were
rejected, but that is unimportant. It is water under the Perley
Bridge, as they would say in Hawkesbury.
Nevertheless, Bill C-91 became law and that law still exists
today. It is unreasonable to suggest that we should repeal it
3684
completely, as the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden does in
his motion, without offering any alternative to replace it.
I wonder what the hon. member would do if, God forbid, we
had to vote on this. It is almost like watching a dog running after
a tire, and wondering what would happen if it caught it.
Would he vote for it, knowing what the result would be the day
after the vote? It is all very well to propose something, but one
should always consider any proposal in the light of the following
question: What will happen if it is agreed to? Because, should
what he is proposing today get agreed to, the members opposite
might face a deplorable situation.
It is easier to propose something, knowing very well that it
has no chance of getting agreed to, than to propose something
that just might be agreed to by other members of the House.
Fortunately, the chances of the motion put forward by the hon.
member for Regina-Lumsden being agreed to are almost nil. I
think I have clearly shown why a little earlier.
In 1992 we had a full debate here in this House of Commons
on that piece of legislation. At that time, members of various
political parties publicly stated their point of view on the bill,
and then Parliament, in its wisdom, no matter whether I agree or
not with what it did, passed the legislation, but with a provision
for a review which must take place in or before 1997. This was
provided for in subsections 14(1) and 14(2) of the bill. I am sure
you remember this clause very well, Mr. Speaker. You must have
read it very carefully yourself.
Repealing this act today is not a solution to be considered,
because it does not give us any assurance that prices would drop,
that jobs would be created, or that research needed to find new
drugs for various illnesses would be conducted.
(1840)
Mr. Speaker, you know my 16-year-old daughter Julie, who is
asthmatic. She must use a pump made by one of the large
pharmaceutical companies based in Kirkland. Other similar
products, albeit generic products, were recommended to her at
one point. In her case, and I do not consider this trivial, the
supposedly equivalent generic product did not prove to be
effective. Her condition deteriorated. She leads a normal
adolescent life, very active, but when she has a bronchitis
attack, the situation is quite alarming at home. We must then
immediately fetch one of these pumps. As expected, there is one
pump in her school bag, and others scattered around the house.
When we come across a pump that does not have a well known
brand name, we avoid it, because we know the results, or rather,
the lack of results that we can expect to have.
Research is crucial. I say this personally, based on my own
experience. The member's initiative does not guarantee any
improvement, any research, and any reduction in prices. Again,
when the eggs are broken, that's it.
[English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to discuss the motion introduced by my
hon. colleague. Motion 167 allows us to discuss the possibility
of repealing Bill C-91 which was passed during the 34th
parliament.
I believe that in all fairness to both the generic and to the
brand name manufacturers we should hold off on this debate
until such time is allowed to determine whether Bill C-91 has
had a positive or a negative impact on research and development
spending in Canada, employment and health care costs.
In fact, it is already explicitly stated in sections 14(1) and
14(2) of Bill C-91 that a review of this bill will be done in 1997.
We should allow the Patent Medicine Price Review Board and
the drug manufacturers time to adjust to this new legislation.
However, I would like to make a few comments on the motion.
First, I think that it would be useful to examine why we need
patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry. Patent
protection is crucial to this innovative sector. These companies
require a certain amount of market exclusiveness guaranteed to
them in the form of patents in order to recoup their research and
development expenditures and finance the development of new
products.
I believe like other inventions pharmaceutical products are
entitled to patent protection. Unlike other products, however,
the pharmaceutical industry must undergo a strict regimen of
tests and evaluations to determine a product's safety and
efficiency before it can be sold commercially. This testing
process is rigorous and time consuming, involving animal and
clinical trials.
Essentially Bill C-91 allows patent extensions to
approximately three or four years. This extension still does not
bring us in line with the rest of the world. In fact, the European
Community averages 15 years, the U.S. 14, while Canada is at
10. It is little wonder that Canada has also one of the lowest
research and development spending levels compared with the
rest of the developed world.
Since 1987 when Bill C-22, the previous amendment to the
Patent Act, was introduced R and D in Canada also increased. It
was through Bill C-22 that multinational pharmaceutical
manufacturers agreed to spend 10 per cent of Canadian sales in
R and D in Canada. As a result R and D in Canada has increased
approximately 250 per cent between 1988 and 1992. However,
as mentioned earlier, it is too soon to determine just what impact
Bill C-91 will have on the R and D spending in Canada in the
long run.
3685
(1845)
Yet I do know that since the passage of Bill C-91 the
pharmaceutical industry has spent over $600 million in research
and development in Canada. This is a large capital output which
has been a benefit to all regions of Canada.
Other key issues that must be considered are the mandate and
powers of the Patented Medicine Price Review Board. This body
was created under amendment to the Patent Act enacted in Bill
C-22. The board was also amended in Bill C-91 during the last
Parliament. The board is a quasi-judicial body which has the
power to issue corrective orders when at the outcome of a
hearing it is determined that the price of a patented drug sold in
Canada was excessive. The board's jurisdiction extends to all
patented medicines sold in Canada, whether they be prescription
or non-prescription.
The mandate of the board is threefold: first, to ensure that the
factory gate prices of patent medicines charged by the drug
companies are not excessive; second, to report annually on the
activities and pricing trends in the pharmaceutical industry; and,
third, to report annually on research and development
expenditures by the patented medicine industry.
The board's pricing guidelines ensure that no medicines
exceed the international range regardless of the category in
which the drug falls. These guidelines also ensure that price
increases do not surge above the estimated consumer price
index.
Since the creation of the board the prices of patent medicines
in Canada have increased on average less than the consumer
price index per year. Prior to the establishment of the board
prices of the patent medicines rose on the average twice that of
the consumer price index.
The principal amendments to the Patent Act brought about by
Bill C-91 include new remedies for firms that charge excessive
prices. These remedies include ordering price reductions,
ordering a monetary payment in the amount of the excess
revenues, and the extension of the patent life of patent
medicines by approximately three years.
With the adoption of Bill C-22 the pharmaceutical industries
in Canada increase both their patent protection life and the
amount of employees hired. In fact employment increased by
almost 15 per cent from 1987 to 1991. Again I believe we should
have had a longer time period in order to assess the impact Bill
C-91 will have on the employment rate in the pharmaceutical
industry.
Another key area that must be examined is whether or not the
extension of the patent life to 20 years has increased health care
costs in Canada. Again the jury is still out. There has not been
sufficient time to do a realistic study of the prices of medicines
in Canada that relate directly to the patent life. Bill C-91 allows
the board to be an effective control and watchdog that has some
real teeth to it, which ensures that drug prices do not become an
albatross to the health care system.
According to the executive director of the Newfoundland
Hospital and Nursing Home Association, the boards have
brought the pricing back down and companies have made large
settlements. The Drug Prices Review Board seems to have done
some very positive things which have brought companies into
line.
As mentioned earlier the board has a new mandate which is
ensuring that those manufacturers that wish to break the pricing
standards will be financially accountable.
If we look at the total costs of health care the pharmaceutical
industry's portion of these costs is approximately 2 per cent of
health care expenditure in Canada. Therefore I am not overly
convinced that allowing these companies an extension in patent
longevity is the driving force behind our increasing health care
costs.
A comparison between the generic industry in Canada and the
United States illustrates a few interesting points. There are two
Canadian companies that control 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the
generic market in Canada and their prices average 60 per cent to
80 per cent of the brand name product. In the U.S. there are 200
to 300 companies that compete in the marketplace and the prices
of the generic manufacturing there average 25 per cent to 35 per
cent of the brand name product.
(1850)
I must state we are premature in discussing the pros and cons
of Bill C-91 because it has not been enacted long enough to
make a well informed, unbiased decision. I would think we
would be better suited to discuss this issue in the future,
allowing both generic and brand name manufacturers to have
sufficient time to make changes and work within the new bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3685
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, on April 13, I asked
a question to the Minister of Human Resources Development
concerning the new apprenticeship program for young people
which, as you know, is now called ``Young Apprentices''.
Unfortunately, my question was not answered satisfactorily.
3686
What I was asking the minister was to commit himself to give
Quebec its fair share of the program funds so that it could invest
them according to its own needs and priorities.
Instead of answering my question, the Minister of Human
Resources Development criticized some figures that I had not
even mentioned in terms of vocational training. Vocational
training is a provincial responsibility. The next day
representatives from both the Parti Quebecois and the Liberal
Party of Quebec in the National Assembly unanimously passed a
motion asking the federal government to withdraw from
vocational training.
Quebec was not the only one to make this request to the
minister. At least three other provinces also expressed their
reservations to the minister, which seemingly caused the
cancellation of the federal-provincial conference that was
expected for the next Monday.
Since then, the minister has continued to go forward
unilaterally with this ``Young Apprentices'' Program, despite
the fact that vocational training is, and I repeat it, the exclusive
responsibility of the provinces.
Using federal spending power, with about 24 per cent of tax
revenues coming from Quebec, the Minister of Human
Resources Development admitted yesterday before a
parliamentary committee that he used funds formerly allocated
to community agencies to partly finance his new programs. For
the benefit of Quebecers, I may point out that these programs are
commonly referred to as direct employment programs.
I think it is highly improper to divert funds allocated to
agencies that focus on local community development, in order
to finance a new intrusion into a field of provincial jurisdiction.
Hundreds of community agencies are now waiting for a reply
from the Minister of Human Resources Development.
They talk about new models and new programs but never
about new budget envelopes. They just recycle and fiddle with
the existing envelopes for community agencies.
Does the minister really think he can fool us? When will the
federal government finally understand that it is now time to
reduce duplication, get rid of bureaucratic fat, encourage
consultation on program financing and respect provincial
jurisdictions such as education and job training?
(1855)
Will the minister finally understand that we can save more
than $300 million if he stops the duplication in the field of job
training and if he gives the Government of Quebec the money he
intends to spend in this area?
Finally, will the minister show some common sense and abide
by the unanimous resolution of the Quebec National Assembly
on job training and the various programs for young people
recently announced by the minister?
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying that in the
government's recent announcement of the youth employment
and learning strategy we stated that we would work in close
collaboration with all the provinces in the implementation of the
approaches and specific programs for young Canadians. In
saying this the government is committed to assisting Canada's
youth through programs that complement those offered by the
provinces.
Quebec has a very different apprenticeship program from
those in all other provinces. In Quebec those who wish to learn a
trade attend a CEGEP for two or three years and then seek out an
employer. In other provinces a person who wants to learn an
apprenticeship trade must find an employer who is willing to
employ and to train him or her. As a result Quebec does not
require nearly as many funds for apprenticeship as do other
provinces. Therefore funds are allocated where they are most
needed, such as for the forms of vocational training offered at
CEGEPs.
In addition Quebec still receives more than its fair share for
the province's youth through regular employment programs and
services, as well as through special current initiatives such as
the joint management of co-operative education and project
based training courses which are jointly delivered with the
SQDM.
We will continue to work with the province of Quebec to set
priorities for our youth programs and, where possible, we will
harmonize our programs with those of the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Minister responsible for the Federal
Office of Regional Development-Quebec and it concerns the
status of the Hyundai automobile plant in Bromont.
As the minister already knows, more than 850 workers lost
their jobs when the plant closed. On March 23 last, I put a
question to the minister asking him if he could provide any
information to the residents of Brome-Missisquoi as to how
the government planned to handle this matter. At the time, the
Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec informed us that he wanted to work
closely with the Quebec government in an effort to find a way of
reopening this plant located in my riding.
3687
Today, nearly one month after putting this question to the
minister, I am again asking him for a status report on the efforts
made thus far to bring this matter to a happy resolution.
For over a month now, all kinds of rumours have been making
the rounds about the possible reopening of the Hyundai plant. It
has been rumoured that work will resume either in 1998, in the
year 2000 or in the year 2002, that the plant will close
permanently, that other companies have agreed to buy the
building. And I could go on. Furthermore, the employees
received very little severance pay from the company.
You will agree with me that the situation is already quite
difficult and that it is essential for the Hyundai workers, their
families and those around them, as well as for all the taxpayers
of Brome-Missisquoi, that we avoid creating still more
confusion on this issue.
It is time for the Minister responsible for the Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec to tell this House what he has
done and what he intends to do so that the Bromont plant can
reopen to make cars or any other product that would put back to
work the 850 workers who are waiting to use their talents and
dedication.
(1900 )
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin
by expressing once again the great disappointment felt by the
government following the decision of Hyundai Canada to delay
the reopening of the Bromont plant indefinitely.
We are well aware that a definite closing of this facility would
be an immense loss not only for the eastern townships but indeed
for all of Quebec. I would like to state today, however, that we do
not regard this as a dead issue and we are not going to sit back
and resign ourselves to our fate.
We have therefore undertaken consultations with the Quebec
government in the hope of finding a solution to this problem. I
would like to add that during a recent visit to South Korea in
early April the Minister for International Trade had an
opportunity to speak to the chief executive officer of the
Hyundai group, Mr. Chung, as well as the chairman of the board
of Hyundai Motor, the parent company of Hyundai Canada, a
gentleman by the name of Mr. Chong.
Both of these gentlemen, I stress, clearly indicated their firm
intention of reopening the Bromont plant for the assembly of a
competitive vehicle which could carve out a place for itself in
the automotive market.
Hyundai's directors have mentioned that they intend to
submit a business plan in the fall of 1994. We will examine this
document carefully. We will go over it a second time with the
Quebec government. The results of this examination will
determine the type of support we will give to Hyundai to carry
out its plans and reopen the Bromont plant.
Our government is committed to setting the economy of this
country back on the road to prosperity. Our actions are an
integral part of our desire to provide all Canadians with
productive and well paid jobs like those in the automotive
industry.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Mr. Speaker, on
April 22 I raised with the Minister for International Trade a
question concerning the recent decision by the U.S. government
which affected Canadian exports of durum wheat.
What happened at that time is that the American farm lobby
pressured the U.S. government, the U.S. trade representative
and the President to initiate some anti-dumping regulations and
penalties according to the GATT agreement.
What this has done is really create an air of uncertainty for
Canadian farmers, in particular farmers I represent in the
province of Saskatchewan. The problem we have with this is that
the Americans in every election year seemed to initiate a
number of anti-dumping and countervailing actions on our
Canadian exports.
This is a very serious concern because it seems that we signed
the free trade agreements in 1988 and NAFTA in 1993. We
signed last week the GATT agreements to facilitate freer trade,
competitive trade between nations, particularly between Canada
and the U.S.
Since these agreements have been signed we tend to have all
of these actions, which are extremely difficult for many of our
producers, particularly the grain producers in western Canada
and in other parts of the country when they have a very good
market. They have a very good product and they are very
competitive in terms of their product. It is not subsidized to any
great extent. It is an action of fair trade.
I was not totally pleased with the response I received during
question period. It was very short. What I wanted to do is give an
overview of my experience in Washington last week. I met with
a number of U.S. congressmen to discuss trade issues as well as
with the U.S. trade representative and other people.
What I concluded from all this is that in private the U.S.
congressmen understand the issue of durum wheat imports into
the U.S. They understand the complexities of trade and the
commonalties between the U.S. and Canada. In many ways they
are aware of the very important fact that Canada is the U.S.'
major trading partner and vice versa.
3688
(1905)
Privately they are very consoling and they are saying do not
worry about these things, they are pretty important to the
farmers they represent but it is election year.
This is the point. We have all of the Congress of 435
representatives, congressmen, running for re-election this fall.
We have 34 of the hundred senators running for re-election in
the U.S. this fall. It seems that every two years, which is a very
gruelling schedule for elections, the U.S. has a large number of
these anti-dumping and countervailing actions taken upon
Canada. It is not only Canada, it always means to target other
countries like Brazil and Europe and South America and some of
the Pacific rim countries, but it always includes Canada because
it is really politically astute for it.
My question at this time is the same except I would like a little
more information from the government. Can we have this
government's assurance that it is going to protect Canadian
farmers' interests and not cave in to this American pre-election
posturing?
What I am looking for in specific terms is what is our week by
week, month by month response to this action, which I classify
as an unfriendly action on our country, to the Americans and to
some of the businesses that are based in America that do
business with Canada?
Can the hon. member give us a precise overview on what that
might be?
Mr. Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): In the brief time available to me,
Mr. Speaker, I think I can help the member.
This is certainly an issue that has top priority with the
government. It is an issue that has been raised at the highest
level and that is between our Prime Minister and the President of
the United States. The minister of agriculture, the Minister for
International Trade and the government have the intention and
the will to stand firm and hard in order to conclude an agreement
which will respect the interests of the Canadian agricultural
industry.
Specifically our object in these negotiations is to reach a deal
that will protect Canada's access to the United States and which
provides certainty and predictability for our agricultural and
agri-food producers.
As the minister of agriculture has stated many times, there can
be no deal unless it is a good deal for Canada. This means a good
deal for the grains, food processing and supply managed sectors.
With respect to grains, we know that on April 22, last Friday,
the United States notified the GATT of its intention to
renegotiate tariffs on Canadian wheat and barley under GATT
article XXVIII. By notifying us this did not shut the border.
Negotiations can continue for 90 days, and if at the end of that
90-day period the United States is determined and takes a
unilateral action we will retaliate in kind. We will protect and
we will defend the interests of Canada and the Canadian
producers.
We trade fairly with the United States. Our success there has
been because of our high quality and because of a shortage there;
a shortage there that has been mainly created by its export
enhancement program which has taken products out of the
United States in order to take advantage of its huge export
subsidies.
Throughout these negotiations which began in December we
have consulted closely with the industry and the provincial
governments on a very high level. We will continue to do that
because we know that the bilateral trade between Canada and the
United States of $11.5 billion is important. We are committed to
ensuring that this trade continues to grow for the advantage and
for the future positive effects and mutual benefits to both
countries.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, I put
my question to the Minister of Finance and Minister responsible
for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec.
It pertains to Opération Dignité II. Representatives from this
organization came to Ottawa to raise awareness among
government members, because they felt their message was not
getting through. They are from rural areas. I do not understand.
Governments change, we had the Conservatives, and now the
Liberals who were here also before the Conservatives, but the
rural areas are more and more dependant on UI and welfare.
(1910)
Now, unemployment insurance is being cut. Years ago, the
Eastern Quebec Development Bureau spent millions of dollars
to close small parishes. Instead of creating employment they
went out of their way to close villages. Fortunately some people
in those places took things into their own hands. There was the
first Operation Dignity, the Ralliement populaire-a citizens'
coalition, and the creation of corporations to pool woodlots, the
pooling of resources by land owners.
There were many demonstrations in the streets under the
banner of the Ralliement populaire and we were able to get a
plant, Panval de Sébec. People managed to keep open the parish
of Sainte-Paule which was scheduled to close. I invite you, Mr.
Speaker, as well as the minister of regional development, to
come and visit this parish which took hold of its own destiny.
Other municipalities did the same thing. But governments do
not seem to have any political will, they seem to be trying to turn
the Gaspé Peninsula into a huge park. It is harder for us to get a
bit of money for a slaughterhouse than it is for Hibernia to get
billions. And all this money might not be bring a good return on
3689
investment, while a few dollars for a slaughterhouse in our area
would make sure that our beef would stay in our region, instead
of going to Montreal or Toronto on the hoof and coming back as
meat.
What was done over the last twenty years? Millions are spent
on unemployment while we are just asking for a few thousand, a
few million maybe, to produce finished products, but we are
being refused. That is the reason why I was not at all satisfied
with the minister's answer. I have this second chance, and I am
sure that the parliamentary secretary will give me his vision of
rural life. The minister promised he would come to my riding
next summer. He said so on the 17th, when I invited him to come
and talk to the residents of the Gaspé Peninsula.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying to the
member that I cannot speak on the minister's coming to his
riding but one day I would love to visit his riding and I hope that
one day he will come and visit my riding in downtown Toronto.
To the member I want to say that even though he looks after
his people in a rural setting and I am in a downtown setting we
both share and care in the same way. What the government is
trying to do is take a number of steps that hopefully will put
people back to work.
We are not just reforming the unemployment insurance
system. We are also trying to urge the financial institutions and
the banks of Canada to be more generous in their attitude toward
small and medium size businesses, the businesses that the
member described in his riding. With the support of his
colleagues in committee we are beginning to have some success
in that area. We are trying with our infrastructure program to get
some activity stimulated in the member's community and
throughout all of Quebec and Canada.
(1915)
We are also trying to the best of our ability to reform the tax
system in the finance committee. There are a number of things
we are trying to do. We know that there is a great sense of
urgency and we are doing our best to move these projects
forward.
Make no mistake about it, the member's riding will get the
same attention and the same care as any other riding of any other
member in this House.
On behalf of the minister I want to say that we do care about
the pain that the member's constituents are experiencing and we
are going to do our best to make sure that some of that pain can
be relieved in the not too distant future.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, two weeks ago, I asked a question of the Minister of
Industry who, very casually, did not bother answering it. And
yet, I was asking him a very important question regarding the
conversion of defence industries to civilian production.
As you know, for the last three years, due to the international
situation and defense budget cuts, the industries involved with
defense production, 60 per cent of which are located in Quebec,
have been going through horrendous times.
So much so that 10,000-Mr. Speaker, you heard right, I see
worry on your face-jobs were lost in the military sector and it
is the reason why I had asked the minister to highlight the
concrete measures his government intends to take to remedy this
disastrous situation.
I was flabbergasted when I realized that all he did was skate
around the issue. The minister, whom I thought was an earnest
man, could not tell us anything in spite of the promises made by
his government during the election campaign. They are in the
red book which has know become a black book for Canadians.
This government must give us its agenda and assist these
industries. There are 600 in Quebec, 30 of them in jeopardy for
lack of orders. And yet they have plans, and they know how to go
about this long-awaited diversification.
Allow me to quote the great Quebec specialist in the area of
conversion strategies, Professor Yves Bélanger who made a
statement confirming my own conviction in the Le Soleil on
April 16. He said the defence industry is not lacking in
diversification ideas, especially given the fact that it gathered
the greatest concentration of specialists attracted there by good
salaries and research conditions.
And Professor Bélanger concluded that we must act quickly
and adequately since recent experiences show that it takes from
five to seven years to convert half a company's capacity from
military to civilian production. We will necessarily lose some
very important players along the way if the government does not
act swiftly.
One wonders why the government does nothing; it certainly
has the proper tool for it, namely the Defence Industry
Productivity Program under the management of minister
Manley and his department. It is the perfect instrument, the
ideal vehicle for the implementation of a conversion program.
How come the minister has not found the vim to propose a
schedule, and a concrete plan for addressing that problem which
weighs heavily upon that important industrial sector?
3690
Mr. Speaker, you have here a man who is demoralized by this
negligence on the part of the government, but I want you to know
that the fight will not end for us until the government presents a
concrete program or schedule. It can be sure that we will
continue to fight relentlessly as long as the government will not
have produced a real program including a schedule.
The stakes are too high for Quebec for us to allow the
government to fail to produce a work schedule by the end of the
session. We challenge it to act on this, Mr. Speaker, and you can
be sure that we will be watching it closely and urging it to
exercise great caution.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying how disappointed I
am that the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve does not
appreciate the British humour of the Minister of Industry. This
is something we on this side of the House are all quite proud of.
I want to tell the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve that
we are committed to carrying out our promise to assist defence
industries in transition from high technology military
production to high technology civilian production.
The member knows, because this member is educated and he
is very close to these issues, that this is not like buying a can of
soup, putting it in a microwave and 20 seconds later it is ready to
eat. This is a very complex issue. The exercise of converting
these defence industries into industries that are going to be
viable in peacetime is very complex.
The member should know that we are committed and we are
working with several organizations, especially in Quebec. As he
knows, in the February budget the DIPP program was explicitly
targeted for redesign and we are working with many companies
such as Oerlikon and Paramax, so I would ask the member to
please bear with us.
I think by the time we return from China along with the
member and 100 small and medium-sized businessmen from all
over Canada who are going there with us, there will be even
more action on the DIPP conversion program.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.21 p.m.)