CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 4, 1995
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 11448
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 11453
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11454
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 11463
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 11464
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 11468
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 11469
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 11472
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 11474
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 11477
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 11479
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11482
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11482
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11482
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 11483
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 11483
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11484
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11484
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11484
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11484
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 11485
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11485
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 11485
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11485
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 11485
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 11485
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 11486
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11487
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11487
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11487
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 11489
Consideration resumed of motion 11490
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 11491
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 11495
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 11497
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 11502
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 11506
Bill C-244. Motion for second reading 11509
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.24 p.m.) 11517
(The House resumed at 6.28 p.m.) 11517
11447
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 4, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
two petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions. The first one is on human rights. It bears 50 signatures
and was forwarded to me by constituents of my riding of
Cambridge.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or
homosexuality.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition concerns BST. It bears approximately 25
signatures and was forwarded to me by constituents of my riding
of Cambridge.
The petitioners are concerned about drinking milk from cows
injected with BST because BST is known to be a health hazard to
both humans and cows. The petitioners call on Parliament to ban
the use of BST and not accept dairy products from countries
where BST is used to treat cattle.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two
petitions from constituents in my riding of Comox-Alberni.
The first petition contains 97 signatures. The petitioners
request that Parliament enact legislation providing for a binding
referendum to accept or reject two official languages, English
and French, for the government and the people of Canada.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition contains 209 signatures. The petitioners request
that Parliament immediately extend protection to the unborn
child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to the unborn.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am answering question No. 143 today.
[Text]
Question No. 143-Mr. White (North Vancouver):
With respect to the unemployment insurance program, for the past five years,
(a) how many cases of fraud were reported each year, (b) how many convictions
for fraud were secured each year, and (c) how many frauds were there as a total
of overall claims?
11448
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the response is as follows:
![](/web/20061117183854im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1839x01_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117183854im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen1839x01_r1.gif)
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
11448
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ) moved:
That this House denounce the government for reducing the general budget of
the Department of Agriculture by 19 per cent and milk subsidies by 30 per cent
and for converting grain transportation subsidies into direct subsidies to
Western farmers, thereby enabling the latter to diversify and enjoy an unfair
competitive advantage over farmers in Eastern Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure this morning, as
agriculture and agri-food critic, to start the debate on this
opposition day on agricultural issues because we in the Bloc
Quebecois believe that these matters must get all the attention
they deserve.
(1010)
With the cuts it set in motion, the federal government recently
gave the impression that the agricultural sector is of secondary
importance.
I would like to thank my colleagues who agreed to speak today
in the course of this opposition day on agriculture. They are the
hon. members for Joliette, Champlain,
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, Shefford,
Matapédia-Matane, Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup,
Lotbinière and Québec-Est.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that, with the exception of the
hon. member for Québec-Est, all of them represent ridings with
a high percentage of farm producers and a wide variety of farm
types. Therefore, should you take the time to listen carefully to
all the speeches, you will be fully versed, by the end of the day,
in Canadian agriculture and, especially, in Quebec agriculture.
Accordingly, with the motion we are putting before this
House today, which you have just read, we are strongly
criticizing the cuts the government is preparing to make on the
backs of farmers. In addition to slashing in the agricultural
sector, the federal government is wielding an axe there,
completely indiscriminately.
I will take the liberty of reading word for word the motion
tabled in the House today by the official opposition: ``That this
House denounce the government for reducing the general budget
of the Department of Agriculture by 19 per cent and milk
subsidies by 30 per cent''-this is a direct attack against the
12,000 dairy farmers of Quebec-``and for converting grain
transportation subsidies into direct subsidies to Western
farmers, thereby enabling the latter to diversify and enjoy an
unfair competitive advantage over farmers in Eastern
Canada''-and, of course, farmers in Quebec.
We denounce not only the cuts, but the Liberal government's
lack of long term vision for this sector. I see the Minister of
Agriculture across from me. I salute him and invite him to spend
the entire day in the House to discover what Quebec MPs think
of his recent budget and his vision for agriculture in Quebec and
Canada. All he is succeeding in doing is throwing the market off
balance with inappropriate compensatory measures.
It looks like a wind of concern is blowing through the Liberal
camp. They are trying to target the agricultural sector by waving
the spectre of the catastrophes that will befall us when Quebec
achieves sovereignty. We will therefore take this opportunity to
set the record straight.
Of all the spectres being waved by the federalists, milk quotas
are, by far, the one most often hauled out of moth balls to
frighten the farming community. Just recently the paper, La
Terre de chez nous, and the daily, La Presse, described in length
the disasters awaiting farmers in a sovereign Quebec, according
to an agronomist.
(1015)
Also in La Presse, a columnist said that sovereignty is
dangerous because, if Quebec voted yes in the referendum, its
supply management system would be dashed to pieces.
The Council for Canadian Unity has made milk quotas the
cornerstone of its campaign of fear targeting the farming sector.
It says that if Quebec separates, it would lose its milk quota for
sales to Canada immediately-not tomorrow or the next day but
immediately. That hits home harder and is scarier.
11449
Seriously now, is that really the no side's strategy? The
conclusion to be drawn from this line of argument from
federalists is that they have no idea how the dairy industry in
Canada and Quebec works.
What saying that sovereignty would be catastrophic for
Quebec's dairy industry shows most of all is that federalists
have found no other way of scaring our farmers. The biggest
myth going around is that Quebec's industrial milk quota would
be cut at least in half-that hits home even more-forcing many
dairy farms in Quebec to close. We all know that Quebec
producers have 48 per cent of the industrial milk quota while 25
per cent of Canada's population lives in Quebec. Now, several
farmers from Quebec, who have gone to the trouble of coming
here to listen to us today, are in the gallery facing me.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Since it is an
opposition day and the agriculture critic is leading off the
debate, I would simply ask the House to maintain the spirit of
debate that prevails at all times. Although there are no specific
rules regarding the mention of the presence of certain people in
the gallery, I would ask all hon. members from both sides of the
House to co-operate during this debate on agriculture, a very
important issue affecting all Canadians.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I will comply with
your instructions willingly and I would like to stress that I
always send my salutations along with the Speaker's to the
dignitaries who are acknowledged in the gallery behind me.
I was saying just before you intervened that the links between
Quebec and Canada would be cut if Quebec voted yes in the
referendum. Trade between Quebec and Canada-get a load of
this, my friends across the way-is over $80 billion per year.
This economic integration alone is justification for maintaining
some kind of economic tie between Canada and Quebec or
Quebec and Canada. Isolating the case of milk quotas to show
that Quebec would lose its exports, and that the opposite would
not take place, is pure bunk.
(1020)
Quebec dairy farmers play a leadership role in the present
supply management system. With about 48 per cent of industrial
milk quotas, Quebec is the main supplier of dairy products for
the whole of Canada. For example, did you know, hon.
colleagues, that 40 per cent of Canadian cheese consumed by the
rest of Canada come from Quebec? It is with this in mind that we
must consider the future.
We will soon have to make a decision regarding the future of
Quebec. I strongly believe that no matter what we decide, it is in
the best interest of the rest of Canada, as well as of Quebec, to
co-operate in order to preserve the dynamism of our agricultural
sector. On Wednesday, March 29, we had very concrete proof
that this co-operation goes way beyond the political level. This
did not happen a century ago, this was last week. Dairy farmers
in Quebec and Canada signed a memorandum of agreement
integrating the marketing of industrial and consumer milk in six
eastern provinces. I would like to name them: Manitoba,
Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince
Edward Island. I would remind you that Newfoundland is not
part of the supply management system.
An agreement was signed to create a common market between
these six provinces. Under this agreement all farmers in these
provinces will receive the same amount of money for their milk
and will have a common quota. You have to understand that an
unfair practise had existed for years. A farmer who had an
industrial milk quota sold his milk for up to 10 per cent less than
what he could have gotten for consumer milk. If two identical
cows had been branded, one for consumer milk and the other one
for industrial milk, the farmer would have gotten less for the
production of the latter.
In less than 18 months, this inequity will have disappeared.
We had this distortion, and it was not in Central America or in
Central Africa, but here in Quebec. We had two different prices
for the same milk, depending on whether it was to be processed
or consumed as such. The six provinces now party to this
agreement account for 85 per cent of the Canadian industrial
milk quota. This integration will allow them to put in place a
single system of milk marketing. In the medium term we can
even see the total elimination of interprovincial barriers to milk
supply.
The lesson to be drawn from this agreement is that even in a
referendum year dairy farmers in Canada demonstrated that they
are willing to integrate economically with Quebec. Why should
they take the risk of signing this kind of agreement at the present
time? Surely because they know that following a yes vote in the
referendum, Canada will keep its economic union with Quebec
in order to protect its own interests.
(1025)
This proves that economic reality is stronger than emotional
considerations.
Federalists raise another important issue, namely what will
happen to customs tariffs with the U.S.? When renegotiating
NAFTA, the U.S. will probably try to get a better deal than they
already have, which will not be any different from what is
happening right now. Just as Canada does at the present time,
Quebec will answer that tariffs are protected by GATT, which is
what the agriculture minister tells us every time we ask a
question in this House regarding the sugar negotiations, wheat
exports, and the tariff issues raised by the U.S. the day after New
Year. This very minister invariably answers that GATT
agreements take precedence over NAFTA. If this is true in his
case, it should also be true for Quebec.
The real threat against the dairy industry and Quebec
agriculture does not come from Quebec's possible sovereignty,
but from the federal government opposite which is increasingly
neglecting Quebec agriculture, and especially the dairy
industry. It comes from a total lack of planning on the part of the
government opposite and, above all, from the lack of fairness of
the budget measures proposed by the Liberal government.
February 28 was a sad day for dairy producers in Quebec and
Ontario. On that day, the finance minister announced, in his
11450
budget, a 30 per cent reduction over two years of the federal
subsidy for industrial milk. Since Quebec farmers alone produce
48 per cent of the industrial milk quota, it is obvious that they
are the ones who are the most unfairly affected.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use props, but there is in Ontario
a farming magazine called Farm and Country. It is the
equivalent of Quebec's La Terre de chez nous. Every farmer at
least flips through it from cover to cover, if they do not actually
read all of it. This week, there is a cartoon on the front page,
showing a beautiful Holstein cow and, sitting on a small stool, a
farmer who bears a striking likeness to our finance minister. He
is milking the cow. His pail is empty. The teat is full of scars.
When he squeezes it, all he gets is one lonely drop of milk. This
is the kind of future this government is shaping for dairy
producers.
Also, last week, Mr. Laurent Pellerin, president of UPA and a
great advocate of Quebec farmers, whom I salute today in this
House, estimated that the 30 per cent reduction in industrial
milk subsidies will cost producers $4,485 over two years. If you
allow me, I will take a few seconds to explain how he reached
this figure. I would like the agriculture minister to listen very
carefully because there is something I want to point out.
(1030)
Dairy farmers will not receive any financial compensation for
these cuts, unlike western wheat and grain producers, who will
receive $1.6 billion in non-taxable funds, which is the
equivalent of $2.2 billion. But there is absolutely nothing for
Quebec and Ontario.
A farmer who produces 2,500 hectolitres of milk per year and
who buys 71 tonnes of mash every year to feed his cows will be
hurt because, as you know, the feed grain transportation
subsidies have also been cut in the East. The Maritimes will be
hit hard. The subsidy on 2,500 hectolitres has been cut by $5.43
per hectolitre times 2,500, or $5.43 less 30 per cent or $1.51.
Dairy farmers face cuts of 15 per cent this year and 15 per cent
next year for a total of 30 per cent for every hectolitre produced.
Next year, they will lose $1.51 per hectolitre. A farmer
producing 2,500 hectolitres per year faces a $3,775 cut.
To this must be added the cuts to the feed grain transportation
subsidies. The resulting increase for farmers is estimated at $10
per tonne. Farmers will be asked to do their share to correct the
past mistakes of successive federal governments that
accumulated huge deficits. A farmer buying 71 tonnes at $10 per
tonne would add $710 to the $3,775 cut and end up with a
$4,485 contribution to deficit reduction.
As you know full well, what will happen in August is that
dairy producers will ask the Canadian Dairy Commission to
increase milk prices, and I hope that their request will be
granted. Dairy producers are not stupid. They do not have to
suffer such a major drop in income. The Canadian Dairy
Commission will allow them to raise their prices, I hope, to
compensate for cost of living increases and the losses incurred.
As a result, consumers will pay much more for powdered
milk, butter, cheese, yogurt and ice cream. This is called hidden
taxes. Farm and Country, the Ontario magazine I referred to
earlier, estimates that every dairy farmer contributes $56 per
cow to deficit reduction.
Surprisingly enough, not a single Liberal member rose in this
House to denounce the 328,000 flights. As we read in the
newspaper last week, these trips cost nearly $1 billion in travel
expenses. I have the newspaper article in front of me: the
328,000 flights taken between April 1993 and March 1994 cost
taxpayers $275 million so that Canadian Forces members and
senior officials, in particular officials at the Department of
Transport, could travel.
In closing, I urge dairy farmers in Ontario and Quebec to look
out for the ordeal that this government will inflict on them in the
next 24 months.
(1035)
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the
opportunity to participate in this discussion about the 1995
federal budget, particularly the impact of that budget upon
agriculture and agri-food.
It goes without saying that I profoundly disagree with the
conclusions that have been drawn so far in this debate by the
member for Frontenac. I would suggest that his analysis is
incomplete, entirely negative in its focus and, with the greatest
respect, his analysis is wrong.
To support what are clearly his separatist objectives he seeks
to sow the seeds of division in a narrow and partisan manner. He
seeks to pit region against region, province against province and
farmers against farmers. It is indeed sad to see this rather
destructive approach, but coming from the Bloc Quebecois it is
no surprise. Their objective is not to build this country up; their
objective is to tear this country down. So I am not surprised by
the motion today from the BQ.
What is perhaps surprising is the similarity in approach that is
taken by the BQ and the NDP. Two weeks ago the NDP and the
Bloc Quebecois joined together in a rather bizarre alliance in
this House to block speedy passage of vital government
legislation to restore services in the Canadian railway system.
Until they recanted and belatedly changed their position, the
NDP lent aid and comfort to the Bloc Quebecois in inflicting
totally unnecessary damage upon the entire Canadian economy,
particularly upon agriculture.
The work stoppage in the rail system could have been ended
and full service could have been restored within perhaps no
more than 48 hours. However, the Bloc made that impossible
11451
and the NDP helped them in doing damage to Canada. The rail
dispute lingered on for more than a week and the cost of that
delay was very expensive.
In the Canadian grains industry alone, that one lost week
represented a loss of revenue from grain sales in the order of
$100 million, plus the delay caused by the Bloc Quebecois and
the NDP damaged Canada's international reputation as a
reliable agriculture and agri-food supplier to world markets. It
is truly impossible to fathom why the NDP would give
credibility to the Bloc by supporting the BQ in stalling the
legislation to bring the work stoppage in the rail system to an
end.
But the rail dispute is not the only example of a similarity
between the NDP and the BQ. They also have similar approaches
when it comes to an analysis of the federal budget, which is the
subject of the motion today. Both of these parties, devoid of any
national vision, without a serious commitment to Canada as a
whole, resort to the small and petty politics of fostering regional
divisions. Each of them in their own way try to make the
case-the erroneous case-that their region has been unfairly
treated and some other region has been given some unwarranted
advantage.
The BQ claim unfairness toward Quebec and they attack
western Canada. The NDP claim unfairness toward the west and
they attack Quebec. Both of them are absolutely dead wrong.
The 1995 federal budget has in fact been very well received
across this country, and significantly in all parts of this country,
for three reasons. First, it launched a genuine and concerted
attack against the horrendous problem of government debt and
deficits. This budget is for real. It is not smoke and mirrors. It
sets the government on a true and definitive course toward
achieving our deficit reduction targets as promised in our 1993
red book platform. What we are doing in this budget is what we
committed ourselves to do in the last election. We are bringing
the annual deficit down below 3 per cent of gross domestic
product over three fiscal years.
(1040)
Consider the problem of debt that we inherited when we came
to office in November 1993. The annual deficit at that time was
running in excess of $40 billion a year. That was about 6 per cent
of the country's gross domestic product. Think of this. The
agriculture and agri-food sector of the Canadian economy, all
included, amounts to about 8 per cent of our GDP. So the deficit,
at about 6 per cent of GDP, was eroding three-quarters of the
economic value of the entire agriculture and agri-food sector.
The total accumulated federal debt was running, when we
came to office, at something in excess of $500 billion. Interest
costs were approaching $45 billion or perhaps even $50 billion a
year. That works out to $850 million every week, or $120
million every day just to pay the interest. In fact, if we were to
add together all the net incomes of every single farmer in
Canada for the next ten years, we would barely have enough
money to pay the interest on the national debt for one year. That
indicates the magnitude of the problem. The problem is huge, it
is urgent, and in that last budget it demanded swift and decisive
action.
We have acted. We have met and exceeded our deficit
reduction requirements for 1993-94. We have met and exceeded
our deficit reduction targets for 1994-95. We will continue to
meet our objectives with respect to the deficit in 1995-96 and in
1996-97. We will bring the deficit down below 3 per cent of
gross domestic product within three fiscal years, as we promised
to do. Beginning in 1996, for the first time in a long time,
Canada's debt-not just our deficit but our overall debt-to-GDP
ratio-will also begin to come down.
Yes, the budget is strong medicine. Yes, it is tough. However,
Canadians have supported it because they know it is necessary to
deal with the horrific debt and deficit problem that this
government inherited.
The second reason the budget has broad and general support is
that it is fair and balanced. It tries very hard not to single out
sectors or regions. The toughness in the budget is evenly
distributed everywhere.
There are two kinds of measures in the budget to deal with the
deficit. On the one hand we have reduced the overall level of
government spending; on the other hand we have increased the
level of government revenues. For every dollar raised in new
revenues there are nearly $7 in spending reductions. That, of
course, is consistent with what Canadians told us to do: focus on
reducing spending.
When we add together the combined impact of all the budget
measures, the spending cuts plus the revenue increases, and then
analyse how that impact is distributed across the country, we
find that in every region of Canada the budget's impact is
closely in line with each region's share of the total population of
Canada and each region's share of total federal government
spending. The variations from region to region are only a few
small percentage points, so there is a fair and balanced
distribution of the burden.
With respect to agriculture, my department has not been
singled out for any extra burden. In 1994-95 our budget was
$2.1 billion. Over the next three years we will reduce that budget
amount by $405 million, bringing it down at the end of the
three-year period from $2.1 billion where it is today to $1.7
billion. That amounts to a cut of 19 per cent, and 19 per cent is
exactly the average of all departmental spending reductions
across the entire government. Most of the economic portfolios
of government are reduced by an amount greater than 19 per
cent. Most of the social portfolios of the government are
reduced by an amount less than 19 per cent. Overall the full
government average is 19 per cent. That is the reduction in the
11452
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food exactly on average.
We have done our share in the crucial fight against the deficit, no
more and no less.
(1045)
There are some who argue that when transportation budget
reductions affecting agriculture are added on top of the direct
reductions in agriculture the percentage of all related spending
cuts goes up above the 19 per cent average. This figuring is
misleading. It ignores the transitional programming put in place
by the budget to offset the impact of the transportation changes.
When those transitional measures are added back into the
equation over the next three years, as they must be to make a fair
comparison, the impact on agriculture is on the average of that
level of 19 per cent. Overall the balance is fair.
Within agriculture we have tried very hard to achieve internal
balance as well. For example, in dealing with personnel costs we
will be reducing our public service employee count by just over
2,000 positions. That is a reduction of 18 per cent, very close to
the overall departmental spending reduction of 19 per cent.
The same can be said about our approach to different
departmental spending programs. Take our income support
programs for example. There are two major programs of that
type within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. One is the dairy
subsidy which is significant primarily in eastern Canada. The
other is our farm safety net system which is significant
primarily in western Canada. Both are being reduced by the
same amount of 30 per cent. Again, there is fairness and balance,
east and west, farm sector by farm sector and for agriculture
overall in comparison to every other aspect of the economy.
This is the second major reason the budget has won general
approval among the large majority of Canadians; that
characteristic of fairness.
The third reason for budget support is we have coupled the
hard reality of fewer government dollars everywhere for
everything with a proactive agenda for renewal, restructuring
and innovation to smooth the process of transition from the old
economy to the new economy and to better position a sector like
agriculture and agri-food to do better in every available
marketplace in the world.
What I have heard so many times from farmers all over the
country, whether in the east or the west, is they really do not
want subsidies. What they want are fair market opportunities
and decent prices from those markets from which to earn their
living.
For this reason we are increasing our emphasis on market
development and trade. Within our overall smaller budget a
greater proportion than ever before will be directed toward
gaining and keeping new and expanding markets. Similarly,
with respect to research, the cutting edge of innovation to keep
Canada ahead of the rest of the world, we have found a creative
way to save precious tax dollars while increasing the overall
Canadian investment in agricultural research and development.
We will achieve about $50 million in savings on research
overhead and infrastructure over the course of the next three
years or so. At the same time up to $70 million in both public and
private funding will be injected into research through joint
ventures with our private sector partners. We are doing this
through a new initiative called the matching investment
initiative for research in agriculture. It is a program that thus far,
even though it is very new, has been received very well by the
agricultural sector.
We will maintain Canada's renowned reputation for the best
agricultural inspection system in the world but we will also save
money. We will do that through a combination of cost reduction,
cost avoidance and cost sharing together with the introduction
of brand new technology and the elimination of unnecessary
overlap and duplication among government departments and
between different levels of government.
(1050)
I am pleased to say that all my provincial counterparts are
working very hard with me in the development of a national
Canadian food inspection system to be top calibre, the best in
the world and highly cost efficient.
We have also recycled some of our budgetary savings into a
series of adaptation and rural development funds to assist in
some of the necessary sectoral changes that must be made in the
wake of the budget and to take advantage of future economic
opportunities.
We have such a fund to help deal with the changes to be made
in the feed freight assistance program. The Secretary of State for
Agriculture and Agri-Food is now leading a consultation
process to define the parameters for how that fund can best be
used in those feed deficient regions of the country which have
heretofore benefited from the feed freight assistance program.
As another example, within our overall spending envelope for
farm safety nets there is scope for a series of innovation and
adaptation funds to be established depending on the priorities
and preferences of different agricultural sectors and the
provinces.
This notion of an innovation or adaptation fund has been
offered as old safety net schemes like the national tripartite
stabilization program are phased out and as new safety net plans
are developed, as is now the case in Saskatchewan.
In this direction with respect to the dairy program, apart from
the subsidy reductions in parallel with safety net reductions
elsewhere, we offered in the budget to undertake consultations
with the Canadian dairy industry to develop the very best
possible uses in future for the remaining subsidy moneys to
enhance the industry's competitiveness. I know a lot of thought
11453
is now being given to this suggestion by the dairy industry
representatives in the country, including those in Quebec.
Another example of adaptation and innovation is with respect
to a series of subsidy programs previously known as the Atlantic
and maritime freight rate subsidy measures which will be
discontinued as a result of the budget, but there will be
transitional measures put in place with respect to those
programs as well. That is under the purview of my colleague, the
Minister of Transport.
In addition to all these issue specific funding initiatives, we
have provided for a general $60 million per year adaptation and
rural development fund for Canadian agriculture over all. It will
be used to enhance access to pools of developmental capital, to
enhance human resources in rural Canada, to enhance farm
safety, to enhance rural innovation and infrastructure and to
offset some of the regional implications of transportation
reform.
Let me deal briefly with that aspect of the opposition motion
today which refers to western grain transportation reform. Here
as well there is a program being put in place to ease the
transition away from 98 years of subsidization. These transition
measures are temporary, as all adjustment measures are.
However, they are also specifically within the parameters of
acceptability as defined by the Quebec coalition on western
grain transportation. It is interesting that the member from
Frontenac earlier today failed to observe that fact which
indicates consistency across the country on the basis of certain
principles.
The benefit from transportation reform for western Canada
comes not from any form of ongoing subsidization because the
subsidy will be ended. The western benefit comes from a new
freight rate regime that eliminates discrimination in its structure
against higher valued production, value added processing,
diversification and economic growth.
The prime difference between our approach in the
government and that of Bloc members is that, as we have heard
today so far in the debate, they have a tendency to cling to the
past. They seem to be rather intimidated by the future. I do not
think, from what I have seen in my many encounters over the last
17 months as minister of agriculture, that intimidated point of
view is representative of Quebecers.
(1055 )
I have just returned from a sales mission, a trade mission with
Canadian agriculture and agri-food representatives throughout
South America. We visited Chile, Argentina and Brazil.
Included in my delegation of private sector representatives was
a broad cross section of agricultural representatives from
Quebec. They were among the most outgoing, the most
vigorous, the most aggressive in looking for new opportunities
and broadening horizons, pursuing the future with great
optimism and vigour. They did not seem to have this kind of
negativism reflected in the remarks delivered today by the Bloc
Quebecois.
For example, they were talking about the opportunities for the
pork industry. They were not worried about any kind of
transportation reform in western Canada. They were not worried
about one region winning at the expense of another or one region
losing because of something happening in another region of the
country. What they were looking at together with their Canadian
colleagues from across the country was broadening horizons,
more markets, more trade opportunities, all of us selling more
and doing better in the markets of the world rather than worrying
about one group gaining at the expense of another.
If we have that kind of negative, inward looking defeatist
attitude, we will probably end up being defeated. The secret for
Canada's future is to broaden our horizons, to look outward, to
take on the world with the confidence that we as Canadians have
in agriculture and agri-food the very best products in the world
to sell.
We have the most productive and efficient farmers in the
world producing those products. We have a vital and vibrant
processing sector. We have the capacity to excel in international
trade and marketing and we do not have to worry about one
market getting smaller because another is getting bigger. We
must expand markets everywhere. We will all do much better in
that new trading environment of the future.
That is the optimism we need to have. With that kind of
attitude Canadians, all of us, within Quebec and outside, can
take on the world and we will win.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank heartily the Minister of Agriculture for making the
time in his heavy schedule to participate in this debate on
agriculture today.
On the other hand, I would like to remind the Minister of
Agriculture that there is a new dynamics in Quebec, in Canada
and in this House in particular. I can remember in the years 1968
to 1970 and up to the 1984 federal elections, Quebec was
represented in this House by 74 Liberal members and one
Conservative, in the person of my friend Roch LaSalle. There
was nobody to denounce inequities. That hurt the Minister of
Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, is it an attempt to set the West against the East?
Is it an attempt to set the Maritimes against Quebec when we,
Bloc members, elected representatives of Quebec, rise in this
House to say, for instance, that Quebec's share of the $3 billion
budget for agriculture in 1993 was $372 million, or 12.4 per
11454
cent. That is not even one eighth of the agriculture department's
budget. Yet, taxes paid by Quebecers account for 23 per cent of
the budget as a whole.
By denouncing inequities, are we trying to pit the West
against Quebec? In the old days, the 74 Liberal members did not
rise in this House to do so.
I am doing my duty today by stating loud and clear that $300
million of federal agriculture expenditures went to Quebec in
1980, as compared to $1 billion to Western provinces, and $410
million as compared to more than $4 billion in 1987.
(1100)
There are about 18 Liberal members from Quebec at present.
When will the new member for Brome-Missisquoi for example
rise in this House to defend the interests of the
Brome-Missisquoi farm producers? Never. Is it an attempt to
set the Maritimes against Quebec to state in this House that,
from 1980 to 1987, federal expenditures on agriculture have
grown six times slower in Quebec than in the rest of Canada?
The list of inequities goes on and on. I would like the Minister
of Agriculture to give Quebec farm producers the same
treatment given farm producers from his region, Western
Canada.
[English]
Mr. Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to respond to that question because it indicates a
certain misunderstanding of the nature of agriculture in this
country.
In western Canada the agricultural sector is dominated by
export industries such as grain and beef. Those export industries
have to compete of course in the marketplaces of the world. The
expenditure levels referred to in the question were levels that
were triggered by international trading distortions.
For example, the introduction by the United States of its
export enhancement program caused the price of grain in the
world to collapse and the obvious necessity for a government
reaction within Canada. When those trade distortions occurred
internationally, the level of government expenditure in Canada
with respect to the grains industry went up accordingly to try to
offset those international implications.
In eastern Canada, agriculture is somewhat more diversified.
It tends to be dominated by domestic industries that have the
advantage of a Canadian supply management system. As a result
of that Canadian supply management system, those agricultural
sectors in eastern Canada tend to be sheltered against
international circumstances. They do not have to face the
difficulty which has been faced in western Canada of those
distortions in international trade. It is a bit of a mug's game to
compare the numbers because two systems which are not
directly comparable are being compared and the numbers at the
bottom line get to be a bit misleading.
The hon. gentleman may want to draw comparisons of the
values provided by the Government of Canada to western
Canadian agriculture compared with the values provided to
agriculture in eastern Canada and make that east-west
comparison. To do that he has to take into account the regulatory
benefit provided to central Canadian and eastern Canadian
agriculture by means of our supply management system which
has in fact been worth billions to the agricultural sector in
eastern Canada.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, at the outset I would like to say to the hon. minister that
I have paid particular attention to his remarks today and I found
them quite interesting. I agree with some of his statements, in
particular the assessment of what took place during the debate
on the rail dispute and how members of the NDP and the Bloc
certainly acted against the best interests of all Canadians,
including the interests of Quebecers which the Bloc purports to
represent.
I too found it very disparaging that the NDP, the bulk of whose
caucus comes from the province of Saskatchewan would act as it
did. It certainly, in my mind, was not representing the best
interests of producers and constituents.
I agree with some of the statements in the minister's remarks
today. I would make a few further comments about his
assessment of Canada's debt and the need to address it through
spending cuts. That is certainly an area where Reform has taken
the lead since the formation of our party in 1987. In fact it was a
real driving force in getting our party started and attracting
people to the Reform message and the Reform cause.
(1105)
We agree that cuts have to be made. We are not opposed to that
and in fact our cuts would go much deeper. We have already
outlined in great detail where we would make the cuts, not only
in the department of agriculture and the area of farm subsidies,
but also in all levels of government spending.
Another point has to be made in light of the minister's
comments. I find it more than ironic that this Liberal
government has suddenly discovered the advantages of having a
free and open system of trade and trying to capture foreign
markets. This is the same party which was opposed to the free
trade agreement. It spoke vehemently against free trade when
Reform was very supportive of the whole concept of a free trade
agreement not only with the United States but also an expanded
11455
one which would include other countries and the benefits which
would flow to the Canadian economy because of that.
I find it ironic that the Liberals have such short memories not
only with regard to free trade and the benefits of trade in
particular for the agriculture sector but also for all the other
sectors of our economy. They seem to conveniently forget that it
was the Liberal Party that started us down this road of deficit
spending. I can recall quite clearly in 1984 when the
Conservatives were sent here with a massive mandate. They
continually said that they inherited the problem. Now we hear
the same thing from the Liberals.
My question for the minister concerns something I hear raised
by grain producers in my area. I myself-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. The time is so
short and if we want to entertain a response from the minister,
whom I will have to ask to be brief, I would ask for the question.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I was
just getting to the question.
A concern I hear raised constantly about the payout of the
WGTA is that it is the understanding of the producers that it is to
be targeted to land owners. In the area I am pleased to represent a
big percentage of our land, not the majority, but a big percentage
of our land is owned by foreign owners. I would ask the minister
through you, Mr. Speaker-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would ask the
minister's co-operation for a brief response.
Mr. Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I understand that time is short and
in order to deal with this issue might take more time than is
available right now.
The budget indicated that in order to obtain the advantage of a
capital gains tax treatment as well as for other reasons that the
$1.6 billion payment would be directed toward farmland
owners. We also indicated a flexibility in wanting to hear from
farmers and farm organizations about their preferences on that
subject matter.
The consultations with farmers and farm organizations have
been ongoing for the last two or three weeks. I expect to
conclude them probably this week. I hope to be in a position to
provide definitive direction on that question after the end of this
week.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to respond to the Bloc motion on the
fairness of cuts in agriculture.
I will do this by first outlining the cuts in agriculture spending
and making some general comments on the cuts. Second, I will
ask some questions of the minister regarding the WGTA and the
payout under the WGTA and other questions on efficiencies in
the rail system and so on. Third, I will talk about the cuts to
supply management and how they compare to cuts in other areas
of agriculture. Finally, I will discuss some of the general
shortcomings in the budget that impact on every Canadian and
will impact heavily on farmers if more action is not taken by
this government to get to a balanced budget within a definite
targeted time frame.
The Bloc motion reads:
That this House denounce the government for reducing the general budget of
the department of agriculture by 19 percent and milk subsidies by 30 per cent and
for converting grain transportation subsidies into direct subsidies to western
farmers, thereby enabling the latter to diversify and enjoy an unfair competitive
advantage over farmers in eastern Canada.
(1110 )
This motion demonstrates that members of the Bloc are not
evaluating this budget fairly particularly in regard to
agriculture. I will outline the cuts in agriculture and then speak
about some of the comparisons.
The budget clearly demonstrates that farmers have been asked
to share an unfair amount of the burden of the cuts that were
made by the Liberal government. I am not saying that the cuts
should have been distributed evenly in terms of percentages in
the different sectors of spending. I am saying that any way the
cuts in agriculture are evaluated, they are unfair when compared
to cuts in other areas of federal spending and they are unfair
when compared to cuts in the agriculture department itself. I
will demonstrate that by going through some of the numbers.
The overall cuts in the agriculture department spending
amount to roughly 20 per cent over the next three years. The
total funds available for 1994-95 were approximately $2.1
billion. A 20 per cent cut means that under the Liberal budget
$445 million will be cut from the agriculture department.
Just to summarize the cuts, there will be an approximate cut of
30 per cent in safety net funding. Safety net funding is spread
right across Canada. The safety net money provided by the
federal government is spent in western Canada, central Canada
and the maritimes. There will be an increase in the amount of
user pay fees which will be spread right across Canada.
The subsidy for dairy farmers of about $217 million a year
will be cut by 15 per cent over two years, which is a cut of
approximately 30 per cent. It will be cut to about $160 million
after the third year. Research has been cut substantially by the
budget. Of course, research spending in agriculture is spread
across the country.
Another major area of spending was cut by the budget which
is not in the agriculture department but is a spending cut to
farmers and agriculture. That is the end of the $560 million a
year Crow benefit. That is the largest single cut made to
agriculture in this budget. Along with that there was about a $99
million cut to the Atlantic Feed Freight Assistance Act and the
11456
Maritime Freight Rates Act. Those cuts were originally
scheduled to end on July 1, 1995 but have been extended.
Looking at the summary of agriculture cuts we see about $660
million in cuts to agriculture coming from the transport
department through the cuts in the WGTA benefit, the old Crow
benefit, the Atlantic Feed Freight Assistance Act and the
Maritime Freight Rates Act. In addition there will be $445
million in spending cuts in the agriculture department. That
makes a total of $1.1 billion which will be cut from agriculture
by the budget.
I listened to the agriculture minister explain earlier that the
cuts in agriculture have been in line with cuts in other sectors of
federal spending. That is absolutely untrue. In fact, the cuts have
been weighed very heavily to agriculture. My concern is that if
similar cuts had been made to other sectors of federal spending,
a balanced budget would have been presented in February. We
would have had along with that all the benefits that come with a
definite target for arriving at a balanced budget.
(1115 )
When the cuts for agriculture and transport are put together it
comes to about a 40 per cent cut in total agricultural spending.
That is totally disproportionate when compared to other sectors
of federal agricultural spending. It is almost a 50 per cent cut in
direct payments to farmers.
How did the cuts to farmers, as outlined in the budget,
compare to the cuts in the agriculture department itself? This is
a valid point that the Bloc member has brought up today. He
points out that farmers have been cut by almost 50 per cent when
direct payments and payments on behalf of the farmers to the
railways, through the WGTA and the feed freight assistance and
so on are taken into consideration. When those payments are put
together it works out to a 50 per cent cut to farmers compared to
about a 20 per cent cut in the department itself.
Farmers in my constituency and farmers across Canada say
that is not right. Farmers are generally saying they know they
have to accept the cuts that were made because of the mess the
finances of the country are in. They accept their share of the
responsibility but they do not accept the fact that these cuts have
not been balanced between spending for farmers and spending in
the department. A 20 per cent cut in the department compared to
about a 50 per cent cut in payments to farmers is not balanced.
I am not saying that these cuts should not have been made.
Rather I am saying there should have been a better balance
between cuts to farmers, cuts within the department and a better
balance across the country.
The motion of the Bloc states that cuts have been unfair and
that some of the compensation packages given have been
unfairly weighed in favour of western Canada. I am going to talk
a bit about that and explain that the cuts have been unfairly harsh
to western Canada. I am not getting into a struggle between
western Canada and central Canada. I am just explaining what
has happened in the budget. A little bit later I am going to talk
about some of the real difficulties that the supply managed
industry faces. They have very tough times ahead of them. I
have concerns for farmers in the supply managed sectors but I
will deal with that later.
One of my biggest concerns about the way the cuts were made
is that the transition time farmers needed was not provided,
particularly in regard to the Western Grain Transportation Act
subsidy, the Crow benefit. For example, for farmers who rent or
lease land the subsidy is cut off overnight. They will not have the
approximately $15 a tonne freight rate benefit paid to the
railways on their behalf as of this year's crop seeding.
Over the next two months, those farmers who will be seeding
their land will be asked to shoulder anywhere up to $35 an acre
in additional costs. The $35 an acre is an extremely high figure.
Normally the extra cost will be about $15 an acre. That is an
awful lot to ask farmers to shoulder with no transition time and
no compensation package. For farmers who lease or rent land
there is no compensation package in the budget.
The compensation package that has been presented is
available only to land owners, except for farmers who rent or
lease land from the Farm Credit Corporation. Those payments
will be passed on to them. However, generally speaking, land
owners have additional costs to shoulder immediately and no
compensation.
I would like to ask the members of the Bloc if this sounds like
an unfair situation weighed in favour of western Canada? Some
of my other concerns were not so much with the way the cuts
were made but with some of the things that were not done to
allow the system to become more efficient.
(1120)
A limited amount of branch line abandonment will be
allowed. We are very uncertain exactly which branch lines will
be abandoned.
The agriculture and transport ministers have stated that the
present car allocation system, based on historic car allocation,
will be kept in place, at least for now. Keeping the old allocation
levels in place will not allow for the changes needed to make the
rail system work more efficiently.
The government will still be fully in charge and will fully
control the Canadian Wheat Board. For years I have been
arguing that Canadian farmers should be given control of the
operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. Canadian farmers pay
all the operating costs of the board. Why on earth does the
federal government still control the operations of the Canadian
Wheat Board? The answer is it should not. Canadian farmers
should gain complete control of the wheat board. Then they
could decide what they want the wheat board to be like, what
they want the organization to be in the future. That was not
provided for in the legislation.
11457
Another thing that was not provided for that is extremely
important is legislation that will prevent work stoppages in the
area of grain handling and transportation. I have seen a lot of
fingers pointed, even this morning, on this issue. I saw the
agriculture minister point a finger at the Bloc and the NDP
saying that they are responsible for the stoppage in the rail
system.
I see it a little differently. I recognize that the Bloc and the
NDP did stall the back to work legislation. It is beyond me to
understand why. I do not understand why. They should not have,
but they did. Let us take another step back from this. If the
Liberals had done their job, we would never have had a stoppage
in the grain handling and transportation system.
Since the debate that ended the lockout of grain handlers last
February, Reform has called-and I personally have called-for
legislation which would end the stoppages in the grain handling
and transportation system. That is more than one year ago.
Over that year, again and again Reformers said not to let
stoppages occur. It was evident there would be stoppages this
year. There was no contract in place for several groups, unions
and management, including rail transportation. No contract was
signed. It was predictable there would be a stoppage.
When the Liberals blame the Bloc and NDP for the stoppage,
they are only really telling half the truth. The other half of the
truth is that the Liberals could have prevented this. Reform
pushed them to prevent it and they just ignored our pressure. I
encourage Canadians to recognize where the blame for this
disruption really should lie.
I would like to talk now about how payments provided for in
the budget will be made to the WGTA, dairy, et cetera. First, the
$1.6 billion compensation package seems to be the area the Bloc
has targeted in its motion. Its members feel that is unfair. The
farmers had the Crow benefit, which became the WGTA benefit,
which subsidized rail freight to port position. It has been around
for almost 100 years. At times the subsidy has actually been
$900 million a year. It is an incredibly large subsidy. Recently
that has been reduced to approximately $550 million a year,
based on last year. The compensation payment is $1.6 billion.
(1125)
Look at the way the compensation payment will be
distributed. The phase out will only be available to farmers who
own land, not those who are renting or leasing land. In essence,
this provides a very short transition period for farmers who
depend on this subsidy. Farmers will shoulder an immense extra
costfor transporting grain to terminal positions as a result of thephase out.
Also provided is a $300 million transition fund. This is in
place to help farmers deal with the termination of the subsidy.
We do not know how the money will be spent and the uncertainty
is very difficult for farmers to accept. It will be difficult not just
for grain farmers, but alfalfa producers and processors that also
used the subsidy.
Feed freight assistance will be eliminated entirely. The date
was set back recently from that initially announced in the
budget. Three hundred and twenty-six million dollars are
available for an adjustment program regarding feed freight
assistance. The compensation package will be available for
farmers in the maritimes and in parts of Quebec, as will the $1.6
billion be available to farmers in western Canada.
How do these cutbacks in the WGTA and feed freight
assistance compare to cuts in dairy? The dairy subsidy will be
cut by 15 per cent per year for two years. This subsidy can be
passed on to consumers. In fact it has been announced that the
increased costs will be passed on. I have some concerns about
that.
People in supply managed industries will have a difficult time
dealing with the changes that are going to take place. These will
be as a result of more competition coming in, perhaps from the
United States. This is going to happen. I do not doubt that at all. I
cannot say for sure when or how but it is going to happen.
With regard to supply management, Reform feels that farmers
should have the right to operate together as they do under supply
managed systems. I refer back to 1990 when I was on the Reform
agriculture task force that developed the first Reform
agriculture policy. At that time we noted that supply
management is moving toward a more competitive system. We
said that government should not hide this fact from dairy and
other supply managed farmers. Back then we recognized the
need for government to be very honest about this.
I found that over the past six or seven years governments have
not been really honest with supply managed farmers regarding
their systems and how they will be subject to more competition
in the future. That is really providing a disservice to
supply-managed farmers, governments not being honest and
open. If the Bloc really has any doubt that there is this
movement to more competition in the supply-managed industry
then I want to point out a few things that I think will show that in
fact supply-managed farmers will be subject to far more
competition in the future.
(1130)
I am not saying that I like the change I see. I know it is going
to be very difficult for farmers in the supply-managed sectors.It is going to happen. I am not going to hide this fromdairy farmers and from other people in the supply-managedindustries.
11458
We are headed for more GATT negotiations in the year 2000.
Under the present tariff levels there is good protection for
supply-managed farmers. We are going to see a rapid reduction
in tariffs resulting from the new negotiations in GATT around
the year 2000. As a result of these negotiations there will be far
more open access to Canadian markets on the part of American
dairy farmers and other supply-managed farmers.
However, there is a more pressing negotiation that is going to
take place, which will lead the supply-managed sector to more
competition. That is the new NAFTA negotiations. Bill Clinton
and Jean Chrétien announced that within four years Chile will be
in NAFTA. That means new NAFTA negotiations within four
years.
I would like to ask the members of the Bloc if they feel there is
a realistic probability, better than a 50 per cent probability, that
these new NAFTA negotiations will not include more access to
the Canadian market for American supply-managed farmers. I
believe the answer is no. There will definitely be more access to
the Canadian market by American supply-managed farmers.
I do not believe the Americans will sign a new NAFTA deal
that will allow Chile into this NAFTA group unless they are
given more access to Canadian markets. I am not saying this is
what I want to see; I am saying this is what I believe will happen.
There is an extremely high probability that this will happen.
Any politician who pretends this is not going to happen is
really depriving the farmers involved of transition time that they
desperately need to deal with this very difficult situation. It is
indeed going to be very difficult for supply-managed farmers.
Instead of taking a day in this House to debate the relative
unfairness of the cuts between east and west, between Quebec
and the rest of Canada, it would be far more productive to spend
our time talking about how we can help, if we can help at all,
supply-managed farmers to move to a competitive market
system. It is an issue that is too important for us to ignore in the
House.
In the future I look forward to the Bloc using an opposition
day to deal with this subject. I believe it would be of far more
value to Quebec dairy farmers and other supply-managed
farmers in Quebec than this type of motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's
speech, who wishes that, the next time, the Bloc will table an
opposition motion on other aspects of agriculture. In the last
year, the Bloc Quebecois raised the issue of agriculture on two
different opposition days. If the Reform Party wishes to do so, it
can use its opposition days to debate this issue.
We can probably agree on one point, I think. The 1995-96
estimates provide for the elimination of 429 jobs in the research
and development sector of the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food. The department's staff will go down from 3,454 to
3,015.
(1135)
We know that jobs in the research and development sector
help build the future, but they are also career development jobs
held by people with university degrees, technical training or
some other more practical training, and these people help their
industry develop and prepare for the future.
I wonder if the Reform member shares my view, which is also
that of the Canadian Sheep Federation. The federation feels that
the federal government is abandoning, without justification, a
production in full development. Indeed, this government
decided to pull the rug out from under sheep producers by
completely withdrawing from the R and D sector of the sheep
raising industry. Consequently, that industry, which must face
market globalization and international competition, finds itself
without any support regarding the development and the
improvement of its products.
Does the Reform member feel that such penny-pinching on
the part of the Department of Agriculture is a good solution?
Would it not be wiser to maintain R and D support at its current
level, or at least delegate that responsibility to Quebec and the
other provinces, so that they can develop their agriculture? Why
would the federal government withdraw from a whole sector of
agricultural production after supporting it for years? Is this not
an unacceptable decision? Is the Bloc not right in raising this
issue in the House?
[English]
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I also received the memo from the
sheep producers, who expressed their concern about the cuts in
research funding to their industry. I received the letter yesterday
and I look forward to talking with the sheep producers to see
exactly what will happen to research in that area.
With respect to the hon. member's comment that these petty
cuts are not acceptable, there is an overriding concern resulting
from the budget that requires that cuts be made. Most farmers I
have talked with have recognized, reluctantly, that the cuts to
their industry, while unfair, are absolutely necessary in order to
deal with the severe fiscal problem we have. Again, I say they
are unfair because they were not balanced between cuts directly
to farmers and cuts to the department, and they were not
balanced across the country.
The biggest concern of farmers is that the cuts did not go far
enough. There is no definite target for the deficit being
eliminated. I would like to address the impact of that on farmers.
When the member spoke of petty cuts, I became very concerned
because these cuts were needed, and more cuts are needed.
11459
However, I hope future cuts will be made in other sectors of
federal spending in order to have some balance in the equation.
This budget did not go far enough. Our interest payments will
have increased from $39 billion, when the Liberals took power,
to $51 billion a year by the end of the three-year budget
projection period, which ends two years from now. Those are
interest payments on our debt alone. The result of that is an extra
$12 billion of taxpayers' money that is being spent on interest
payments on the debt. Still, with the Liberal budget, the debt
will increase by $24 billion a year at the end of these three years.
That means ever-increasing interest expenses.
Where is the money going to come from to make these
ever-increasing interest payments on the debt? It will come
from the taxpayers, and there are not enough taxpayers' dollars
to pay for increased interest payments. That means that tax
increases are not an option. That means that cuts will have to be
made somewhere else in order to pay for these extra interest
payments.
I encourage the government to take a step over the next five or
six months to present another budget that will go far enough and
set a definite date on which the deficit will be eliminated. I
encourage them to do that. However, because that has not
happened, and by not having enough cuts or a definite date for
when the deficit will be eliminated, interest rate costs will be
higher for farmers, because this continuing deficit has put
upward pressure on interest rates. Lenders will be hesitant to
lend; getting financing is going to be more difficult for farmers.
There is also the threat to social programs, which will continue.
(1140)
So not only are farmers asked to share more of the cost, but
there is a real threat to social programs, including pensions,
health care and other social programs that they depend on and
want.
I do not think any of these cuts can be called petty. In fact, this
government must go further in the very near future or the
damaging results will go way beyond the pain that has been
caused by the cuts in this budget.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
did not get a chance to listen to the first part of the hon.
member's speech, but I did hear the last part where he was
talking about supply management. He said that in his opinion
supply management will be gone in a few short years.
One of the ministers who helped negotiate this is just leaving.
I would like to know what the hon. member bases that
assumption on, that in fact supply management is gone or is
going to go, considering that I feel we had a very successful
round of negotiations at the GATT and in fact supply
management is very well protected, thank you very much.
Maybe the member can tell me what he bases that assumption
on.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer the
member's question.
I base this on three main points. The first point has been well
made by the lawyer representing the dairy farmers of Canada in
their push to keep American products out of the market. They of
course are saying that GATT takes precedence over NAFTA with
regard to supply management. The lawyer who is representing
the Dairy Farmers of Canada has said: ``Hey, guys, you had
better be careful here. The Americans have a very good case that
in fact NAFTA has precedence over GATT.''
As this member will well know, this lawyer-who represents
the Dairy Farmers of Canada, not the Americans-has said that
this is a real concern and that we had better be prepared for the
decision going in favour of NAFTA having precedence over
GATT. If this happens then supply management as we know it is
in jeopardy immediately.
The next major thing that threatens supply management as we
know it is the NAFTA negotiations around letting Chile into the
NAFTA family. Our Prime Minister and the President of the
United States have said that within four years Chile will be part
of the NAFTA family. When that happens, and as those
negotiations take place, I believe Americans will demand that
Canadian markets be opened up to their products in the
supply-managed area. That is the second very real threat to
supply management.
The third threat is the new GATT negotiations, which will
take place starting in the year 2000. I believe those new
negotiations will in fact lead to a rapid deceleration in tariffs
protecting the supply-managed industry.
I do not like saying these things to supply-managed farmers
because I know this is going to present a great difficulty and a
real challenge for them, but I am not going to hide it. I am going
to be very honest and open and say: ``I believe this is what is
going to happen. Take any time you have to prepare yourselves
for this major change.''
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the
opposition chose to focus on agriculture on this opposition day
and especially on the budget cuts, our intent was not to say that
we have something against budget cuts when they are needed.
Canadians throughout the country, including Quebec of
course, realize that we do not have any choice. With the
economic situation being what it is thanks to the previous
Liberal and Conservative governments, we have to cut.
11460
(1145)
But when the taxpayers are asked to tighten their belts, they
want to know why and for what purpose.
As a member of the Bloc Quebecois representing a mainly
rural riding, I know that our farmers and milk producers are
wondering what would be the point of making such sacrifices.
What does the government intend to do? What is the government
aiming for when it cuts in my industry instead of somewhere
else? Is the government trying to put our financial house in order
so that we can all compete more efficiently against each other in
Canada? Is the government making short-term cuts in order to
help farmers in Quebec and Canada better compete on the world
market in the medium term? Or has the government simply
decided that to pay back our debt it has to cut spending wherever
it can, since the important thing is to cut?
Under these circumstances, no one will agree to make such
sacrifices.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I should have told you at the
beginning of my speech that, starting with me, the speakers will
be sharing their allotted time.
I was saying that the way the cuts are made seems unfair to us.
In fact, the government announced the elimination of the $560
million annual subsidy known as the Crow rate and-others
have pointed it out before me but I think it is worth
repeating-that subsidy primarily benefited Western farmers
through low grain transportation rates. However, to help farmers
adapt to the change, the Minister of Finance will give them $1.6
billion as compensation for the loss in value of their land, $1
billion in loan guarantees to buy grain and $300 million over a
five-year period to facilitate the transition.
These could be seen as satisfactory measures. We could say:
``Good for them. The cuts will not harm them too much since
they will get compensation''. The problem is that when the
Quebec producers compare their situation with that of others,
they see that they are not treated fairly. Take milk producers.
The Minister of Finance will reduce the subsidies to milk
producers by 30 per cent over two years, which represents $70
million over a current budget of $300 million. There is no
financial compensation to help Quebec producers absorb this
major cut.
We show compassion for the Western farmers, we feel sorry
for them and we give them compensation, but when we talk
about Quebec farmers, we tell them: ``You are used to suffering,
you are tough, so we will not give you anything, it is your
problem''.
The government gives $2.2 billion in subsidies to Western
farmers, the vast majority of whom will recover their losses, but
it will not give a single penny in compensation for the cuts that
will primarily affect Quebec farmers.
In the face of such flagrant favouritism, can we really talk
about a fair and equitable budget? I do not think so. The impact
of these inequitable measures could be very harmful for Quebec
farmers.
The Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec argues that
with this generous compensation package, Western farmers will
have no trouble competing with Quebec farmers, who will be
struggling with the cuts. Is that what the government wants?
This is the question I asked at the beginning.
(1150)
Does the government want to give some farmers an advantage
over other farmers in Canada? Does it want to specialize farm
production? Does it want to specialize crops? If that is what it
wants, it should say so. Maybe it would help farmers become
more competitive. However, if all farmers specialize in the same
production both in the west and in the east, then Canadian
farmers will find themselves competing with each other.
This might work under different circumstances, for example
after a victory in the Quebec referendum. Then it could become
healthy competition and the same taxpayers would not be paying
twice. Taxpayers in Quebec would pay to promote their own
products and taxpayers in the rest of Canada would pay to
promote their own products. Quebec is certainly capable of
responding to this challenge. However, it is not willing to pay
for the development of both its products and those of western
producers. It is unfair and totally unacceptable.
We could talk about hog farmers in Quebec who are also
threatened by these cuts in subsidies. The compensation given to
western farmers creates a distortion on agricultural markets that
will be very costly to Quebec farmers. The 30 per cent cut in
subsidies to industrial milk producers is particularly unfair
because it so happens that Quebec dairy farmers produce over 47
per cent of Canadian industrial milk.
It always boils down to the same question: What is the
purpose of asking Quebecers to make such a sacrifice? Quebec
farmers account for 47 per cent of the total production and they
are being asked, without any compensation, to keep producing
and to remain profitable. Does the government really want to
help the dairy industry in the medium and long term or does it
want to encourage other provinces to compete with Quebec?
An hon. member: Good question.
Mr. Laurin: There is another aspect of this budget that we
need to talk about as it relates to agriculture. Despite the fact
that the federal government promised in the red book not to cut
research and development spending, Mr. Martin's budget makes
drastic cuts in R&D spending.
In the Department of Agriculture, as mentioned earlier by a
previous speaker, research budgets will be reduced by 11 per
11461
cent over the next three years. Seven research centres will be
closed, two of them in Quebec. The closing-down of the centre
in La Pocatière, for example, will eliminate 30 jobs and result in
savings of $1.5 million and that of the farm in L'Assomption
will eliminate 19 jobs and result in savings of $1.3 million.
Yet research is the most important ingredient in the creation
of jobs, and the development of agriculture and animal
production. What would you think of a farmer who has to reduce
his costs and decides he is going to stop buying seeds? That will
be a fine way to cut spending, but at the same time, it will cut all
his income.
We are acting exactly the same way when we start cutting
research and development. We keep producing with the same
methods and they eventually become obsolete. We forget about
the future and our products become less competitive because our
production procedures are obsolete and we cannot lower our
costs.
An hon. member: There is a lack of vision.
Mr. Laurin: That is all part of the planning problem I was
talking about at the beginning of my remarks. That is what is
lacking with this government. Cuts were made not because the
government has a well thought-out plan, but because cuts had to
be made.
(1155)
To give you an example of the slash and burn policy of this
government, let me deal once again with the closing-down of
the farm in L'Assomption in my riding. A lot of research and
development was being done there. They had new horticultural
products ready for marketing. Those products would have been
viable; a fine example of applied research. The whole farm was
cut anyway.
The government put up a new farm building in L'Assomption
at a cost of $3.5 million. It was inaugurated last fall. This year, it
is being closed down and 19 employees are being sent home.
What about the equipment there? They do not know yet what
they will do with it. Is this the kind of planning we can expect
from this government? Is this the way the government intends to
deal with the most viable research and development resources in
Quebec? If so, the Bloc Quebecois cannot stand and watch while
Quebec farmers are being treated unfairly, as will be very well
demonstrated by other Bloc speakers today.
This kind of situation cannot be tolerated and this is why we
will speak loud and clear against that.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I heard
the hon. member talk about a loss in jobs, particularly in the
research area.
Everyone is concerned about losing jobs in research. We all
know the importance of research. It is one of the top priorities
Reform has targeted in our budget and in past documents dealing
with the budget.
I agree with the Liberal philosophy with regard to research. I
believe that at least what they say is the best approach to take
regarding research. Research should be targeted better. There
should be more partnerships developed with the private sector
so taxpayers dollars are in with private business dollars to form
partnerships to end some of the duplication in research and to
spend the research dollars better. Private business needs to take
a bigger role in targeting research so research is being done in
the areas most likely to pay off well to business in terms of
improvement. In this case we are talking about agriculture.
I agree with the Liberal philosophy presented with regard to
research. I am concerned about the loss of jobs in research. We
cannot afford to lose the research. There is room even in
research to do a better job with the dollars we have.
While I agree with the member's concern about the loss of
jobs, I ask the member for his comments on the loss of jobs that
will result from the cuts the government has made not going far
enough. In other words, there is no definite deficit target set in
the budget. Because there is no definite target business will not
have the atmosphere it needs to expand and or new businesses to
be set up. As a result there will be fewer jobs in the future and
certainly the jobs that could come-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will take a moment to
express the Chair's dilemma.
[Translation]
We have a topic of great importance. Many members, on both
sides of the House, from all parties, have already indicated they
wanted to take part in this debate. If we are going to share our 20
minute speaking time, and break it down into two 10 minute
periods, each followed by a 5 minute question and comment
period, I would ask all the speakers from all parties to keep their
questions simple, direct and short, so that the member who just
delivered his or her speech can give a proper answer. Everybody
should keep this in mind. And I hope that we can proceed in this
fashion.
I give the floor to the hon. member for Joliette.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I will give a short answer if you can
tell me how much time I have left. One minute. My answer will
have to be short.
What I wanted to say when I spoke about the farm in
L'Assomption as an example of the government's lack of
planning is that a week before it was closed down, the
employees did not know the experimental farm was to be closed
down.
11462
(1200)
Six months before closing down, a new building worth $3,5
million was opened with a ribbon-cutting ceremony. Now, the
annual operating budget was only about $1,3 million. The farm
did not cost a lot to operate, but it was very productive and
yielded very interesting results. In fact, it was just about to sign
agreements with the private sector, but this was ignored,
because cuts had to be made. I would not be surprised to hear
that the real target was the farm at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu,
and that it has not been hit because closing down the military
college was already quite enough.
Thus, the government did not want to add the experimental
farm at Saint-Jean to the list, so it chose two others elsewhere,
thinking that everybody would be satisfied and that they were
free to cut. That, Mr. Speaker, is what we want to denounce.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the opposition motion introduced by my
colleague, the member for Frontenac. In Quebec, since the
general assembly on the rural sector in February 1991 and
following the summit on agriculture in June 1992, we have seen
the rural and agri-food sectors begin to join forces with the
common goal of gaining a share in new markets. This was the
expression used by the then president of the Union des
producteurs agricoles, Jacques Proulx, and I use it today
because it describes so well the vision which drives our
agri-food sector.
The stakeholders in Quebec want to regain local markets and
gain access to international ones. In this respect, one of the
approaches that the agri-food system favoured at the summit
held in Trois-Rivières consists in stepping up research,
development and technology transfer, which are part of the
strategy to gain a share in new markets. With Mr. Martin's
budget, the Liberal government made cuts in research and
development, which led to the closing of two research centres in
Quebec, the La Pocatière and L'Assomption centres.
Once again, the federal government makes cuts unilaterally
without taking into account the consensus of those most
concerned. Quebec's agri-food sector is trying to adapt to the
challenges it is facing at the end of this century and it will need
all the help it can get. Research centres are a valuable tool.
Quebec's milk producers relied on research and development
results from different sources in order to increase their herd's
productivity, and they were very successful in doing so. As
proof of this, Quebec's dairy herds are among the most
productive in Canada and rank well at the international level.
This is a good example of Quebec's producers taking results
of research and development and incorporating them into their
day-to-day operations. The whole rural community benefits
from the research and development, which in turn ensures the
community's survival.
On another connection, I would like to draw my colleagues'
attention to the budgetary cuts made at the Food Production and
Inspection Branch concerning the application of Agriculture
Canada's activity plan. Since April 1, 1995, slaughterhouses
recognized by the government have had to pay part of the cost of
food inspections. These businesses must, as a prerequisite to
their certification, conform to Canadian standards on the design
of slaughtering and storage installations and, subsequently, to
standards on the maintenance of sanitation.
Consequently, these are important investments, particularly
for small businesses in rural communities which cannot take
advantage of the economies of scale and the proximity of a
sufficiently large market. Imposing charges for meat inspection
is detrimental to small slaughterhouses. Moreover, it will
penalize rural municipalities where these businesses are
located. The government says it wants to create jobs, but adopts
measures which jeopardize jobs. As an example, in my riding,
there are two businesses which will have to clear this new
hurdle, or close their doors. Some fifty jobs could disappear.
(1205)
In a recent letter that I received on that issue, the Minister of
Agriculture said that he was in favour of talks and cooperation
with national sectoral stakeholders so that they could find some
options relating to cost sharing, programs restructuring and
changes in service delivery.
Should the minister not have waited to find solutions, in
cooperation with stakeholders, before applying a tarification?
And how will he consider the duplication of inspection services,
particularly between the Quebec Department of Agriculture and
Agriculture Canada?
At the États généraux du monde rural, Quebec stakeholders as
a whole wanted a shift of political powers from the top to the
bottom. The minister could take advantage of this people's
willingness to put an end to the duplication in this sector and to
guarantee Quebecers that they will only have to fund one
inspection service and that it will be non- partisan because
administered entirely by the government.
Since my riding is made up of agricultural and forest areas, I
would like to deal with the impact of the federal withdrawal
from the funding of operations in private woodlots. In the
Champlain riding alone, private woodlots harvesting provides
direct and indirect jobs to several hundreds of people. Also,
several municipal governments collect property taxes through
developments and value added to private woodlots.
In 1992-93, in Quebec, the federal funding of private
woodlots generated $71 million in profits for businesses and
operators, $30 million in salaries and $12 million in taxes going
back
11463
to the government. So, we can consider that the government's
involvement in private woodlots is an investment.
For each million dollars invested in private woodlots,
between 40 and 50 jobs are created, whereas the national
infrastructure program only generated the equivalent of 10
job-years for each million dollars invested.
The Bloc Quebecois is asking for a transfer to the provinces of
federal funds and related responsibilities, which should better
serve the interests of forest producers and workers.
In conclusion, I urge the federal government to put an end to
the duplication of services and to give back the powers and the
budgets to provinces that were able to get organized and to
establish equivalent services that better respond to the people's
concerns and needs.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to congratulate my colleague and neighbour of the riding of
Champlain for the excellent speech he made on agriculture. He
raised a point in which I have a particular interest and it is
inspection. I have heard about that issue and the situation is
worse than what I was told.
I would like to hear his comments, especially on the issue of
impartiality that he raised. Are we to understand that inspection
costs which were paid for impartially by the government in the
public interest will from now on be paid for by producers,
thereby placing the inspectors under the control of producers? If
so, they will be at the mercy of people acting both as judge and
as jury.
Does it mean that the public interest in that area will from now
on be threatened by privatization which is expanding and
perhaps being implemented drastically?
Mr. Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and
neighbour of Trois-Rivières. There are cases in my riding that I
would like to quote as examples. I refer to small packing plants
with between 15 and 25 employees. In the past, the costs of
monitoring sanitation of premises and wholesomeness of food
were paid for by the government. The last Liberal budget
imposed that extra monetary burden on small packing plants. I
believe that small plants cannot compete with larger plants and
this is an inequity in the federal budget.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
really wanted to take part in this debate because, as you know,
my colleague, the hon. member for Champlain, sits on the
Standing Committee on Agriculture. In the past, he has always
demonstrated a keen interest in agriculture.
(1210)
However, I would like to hear his comments on the issue of
research and development. As he mentioned, unfortunately for
the province of Quebec, two research stations will be closed, one
at L'Assomption and the other at La Pocatière.
I remember the day I was sitting on a committee on
agriculture with the hon. Eugene Whelan, as a guest witness.
You must have known him very well, since he has made a
significant contribution in this area. He used to say to us: ``Each
dollar we invest in agriculture has a $7 return.''
I would ask the hon. member for Champlain whether he would
agree with the hon. Eugene Whelan and, if so, how he can justify
the cuts the Liberal government has made in agricultural R & D?
Mr. Lefebvre: I want to thank my colleague from Frontenac
for his question.
We know that all the farmers in Quebec really need research
and development activities.
I have here a research and development federal strategy
report. Each year, the federal government invests almost $6
billion in research and development, not including the tax
credits which account for $1 billion each year. Almost 60 per
cent of the federal contribution to research and development,
excluding the tax credits, are invested in domestic research done
by federal laboratories, which include all the departments. The
rest is broken down as follows: industry receives $977 million;
universities, $960 million; foreign researchers, $286 million;
and others, $210 million.
On the whole, federal spending in research and development
benefits Ontario. In 1990-91, Ontario received 53 per cent of the
federal spending, while Quebec got 19.5 per cent. Yet, Quebec's
industrial structure does not warrant such small investments by
the federal government.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time
with the hon. member for Durham.
I rise today to participate in this debate on the motion of the
hon. member for Frontenac which was no doubt prompted by the
hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. For these two
members, agriculture is to Quebec what federalism is for the
Bloc. They understand nothing about it, they simply do not
believe in it, they are blocked.
The budget was tabled in February and the reaction was good
on every front. If we want our country to continue onward and if
we want to maintain all the services we are so attached to, we
must put our financial house in order. Mr. Martin's budget does
just that. It is focused on reduced expenses, not on tax increases.
For each additional tax dollar, expenses are reduced by $7. We
are striving for healthier finances by trying first to ensure
growth and create jobs. Some very difficult decisions had to be
made and this government had the courage to make them. This is
what responsible government is all about.
11464
Good common sense prevails now, at least on the Liberal side.
We have chosen to head towards better control of the deficit and
we are on the right track. We made some tough choices in order
to save our social programs, our social security and our standard
of living.
The impact of the 1995 budget will be no greater for Quebec's
agricultural sector than for any other province or sector. I would
like to adopt a slightly different approach here and explain what
exactly is the importance of Quebec's agricultural sector within
the Canadian agricultural and agri-food sector as a whole.
The latest data on agriculture in Quebec are very impressive
and show a very dynamic, sustainable and promising sector. For
example, the agri-food industry generates 5 per cent of the
Quebec GDP and 4 per cent of all the jobs in Quebec, which is
approximately 130 000 direct jobs.
The most important primary industry in Quebec is the
agricultural and agri-food sector. It is first among the
manufacturing industries.
(1215)
As for the data comparing Quebec to the rest of Canada, the
province of Quebec is doing very well. In fact, the Quebec
agri-food industry accounts for 22.4 per cent of Canadian
agri-food GDP and 25 per cent of manufacturing shipments.
Moreover, 19 per cent of agricultural revenues, 37 per cent of
the milk produced in Canada, including 47 per cent of industrial
milk, also come from Quebec's agricultural sector.
If we add to these figures the fact that 33 per cent of Canadian
exports of pork and 9.6 per cent of total Canadian exports are
also from Quebec, it is obvious the province of Quebec has a
very prominent place in the agricultural and agri-food industry
in Canada.
Within the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food, it is a
well-known fact that the success of the agricultural sector is due
mainly to the efforts made by all the stakeholders.
However, no one can deny the contribution made by
Agriculture and Agri-food Canada in many initiatives aimed at,
first, ensuring the viability of agriculture and the prosperity of
the agri-food industry; second, ensuring long-term financial
security; third, promoting growth and diversification, as well as
employment in the rural areas; fourth, ensuring the viability of
the resources and protecting the environment; and fifth,
maintaining a supply of top-quality wholesome foods.
It is to be noted, among other things, that the interests of the
Quebec agri-food industry were very well represented by
Agriculture and Agri-food Canada in international trade and in
the discussions on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement or
NAFTA which followed and the GATT. Moreover, Quebec
producers and processors have already begun to take advantage
of the numerous opportunities and things should develop faster
in this era of market globalization.
And what about the four research centres established in
Quebec for the benefit of the Canadian agricultural community,
the natural resource conservation programs and the
participation of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada in initiatives
aimed at reducing nonpoint source pollution, like Vision 2000.
I would like to remind members in the House that since
joining the cabinet the current agriculture minister has always
worked in close partnership with provinces, the private sector,
educational institutions, farmers associations, processing
sectors and Canadian producers as a whole.
Co-operation and consultation will continue. The agricultural
sector will continue growing very rapidly in Quebec and in
Canada. Constituents from Brome-Missisquoi are proud to
have elected a Liberal member of Parliament who is ready to act
in the interests of all farm producers, from Brome-Missisquoi
as well as elsewhere. They chose to go with the dynamism, the
transparency and the consultation I offered them as opposed to
the consistent blocking by the Bloc. Only a flexible federalism
will allow us to continue developing in a secure environment
within Canada.
Dairy farmers, hog producers, grain producers, apple growers
and others, the whole processing industry are and will go on
experiencing great changes in the vast world of international
trade.
Instead of griping, instead of blocking the interests of the
farmers, let us help them.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
may remind you once again that in October 1993, Quebecers and
Canadians opted for a change, but especially Quebecers.
Before 1984, there were 74 Liberal members in this House,
similar to the member I just heard. Today, Mr. Speaker, there are
at least 53 members of the Bloc Quebecois who are prepared to
rise in this House to condemn inequities. During the last election
campaign to which the hon. member referred earlier, I followed
him around for a few days, but he was always hidden away,
while I was around his riding. I often went to L'Encan Lafaille et
Fils.
(1220)
I suggest the hon. member go and talk to the farmers next
Monday, at L'Encan Lafaille in Coaticook, and ask them what
they think of the Martin budget on agriculture. This guy does not
have a clue about what is going on. He should go and talk to the
UPA on Bourque Boulevard, just outside his riding, near Magog,
and find out what the UPA in Sherbrooke has to say about the
11465
Martin budget, especially the cuts in the dairy sector. He should
read La terre de chez nous and find out what the farmers think
about his government, and he will realize they are not very
happy.
Why not talk to the farmers he did not meet during the
election campaign, because he refused to have a debate? He does
not talk about it, he tries to evade the issue, and when Quebec
was represented by 74 members, 74 sheep, this attitude did a lot
of damage. In concluding, I suggest the hon. member go to
Bourque Boulevard. Next Monday, and if he does not know how
to get there, I will go with him, he should go to L'Encan Lafaille,
to talk to the farmers. Then he might realize what is really going
on.
It is all very well to have a bunch of lawyers, but a bunch of
farmers defended by farmers is even better. So I would urge the
former president of the Quebec Bar Association to take a stand
in favour of agriculture.
Mr. Paradis: Mr. Speaker, as concerns going out into the
field, I remind my hon. colleague that I have just returned from
an electoral campaign during which I met a lot of farmers in
Brome-Missisquoi. Afterwards I also met farmers from other
regions. I thank the farmers from Brome-Missisquoi for
having voted Liberal in the last election. I feel very grateful for
the confidence they placed in their humble servant. I thank them
sincerely.
I want to go back over the issue of research and development
that the official opposition mentioned a few minutes ago.
Several Bloc members mentioned R & D in relation to this
debate. It would be a good idea to check if the Quebec Minister
of Agriculture, a good friend of theirs from their PQ head office,
heard what the Bloc members said. In fact, this provincial
minister just tabled a budget in the Quebec National Assembly.
In the tabled documents, it is mentioned, under ``Education,
Research and Development'', that funding in this area will drop
from $45 million to $41 million. They are cutting $4 million
from research and development.
The Bloc's friends in the head office cut funding for research
and development by $4 million. We should at the very least send
forthwith a copy of Bloc's remarks about research and
development to their head office as well as to the Quebec
Minister of Agriculture.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have had
some experience with farming. This time of year we would
normally be out on the land cultivating. Most of the farmers in
Durham are doing just that. I sometimes wonder if they are not
better off than I am sitting in the House.
In my riding of Durham one in five jobs is food related; 2.8
per cent of provincial milk production is from farmers in
Durham. Our grain sales are over $10.5 million. We have won
worldwide acclaim for livestock and crops. One can see farming
is no strange animal to the people of Durham.
One million, eight-hundred thousand Canadians are engaged
in the vocation of agriculture. It accounts for 8 per cent of gross
domestic product and 15 per cent of the Canadian workforce,
clearly a very important industry.
Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction and there are some very
good reasons for that. This has occurred from the time of
Confederation and continues today. One thing we have in
common is we all must eat. Clearly it is very important to
produce our agricultural products efficiently, to transport them
effectively and to continue Canada's excellent reputation in the
export of agricultural products.
(1225)
I will discuss quickly how in some ways Quebec benefits by
this shared jurisdiction. The argument laid out today is that
somehow the agricultural sector of Quebec has been subsidizing
some other aspect of agriculture within the country.
In 1990, Quebec-these are total government spending and
taxation figures-received $35.1 billion in federal government
spending. It paid $24.5 billion in taxes. Clearly there is no
subsidization process here. This is just a trick with numbers
taking one aspect of that spending and taxation system and
expanding it to make a big argument.
Quebec benefits in many other ways. In the GATT negotiation
our government argued very strongly and very effectively to
protect our supply managed industries. High tariff walls will
prevent a quick reduction in commodity prices in Canada. All
farmers in Canada have benefited but certainly the people in
Durham, a large dairy farming area, have expressed their
appreciation for what the Government of Canada did for them. I
am sure Quebec dairy farmers feel similarly.
When the supply management system was established in
Canada, of the industrial milk quota, Quebec had 48 per cent of
the industrial milk production. That is what is owned currently
by Quebec farmers.
In research and development, and we have touched very
briefly on that subject, I have an interesting quote from the
member for Quebec East, the agricultural critic of the Bloc:
``There is no doubt that with regard to research Quebec is not
unfairly treated at agriculture Canada''. Clearly even the Bloc
has recognized it is not unfairly treated within our federation.
The federal government spends approximately $360 million
in Quebec in the area of agriculture. Quebec's agricultural
production which it sells within the country is three times
11466
greater than what it exports. Clearly Canada is a major market
for Quebec produce. Over one-third of the total production of
Quebec agriculture is sold within Canada. Much more of that is
consumed within the province. Canada is a major consumer of
Quebec products.
The federal government today has 1,400 employees engaged
in Quebec assisting with agriculture. By reducing subsidies, and
I believe this is the essence of the motion before us, we will
increase flexibility within the agricultural sector.
This is what the members of the Bloc have been arguing for
over the last year; reduce grain subsidies, reduce transportation
subsidies to the west. That is what we have done. The Bloc today
should be rejoicing rather than having motions of this type
complaining about the fact that it has happened now.
By reducing subsidies we are giving farmers the ability to be
more innovative, to produce value added crops in Canada. Why
do we ship raw materials all over the world while other people
ship us finished goods? This is something Quebec and western
farmers, indeed all farmers in Canada, have to address.
The farmers in my riding have not complained about the 30
per cent reduction in the subsidies for industrial milk
production. They do not like it but they understand it and they
are less concerned about it. When the budget came down they
told me to make sure the negotiated stand by the government for
them under GATT is maintained.
In 1993 Quebec's agri-food industry reached $1.2 billion, 9
per cent of the total Canadian market proceeds. In the last 12
years Quebec farm income has risen 67 per cent. Quebec farmers
have the highest per capita income of all farmers in Canada.
Here they are complaining about agriculture. It seems odd to
me.
(1230 )
Let us get back to discussing co-operative federalism and
why this is a shared jurisdiction. The report by the Government
of Quebec only last year showed that the two levels of
government work well together. This was its concluding
remarks. Overlap and duplication are minimal, estimated to be
less than 1 per cent of combined federal-provincial spending.
In July 1994 the federal and provincial agriculture ministers
reaffirmed their commitment to work together to ensure that
agricultural exports in Canada will reach $2 billion by the year
2000. Canada at one time had 3.5 per cent of the entire global
agricultural trade. This has slipped over the last two years. This
joint federal and provincial task force has reset those goals to
take Canada back into the area of 3.5 per cent of global
agricultural trade. A federal-provincial development council
has been established in order to reach these goals.
This creates one single window of opportunity so that all
aspects of agriculture in Canada will be able to market their
programs internationally. Indeed the federal government has
donated and committed 50 full time federal employees to
attempt to penetrate 150 foreign markets throughout the world.
In summary, by continuing to co-operate federally and
provincially to solve the problems of agriculture, to work on our
research budgets, hopefully not meaner, but leaner and more
effectively, will make Canada a world leader in agricultural
product marketing. It will also make for a more efficient
industry within our borders.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member mentioned one item
which I find very relevant. He wondered why we are so
dependent on imports and why some regions in Canada are not
self-sufficient.
In this regard, he shares the view of the Canadian Sheep
Foundation which claims: ``The Canadian government is
abandoning without any reason a production in full expansion''.
How can the hon. member explain his government's decision to
discontinue its research and development assistance to an
industry whose self-sufficiency, throughout Canada, has gone
from 23 to 45 per cent since 1976? Why are we informing the
sheep industry that we are abandoning our research and
development efforts, that we intend to rely even more, if
possible, on imports?
How can the minister justify such a decision? We are not
talking about protecting the Quebec market only, but about the
conclusions of the Canadian Sheep Foundation, which is
astounded by the decision.
My other question to the hon. member relates to shared
jurisdiction. How can he explain that, in La Pocatière, where an
agricultural technology institute run by the Quebec government
and a federally-funded experimental farm are located, we are
closing the farm without even informing the Quebec
government, without proposing any other use for the buildings?
Is that not another example of the major negative impact of
shared jurisdictions such as the one that exists in agriculture?
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question regarding the closure of one of these facilities.
Of course it has been necessary to rationalize research
facilities throughout Canada. This is not just in agriculture. It
deals with industry. It deals with technology. In all kinds of
aspects we have had to wonder whether we need bricks and
mortars in different parts of the country.
Technology and research do not necessarily need a building. I
notice that much of our technology can be done out of people's
houses these days. Whether we have bricks and mortars in
Quebec or bricks and mortars in Manitoba is somewhat
irrelevant to say the least. I note also that the agricultural
facility here
11467
in Ottawa is downsizing. In fact, a lot of its facilities have been
transferred to the province of Quebec.
(1235)
The member has an interest in lambs and sheep but I must
confess that I am not competent to discuss this matter. I would
suggest that there is possibly a degree of rationalizing. Clearly
we cannot be competitive in all agricultural products; we must
pick those areas in which we can excel.
I am not saying that is not true for lambs and sheep, but I
suspect there are only so many industries within the agricultural
sector in which we can effectively compete. This area has a lot
of competition from Australia and New Zealand. I would have to
study how efficient our industry is relative to theirs to answer
the question properly.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you right off that I will be
splitting my speaking time with the hon. member for Shefford.
I am using this opportunity to speak on this agricultural day to
draw attention to a highly questionable decision taken by the
federal government in its recent budget.
On budget night, it was announced that the experimental farm
at La Pocatière would be closing. As it is located in my riding, it
is clear I find the closure unacceptable and will prevent it from
happening. What surprised me most was the justification given
for the closure in the Department of Agriculture's estimates.
According to the estimates for the agriculture department, the
facility is being closed because sheep and lamb are low priority
products. I would like to prove otherwise to this House.
In my region, the agri-food development strategy was made a
priority for the entire regional county municipality of
Kamouraska. The lower St. Lawrence regional co-operation and
development council incorporated it as one of its priorities as
well. Up to this point, you might argue that this is normal, as it is
a matter of regional interest. However, even the Canadian Sheep
Federation together with the Fédération des producteurs
d'agneau et de mouton du Québec feel that the Government of
Canada is abandoning without justification a type of production
that is in full development.
Why do we say this? Are these empty words, or are they based
on some reality? My research indicates that, between 1976 and
1992, we increased our rate of self-sufficiency in Canada from
23 per cent to 45 per cent. In other words, during these years,
sheep production took on a larger role in the economy and
contributed to Canadians' wealth. More than that. Between 1971
and 1991, the herd increased by 8.7 per cent. In Quebec, between
1971 and 1991, the number of animals grew from 88,000 to
121,000-an increase of 37 per cent.
Therefore when the Minister of Agriculture says that this is a
low priority product, I am hard pressed to find justification for
his position, since both production and consumption have
substantially increased. The market is expanding as a result of
significant levels of immigration in Quebec and Canada. Indeed,
for many cultural communities, lamb is part of their culture and
part of their traditional food.
Then why cut in this area? We must understand how important
research and development are for any industry. The dairy
industry in Quebec, Ontario and Canada was not built on
nothing. Research was done to make animals more productive,
to improve milk quality and to manufacture better secondary
products.
As for lamb and sheep, we were in the process of doing the
same. I am going to give you some examples of research projects
which were being carried out at the experimental farm in La
Pocatière, so that you can understand that what is done there is
not harebrained research, but something very concrete, which
was going to help the industry.
For example, the farm is working on enriching the diet of
ewes with three lambs instead of two, because this means an
increase in productivity. This is very concrete. This is
something which lowers production costs and would allow the
industry to compete with New Zealand and Australia on world
markets.
(1240)
Then, there are studies on regulation of the reproductive
cycle. Software for flock management is even being developed.
Computers are now used in this agricultural sector, as well as in
many others. It seems important to me that such research be
carried out. Refusing an industry like sheep production the
research advantages given to other sectors is like telling
producers who invested in that area that they might as well quit.
Here is another example. The experimental farm was studying
the use of canola oil-cake as a feed for sheep. For those who may
not know it, canola oil-cake is what is left after the oil has been
extracted from canola. This kind of research benefits
westerners, because sheep farming is becoming more popular in
western Canada, and also benefits eastern Canada because
canola is produced there. It has nationwide applications and
would cost less than some other feeds currently on the market.
These research projects are concrete examples. They are
examples proving that that particular farm had a country-wide
mandate to support sheep farmers. The federal government
closed this facility because it considers sheep as a low-priority
product. Was that decision reasonable in today's context where
11468
farmers are being asked to diversify and to be ready to respond
to changing markets?
Considering that sheep farming is the most ecological kind of
farming and that it permits farmers to use land which can be
used in no other way, was closing Canada's only research centre
on sheep farming, the experimental farm at La Pocatière, a
logical decision?
I think that the decision was a major blunder, and each budget
probably contains one. The Bloc never said that Canada's budget
should not be cut, we are simply making suggestions regarding
where to cut. But cutting research and development funding for
an industry that is progressing is like robbing Peter to pay Paul,
and it will probably backfire on us.
We are inclined to call it another example of Canadian
federalism. The least competitive sheep producers will
inevitably have to call on stabilization programs more often.
That will put more pressure on the Government of Quebec. We
find this kind of decision unacceptable and we target it in the
first part of our motion when we state that we ``denounce the
government for reducing the general budget of the Department
of Agriculture by 19 per cent''.
If the 19 per cent was cut from sectors which did not
jeopardize future production, we could have seen what kind of
impact the cuts would have had. But how can a government
claim to place a high priority on job creation yet cut over 400
research and development jobs in Canada's farming sector-30
of which were located at La Pocatière, in the Kamouraska
region-and systematically cut high paying jobs which
stimulate economic development?
After cutting 30 jobs in agricultural research, biology,
technology, unskilled labour, how can they justify announcing
that 25 jobs were created in another sector the following week?
This decision appears to be some kind of a nonsense.
I think I know the basic reasons for the choice. They gave
experimental farms specialized mandates, for example, sheep
farming at La Pocatière. They invested around $7 million there
over the past few years. They rebuilt a sheep barn that had
burned down. Then they suddenly decide to close the facility.
Because only one experimental farm had this mandate, the
others do not really feel that they are affected. They began to
sever the strong ties between this farm and the local economy.
(1245)
I believe that part of the mandate could have been maintained
in this area. Nowadays, there are numerous stakeholders, and I
will name a few who are not members of the Bloc Quebecois,
and may not even be known separatists or sovereignists. I will
give you an example. Officials from the La Pocatière
agricultural technology institute, where the farm is located,
Laval University, the Quebec sheep breeders' association, the
two national federations I mentioned earlier, the Quebec
agriculture department, all these stakeholders are asking the
minister to meet with them so that they can explain to him why
they think he is making a mistake and why he has to change his
mind.
I hope that the agriculture minister will have enough sense to
listen to their arguments and to look for solutions allowing
research and development in the sheep industry to continue and
to expand, so as to provide support for producers and keep one of
the oldest farming areas in Canada going, with a flourishing
experimental farm in La Pocatière as its bet for a prosperous
future.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear from the remarks of my colleague for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup that La Pocatière is in his
riding.
Let me remind you again that agricultural research and
development is vital. It is the key to success. It makes the
difference between a country where there is food
self-sufficiency and a third world country that continually has
to import food to feed its people.
My main reason for my interest in sheep is the DLS breed.
Some researchers, particularly researchers from La Pocatière in
conjunction with their colleagues from Lennoxville, in the
vicinity of my hon. colleague's riding of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, and my own riding of
Frontenac, succeeded in genetically producing a new breed of
sheep which will leave its marks on the future of sheep breeding
in Quebec and Canada.
What is even more disappointing for the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup is, of course, the fact that, after
a fire at the experimental farm, the federal government,
typically lacking in vision, spent nearly $7 million to repair and
rebuild buildings used among other things for sheep breeding.
Now, in this budget devoid of comprehensive view, it is
announcing the closure of this research station which,
incidentally, was the oldest in Canada and Quebec.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity provided
by the comments the hon. member for Frontenac just made to lay
stress on how illogical this decision was. A few years ago, the
federation of purebred sheep breeders made a decision on where
its artificial breeding centre would be located. They chose the
experimental farm with a mandate for ovine breeding in Canada,
namely La Pocatière. They decided to locate their insemination
unit in La Pocatière, so that there would be a direct link between
researchers and the industry, which would promote efficiency.
New breed development was just mentioned. This is precisely
the type of work you can expect any experimental farm involved
in production to perform to develop more productive breeds,
groups of animals or individual animals. All kinds of research
can be conducted on sheep to ensure they can compete and will
enable us to break into the New Zealand market from which we
are currently importing. No one here can tell me today that it
makes more financial sense in the long term for Quebecers and
11469
Canadians to keep importing sheep from New Zealand when we
have been working for 20 years towards self-sufficiency.
(1250)
Now that we are halfway there, the federal government is
taking the wind out of our sails, without any consultations. No
one had heard about any such plan before budget night. The
industry is raising up against this plan and asking the minister to
reconsider his decision, meet with the survival committee to
ensure that sheep production will be allowed to continue with
adequate research and development assistance and that the
experimental farm in La Pocatière can remain in operation.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
agriculture is still the basis of the rural economy in Quebec and
the rest of Canada. In Quebec, almost 50 per cent of farmers'
income comes from supply-managed products such as milk,
eggs, chicken and turkey. Industrial milk accounts for 27 per
cent of agricultural production in Quebec. Farmers and dairy
producers in my riding, whether they live in Marieville,
Saint-Césaire, Roxton Falls or Béthanie, are worried.
Under Canada's current supply management system for
industrial milk, which was established in 1990, Quebec farmers
receive almost 48 per cent of Canadian industrial milk quotas.
Forty-six per cent of this milk is sold in the other Canadian
provinces, for a total value of $400 million at the farm level and
$1 billion on the market. In Quebec, some 2,900 dairy farmers
are involved in industrial milk production, while processing
translates into some 4,000 regular full-time jobs. This shows
how important this sector is to us.
Under the federal budget tabled by the Minister of Finance in
February, industrial milk producers in Quebec will lose 30 per
cent of their income over two years. This means that industrial
milk producers will see their income drop by 15 per cent the first
year and another 15 per cent the following year.
How can this budget measure not involve heavy financial
sacrifices for farmers and rural communities in Quebec and
Canada? How can the rural structure not suffer radical changes?
Rural realities are in stark contrast to Liberal government
policies favouring the development of new markets and income
security for farmers. Paradoxically, according to the federal
Liberal government, these budget measures are aimed not only
at stabilizing producers' prices and income in light of global
trends, but mainly at reducing farmers' dependency on
government.
The reality is that the agri-food industry in Quebec and
Canada does not carry much weight in international negotiations
on market access. In other words, the federal government would
rather sacrifice a whole sector of its economy in order to
preserve other comparative economic advantages it has
managed to negotiate with the U.S. and other industrialized
countries. I understand this cold and purely economic strategy,
whereby the men and women who make these products are mere
statistics. The only thing that counts is the dollar figure on their
production.
However, there is a world of difference between
understanding something and accepting it. I cannot accept the
fact that farmers, whether in Quebec or elsewhere, are victims of
the system. I cannot understand why financial speculators now
have the upper hand, at the expense of those who have been
feeding us for generations.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): I cannot accept the fact that the
government wants to dismantle this system, since it will
jeopardize national security in Quebec and in the rest of Canada,
and leave us vulnerable to the actions of speculators on
international markets.
(1255)
How many generations of men and women worked to clear the
land? Thanks to their efforts, that land is now fertile and it
provides us with an abundance of products of all kinds. But the
Liberals want to sacrifice that.
Is it because Quebec controls 48 per cent of the industrial milk
market that the Liberal government wants to stop providing the
basics to dairy producers? Or is it simply that the Liberals in
Ottawa are continuing their crusade against dairy producers,
through the implementation of detrimental agricultural policies,
defined-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Dear colleagues, I ask for
your co-operation. I understand that, at times, the debate gets
somewhat heated.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): It is painful for the Liberal Party
whip to hear the truth. Yet, he represents an agricultural riding
from Ontario. He should understand the issues to which I am
referring and which exist in his predominantly French speaking
riding.
Since 1958, the dairy industry has always been protected and
supported under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which was
passed by a Conservative government. In 1986, Ottawa
approved a long-term dairy policy and authorized payments, to
dairy producers, of $6.03 per hectolitre of industrial milk having
3.6 kilograms of fats. That policy was implemented under the
Conservatives.
In 1991, the Conservative government abolished the
Agricultural Stabilization Act and replaced it with the Farm
Income
11470
Protection Act. That ended federal support to the dairy industry,
since this industry was excluded from the new agreement.
In its November 1992 budget speech, the Conservative
government announced its intention to reduce by 10 per cent the
level of subsidies to the dairy industry, and to apply similar
reductions to all subsidies and payments to the agricultural
sector.
Starting with the August 1, 1993 dairy year, and following
that decision, the federal government therefore reduced
payments to dairy producers from $6.03 down to $5.43 per
hectolitre. This is tragic.
So, this Liberal government simply had to confirm the
agricultural policy of the Conservatives to gain authority to set
the subsidy at $5.43 per hectolitre, starting with the April 1994
to March 1995 fiscal year. The more things change, the more
they remain the same.
The Conservatives used to run things and now the Liberals are
in office, but things have not changed at all. I am really amazed
when I read the government's objective in Part II of the Main
Estimates 1995-96, under Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Canadian Dairy Commission, on page 2-8, and I quote: ``To
provide efficient producers of milk and cream with the
opportunity of obtaining a fair return for their labour and
investment and to provide consumers with a continuous and
adequate supply of dairy products of high quality''. Is this what
a 15 per cent cut in revenue a year will achieve? No.
How inconsistent can the government get? It is as if milk
producers are not efficient and are obtaining too high a return for
their labour and investment. Go work on a farm for a week and
you will see how tough it is, how long the days are in an industry
where working hours are not tallied up. Worse still, with this
statement, the government is trying to reassure us that the
supply of dairy products will not be affected and that consumers
will even be able to benefit from this decrease in consumer
price. And there you have it. A little something for everyone.
What arrogance.
I have a final point to make today.
(1300)
Why is the federal government, the Liberal government, on
the one hand, providing a package of transition measures to the
tune of $1.6 billion for owners of prairie farm land in Western
Canada because it is terminating the freight-rate subsidies, but
on the other hand, is implementing no such transition measures
for Quebec farmers? Why have Western producers been given an
advantage over their Quebec counterparts?
Why does the federal government always apply a double
standard when it has to protect the interests of English-speaking
Canadians. Is that not just another sign that Canada is in fact
made up of two countries? Is that not a sign that there are two
countries in Canada, one in eastern Canada and one in western
Canada? The issue is not related to racism, but to the fact that we
have always had two different policies, since agriculture is not
the same in these two different regions. When we look at things,
we realize that Quebec has always been put at a disadvantage.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the speech made by the member for Shefford on the
impact of the dairy subsidy reduction on farmers was most
interesting, but I would like some clarifications. According to
my calculations, is it not possible that the elimination or the
reduction of this subsidy might result in an increase of up to 30
cents in the price of a pound of butter? Again, it is the working
poor who would be hardest hit by such an increase.
For someone who earns $50,000 a year, a 30 cent increase in
the price of butter is no big deal, but for a single parent who
earns $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000 a year, having to pay 30 cents
more for each pound of butter makes a big difference. Is this not
what might happen so that, in the end, it is the consumer who
will have to pay the price, which means that low-income
Canadians will be more directly affected than others?
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. I can only tell members of this House that dairy
producers will obviously feel insecure. Other agricultural
producers also have their own problems, but I wanted to talk
specifically about dairy producers today since we have agreed
that we should discuss all sectors of the agricultural industry. In
this sector, there will be a 15 per cent decrease in revenues,
which means, of course, that prices might or certainly will
increase.
I would also like to tell you that farmers, including dairy and
other producers, often have to keep investing and taking risks
after working for so many years, hoping for better things to
come. Before the farmers came the pioneers who cleared the
land on which our country is built, and we always had two
agricultural policies in Canada because we always had two
completely different systems.
As I was saying earlier, Canada and Quebec have two different
systems. Once we recognize that fact, it will be much easier to
negotiate. I think that Quebec has always been disadvantaged
compared to western Canada, and we have the figures to prove
it. I am not saying that western producers do not have any
problems. Of course they have very serious problems, but so do
dairy and other producers in Quebec and they cannot be left at a
disadvantage.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43(2), I would like to
indicate to you that Liberal members will be sharing their
allotted time for the rest of the day. Sir Winston Churchill once
made in the British House of Commons the following remarks
which the Chair did not find unparliamentary: ``The opposite of
the truth has never been expressed more accurately''. That is
exactly what I think of the remarks made by the hon. member I
just heard.
11471
(1305)
That Bloc Quebecois member just told us, as you could hear,
that there will be a 30 per cent reduction in dairy farmers's
income over two years. Mr. Speaker, you heard yourself those
nonsensical remarks made by a member of the House. I do not
know who wrote the hon. member's speech, but that person
should be fired immediately for writing such things. Yes, phone
him and fast.
I will now tell all Canadians in my riding, in Quebec and
throughout Canada what the facts really are: the milk subsidy is
now $5.43 per hectolitre, and it will reduced to $3.80, starting
August 1, 1996. This means there will be an 80 cent reduction a
year per hectolitre on an income of $54. Could members
opposite explain to me how they can suggest that an 80 cent
reduction on an income of $54 represents a 30 per cent cut?
What kind of number crunchers do they have to come up with
such figures?
The hon. member says it is in the budget. Mr. Speaker, the
member opposite should check the budget if he believes the
figures just given by the hon. member for Shefford. Besides, the
80 cent reduction applies only to industrial milk and not fluid
milk.
[English]
Assuming a 50-50 split on a farm of industrial and fluid milk,
we are talking about an overall reduction of 40 cents a hectolitre
on $54. The people across are alleging that it is a 30 per cent
reduction in revenue. Forty cents on $54 is less than 1 per cent.
That is the way the truth is being described by some hon.
members across.
[Translation]
No, Mr. Speaker, what we have heard today from the Bloc
Quebecois is quite frankly inflammatory and an attempt to scare
Canadians. Listen to what the hon. member for Frontenac says in
his motion: ``That this House denounce the government for
reducing the general budget of the Department of Agriculture by
19 per cent and milk subsidies by 30 per cent and for
converting-''. Now listen to this: if this is true, it means that
the reverse is also true of what was said by the hon. member for
Shefford, because that is not what he said. I continue to quote the
motion: ``-and for converting grain transportation subsidies
into direct subsidies to western farmers-''. And now listen to
this: ``-thereby enabling the latter to diversify and enjoy an
unfair competitive advantage over farmers in Eastern Canada.''
I just heard members insisting that farmers from other parts of
Canada enjoyed an unfair competitive advantage over those in
Eastern Canada.
Now this is divisive politics. The comments we heard from a
member a few moments ago are dangerous because they are an
invitation to Canadians, on false premises, to hate each other.
That is the kind of propaganda we are getting from some of the
members opposite, and I do not buy that.
[English]
I do not believe that western Canadian farmers have been
treated more fairly than farmers from another part of the
country. All governments in Canada, be they the Liberal
government now, the previous Conservative one or others, may
have made mistakes but they have not tried to pit one group of
Canadians against the other, the way it is alleged by some
members of this House of Commons today. To make that kind of
representation on the floor of the House of Commons is nothing
short of shameful. It is shameful.
(1310)
Let us get to the bottom of the issue. Members across the way
are talking about the reduction of 80 cents per hectolitre. It is
there and I will not deny it. It affects my constituents probably
more than the constituents of any other MP in Canada. I have
more dairy farmers in my riding than does anyone else in the
House. However, the fact still remains that the reduction of 80
cents per hectolitre in subsidy cannot be compared with the total
elimination of the Western Grain Transportation Act and the
one-time subsidy they will get in the transition.
[Translation]
If Bloc members claim that western farmers are treated better
and even enjoy an unfair advantage, according to the motion
before the House today, why do they not demand instead that
farmers and dairy producers be paid three years' worth of
subsidies immediately, as compensation for the elimination of
milk subsidies? I have yet to see one member of the Bloc request
the equivalent of what was offered to western farmers.
Why have they not asked for it, Mr. Speaker? Because dairy
producers are better off keeping the remaining 70 per cent of
dairy subsidies, as opposed to what was offered western
producers.
That is why we did not suggest it and that is why they did not
ask for it. In fact, I would not favour this option either. I would
rather keep the remaining 70 per cent.
I am not proud of these cuts, Mr. Speaker. No one is glad to
lose money. However, we know that sacrifices had to be made to
ensure the long-term viability of the agricultural sector and of
the whole Canadian economy. Our government made budget
cuts, but I do not think it acted unfairly. I am sure it did not want
to give anyone an unfair competitive advantage. I would urge
the member of the Bloc Quebecois to withdraw the allegation he
11472
made in referring to farmers elsewhere in Canada. It is not at all
helpful to debate, and he should be ashamed of making this
allegation, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have here an article from Le Droit the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is described as ``a lion
transformed into a mouse''.
If farmers had been attacked, or struck, or knocked about
when he was a member of the Opposition, the Liberal Party whip
would have made the exact same speech as the one he just gave,
but in reverse. Here it says that the member from the other side
is inflexible in the area of agriculture, he refuses any measure
affecting the farmers who make up a good portion of his
constituency, including Réjean Pommainville.
I have here a paper, Farm and Country, which is the
equivalent of our La terre de chez nous in Quebec. It says this
measure will cost farmers $56 per head of cattle. You heard me
right, $56 per head of cattle. Farmers in his riding have 60 head
of cattle each on average, and Réjean Pommainville has 75.
Multiply these figures by 56 and you will reduce the deficit that
the Liberals, among others, have generated year after year since
1970.
I have here notes from the press conference held last week by
the president of the UPA, the Quebec Union des producteurs
agricoles.
He spoke about the subsidy for industrial milk. I suggest my
colleague, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
phone the UPA and get information on this. I will gladly give
him the number if need be, like he did two weeks ago on Sunday
when he gave us a phone number where the information given
was exactly the opposite.
(1315)
The UPA's notes say this: $5.43 by hectolitre, a 30 per cent cut
over two years; I am honest, I say it. This does not represent 80
cents or even 90 cents. I would invite him to do the calculation:
$5.43 multiplied by 0.3 represent a $1.51 reduction by
hectolitre.
So, if a farmer has a quota of 2,500 hectolitres, it means a
contribution of $3,775 to the reduction of the deficit that the
member himself helped to create and, on top of that, he is cutting
the transport subsidy for feed, which is estimated at $10 per ton.
If this farmer buys 71 tons to feed his cows that will produce
2,500 hectolitres, he will have to contribute $710 more.
So, for the farmers in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the
average contribution is $4,485. The lion, the member of the rat
pack who got to be well known while in the opposition has
become a mouse. He should go and meet the people from the
UPA, he should visit the live animals auction houses to see the
big disappointment that the Liberal budget has created
throughout Quebec and throughout rural Canada.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the member
opposite for quoting the hon. member for Prince
Edward-Hastings. In fact, his quote from Farm and Country is
of a statement by the member for Prince Edward-Hastings.
However, he forgot half the sentence. The hon. member for
Prince Edward-Hastings did say: ``It is true, 80 cents a
hectolitre multiplied by 70 hectolitres comes out to $56 a cow''.
This is true. That is supposing that all of the milk of the producer
in question is industrial milk. As the average is usually 50-50,
the figures of the hon. member opposite are twice as high as they
should be.
I would like in addition, if I may, to talk about the matter of
the Coopérative Avicole de St-Isidore. We spoke of the
co-operative and of what the Coopérative Avicole de St-Isidore
had said. I quote from a letter dated March 27, 1995 to Mr. Don
Boudria, written on the Coopérative Avicole de St-Isidore
letterhead. I will read the rest and will be pleased to table this in
the House: ``Due to the rail strike, we no longer benefit from the
price guaranteed by the railways. We are forced to buy at market
prices, which are 20 per cent higher, thus increasing our
production costs. I hope you will be able to remedy the situation.
Yours truly, Alain Léger.''
This is dated March 27, 1995, that is, last Monday. I therefore
say to the hon. member opposite that I have proof in hand that
the price of soya was up 20 per cent. If he feels he has evidence
to the contrary, he should table it. But of course he has none.
No one celebrates when subsidies are upset, and one sector or
another in our society loses revenues. Granted, no one is
celebrating, but the cuts were made fairly and equitably by an
honest government wishing to do the best possible for
Canadians, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere.
The only thing I find lacking in the speeches by the hon.
members opposite is the fact that they did not check with head
office. I realize they are just a branch in Ottawa, but cuts were
made in Quebec to subsidies and services to the agricultural
sector, particularly in research. The hon. members opposite
have unfortunately forgotten this.
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
to take part in the debate today.
(1320 )
I would like to make a few comments at the outset to continue
where my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell left
off.
I had the opportunity and the privilege yesterday to spend
most of the day in the riding of Beauharnois-Salaberry, where I
met with 125 or 130 dairy farmers for a couple of hours after
lunch. During that time I spoke to them about what we had done
in the budget as far as agriculture is concerned. We talked about
the WGTA and the effects of that. I spoke about the changes to
the federal support for the industrial milk program. One gentle-
11473
man stood up and said: ``Yes, we know all about the budget. We
don't have a problem with the budget. We would like to have you
discuss with us the challenge the United States is putting
forward as far as supply management in Canada is concerned.''
There were no objections at all to what he said.
That is significant and indicative that the dairy farmers have
accepted it. They recognize that we are in a time of tremendous
change, tremendous opportunity and tremendous and
unprecedented challenges. The key words are that we are in a
time of unprecedented opportunity.
I had the opportunity yesterday to visit three family dairy
farms in the Ormstown area. They are excellent dairy farms,
tremendous dairy farms. They were not milking what I would
consider to be a lot of cows. They were getting excellent returns,
excellent production, and they were very well-managed farms.
I assured them this government understands and recognizes
the importance of those types of farming operations, the
importance of supply management, and that we are here to
support them.
I will put in context some of the figures the members opposite
have been throwing out-yes, throwing out. I can see the
member for Frontenac smiling right now. He is probably going
to try to quote some more from the newspaper he just quoted
from. He is smiling all the more; I know he is. He just cannot
wait until I get my 10 minutes in so he can get his 5 in. I would
ask him to quote completely.
I was simply stating the facts, that if 100 per cent of the milk
from the average cow in Canada today was used in the industrial
milk market, the 81 cents per hectolitre would mean $56 per
cow. I said in that article, and I believe I was quoted in that
article as saying, that yes, we recognize that is not a small
amount of money, but we have to put it in perspective. Any
decrease in anybody's income is significant. There is no
question about that.
However, I want to put it in perspective. For the average
producer in the province of Quebec, the decrease in their income
because of this change in the support to the industrial milk will
be $1,341 based on the production of industrial milk in the
1993-94 dairy year. I am not making light of the fact that this is
$1,341. It certainly is considerably different from an addition; it
is less.
As I said to the producers I chatted with yesterday, do not
underestimate or undersell what they in their industry have done
in the last number of years, including the manner in which they
have used the genetic gene pool in Canada to increase
production and the manner in which they have used management
practices to increase production in this country. If we look at
what our dairy industry has done in the last 12 to 15 years, they
have increased their production by incredible amounts.
I was in a barn yesterday near Ormstown, Quebec. I saw a cow
there and she was the best cow in the barn, I admit. If my
memory serves me correctly, that cow, in her last 365 days of
production, produced 30,000 pounds of milk. When my father
sold our dairy herd, a commercial working herd, in the
mid-1960s, I do not think my father had a cow that produced
over 8,000 or 9,000 pounds.
(1325 )
At that meeting of dairy farmers yesterday-I put this to
them-how many people would have thought 15 years ago that
we would see cows in Canada, the very top ones, producing
30,000 pounds of milk? The efficiency, and what the industry
has done, is absolutely phenomenal. I am proud to say they are
not finished yet. Yes, this is a challenge to the dairy industry, but
I have every confidence that it is one they can meet and beat.
Leading up to the budget we all said, in all parts of the House,
including the opposition in question period, that the budget, in
all aspects, must be fair, it must be equitable and it must be
effective. When we look at what we have done in agriculture, it
meets all those tests.
In question period and in the late show period I have
addressed to the member for Frontenac the concern about the
WGTA and how it affects the west versus eastern Canada, in
particular the province of Quebec. I want to state it again. Let us
make it clear that the $1.6 billion ex gratia payment that is being
made to the western Canadian grain growers is a one-time
payment. It is over. They get no further support on
transportation as of August 1 of this year.
The support to the industrial milk portion of the Quebec
production as of August 1 this year is still at 85 per cent of where
it was before versus zero to the grain export in western Canada.
The payment in western Canada is roughly equivalent to
ratcheting that payment down at the rate of about 10 per cent per
year over the next 10 years.
I have been asked by the minister to lead the consultation that
must take place over the next few months as far as what we
collectively, the government, the industry and all stakeholders
in the industry, do with the support to the industrial milk
program as time goes on. As we know, the budget stated very
clearly a 15 per cent reduction this year, a 15 per cent reduction
next year, but it does not address the size of the amount or if
there is money left after that.
The first meeting happened this morning in my office with the
chairman of the National Dairy Council. Meetings are being
arranged with the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the
Grocery Products Manufacturers, the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture, UPA, OFA and the different provincial marketing
boards so that we can continue having consultations with all of
11474
them to find out how they want to treat the remainder of that as
we go forward.
The total support in the last year was about $228 million. That
will be reduced 15 per cent this year. It is going to be about $193
million. I point out that out of that $228 million, $106,106,000
went to the province of Quebec. That is because they have 47 per
cent of the industrial milk production.
The question is put forward: with the 1981 census being
reduced this year, can that be recovered from the marketplace? I
addressed that as well in the article, from which the member
may quote me. That discussion is there.
The minister has been very clear. He does not wish to make a
statement on that at this time. There are ongoing discussions
about the cost-of-production formula. In a responsible way, all
participants in the dairy industry have taken a look at the
recovery of their costs from the marketplace for the farmers for
their milk. They did that in a responsible way before. In doing
so, they considered what an increase in the price of raw milk to
the processors would mean to the processors and what the
processors might have to do with the cost of the product they
produce for the Canadian consumer.
I want to point out as well that the dairy industry-I believe
that is what the opposition is probably hinting at here today-as
well as the supply-managed sector, but in particular the dairy
industry, is not subject, because of the protection we were able
to keep, to the tariffication in GATT, the high levels of tariff,
which is deserving. Those producers certainly deserve a return
on their investment, on their risk and on their management. The
efficient producers deserve a fair return. It is there for them. It is
what the level of tariff protection provides for them.
(1330)
I must also remind members that their production is not
subject to the vagaries and challenges as much. Ninety per cent
of their production is domestic, it is not on the export market.
However the grain producers in western Canada are totally at the
whim of world markets. Our supply managed producers are not
subjected to that.
They have a tremendous amount of built-in support. It is not
something that one can put a dollar value on by getting out a
bunch of charts, sheets and graphs and adding up a bunch of
figures. It is there. We are proud to have it there. We are going to
fight to the last straw the challenge of the United States.
Every indication we have is that GATT overrides NAFTA as
far as what we have done in the past. The Prime Minister has told
the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the president
of the UPA to their faces-the minister and I were present at that
meeting-that what we have done as Canadians is right. We are
going to fight for it. That is the way we are going to go.
We also have to recognize, and the dairy industry does, that
even though reforms have been made, still more reforms will
have to be made. The way I have referred to it for a number of
years is that they have done it in the past and can continue to do
so The dairy industry has shown it can roll with the punches. It
has been successful in its genetics management, marketing, and
so on. I could go on. The producers are an important link in that
chain. The processors are an important link. There is some
export. The consumers are an important link.
It is important that every efficient link in that chain has a fair
return on investment and the risk involved in the industry. We
will fight to maintain that. We look forward to the co-operation
of the Bloc Quebecois in doing so not only for the farmers in
Quebec but for the farmers in all of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I would like to cordially congratulate the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture for his contribution to
the debate today the purpose of which is to expose the unjustness
of the particular treatment that the government will unfairly
give to the west.
I found it particularly entertaining, since he knows the
farming sector so well, when he talked about cows producing
astronomical quantities of milk. I am proud to announce that in
1990, the champion milk producer, a Holstein cow, lived in my
riding, in the parish of Plessisville.
I would also like to say that the parliamentary secretary
certainly must frequent different dairy producers than I do. I
have with me a photocopy of an editorial by Claude Rivard
which was published in the newspaper Le producteur de lait
québécois. Mr. Rivard is no small fry. He is the president for
Quebec and vice-president of Dairy Farmers of Canada.
Obviously, the title of his editorial is ``The federal government's
heavy hand''.
I would now like to contradict what the parliamentary
secretary said regarding research and development in the
farming sector. Mr. Martin's axe has not just nicked dairy and
transportation subsidies. The government has announced that it
intends to completely withdraw from all dairy control programs
within three years. How can we produce world champion cows
with no control in the sector? Research and development are the
cornerstones of dairy production.
11475
(1335)
Had it not been for previous governments investing public
funds in genetics and milk recording, we would still be like
some Latin American and South or North African countries.
Within three years, the federal government will have withdrawn
from the industry and be quite proud of itself.
In 1990, the top dairy cow in Canada was in the parish of
Plessisville. Yet, in 1995, the government cuts funding. It
announces plans to cut it completely within three years.
The hon. parliamentary secretary raised another interesting
point in his remarks. He said, and this is true, that, in Ontario,
milk production is about 50 per cent for industrial use and 50 per
cent for drinking. In Quebec, this is not the case, of course.
Does he not realize that years of relentless work have gone
into milk pricing? We are in the process of narrowing the gap
and, 16 or 17 months from now, on August 1, 1996, we should
have achieved uniformity in milk pricing.
However, by cutting $1.51 per hectolitre off the price of
industrial milk, he just increased the price differential between
the two again. Of course, milk producers are digging into the
temporary equivalent stabilization fund but there is hardly any
money left in this fund. I know what is going to happen. The
government will boast, saying: ``We did not raise taxes; we did
not have the heart to do that''. It cuts its tax transfers to the
provinces, forcing the provinces to cut their transfers to the
municipalities and, in turn, the municipalities will be forced to
increase our property taxes.
What will milk producers do come August 1? They will go to
the Canadian Dairy Commission and ask that the price of their
industrial milk be raised. Then, milk processors will raise the
price of butter, cheese, yogurt and ice cream by 25, 30, 35 cents a
pound. And the government will say: ``But we are not increasing
taxes''. What it takes away from one group, this group has to
make others pay for.
Mr. Marchand: Hypocrisy.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Hypocrisy, indeed, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member for
Frontenac had paid more attention because I did not say
anything about research and development and he rose and said
that I had. As far as his comments on genetic evaluation and
milk recording are concerned, he should be informed, if he is not
already, that the dairy farmers of Canada have been quite willing
to sit down with the government to talk about getting involved in
the management of genetic evaluation and the milk recording
program. They recognize as producers they will benefit from
that. The government is working very closely with them on the
transition in order for them to be able to do that.
No part of the argument he made explains why he cannot still
have the top dairy cow in Canada in his riding, other than the fact
that he wants to hold on to his seat because probably someone in
the Prince Edward-Hastings riding may very well take that
record away from them. There are some very good dairy
producers in Prince Edward-Hastings.
I thank and commend the province of Quebec for the role it is
playing in the ongoing discussions to work toward a one-pool
price system for milk in Canada. Most of the provinces
recognize that is the direction in which we are going to have to
go and should go in order for us to meet easier the challenges
coming from outside the borders of the country.
In conclusion, I would point out to members opposite, as the
minister did, that with respect to their reference to the balance
between what was done in the WGTA versus the dairy industry,
the WGTA reform package is not in any way inconsistent with
the position set out by the Quebec coalition on the WGTA in a
letter to the minister of December 1994. They are here barking
up one tree while their representatives have told the minister in
the past that they agree with the manner in which it was handled.
(1340)
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to inform you that from now on my
colleagues and I will be splitting our time.
It is always a pleasure to speak on agriculture, especially
when the motion is introduced by the Bloc. I always enjoy the
attitude its members take toward agriculture. They know how
important it is. I appreciate that even if we do not always agree
on certain issues. They know fundamentally that agriculture is
the basis of Quebec as it is in western Canada. The Liberals will
get educated. Some day they will listen. They are starting to
listen already.
On the farm we always say that the pasture always looks
greener on the other side of the fence. That is probably true in
Quebec as well as in western Canada. Maybe it is time for
Quebecers to take a rest from the milking industry, buy some
farmland in western Canada and start grain farming. It would be
a real pleasure to have them there working side by side. Then
they would really appreciate some of the problems that the grain
farmers have had in the last few years.
Their non-votable opposition motion says that grain farmers
will be enabled to diversify. That is a little harsh or maybe not
quite correct. Grain farmers will be forced to diversify. Not very
many grain farmers today would love to jump into the dairy
11476
industry or the beef industry and take some jobs and production
away from people who are in that farming industry.
I have spoken with a number of dairy farmers in Manitoba
during the last couple of weeks. They sometimes look very
jealously toward Quebec and say: ``Why can we not have some
of that quota? They only have one-quarter of the population and
have 48 per cent of the milk quota''.
I have said to them: ``Why do we not solve this whole problem
of separation? Why do some of you people not go and buy up
some of those dairy farms in Quebec and start farming?'' If we
could get some of the Quebec dairy farmers into western
Canada, maybe the separation issue could be solved. Maybe we
could understand each other a little better.
I would much rather have some of the Quebec people come
into western Canada and buy some of the grain farms than the
Europeans. I make this invitation to them.
The other thing I would like to address today is some of the
unfairness that they are talking about. It is not due to the
agriculture practices of the farmers. It is due to some of the
previous governments' overspending and over taxation. That is
causing us some of the problems.
I see some of the hon. members on the other side shaking their
heads. They must agree with that. If we can agree on some of
these problems, maybe we can find some of the solutions.
An hon. member: The last government was no good.
Mr. Hoeppner: I agree fully with the hon. member but there
was a Liberal government before that one that I would say was
no good. This is a difference of opinion probably.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Alcock: I am with you.
Mr. Hoeppner: I am always encouraged when I hear hon.
members turning up the tempo a bit. Newborn babies have to
scream a lot to exercise their lungs so that they become healthy
and viable later. I always feel very glad that I can be of
assistance to some of these members.
An hon. member: Watch that-
(1345 )
Mr. Hoeppner: We are getting to them. Just give us another
six months and who knows?
I was just going to address some of the unnecessary things that
are happening in the farm community, which are hurting us. I
would like to read part of a statement made by a witness who was
before the Standing Committee on Transportation. He said:
``Unnecessary costs should not be recovered from users.
Industry has funded, through seaway tolls, close to $35 million
in costs that reflect labour inefficiencies, including surplus
personnel and termination benefits, double taxation brought
about by large corporation taxes and costs associated with
tunnels and bridges in the Beauharnois Canal.''
I was never aware that grain farmers in western Canada were
paying for some of the maintenance costs of some of the bridges
across the St. Lawrence Seaway. I find it very hard to swallow
that and say it is fair. It is there and it has to be addressed. What
politicians and industry are going to do about it I do not know,
but it has to be addressed if we want to keep shipping our
products through the seaway.
I have another bit of information I would like to read as an
example. In the fall of 1990, the Laurentian Pilotage Authority,
after negotiations with the pilot association with which it has
contracts, agreed to increases totalling 32.12 per cent and 29.6
per cent over three years. That is at least a 10 per cent increase
per year.
On the farm during those three years we have seen prices of
our products decrease probably by 30 per cent. It is a real
hardship for us to absorb some of these costs.
Some of these pilots earn on average from $115,000 to
$156,000 a year for about a nine-month year. Nobody in the
farming industry has some type of labour contract or wages that
come close to that. This is why I am saying that some of the
transportation subsidies that have been directed toward
transportation are not going to the farmers. They are going to
some of the inefficiencies and the high-priced labour as
compared to agriculture.
I was really astounded and kind of encouraged the other day
when I saw one of the Bloc members ask the question about the
unfairness of the 8.9 per cent that was collected by the pilotage
authorities from shippers. They received a very bad answer from
the minister, as far as I was concerned, because these costs are
actually borne by the shippers and later passed on to the
producers or the manufacturers who use the shipping lines.
The NTA recommended that there should be a zero increase.
The NTA is supposed to regulate these costs. What did this
Liberal government do? It overruled it and gave them another
8.9 per cent after the 30 per cent in the last three years. These are
costs that we as grain farmers have to observe; not just in
shipping our products, but we also have to pay part of the costs
of all the steel and all the iron ore that is shipped in to produce
equipment.
Those are some of the things that are unfair as far as farmers
and shippers are concerned.
I have tried to warn the seaway authorities and especially
some of the people on the other side that if things do not change,
if they are not turned around, and we receive a fairer equity in
transportation costs, the seaway will not see much of the grain in
future years that is produced in Manitoba and west.
11477
I would just like to read a little statement from the Winnipeg
Free Press dated February 19. This is the agricultural writer and
he states: ``Hello, Mississippi River. Goodbye, Thunder Bay.''
This is not a farmer saying this.
The famous American waterway may become the new route for shipping
Manitoba grain when Ottawa tackles the grain transportation subsidy policy later
this year.
Canadian Wheat Board studies already show that if the influence of Canadian
grain transportation subsidies is removed, it's cheaper to ship grain down the
Mississippi than through the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Selkirk farmer Rask Klagenberg says farmers will insist on access to the
American river.
(1350 )
The House can see that this is not just what farmers are
saying; this is something other people are reporting on, and it is
a matter of fact. We have to address it.
One thing that really amazes me is why farm organizations
have not pointed these issues out so we can address them before
we get into such a predicament. I just happened to get a report
from Manitoba Pool Elevators or Prairie Pools Inc. This is what
they say in their brief: ``In 1993 the property taxes paid by
terminal elevator owners at the port of Vancouver were on an
average five to six times higher than for similar sized terminals
in the U.S. port of Seattle''. That seems very high already and it
seems disastrous as far as grain farmers are concerned.
Now listen to what they say about Thunder Bay: ``Property
taxes paid by terminal owners at Thunder Bay were more than 25
times higher than property taxes paid for similar sized terminals
at the U.S. port of Duluth''. How can we be competitive with
those types of exorbitant taxes and over-pricing?
They go on further in their report to say: ``Canada's two
railways pay more than $640 million annually in fuel, sales and
property taxes, while the U.S. rail system receives tax
incentives to maintain rail services''.
Those are some of problems we in the grain industry are
fighting with. I hope we can resolve them and that we can keep
the jobs in Canada before they are exported to the U.S., which
we have seen with a lot of other industries.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
the Reform member just pointed out, there are two solitudes in
Canada. Farmers in his part of the country feel that they are
treated unfairly, and so do farmers in Quebec, particularly dairy
producers. It is my duty to remind this House of some very
eloquent figures regarding federal spending in the agricultural
sector.
I randomly selected two years. In 1980, the federal
government spent 55 per cent of its budget for agriculture in
western Canada, compared to 16.4 per cent in Quebec-I
mention the decimal because it is significant, considering that
the total percentage is a mere 16 per cent. In 1993, the federal
spent 60 per cent in western Canada, compared to 12.4 per cent
in Quebec. So, we have 55 and 60 per cent for western provinces,
compared to 16.4 and 12.4 per cent for Quebec.
Yet, Quebec generates 17 per cent of Canada's revenues in the
agricultural sector. As you know, Quebecers account for 24 per
cent of Canada's population. Let us look at a specific
agricultural industry, such as potato growing. In terms of
cultivated acreage, from 1981 to 1991, there was a 30 per cent
increase in the West, compared to a 2 per cent decrease in
Quebec. In the case of cattle, the production rose by 4 per cent in
the West, while dropping by 13 per cent in the East.
As for hogs, there was a 39 per cent increase in the West and a
16-per-cent reduction in Quebec. Finally, the sheep population
increased by 33 per cent in the West, compared to 8 per cent in
Quebec. It is the same for every industry. This is what we mean
when we say that this western diversification is done with our
taxes.
(1355)
Quebecers will actually pay to face unfair competition. This
is what we are denouncing today. And I can tell Reform and
Liberal members that every time Quebecers will be treated
unfairly, the Bloc will raise its voice loud and clear.
[English]
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those remarks, and
they are probably very accurate.
I am very concerned that we do not have an environmental
catastrophe in Quebec. Because of all the tears that I have seen
being shed in Quebec lately, their fresh drinking water might
turn into salt water. What are we going to do then? I would hate
to see that.
I agree with some of these comments. I would also like to
point out that when we look at the total budget of agriculture,
which is around 2 per cent, or perhaps even less, of the whole
budget, agriculture at least brings back 8 per cent of the gross
national product. We provide 15 per cent of the jobs in
agriculture. It is a very important sector that we have probably
been neglecting, whether it is Quebec or western Canada. I
would sure appreciate the Bloc's help rather than criticism in
trying to rectify this.
I still maintain that a country is only as strong as its
agriculture. The sooner we learn to stand on our feet to take the
problems and solve them together, and not through divisiveness,
we will have a better country to live in, whether it is Quebec or
western Canada. That is what I would really like to stress.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member who just spoke.
11478
I have just come from a luncheon here on Parliament Hill in
support of the National 4-H Citizenship Seminar, where 4-H
members have an opportunity to learn about parliamentary
activities. They are young agricultural enthusiasts who can
communicate very well to parliamentarians about the need to
support agriculture.
Can the member, representing an agricultural area of our
country, tell us about his support for Canadian 4-H and how
important that program is to all Canadians?
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
I have always been very supportive of the 4-H program. The
Reform Party is very supportive as well of that program and also
very supportive of any R and D in agriculture. Those two things
probably go together.
When it comes to protecting and promoting agriculture, I am
never in the backbenches; I am always in the front seat. I will
continue that way, and I appreciate having that opportunity.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it being 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 35, the House will now proceed to statements by
members.
_____________________________________________
11478
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to acknowledge the special
effort of a number of my constituents who have joined together
to host a very special event in my riding.
On May 6 and 7 of this year the committee will launch High
Hopes-Looking Back, Flying Forward, a special 50th
anniversary celebration of V-E Day at the Muskoka airport.
This two-day family event brings together veterans,
historians, aviation industry representatives, international
dignitaries, pilots and aircraft enthusiasts to promote and foster
appreciation for all things connected to air travel. The show
features appearances by a Lancaster bomber, the B-25 Mitchell,
World War I replicas, a C-130 Hercules, plus a Tigermoth and a
Grasshopper among others.
The idea was given flight both as a tribute to those who served
in World War II and a way to encourage economic activity at the
Muskoka airport, which has long been recognized as an
important link to our local economy.
My congratulations go out to the promoters of High Hopes for
the energy and spirit they have brought to this project.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Immigration spoke against a motion presented by one of her
Liberal colleagues. The motion reminded Quebecers and
Canadians that any country or political group that resorts to
genocide commits a crime against humanity.
Our amendment used the Armenian genocide which the
Canadian government continues to ignore, as an example that
such barbaric acts should never be forgotten.
The hon. member was probably bowing to the government's
new priorities in foreign affairs, where business interests are
now more important than promoting human rights and freedoms
in this world.
The government's refusal to review the sale of its CF-5
fighter planes to Turkey, despite the Turkish offensive against
the Kurds, is a case in point.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after reassuring Canadians through legislation that
lacrosse remains a national sport, just one year later lacrosse is
once more fighting for recognition.
Who did the Canadian people vote to make decisions for
them, the 295 MPs elected in October 1993 or those few
deciding which sports to fund? Yes, cuts have to be made.
However, the guidelines and their implementation for the
allocation of funds are unfair.
With one day's notice lacrosse lost 60 per cent of its funding.
The process is wrong. Those making the decisions have lost
sight of the fact that lacrosse, our national sport, has been
ignored for the past 60 years, whereas hockey remains strong
because of their constant support.
I remind the House that in 1904 Canada sent its first
delegation to the Olympic games. Lacrosse is the only team
sport in which Canada has won more medals than the rest of the
world combined.
Lacrosse is growing in population yearly, especially after last
year's Commonwealth games. Our Canadian youth need our
support to keep them playing lacrosse.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was very
disturbed by news reports suggesting that a youth in Edmonton
11479
had been refused a place on a waiting list for a lung transplant
apparently because he has Down's Syndrome.
Terry Urquhart, a Special Olympics winner, has led a positive
and fruitful life within the parameters of his disability. This
child and others like him are not to be denied the right, and it is a
right, to the same medical treatment and procedures that any
other Canadian is entitled to. I was very pleased to learn the
hospital has reversed its decision and I compliment it for that.
I am very alarmed about possible implications of this incident
on the lives of the disabled. I call on the decision or policy
makers in similar situations to immediately reconsider such ill
conceived positions. I call on the health minister and the justice
minister to ensure this is done.
Let there be no misunderstanding, let there be no mistake,
Canada does not have one set of rules for persons with
disabilities and another for those without. All Canadians are
equal. Discrimination in any form is unacceptable.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as chair of the German-Canadian Friendship Group, I
am pleased to have this opportunity to welcome the vice
president of the German Bundestag, Hans-Ulrich Klose and
fellow delegates.
I am delighted the delegation is able to come to Canada. I
hope it enjoys Canadian hospitality and learns about our great
country. Canada shares a long history with Germany, a
relationship which has grown and strengthened in recent years.
I would like to thank Germany for its support and leadership
with the EU councils. Germans have made every effort to help
find a solution to the fish crisis which will help preserve the fish
stocks on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.
In 1994 the German presidency of the EU worked more
closely with Canada than ever before. Also, thanks to the
strength of the Deutschmark, there were more German tourists
visiting Canada in 1994 than ever before.
In the name of friendship and continued relations,
Wilkommen zu Kanada.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 27 Corporal Neil Bernard McKinnon was killed in a
training accident at Canadian Forces Base Suffield. Warrant
Officer Kirk Drew suffered serious injuries in this unfortunate
accident. Both men were members of the Princess Patricia's
Canadian Light Infantry.
Corporal McKinnon was only 24 years old. He served Canada
proudly and well as a peacekeeper during two tours of duty in the
former Yugoslavia, far away from his home and his family in
Sydney River, Nova Scotia. It saddens us all that he paid the
ultimate price in service to his country. He truly will be missed.
I ask members of the House to join me in offering our
condolences to Neil's family and to wish Warrant Officer Drew a
speedy recovery from his injuries.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Refugee
Rights Day is celebrated every year in Canada on April 4, to
commemorate the
Singh judgment. This year we commemorate
the tenth anniversary of a decision by the Supreme Court of
Canada to extend the application of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms to refugees.
One hundred and twenty-five million people have had to
leave their countries or towns as a result of ethnic conflict or
civil war, including 23 million refugees who are victims of
persecution.
(1405)
Considering the current backlash against refugees in
Canadian public opinion, the government should start a
campaign to make the public aware of our responsibility to
welcome these people and aware of the need for openness and
tolerance and of Canada's international obligations to refugees.
I want to express my support for and solidarity with refugees
and the organizations dedicated to defending them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for the last 15 years warnings have trumpeted the fact
that the west coast fishery was heading into trouble. Therefore,
it came as no surprise that the Fraser report concluded the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans was completely out of
touch with the reality of what happened to the salmon stocks
returning for spawning. That fact had been backed up by
numerous task forces in the past and continues to this day.
I implore the minister to go back to the generalist format for
the DFO officers, to listen to the DFO officers who are working
in the trenches, not necessarily the bureaucracy, to enforce the
11480
law equally for all people who are fishing, to ensure that we have
a sustainable fishery on the west coast for future generations,
and to ensure that what happened on the east coast does not
happen on the west coast.
The writing is on the wall. Let us not ignore it.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
when it comes to speaking up for Ontario, the 98 Liberal Ontario
members sure are quiet. This is especially true for MPs from the
city of Toronto.
The Liberal government has decided to eliminate all funding
to Harbourfront, a world class cultural centre set up by the
Trudeau government. It was originally set up to run in perpetuity
by revenues from the original development but, as with most
Liberal plans, it fell through.
The Liberals promised funding for Harbourfront but has left it
high and dry. The Toronto Liberal caucus chair will not
comment about this latest broken Liberal promise. The entire
Liberal caucus will not comment on any of the 20 broken
promises to Ontario. Why not? It is embarrassed with its record
of broken promises, in particular its betrayal of medicare,
education and job creation. Rather than account for its betrayal
to Ontario it wrongly blames the NDP government.
The people of Ontario are learning their lesson of false
Liberal promises as other Canadians have learned first hand.
Liberals, Tories, same old stories.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
April and spring is here, at least in British Columbia. The
daffodils are in full bloom and so is the Canadian Cancer
Society's fundraising campaign.
Since 1938 the Canadian Cancer Society has tried to eradicate
cancer and sought to better the lives of people suffering from
this terrible disease. Cancer research has resulted in many
breakthrough treatments over the years. In 1979 the five-year
survival rate for childhood leukaemia was 17 per cent. Today,
thanks to advancements in research and rehabilitation, it is 83
per cent. The Canadian Cancer Society also helped to fund the
recent discovery of a breast cancer gene that will enhance
prevention.
Despite our small victories, the fight against cancer is not
over. In 1995 alone 126,000 Canadians will be diagnosed with
cancer and 62,000 will die from the disease.
Therefore, this April I urge all Canadians to give generously
to the Canadian Cancer Society volunteer who comes their door.
Together we can give not only money but hope to the thousands
of Canadians suffering from cancer.
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
congratulate my legislative assistant for the past seven years, as
he won the Ontario Liberal Party nomination in the riding of
Chatham-Kent last week.
Mike Ferguson has provided me and the great people of Kent
County with loyal and dedicated service. No problem was too
big or too small as he worked one on one with my constituents.
Bob Rae is spending $8 million a day to get re-elected. The
NDP's $10 billion deficit is a sorry example next to seven
provinces that now have balanced budgets. The Ontario NDP
debt is increasing by $1 million an hour. We need a practical,
common sense, balanced budget approach which Mike and the
Ontario Liberals can bring to this province. A Liberal candidate
has now been nominated in every riding in Ontario, while the
Conservatives must place want ads to find people to represent
yesterday's party.
I wish Mike and all Liberals-
The Speaker: The hon. member for London West.
* * *
(1410 )
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I feel
compelled to respond to sentiments expressed by at least one
member of the Reform Party regarding the denial of asylum for
females fearing genital mutilation. I spoke last fall at the
inter-parliamentary union on this topic. Countries cannot use
culture as an excuse to deny women human rights. Women's
rights are human rights.
Canada's commitment to equality for women is rooted in the
belief that equal rights for women are an essential and inherent
component of progress on overall human rights and democratic
development.
Female genital mutilation in Canada can be prosecuted under
a number of sections of our Criminal Code. Female genital
mutilation is a brutal expression of patriarchal power. It is child
torture.
Canada should and does lead the world with our gender
persecution guidelines. These, like many other issues, require
understanding and compassion, not rhetoric.
11481
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after
all the criticism directed by Cree Chief Matthew Coon-Come
against the James Bay agreement and Hydro-Québec, it was
encouraging yesterday to hear what was said by Montagnais
Chief Élie Jacques Jourdain in Washington, where he explained
the benefits of the Sainte-Marguerite hydroelectric project for
his community.
The agreement between the Montagnais and Hydro-Québec
will boost the economy and employment in the region.
According to Chief Jourdain, the agreement will protect the way
of life and culture of the Montagnais, since the Montagnais' two
conditions were met, namely that the agreement will not
adversely affect their ancestral territorial rights and will make
them equal partners.
I also wish to commend Chief Jourdain and negotiator Konrad
Sioui for having the courage to say in public what many
aboriginal people think: a real partnership between Quebec and
aboriginal peoples is feasible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on paper we have a health care system that sounds
great. The Minister of Health and the Prime Minister are always
talking about the five principles in the Canada Health Act-lots
of talk with little action.
Our health care system, successfully pioneered in a regional
health district in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, is crumbling. On
paper health care in Canada is accessible. In reality the waiting
lists for major surgery are growing. On paper health care is
universal; however, different provinces cover different services
and prescriptions in their health plans.
As the population ages, demand for health services is rising
while the proportion of people paying for services is dropping.
Debt servicing costs are rising while federal health funding is
falling. How long will this have to continue before the
government takes action rather than reading a paper called the
Canada Health Act?
On paper Canada has a world class health care system. In
reality when Canadians are sick or injured they have the right to
be put immediately on a world class waiting list.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this week is National Emergency Medical Services
Week. We want to take this opportunity to stress the vital role
played by health professionals in emergency medical services.
Anyone who has ever had to use these services will appreciate
what is done by the people who work in this area.
[English]
I wish to commend and congratulate the Canadian
Confederation of Ambulance Service Associations and its
president, Mr. René Berthiaume, for their devotion and
enthusiasm as well for their involvement in national emergency
medical services week.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to inform the House about an act of generosity that
was rendered by a citizen of Canada and a constituent of mine.
Mr. Brian Oxley of Scarborough travelled to Romania to help
and advise local manufacturers engaged in glass production.
Mr. Oxley was a volunteer advisor working overseas for
Canadian Volunteer Advisors to Business, otherwise known as
CESO. Since it was founded in 1967, CESO has been providing
Canadian volunteer advisors to businesses and organizations in
Canada's aboriginal communities, developing nations and
emerging market economies in central and eastern Europe.
CESO volunteers are skilled Canadians, men and women,
usually retired, who willingly share their lifetime of practical
experience with those who need it most.
This merits congratulations to all concerned. I congratulate
Mr. Oxley for his outstanding contribution.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I asked the minister of agriculture whether farmers
who deliver grain to the elevator before July 31 will have to pay
the full freight rate for their crop if it is not shipped out of the
elevator until after August 1.
(1415)
The minister confirmed that farmers who sold their grain to
the Canadian Wheat Board and delivered it to the elevator
11482
before July 31 will end up paying the full freight rate if the grain
was shipped to the terminal after August 1.
This position was not made clear in the budget. Farmers were
led to believe that as long as the grain was in the elevator by July
31 the Crow benefit would apply. Now farmers find out this is
not true. They may be stuck with paying the full freight rate even
if their grain was in the elevator before July 31 deadline.
The minister should have been straightforward with farmers
about this deadline in the first place. Farmers will end up paying
the full freight rate on some of the grain they deliver before the
end of this crop year.
_____________________________________________
11482
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the budget announced a series of reforms that
would consolidate transfer payments as a single
payment-considerably downsized, by the way-the Canada
Social Transfer. This announcement reflects Ottawa's
disengagement from social programs financing. Instead of
giving the provinces this much vaunted flexibility and
autonomy, it wants to impose new national standards for health
care, social assistance and post-secondary education.
How can the minister claim that his government wants to
ensure that all Canadians have access to adequate services, when
at the same time it substantially reduces its commitment to
social programs by transferring its financial responsibilities to
the provinces which already have serious financial problems?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the provincial Premiers and all provincial governments
are now analysing their respective programs, and we have done
the same at the federal level. Everyone realizes that as far as
government spending is concerned, we must reduce the pressure
on the taxpayer. We have informed the provinces of our position.
They have been aware of that position since December 1993,
when we told them that we would eventually introduce a system
but would give them two years to get ready.
In the February budget brought down by the Minister of
Finance they were informed of the nature of federal cuts. The
provinces had already made some cuts of their own, and they
will continue to do so because we believe that at all levels of
government, it is possible to offer the right kind of service
without spending as much as we did in the past.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, how does the government expect to be taken
seriously when it says it wants to co-operate with the provinces,
when it excluded them from the forum on health, for instance,
and the budget's enabling legislation gives them no more than a
purely advisory role in defining national standards?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition
that as far as the forum on health is concerned, we said no, we
did not want the provinces to be there. Later on, we invited them,
but they refused to come.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Now listen, they persuaded
me to invite them, and then the opposition asked me to invite
them. I was very nice about it, so I did. Once they were invited,
they decided not to come. Do not blame me, I listened to you.
Blame them.
As for the remainder of the hon. member's question, if we
want to have national standards across the country, which is
normal, it is because of manpower mobility in Canada and also
because we have a minimum of respect for all members of the
Canadian community. We must establish a satisfactory
minimum for all Canadians across the country in the areas of
health care, social assistance and similar services.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, may I remind you to
address the Chair in your questions and answers?
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the provinces are told: «We do not want you
around». It was their understanding that they were not wanted.
How can the Prime Minister talk about flexible federalism
when he threatens to cut federal contributions even more if the
provinces do not respect national standards for the Canada
Social Transfer? In other words, will he have the courage to put
his cards on the table at a federal-provincial conference?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we had occasion to discuss that at the different
federal-provincial meetings I had with the provinces, along
with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Generally speaking, provinces recognize we have to reduce
the cost of these programs. The best way to do that is by
collaboration between the provinces and the federal
government. We have to reduce our spending.
(1420)
As I explained earlier, when some provinces including
Quebec cut $500 million in health services in December they
were not returning any of that money to us even if we had made a
strong contribution to that level of payment.
11483
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans has confirmed that Canada and the
European Union reached agreement in principle yesterday in the
turbot dispute, subject to approval by cabinet and the officials of
the European Union. With Spain and Portugal's rejection of it,
the European Union has called for the reopening of the
agreement in order to wring even more concessions from
Canada and thus bring the negotiations to a standstill.
Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirm that the
European Union, under pressure from Spain, in particular, has
rejected the agreement in principle, thus bringing us back to the
starting point?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
I can confirm that what has just been proposed is not correct.
Negotiations as we speak are ongoing in Brussels. Good
progress is being made. I understand there has been a report,
which no doubt the member has seen, which in effect states that
the EU has rejected the draft agreement. This is not correct.
Good progress is being made and Canada hopes that in due
course these negotiations will conclude successfully.
As we have always said, our first and primary interest is and
remains an effective conservation regime and the means to bring
about proper enforcement to protect these straddling stocks.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans appear so optimistic about the
outcome of the negotiations, when the Spanish prime minister,
Felipe Gonzalez, said that Spain was definitely rejecting the
terms of the agreement in principle?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is because Canada is negotiating with the
European Union. It is a bilateral negotiation involving Canada
and the European Union. Negotiations continued non-stop
through the weekend. Progress was made each and every day
through the weekend and continues even today. It is a matter for
the European Union to deal with the views whether they be
unanimous or not of each of the member states.
With respect to the negotiating table, Canada and the
European Union sit at that table and progress to this point is
being made.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there seems to be growing confusion throughout the
country concerning the federal government's intentions with
respect to health care funding.
The health minister and the Prime Minister have both hinted
that funding could be reduced by up to $16 billion or 2 per cent
of GDP and that Canadians in future will not receive the same
degree of coverage that they have in the past. At the same time,
the government has also suggested that health care funding
should be simply frozen or flat lined.
My question is for the health minister. What precisely is the
government's agenda for reforming health care, in particular
reforming the scope of health care services and health care
financing?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, while the direct responsibility for health care remains
with the provinces, we intend to continue to enforce the
principles of the Canada Health Act. That act has given us one of
the finest medicare systems in the world.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I asked the minister to reduce the confusion caused, not
to add to it.
Last month the Prime Minister spoke in favourable terms
about bringing Canada's health care spending more in line with
that of European countries. The Prime Minister must realize
however that almost all of those European countries to which he
refers have a private health care backup to the public system
which is how they get more bang for their health care buck.
(1425 )
Does the health care minister support the Prime Minister's
recommendation that Canada's health care funding should
become more like that of Europe? Does she have a concrete plan
for bringing that reform about?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course I support the Prime Minister. The Prime
Minister has repeatedly said that this country will continue to
have a universal medicare system.
Thirty-two years ago today our Prime Minister was first
elected as a member of Parliament to the House of Commons.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Marleau: Mr. Speaker, during those 32 years our Prime
Minister was present for the creation and the building of the best
medicare system in the world. Our Prime Minister has nothing
to learn from the Reform Party which advocates two-tier
medicine.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
11484
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that sounded more like a job security speech to me than
a health care issue.
In a March 15 speech the Prime Minister promised to uphold
the five pillars of medicare but he could not tell his audience
how he would do it. In a March 4 speech the health minister
encouraged the provinces to experiment broadly with health
care delivery and yet refused to say what powers the provinces
would be given to do that job.
My last question is for the finance minister. How long will
Canadians have to wait before the government presents a
concrete blueprint for health care reform? How long?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish the Reform Party would listen instead of
preaching all the time.
From the very beginning we have been very clear. Yes, there is
flexibility providing we maintain the principles and we keep a
system which serves all Canadians regardless of whether they
have money or not. Our system has to be based on need. What
the Reform Party is advocating is a U.S. style of medicare, a
system for the fit and fortunate.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In a speech
yesterday at the Canadian Club in Toronto, the ex-president of
the CBC, Tony Manera, showed that cutting the CBC's budget
by more than one third will seriously jeopardize the current
mandate of the Crown corporation. At the same time, the new
president of the CBC, former Conservative minister Perrin
Beatty, said in reference to the cancelling of entire programs at
the CBC that we are running out of time to make difficult
decisions.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that his new appointee to the
helm of the CBC is ready and willing to cut as much as one third
from the CBC's current budget and to lay off between 3,000 and
4,000 employees?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, cuts of four per cent for this year were announced in the
Minister of Finance's budget. In fact this is not out of
proportion, compared to cuts we were forced to make in other
sectors.
We also decided then that we had to review the CBC's
mandate and that of other related organizations in order to
determine how to adjust to today's realities with today's
financial means, and in order to determine the kind of television
network we need in order to be competitive in the 21st century.
(1430)
When the CBC was created, Canadians only had access to two
television channels; now they can access between 100 and 200
channels. In the near future, we will be setting up a committee to
align the CBC's mandate with today's and tomorrow's realities,
and working from the revised mandate, we will determine a
budget enabling the CBC and other similar organizations to
reach their new objectives.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that the CBC has
already been hit by previous budget cuts, is being hit by those
contained in the current budget and that it will also be hit by
future budgets?
Has the Prime Minister considered whether the deep cuts that
he is planning to impose on the CBC, which will apply
indiscriminately to the English and French networks despite the
fact that the French network outperforms the English one by a
long shot, will seriously jeopardize the mandate and future of
Radio-Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have always recognized in the past the necessity of
having a French radio and television network in Canada. Might I
add that the CBC's budget is divided. The French radio and
television network receives a proportionally higher share of
funding than the francophone population would have warranted.
We want to continue giving good French language service to
Canadians from coast to coast. But this budget must be adjusted
to take into consideration today's realities and the new mandate
we need to give, given that competition is no longer limited to
just one network but now involves hundreds of networks. We
must give an appropriate vocation to both the English and
French networks of the CBC.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my physician
colleagues tell me that the Canada Health Act is outdated.
For example, the Canada Health Act is supposed to provide
reasonable access to health services yet in Manitoba people are
waiting 60 weeks for hip replacement. In Saskatchewan people
are waiting 30 weeks for cataract surgery. Quebecers have to
line up behind 1,460 patients for hernia surgery.
Will the minister responsible for these waiting lists define
reasonable access so that Canadians will be protected by the
Canada Health Act?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my understanding is that Canadians have been
protected by the Canada Health Act.
11485
Yes, there are pressures from time to time in different areas.
However, the Canada Health Act ensures that these pressures are
addressed by the individual provinces. When we see long
waiting lists, provinces move in very quickly and public opinion
forces them into doing what is right, ensuring that the needs of
their citizens are met in a good manner without people having to
pay to get to the head of the line.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, reasonable
access is not the only Canada Health Act pillar that has
crumbled. Let us look at the minister's arbitrary definition of
user fees.
The minister says Alberta allows user fees; naughty, naughty,
naughty. However at the Eastern Kings Memorial Hospital in
Nova Scotia patients must pay for stitches, anaesthetic and
syringes. Does the minister responsible for this arbitrary
legislation not agree that patients having to pay for these things
makes it a user fee?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the letter which I sent to all provinces interpreting the
Canada Health Act and user fees applied to all provinces in this
country. That is the way we implement federal legislation.
Medical necessity has been defined by medical associations,
provincial governments and in some cases the courts.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
We now know that the minister, who had announced himself,
with great fanfare, Mr. Manera's appointment at the helm of the
CBC last year, was not even consulted by the Prime Minister
before the appointment of the new president of the CBC, Perrin
Beatty, was announced.
In light of the fact that he was totally excluded by the Prime
Minister from the decision-making process regarding the
appointment of Perrin Beatty as the new president of the CBC,
will the Minister of Canadian Heritage acknowledge that this
was a sign that the Prime Minister and the federal Cabinet have
lost confidence in him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's statement is unfounded, completely
unfounded. I raised the issue with the minister first, before
bringing it to Cabinet. I think this was more than a month before
Mr. Beatty's appointment.
I think that the hon. member's information-Long before the
budget was tabled, Mr. Manera had asked to be replaced for
personal reasons. He called us weeks before the budget was
tabled to say that he wanted to leave for reasons of his own and
that his resignation had nothing to do with the budget. He
actually handed in his resignation before the budget was even
tabled.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's answer that
the heritage minister's inability to meet his obligations to the
CBC is what led him to abdicate his duties as the minister
responsible for this major Crown corporation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand the hon. member's problem. Her
supplementary was prepared before I gave my first answer.
I said previously and I repeat that Mr. Manera resigned long
before the budget was tabled. I mentioned Mr. Beatty's name for
the first time weeks before his appointment was made public.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, once and for all I want to end this fallacy. We in the
Reform Party in no way, shape or form are in favour of an
American style health care system. We will fight against it every
time.
The Canada Health Act faces a grim future. It is supposed to
guarantee reasonable access yet in British Columbia a person in
severe pain has to wait 13 months for a hip transplant.
Will the Minister of Health review the act to provide a
working definition of reasonable access?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am quite pleased to hear that the hon. member is in
favour of medicare as we have it in Canada. I suggest though that
he speak with other members of his party who do not appear to
share his views.
We will continue to insist that the Canada Health Act remain
in place. It has served the people of Canada very well. It will
continue to do so despite the protestations of the people from the
third party who have absolutely no understanding of what it is
like to be ill and not have the money to be treated. We refuse to
allow our system to go back to that kind of inequity.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister cannot tell me, an emergency room
physician, that I do not know what is happening to sick people in
this country.
11486
You cannot tell me that people who are waiting 48 hours to get
into an ICU are not suffering. They are suffering. Go into the
hospitals and find out. I will take you by the hand and show you.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to please address
the Chair in his comments and I would ask him to put his
question.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker,
because of the void that we have, private companies are now
having to offer to people on waiting lists to get their medical
services done in the United States. Canadians are forced to pay
for private insurance to have this done.
(1440)
Will the minister amend the Canada Health Act to enable the
provinces to get their health care financing under control?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, I will not hold his hand. Second, I have not heard
this much self-serving rhetoric in a long time.
We do not have to amend the Canada Health Act to allow the
provinces to get their fiscal houses in order. As a matter of fact,
it is very important that we maintain the principles of the
Canada Health Act as we all get our fiscal houses in order so that
we can remember who we are here to represent. It is the people,
all kinds of people; wealthy people, sick people and everyone
else in the country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister. The Canadian
government is currently negotiating with the Agusta company
the compensation to be paid following the cancellation of the
EH-101 helicopter contract worth in excess of $5 billion, which,
despite the cancellation, has already cost half a billion dollars.
As a result of the investigation into the murder of a Belgian
government minister, Agusta is now in hot water in Belgium for
alledgedly paying $12 million in bribes in connection with a
contract to purchase helicopters for the Belgian army.
Given the allegations of corruption made against Agusta, does
the Prime Minister promise to suspend all negotiations with this
company until the government has completed a judicial inquiry
into the circumstances surrounding the EH-101 contract
agreement, as the Minister of Human Resources Development
called for on April 13, 1993?
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, negotiations have indeed been undertaken but, since
legal proceedings are under way, I think it would be
inappropriate to comment publicly at this time.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
had hoped that the Prime Minister would answer my question. I
do not think it is inappropriate to initiate discussions.
Since Agusta is under investigation in Belgium and Italy for
influence-peddling, corruption and arms smuggling, how can
the Prime Minister justify continuing negotiations with Agusta
without first looking into this company's profits in the Canadian
helicopter deal?
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, in the preamble to his question, my hon.
colleague said that discussions should be held, but a little later
he says that negotiations should not be undertaken. He should
first make up his mind; then, we will talk.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
When the public service downsizing initiative was announced
last month, the government committed to ensuring that
departmental officials at the local level would be given the
flexibility necessary to adjust staff and program requirements
prior to final regulation and legislative proposals.
Would the minister please update members on what steps have
been taken to ensure that local management has the ability to
respond to individual and community needs in the downsizing
exercise?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in carrying out the downsizing which has been
necessitated by the reduction in programs and services arising
from the government's need to meet its deficit reduction targets,
we have established labour-management committees in
different communities across the country to help assist our
employees in their adjustment from the public to the private
sector.
Furthermore, we have given flexibility to the departments. I
would trust that the departments would consult with regional
councils so that the downsizing can be managed within the
context of a region as well as meeting the needs which are set out
in the budget.
Let me assure the hon. member that we will deal with our
employees, those who are departing and those who are
remaining, in a fair and reasonable way.
11487
(1445 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday I asked why Glenda Simms, the past president of
the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, was
being kept on the government payroll and going on irrelevant
junkets when her position is now defunct. The Prime Minister
responded by saying that he was giving her time to adjust to the
new reality.
The government is throwing 45,000 civil servants out of
work. They, like many other Canadians, will have to adjust to
their new reality, so why does Simms get special treatment? Is
this another example of Liberal double standards?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the contrary, the President of the Treasury Board has
made sure the people who are to be let go because of the cuts will
have good payments made to them. An agreement was
negotiated by the union to make sure there will be some help for
them to adjust.
It is part of the policy of the government to make sure it is not
the end from one day to the other. We do that for all the
bureaucrats and for that woman too.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
45,000 civil servants did not get a trip to the Philippines to have
fun in the sun.
The government appointed Simms in January when it knew it
was going to disband the Canadian Advisory Council on the
Status of Women. Simms wasted taxpayers' money on
questionable expenses during her tenure as head of the council.
Now the government is allowing her to waste even more money
on this needless and frivolous trip to the Philippines.
Will the Prime Minister demonstrate to Canadians he cares
about government waste, cancel the junket and terminate Simms
appointment?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Dr. Simms, at the invitation of international agencies, has been
invited to speak on Canada's very fine programs to ensure
equality for all people, including employment equity for
women.
She has also been asked to address the issues of sexual
harassment in the workplace, for which Canada is doing a fairly
good job to date. She is addressing these programs and policies
in the Philippines where she has been invited to speak. The
Minister of Foreign Affairs has agreed that Canada, as a role
model, should speak in international fora of this nature. We are
very proud she is going to represent us.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday, the President of Burundi alluded to the threat of a
double genocide when he said that something must be done
about the similarities between the current situation in his
country and what happened in Rwanda. Four hundreds Hutus,
mostly women and children, are said to have been slaughtered
last week by the Burundese army and by armed groups of Tutsis,
in the Gasorwe region.
Will the minister tell us what the Canadian government
intends to do following the plea for help made by the Burundi
President?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will understand that any solution
to the precarious situation in Burundi must absolutely be based
on a reconciliation of the parties involved.
This is why the Union of African States, as well as the
Francophonie, which met in Paris last week, decided to send
ministerial missions to meet with the parties to try to make them
understand that reconciliation is essential. We are confident that
these preventive diplomacy efforts will give positive results.
The hon. member is seeking a military solution, but that is not
what government authorities want. The hon. member's
suggestion has not been made by government authorities. The
solution proposed by the ministers of the Francophonie is
precisely the one requested by the Burundi government official.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the minister recognize that, beyond the nice assurances and
comments on reconciliation, it is urgent to take concrete action,
which includes the rapid setting up of a monitoring group in
Burundi, as requested by the Burundi ambassador to Canada?
(1450)
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I just said to the hon. member that, even though the
Burundi ambassador may have made such a request, Burundi
government officials did not.
I just got back from a meeting of ministers of the
Francophonie, where the Burundi situation was discussed and
where we heard from a representative of the government of
Burundi. What that government official asked for, and what we
will do, is this: first, send a ministerial mission to attempt a
reconciliation; second, send a group of experts to help local
authorities solve their problems; third, provide humanitarian
assistance, asCanada is always prepared to offer, to non-governmental orga-
11488
nizations helping the civilian population affected by the
conflict.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
January of this year the government announced that war
criminals living in Canada would be deported rather than
prosecuted for their crimes against humanity.
This is a shift in policy from 1987 when the Liberal Party
endorsed a made in Canada solution to Nazi war criminals.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Why has the
government given up on the idea of prosecuting Nazi war
criminals in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, by far the preferred
way of approaching such cases is to initiate criminal
prosecutions.
However, a couple of things have happened since 1987. First,
the provisions in the Criminal Code that were added at about that
time to provide for such prosecutions have been tested in court
proceedings and interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Second, the nature, quality and availability of the evidence in
such prosecutions has diminished in the years since 1987. When
we came to office we came with a determination to do something
about the moral imperative of removing such people from our
midst.
We looked at the possibility of criminal prosecution and
determined that in view of the interpretation placed on the
provisions of the code by the Supreme Court of Canada in Finta
and in view of the state of the evidence in these cases, the best
approach for achieving the moral imperative in a practical way
was to institute civil proceedings by the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration. That is the step we have taken.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have been here for 18 months and in all areas of crime we would
like to see some justice. I am still waiting. We have not seen
justice yet.
Earlier this year the Minister of Justice said: ``War crimes
investigators have evidence that 12 suspects are living in
Canada''. However, the government is only pursuing four cases
in order to test the legal waters.
The longer the minister waits, the more unreliable the
evidence is going to be. Why is the minister not pursuing all 12
cases immediately?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
quite right. These cases must be undertaken as soon as possible.
We are starting with four cases. We have identified eight others
as appropriate for proceeding in this same way. We have eight
counsel under the lead of a senior justice counsel dealing with
the four cases that are already before the courts. As soon as we
possibly can we will initiate the others.
We started with four cases that we believe in some important
respects will clear the way by creating legal precedents that will
make it simpler to proceed in the other cases.
I fully agree with the hon. member and we will commence the
balance of the cases at the earliest possible date.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
In order to create jobs and stimulate small and medium sized
businesses in a new, innovative economy, we need new
approaches to equity capital.
What is the government doing to create a new environment for
encouraging Canadians to invest in their own country and its
technological excellence?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Durham for his
continuing interest in the issue of capital formation with respect
to small and medium sized businesses, especially in the new
economy areas which he knows require both investment in
technology as well as in skills development.
(1455 )
It is a key issue. In keeping with the approach that the
government announced in the orange book of assistance to
business, our objective is to create a framework in which
business will succeed. We are looking to the private sector for
the kinds of linkages and sources of funds that are important. In
addition we have a tax system in place that encourages
innovation and investment in R and D.
The R and D tax credit, the creation of the Canada community
investment plan as well as Industry Canada are pursuance of our
macroeconomic agenda. It will ensure that we understand the
needs of small business and that we make the appropriate
linkages and partnerships that are available. They are the keys to
solving these problems.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
11489
Yesterday, the Minister of Health said with respect to
hepatitis C, and I quote: ``I can tell you that the hon. member
recognizes that there are many jurisdictions involved in this
issue. We are eagerly awaiting Justice Krever's
recommendations on contacting individuals infected with
hepatitis C''.
How can the minister justify the decision not to trace hepatitis
C carriers before 1990 by the fact that there were several
jurisdictions involved, when the decision made arbitrarily at the
time to stop traceback was made by the Red Cross alone?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say that Health Canada is responsible
for monitoring the safety of blood products. It is true several
jurisdictions are involved, especially the provinces, which have
a responsibility with respect to traceback.
I must say that a number of provinces have started to get
involved in hepatitis C traceback, including British Columbia
and a number of hospitals in other provinces.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
two Canadian cities are competing for the right to bid on hosting
Expo 2005. They are anxiously waiting for the heritage minister
to announce which city will win that right. The minister said he
would announce his decision by the end of March. We are still
waiting.
A lot of citizens have worked hard on these bids. Will the
minister end the suspense here and now? Is it Calgary or
Ottawa?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, consideration of this issue is making good
progress. It has now reached ministerial level where it is being
discussed.
We are quite conscious of the great anxiety of the bidding
groups. They shall be informed of the results of the ministerial
consideration as soon as possible.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance who I think will agree
that his budget has taken us down an unprecedented course.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: There will never be a Liberal elected in
Saskatchewan again.
Mr. Riis: There was no significant change in monetary policy
in the budget. There was tinkering with the tax system only in
terms of reform. The main thrust has been through massive cuts
to social programs, actually all government programs.
Presuming that this is to lead to economic prosperity and job
creation, will the minister tell us what country and what
government he used as a model to demonstrate that this
approach actually works and is successful?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the hon. member for having begun his question so
well.
We engaged in an analysis of Canada's economic needs, the
circumstances within which we found ourselves and the
government's overwhelming commitment to see job creation
made the priority focus of the country. I think that is the reason
why the budget has been so well received. It is as a result of this
budget that the economic recovery will continue and Canadians
will begin to do in the context of the rest of the world what we as
Liberals have always felt they could do, and that is to take on
anybody.
* * *
(1500)
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, farmers and
companies in the agri-food sector in my constituency of Lincoln
recognize the change taking place in the Canadian agricultural
sector, in particular the need to expand our export markets.
Canadian farmers are looking to this government to ensure
international agricultural trade reaches the $20-billion level by
the year 2000.
Will the minister of agriculture explain what tangible results
Canadian farmers and the agri-food sector expect from his
recent visit to Chile, Argentina and Brazil?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I returned from a
10-day trade mission in South America, visiting the countries
referred to in the question. It was a most successful trade
mission, particularly because it not only involved
representatives of the Government of Canada but also
representatives of three provinces, Quebec, Alberta and
Saskatchewan, plus representatives of close to 30 leaders of
Canadian farm organizations and Canadian agri-businesses. It
was truly in the spirit of Team Canada referred to by the Prime
Minister.
There were some specific transactions concluded by the
business delegation during the course of the trip. A foundation
was laid for many more transactions in the future. We made
progress on issues such as trade-distorting export subsidies and
vital sanitary procedures.
11490
We discussed Chile's succession to the NAFTA as the fourth
amigo. We were expanding Canada's trade horizons with respect
to grain, pulse crops, alfalfa, livestock, meat, animal genetics,
agriculture technology, processed foods and agricultural
equipment and machinery.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I wish to draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Hans-Ulrich Klose,
Vice-President of the German Bundestag and three of his
colleagues, members of Parliament.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, yesterday in the debate in this House, Private
Member's Business, Crimes Against Humanity, on page 11375
of
Hansard, I used the figure ``300,000 intellectuals''. That
should read 3,000. I made the error and I hope to have it
corrected in the next
Hansard.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It will be corrected.
_____________________________________________
11490
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1505)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I was not very
surprised reading the text of the Bloc motion that we are
addressing today because I find that its members are following
their usual strategy of being vexatious and provocative, trying to
pit Canadians against Canadians. They do this under the
pretence of representing their constituents, but I do not believe
that Quebecers as a group do not believe in fairness. By and
large, they are like the rest of us. What we are seeing here is a
classic example of what the Bloc does in this place day after day
after day.
I asked a couple of Quebec members from the other central
Canadian party how they felt about the fact that the Bloc
engages in this type of rhetoric. I asked them if they were at all
embarrassed by the constant whining and by these efforts to put
out their hand for more and more. The answer that I got from
these other Quebecers was: ``Yes, it does embarrass us''.
Let us take a look at this terrible abuse that we hear is being
heaped upon those Quebec dairy farmers with their guaranteed
40 per cent share of the domestic milk market in Canada. Yes,
they are going to have their subsidies cut; they are going to be
cut by 30 per cent over two years. Therefore, their $217 million
subsidy will be cut by $57 million.
What the hon. members from the Bloc neglect to mention is
that all the dairy farmers in Canada do not reside in Quebec. The
rest of us have cows too. We are going to be losing our pro rata
share of that same subsidy, which is causing this inordinate
amount of whining.
On the other hand, the Crow benefit is not going to be phased
out gradually. We are not going to lose just a few percentage
points per year over any given period of time. It is going to be
cut by 100 per cent immediately and forever.
Mr. Solomon: Shame on the Liberals.
An hon. member: Shame.
Mr. Morrison: Shame on the Liberals. There is going to be a
$1.6 billion buyout. This buyout is equivalent to what the
subsidy has been paying over each three-year period, or would
have been paying over the next three years. After that, nothing.
But the dairy farmers will still be in there for 70 per cent of their
subsidy. If this is inequitable to Quebec then please help me
here. What would they regard as equity?
There is another little cute trick in the budget, which I have
not heard the Bloc mention. That is the Feed Freight Assistance
Act for feed grains to the eastern part of Quebec as well as the
Maritimes. We are talking about Quebec here. That is going to
be phased out over a 10-year period.
It now appears, from the rumours I have been hearing, that
this is not even going to begin for another year. There is going to
be a one-year moratorium on phasing out the FFAA. All this
means is that we will continue in the west shipping our feed
grains to Quebec to be turned into beef and milk products,
whereas if we did not have this subsidy to work against us, we
could do it at home more economically and export the finished
product. However, that is not the way Canada works. We are still
locked into the old colonial system where the two central
Canadian provinces get the milk, the grass is eaten in western
Canada, and we all know what happens in the Maritimes.
(1510)
This motion speaks about diversification and the fact that
because we are going to get this buyout on the Crow rate it is
going to be a great encouragement for us to diversify. In my
riding farmers have been diversifying for the last few years, not
because of the availability or lack of availability of subsidies,
but in response to market forces. They are growing crops they
never grew before.
When I drove around my riding last summer I saw canola,
lentils and even sunflowers-big acreages of them. These are
not native to my part of Saskatchewan, but we are swinging over
11491
to them in order to profit from the market that is out there and to
get away from our low-priced product, which is wheat.
In conclusion, I want to digress a bit from agriculture and talk
again about the question of who gets what out of Confederation.
I am sure that hon. members of the Bloc are aware of a recent
study that indicated that over the last ten years Quebec has had a
net benefit of payments in, over-taxation out of $168 billion.
During that same period the province of Ontario has come up
short by $45 billion. Do not let us ever forget that my
neighbouring province of Alberta, during the days of the
national energy policy, had to forgo $90 billion in revenue in
order to support the economies of the two central Canadian
provinces. I find it more than passing strange that those of us
who want to hold our country together, who care about this
country, are the ones who have been paying the bills, and the
people who want to tear it asunder are the ones who have been
benefiting the most economically from Confederation. They are
saying, in effect: ``We want to be free; we want to go it alone, but
please, keep giving us money''.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
the distinguished colleague who spoke just before me, a member
of the Reform Party from the west, criticized the members of the
Bloc Quebecois for defending our country, Quebec. I would like
to give him a short history lesson.
In 1837, the Government of Quebec was dissolved from
London. Three years later, in 1840, Lower and Upper Canada
were united-an easy matter because there was no longer a
government in Quebec. The problem, however, was that Quebec
was thrifty and did not want to go into debt like the government
has since 1970, surely and consistently. Quebec was only 85,000
pounds in debt, while Ontario was 1.2 million pounds in debt.
As there was only one government to decide-the government
of Ontario-it was decided that the two debts should be
combined into a single one. This is how Quebec has been treated
for years. Today, they have the gall to blame us for criticizing
injustices. I will not take it. I will not.
(1515)
Producers in the three western provinces are being offered
$1.6 billion, interest and tax free, in compensation for the
disappearance of the WGTO. They do not even have to declare it
for tax purposes. In Quebec, each milk producer is going to be
penalized some $5,000 on average and will be receiving
absolutely no compensation. Nothing.
The worst part of all of this is that western producers will use
the compensation to diversify their production and will move
into Quebec markets to compete against us with the help of tax
dollars we gave the government. Take hogs, for example. I am
talking about the period from 1981 to 1991. After 1991, things
tend to intensify and will get worse after 1996. There is no
supply management in hog production. Are you aware that, in
ten years, western hog production grew by 39 per cent, over 39
per cent? In the same time period, in Quebec, production
dropped by 16 per cent. How about that?
In terms of surface used, hothouse production in the west has
grown by 67 per cent, while the increase in Quebec is barely 46
per cent, despite the fact that the markets are in Ontario and
Quebec. I promise you that, each time we have the opportunity,
the members of the Bloc Quebecois will rise in this House to
criticize both Liberal and Reform Party members for failing to
have a global vision of this country; for never setting foot in
Quebec, for the most part; and for claiming that Quebec is still
griping and asking for more. We have paid more than our share
in this country.
[English]
Mr. Morrison: Madam Speaker, I liked that little history
lesson at the beginning. Unfortunately I do not see what
relevance it has to what we are debating today, current economic
conditions in Canada.
Since the hon. member has only left me one moment, I will
have to direct myself to one of his statistics. He talks about an
increase in the hog production, I believe he said 39 per cent in
the west and a decrease of 16 per cent in Quebec. With the feed
freight assistance, if the farmers of Quebec cannot compete with
the west, he is bad mouthing his own province. He is speaking ill
of Quebec. I would not think of doing that.
We are progressive. We are working hard to diversify. We are
not asking for handouts and as far as the $1.6 billion, all the hon.
member has done is reiterate his previous arguments. He did not
raise anything new. He said the same thing over-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
will share my time with the hon. member for
Guelph-Wellington.
So far, it seems that Bloc members are choosing the issues in
which they would like to intervene. They chose to remain silent
in the Montreal and Vancouver port disputes but today's debate
is another example of the partisan way in which the Bloc
Quebecois chooses the causes it wants to defend.
I would like to explain a few things about the dairy subsidy
announced in the last budget.
(1520)
First, it should be pointed out that this government is formally
committed to maintaining an orderly marketing system for dairy
11492
products, eggs and poultry. These products are a very important
part of the Canadian agri-food industry.
In the final round of GATT negotiations, we showed how
serious we were by securing customs tariffs high enough to keep
our supply management system almost unchanged. Some tariffs
are as high as 200 per cent or 300 per cent for various dairy
products.
These tariffs will drop by only 15 per cent over a six-year
period. It is the smallest reduction required on such tariffs. In
addition, international agreements call for limited access for
imports while giving us comparable access elsewhere for our
dairy products.
Consequently, all experts agree that this sector will enjoy a
high level of protection for several years. As you will recall,
when the GATT bill was before this House, we were accused of
failing to protect article XI. That is how things were done.
It is good news, since the dairy sector is now experiencing a
surge in activities. In 1993-94, Canadian industrial milk
production rose by 3.2 per cent compared to the previous year,
while a 4.5 per cent increase is forecast for this year. Quebec
dairy farmers, who receive almost 50 per cent of national
quotas, are taking advantage of the situation.
As for cutting the subsidies paid to industrial milk producers
by 30 per cent over two years, it is necessary to do so to improve
our public finances.
As elected representatives, we have certain inescapable
responsibilities and reducing the deficit in real terms is one of
them. We can no longer allow the deficit to keep adding to the
national debt. We must strive towards fiscal balance. All
Canadians agree on that.
Therefore, the government must cut its spending at every
level and in many sectors, including the agri-food sector.
In the dairy industry, producers are currently paid $5.43 per
hectolitre in direct subsidy for industrial milk. An hectolitre is
equal to 100 litres. So, in simple terms, this is a subsidy of about
five cents a litre. Moreover, it does not apply to fluid milk, the
milk that we drink everyday, for which producers are paid a
higher price.
This means that only a portion of the dairy producers' income
is affected. In that case, I think this decision is perfectly
justified when, as we know and I repeat, the government has to
cut its spending. It has no other choice but to take stringent yet
sensible budget measures.
After all, the subsidy is not completely gone, far from it.
Seventy per cent of it, or $160 million, will continue to go to
milk production. In the coming months, the Canadian Dairy
Commission and officials from the Department of Agriculture
and Agri-Food will hold consultations with the industry to set
prices for the crop year beginning on August 1.
Later this year, the government will discuss with the industry
how the subsidy can be best used. The most efficient use
possible should be made of these funds, i.e. to support long term
growth in the industry.
Producers and processors alike are committed to adjusting to
the new global context. The Canadian dairy industry creates
many jobs and generates billions of dollars in revenues. It is
important that this industry be able to prosper and meet new
challenges in the future.
The industry always sold a percentage of its production,
particularly surplus milk powder and sought after cheeses, on
the global market.
(1525)
Just recently, on a trade mission to Latin America, the
Minister of Agriculture and representatives of the sector
interested Brazilians in importing Canadian parmesan and
mozzarella. This confirms that there are new markets for our
excellent products.
At the last meeting of the national milk supply management
committee, six of the nine provincial marketing boards decided
to set up a special marketing quota in order to develop the export
market. This new approach could see the light of day by the
summer, and might eventually encompass all the provinces.
As we can see, the sector is changing to suit its needs. The
government intends to help the move to a new generation of
orderly milk marketing, as is already the case in the poultry and
eggs sector.
Furthermore, the budget announced new ways of helping the
agri-food sector as a whole, including the dairy sector.
Moreover, the government is proposing a series of adjustment
measures so that the industry can seize the new opportunities
opening up on the world market and to compensate for the
reduction in government funds.
The government is prepared to provide the financial tools, as
evidenced in the doubling, a few weeks ago, of the funds
available under co-operative credit legislation. It will also
provide more market information to businesses wanting to
expand their foreign sales.
As you can see, the government is helping the dairy sector, as
its financial situation permits, in the same way it is helping other
agri-food sectors.
The cuts announced are real but not dramatic to the point of
harming the growth of the dairy sector. On the contrary, we want
it to continue to develop within a context of orderly marketing.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. I know
he is as concerned about the future of agriculture in Quebec as I
am about the future of agriculture in all of Canada.
11493
The hon. member made comments about the current tariff of
351 per cent on some products put in place on supply managed
products. He also referred to the 50 per cent market for fluid
milk Quebec farmers now enjoy. I have been having trouble with
the logic of the Bloc's argument about how, when Quebec
separates, it will continue to have 50 per cent of the Canadian
fluid milk market at 351 per cent tariff. It does not seem to add
up to me.
What steps is his government taking to help supply managed
farmers in Quebec make the adjustment for the time when we
have complete free trade in agriculture? That time is coming
very quickly. In the beef industry we have free trade with the
United States now. We actually have gone to some special
import permits beyond the minimum access so it is happening
quicker in the beef industry than even was scheduled under
GATT.
The United States has served notice that it wants to discuss
supply managed industries in Canada. Therefore there will be
increased pressure to move to complete free trade.
It seems to me the Liberal government would have to be
taking some concrete steps to help those farmers make that
adjustment. If we are saying it cannot be done, if we will to
maintain these 351 per cent tariffs, after a six year reduction in
GATT it seems to me that tariff will still be 300 per cent, which
is not realistic.
I ask the hon. member what he is considering doing to help
these supply managed farmers make the adjustment necessary to
continue to have a viable industry after free trade is
accomplished.
Mr. Discepola: It is reassuring, Madam Speaker, that
members other than Bloc Quebecois members have realized the
importance of the rural agricultural industry in Quebec,
especially dairy farming. It seems there is only one party in this
House that does not realize the benefits Quebec enjoys through
the protection and actions of gestion de l'offre. Dairy producers
in Quebec especially enjoy tremendous advantage.
(1530)
I find it very puzzling at times when I discuss this with rural
members in my riding. Maybe it is not uncommon that the main
leaders in the federation that supposedly defend the interests of
farmers have separatist tendencies. Maybe the Bloc do not
choose to advocate the benefits farmers enjoy because of the
adherence to the federation that we love to call Canada.
However, in Quebec they would prefer to have their own
country.
I am baffled. Whenever a letter is written to a newspaper, very
quickly someone from the UPA for example will refute the
arguments and we get into a battle.
There is no guarantee that the protection farmers enjoy today
would be continued in a separate Quebec. No member of the
Bloc Quebecois can stand and honestly say that in this House.
The protection is by staying in Canada.
If we look at their so-called draft bill, Bloc Quebecois
members are very quick to state that we are offering only the
status quo, but they exclude article 1 of their draft bill which
states categorically that Quebec will be an independent country.
Then in articles 2 to 16 they say they would like the same
monetary unit, the same immigration, the same passport, the
same economic union. That is the status quo. They have all of
that already within Canada and now they want to destroy it to get
it back. There is no guarantee they will get protection under
GATT, the G-7, or any other agreement.
To answer the question, the tariffs that were negotiated in the
last round of the GATT see a decreasing protection through
tariffication of roughly 15 per cent per year. That will give the
industry enough time to adapt. By the same token, the
government has doubled the loan provisions from $1.5 billion to
$3 billion to help farmers obtain access to needed capital. The
tariffication process will allow them the needed three or four
years.
Mr. Penson: It is 15 per cent over six years.
Mr. Discepola: No, no. It is reducing 15 per cent. The
transition period they are requesting to my knowledge does not
exceed more than three or four years. They have plenty of time
to adapt.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the hon.
member for Frontenac. I will focus my remarks on inspection
and research.
It is well known that in our recent budget the guiding principle
was to share the burden of deficit reduction. Every sector and
every region has had to make a contribution and this has been
done fairly. The people of Guelph-Wellington support the
government in its deficit reduction efforts. My constituents
want reduced government spending and an end to government
deficits.
Within the context of fiscal restraint we planned our budget to
support our vision for Canada's agricultural and agri-food
industry. It is one built on economic growth and security, on
sustainable agriculture and a safe food supply.
Guelph-Wellington represents every aspect of the food
chain. We have excellent farmers who work the land and provide
food and dairy products. Better Beef Limited employs over 400
of our neighbours. Woolwich Dairy Incorporated of Ariss
produces award winning goat's milk cheeses. The United
Co-operatives of Ontario manufacture livestock feeds. These
companies not only provide employment but they also
contribute to our agricultural industry. My riding houses the
University of Guelph, an important research facility.
11494
Finally, we are all consumers who value a safe and high
quality food supply and control of animal and plant diseases that
have a human health or economic impact. My constituents want
as our first priority to ensure that food safety will not be
compromised.
(1535)
At the same time, recognizing the need to reduce the deficit,
the people of Guelph-Wellington know that costs to the
taxpayer must be reduced. Industry must be helped to find ways
to keep input costs down so it can offer the best quality product
at the best price.
For these reasons Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has
been working closely in the past year with other federal
departments and provincial ministries of agriculture and health
to develop national standards. We are aiming to establish a
nationwide Canadian food inspection system. This will reduce
overlap between jurisdictions and will result in a more
streamlined and efficient regulatory system. My constituents
have asked all governments to work together to reduce overlap
and to control spending, something even the Bloc Quebecois can
applaud, I would hope.
In addition, we will level the playing field between domestic
and imported industries by enhancing inspection of imported
products. We will also move to a system of monetary penalties
in support of enforcement and compliance.
These are examples of the fairness that has been demanded by
the people of Guelph-Wellington and others across this land.
This fiscal year in co-operation with the meat industry we will
be implementing program efficiencies in the area of meat
hygiene.
These initiatives are expected to save $10 million. Surely all
members of this House applaud that initiative. In 1997-98 we
will be achieving further savings through initiatives such as
privatizing quality assurance and residue testing and
implementing hazard analysis and critical control point
programs.
We also plan to transfer routine laboratory testing to the
private sector. Industry benefits from the food inspection and
regulatory system earning high prices for higher quality. We
believe industry should pay its fair share of inspection costs.
We are currently negotiating with the private sector to make
our inspection and quarantine programs more efficient and more
effective and at the same time to meet budget reduction targets.
This will be achieved over the next three years through a
combination of cost reduction, cost avoidance and cost sharing
initiatives.
There will however be no adverse effects on food safety. Let
me underline that food safety is this government's top priority
and continues to be. The government's goal here is to reduce the
cost to taxpayers who live in communities like
Guelph-Wellington by recovering an additional $46 million of
the cost of inspection services by 1997-98.
To keep at the leading edge of technological changes, we must
continue to conduct research. As I mentioned earlier, the
University of Guelph conducts research in the areas of animal
production. For example, it has developed a vaccine that reduces
the stress animals suffer during shipping, a saving of millions of
dollars to producers.
The university also studies new breeding methods for crops.
Its program of agri-food assistance reviews all areas of farming
production by bringing together all players, for example
environmentalists, to study both the positive and the negative
aspects of farming. That is important, the positive and negative
aspects.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will continue to be the
prime federal source for agricultural research and development
in Canada. Research and development accounts for a large
portion of departmental expenditures. It will remain a major
element of government support to the agri-food sector. We are
committed to research and technology transfer efforts which
protect the safety and security of our food supply and the
sustainability of our resource base.
Value added products, new cost saving technology, non-food
products from agricultural commodities and innovative
approaches such as biotechnology are all the result of a vibrant
and creative research infrastructure. We are committed to
maintaining this. However, given the enormity of the task of
coming to terms with the federal deficit, all areas must
contribute their share.
(1540)
Departmental research and development activities will
consequently absorb part of the reduction of departmental
expenditures outlined in the 1995 budget. Savings of $50
million will be achieved by 1997-98 primarily through
streamlining the research infrastructure and reductions in areas
where results are more portable, or the location is not important.
Of that, an additional $3 million will be saved from the capital
expenditure budget.
We will be moving toward a network of strong, viable,
focused centres of excellence. Seven smaller research facilities
will be closed: three in western Canada, two in Ontario, and two
in Quebec. The remaining centres will be strategically
positioned to better reflect industry strengths and competitive
advantages in the regions where they are located, thus creating a
critical mass of the most useful expertise. Some of our work is
being transferred to and enhanced in the province of Quebec
which surely must be appreciated and encouraged by our friends
in the official opposition.
In addition to streamlining our research infrastructure, we are
also reallocating resources to fund a matching investment
initiative. This fund will support industry led joint research
projects. Government will match industry contributions dollar
for dollar, up to $35 million. A strong response by industry
11495
could result in an investment of $70 million by the end of this
century. This will help offset the reductions and ensure that
money is spent where industry can best use it.
I would like to conclude by re-emphasizing that we are
committed to maintaining food safety as the priority of the
inspection system while reducing overlap and duplication;
levelling the playing field for Canadian producers by ensuring
better border controls; and sharing the cost of services which
provide a private benefit to industry. We also remain committed
to ensuring a safe critical mass of research and technology
transfer dedicated to the safety of our food supply and the
sustainability of our agricultural resource base.
As I represent the people of Guelph-Wellington, all
important contributors to our food chain, I express our support
for these initiatives. I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food for ensuring that while funding is reduced, our
guiding principles will never be compromised.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington is lucky, because she
can count on the university bearing the same name as her riding.
The federal government and several para-public organizations
contribute considerable research budgets to the university in her
riding.
Members will agree however that not all ridings can boast
such fine universities as the University of Guelph unfortunately.
It has put a lot of emphasis on research. I picked a year at
random from my notes on federal government spending, and
came up with the research spending of the Department of
Agriculture in 1990. I will give you a few figures and I invite
you to reflect on them.
The federal government spent almost half of its farming
research budget in the grain sector, some $111 million. Of
course, friends out west are not complaining. One hundred and
eleven million dollars, close to one half. But the grain sector
only produces six per cent of Canada's farming outputs. In the
same year, 24 per cent of the federal government's agricultural
research budget went to the dairy, poultry and hog sectors.
(1545)
And it so happens that hog, poultry and dairy producers are
concentrated in Quebec and, of course, in Ontario.
I, myself, am a farmer and a member of the UPA. I know many
other farmers. I spent all of last Saturday going up and down the
concessions visiting farmers and it is funny but I did not meet a
single one who applauded the Liberal government's budget,
especially regarding farming issues. Not one.
Last Monday, I was at the Lafaille auction in Coaticook. Over
one hundred farmers were there. I asked some questions. They
were obviously proud to see that one of their own made it to
Ottawa to defend their interests. None of them were happy. Not
one.
So in Ontario, out of 99-sorry, 98 Liberal ridings, one
slipped out of their grasp and went to a Reform friend-the
general protest reminds me of what happened in Quebec in the
1970s, when the only person even remotely capable of playing
the role of the opposition was Roch LaSalle.
The UPA and the Association des producteurs laitiers have
literally come out swinging against this budget. Now I will
discuss an article written by Claude Rivard and will ask the hon.
member for Guelph-Wellington to comment on it. In a
newspaper article on dairy producers in Quebec, published in
March 1995, Mr. Rivard talks about the federal government's
intention to withdraw altogether from programs in the areas of
dairy control and genetic testing. That is some major research.
Her government is backing out and she is happy with the
research done. My foot.
[English]
Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, the member for
Frontenac began by talking about how lucky I am as the member
for Guelph-Wellington. He is quite right, I am. However, we
are all lucky to live in this wonderful country. I would like to put
that on the record.
The member for Frontenac wanted to talk about research and
development. The federal government will be maintaining
excellent research infrastructure in Quebec which will have four
of the national centres of excellence; Lennoxville,
Saint-Hyacinthe, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Saint-Croix.
We will transfer 53 research positions from the national capital
region to these centres, enabling our scientists to concentrate on
research areas of high priority to Quebec producers and
processors as well as to producers across eastern Canada and the
whole country.
We are all lucky to live in Canada and to enjoy the support of
the federal government, including Quebec.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member but her time has expired. Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Matapédia-Matane.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Madam
Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague, the hon.
member for Frontenac, for putting forward this opposition
motion on agriculture. This is an extremely important day for all
farmers in Quebec and across Canada.
11496
I see that there are not many members across the way. They
may not come from another planet, but I do not know where they
come from.
People have been hit very hard by the budget. My colleague
from Frontenac said earlier that none of the farmers he has
spoken to was happy with the budget.
They claim that the budget is acceptable, that it is a good
budget. I do not understand where these members come from.
An hon. member: From Ontario.
(1550)
Mr. Canuel: It is impossible to pay too much attention to
agriculture, and especially to young farmers. A nation that is not
self-sufficient in agriculture must be considered part of the
third world. A country that does not give top priority to
agriculture does not understand anything.
When game became scarce, mankind turned to farming to
survive. Nothing has since replaced the food taken from the
land. However, in order to grow this food, farmers must work
hard, invest money and take risks. Farmers do face great risks,
as they have done for generations. They are willing to assume
terrible risks.
These people have attained sovereignty on their land. They
own their land. They sow their fields with whatever grains they
please. They breed whatever animals they please. Their work
does not bind them to a fixed schedule, but one thing is sure,
they have put in an incredible number of hours. They are ready
for a country of their own.
According to a poll commissioned by the UPA, the results of
which were released on November 22, 1990, at the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission, 73 per cent of farmers were in
favour of sovereignty-association, 73 per cent.
On September 2, in the middle of the election campaign in
Quebec, the president of the UPA, Laurent Pellerin, argued in
the presence of Premier Daniel Johnson that there is not much
more to fear from sovereignty than from the current situation,
what we have gone through over poultry and continue to got
through every day in our trade relations. That is what the
president of the UPA said.
Indeed, farm producers have met great challenges over the
years, moving from traditional to industrial farming, facing
international competition, computerizing their businesses,
learning new production techniques and keeping up with all the
new advanced technologies. They are ready to take up the new
and great challenge of becoming the kings in their own castles,
masters of their own houses, in other words, sovereign.
To those who claim that, in a sovereign Quebec, agriculture
would be profoundly disrupted, our producers reply that the
future of Quebec's industry is conditioned much more by market
development than by the advent of a sovereign Quebec.
Those who think farm producers from the rest of Canada are
unlikely to go for maintaining supply management are wrong.
We all know that, to maintain the revenues of all dairy
producers, each province must preserve the supply management
system.
We doubt that it would be in the interests of the rest of Canada,
particularly Ontario and the Maritimes, to eliminate the supply
management system, which is still the only adequate income
security system for farmers. Should that system be eliminated,
markets would open up and, to be sure, the rest of Canada would
be the biggest loser.
Allow me to digress for a moment. It is difficult in Quebec,
particularly in my region, to talk about agriculture without
referring to forestry. Most of our farmers have some woodland
on their farm. In many cases, if used properly, that woodland can
provide a supplementary income which can sometimes be
relatively substantial.
Again, the federal government will hurt these farmers. The
Eastern Quebec Development Plan, which was to be renewed for
three years, was only extended for one year.
(1555)
This will result in a shortfall of more than $13 million over a
two-year period. The federal-provincial agreement, which will
end in 1996, is also in bad shape. As you know, these
federal-provincial agreements have been in place for 25 years
and their continued existence is now uncertain, unfortunately.
Foresters and farmers are very concerned.
Investing in agriculture is an obligation, while investing in
forestry is a necessity. It is a plus, an investment. It is not a
donation. The ministers of agriculture and natural resources are
yielding to the finance minister who, in turn, yields to the
multinationals. The problem is: who governs the country? It is
the multinationals. Occasionally, the Minister of Finance will
give his opinion, but it is just an opinion. Earlier, some members
opposite accused us of being partisan; sure, because we
represent our people. We are quite willing to be accused of
partisanship because we truly look after the interests of those
whom we represent.
What will happen is disturbing, if not downright frightening.
We have a moral obligation to feed ourselves, as well as
others, because the Gaspé Peninsula is a vast territory. If we
were given the tools to invest in our agricultural land base, we
could feed thousands, perhaps millions of people. All we need is
a bit of help. As I said earlier, people in our regions are used to
11497
taking risks and putting up with an unpredictable climate,
various diseases and fluctuating interest rates. They are
survivors. They can once again meet the challenge with pride
and dignity.
People need more than bread: they need more than figures and
financial statements. Quebec farmers know that what people
need above all are dignity and pride. Should we deprive
ourselves of the life enjoyed by free nations, which deserve to be
free, merely because we are a minority in North America? Based
on what logic or what decree should the Quebec nation deprive
itself of what is vital to other nations? Farmers know our history
well. They know that there was a winner and a loser.
I will conclude by saying to my fellow farmers: you should
not have any complexes: your past performances are a guarantee
of future success. Your land is yours. All you have to do is give
yourself a country. That country is called Quebec.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The Secretary of State
for Parliamentary Affairs, on a point of order.
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wish to indicate that an
agreement could not be reached under the provisions of sections
(1) or (2) of Standing Order 78 in respect of proceedings at the
second reading stage of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms
and other weapons.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I therefore give
notice that I will propose a motion at the next sitting of the
House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or
hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that
stage.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
(1600)
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Madam Speaker, my
hon. friend talked about the future as being frightening. I would
certainly agree with him. The future is extremely frightening for
Quebec farmers if they listen to the misinformation which I
heard coming from the other side relative to what would happen
if Quebec separates.
He is absolutely right in saying that supply management has
been the only viable income system for farmers. He should
admit up front that this viable income system will be put in
jeopardy should Quebec move toward separation. That supply
management system is one of the benefits Quebec farmers have
gained from being a part of Canadian federation.
While I am on my feet, I might as well ask a question about my
concern with the resolution put forward by hon. members
opposite. They are leaving the impression that converting the
grain transportation subsidies into direct subsidies to western
farmers is an advantage at the expense of Quebec. Nothing could
be further from the truth.
As a government, we have admitted that changing the WGTA,
which has been the cornerstone of agricultural policy in western
Canada, is extremely hurtful to western farmers. The fact of the
matter is that farmers in Quebec got off relatively lightly with
the budget as compared to those in the west.
How does the member opposite explain to farmers in Quebec
that they are not going to lose the supply management system
should they move to separation? Is he not willing to admit that
Canada has been extremely good to farmers in Quebec over the
last century and in fact the budget has really been relatively light
in targeting Quebec farmers?
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member asked a question, but I think the
answer is pretty obvious, because as you know, when we need
something, we go to whoever has what we want. At one point,
Russia was ordering wheat from us. We were capitalists and they
were communists. They did not care about borders. They came
to buy our wheat because it was good wheat and the price was
right.
When people say Canada had been very good for Quebec, my
answer is this: our farmers are telling us this has got to stop.
These are not my words but theirs. I speak on their behalf, since
when we are elected, it is our duty is to speak on behalf of our
constituents. I talked to farmers and they told me to say what I
just said. This is no joke, this is dead serious. I speak for the
farmers in my riding, and they say it is practically impossible to
live with this kind of system.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Madam Speaker, as soon as the Bloc Quebecois caucus
decided that the next motion on the Order Paper for our
opposition day, would be a motion on agriculture denouncing
the Liberal government's budget, I told the hon. member for
Frontenac that I was very anxious to speak in this debate.
First of all, I want to commend my colleague from Frontenac
for the clarity of his presentation and also for the fact that his
interventions on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois were very much
to the point.
11498
(1605)
I want to congratulate him on behalf of all farmers in Quebec
who are proud of the work done by the hon. member for
Frontenac.
It is rather difficult to remain calm when speaking in this kind
of debate. Especially when we hear from members on the
government benches, although the same could be said of some
Reform Party members, what I would qualify, without wishing
to use unparliamentary terms, as outrageous statements from
Liberal members and several members of the Reform Party.
I am referring more specifically, before I get to the gist of my
speech, to what was said by the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who in this very House accused
all Bloc members of lying or saying the opposite of the truth,
which apparently is parliamentary, and then, with the Minister
of Agriculture, accused us of causing emotions to run high
across this beautiful country of ours.
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is
extremely good at saying just about anything without being too
particular about how he says it. Everyone will recall, and this
will go down in history as one of the achievements of the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, his speech in the
House during the debate on back-to-work legislation to settle
the railway dispute. The hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell rose in the House to speak out
loud and clear about what one of his constituents had told him
which was, according to him, that shipping costs for soya beans
had gone up 20 per cent because of this dispute. And he gave us
his constituent's telephone number so that we could call him
right away. Well, it transpired that the only element of truth in
what was said by the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was this telephone number. That
was the only fact. The rest was a tissue of falsehoods. This was
checked immediately by the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm who called our Liberal colleague's
constituent on the telephone.
This morning, or was it this afternoon, I also heard the hon.
member for Lisgar-Marquette of the Reform Party say that
Quebec benefited as a result of federal intervention, especially
in the dairy sector. I would like to take a few minutes to clear up
a few things.
As everybody in this House knows, I represent the riding of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead where there is a large number
of farmers, especially dairy farmers. Dairy farming is a very
important industry, economically speaking. The economic
spin-offs of dairy farming in my riding amount to tens of
millions of dollars. As one can see, milk production is a very
significant activity in Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.
We are told that, should Quebec become sovereign, the rest of
Canada will refuse to buy milk from Quebec. This is the kind of
blackmailing we are being subjected to, and of course, there is
no intent, on the part of our colleagues who make this
suggestion, to have feelings run high.
(1610)
Very calmly, they are not trying to scare anyone; on the
contrary, they just want to reassure us by saying that once
Quebec is sovereign, there will be no more dealing with Quebec.
This is what is being said in this House.
This seems to me to be utter nonsense. One must look at the
facts. The facts are that trade between Quebec and Canada
amounts to more than $80 billion. For a large part, this trade is in
agricultural products. In this area, Quebec shows an average
deficit of more than $800 million.
That is to say that Quebec buys from the rest of Canada more
than it sells. So, if someone should be doing some blackmailing
in the context of a sovereign Quebec, it certainly should not be
the rest of Canada. This means that English Canada would
decide, in cold blood, to stop buying milk from Quebec
producers, while knowing that Quebec could buy its beef, grain
and other foodstuff from other sources.
I am saying this again very seriously mostly for the benefit of
farmers, the men and women who own farms worth hundreds of
thousands of dollars, sometimes even more than one million
dollars. Agriculture in Quebec is no small potatoes. It is a
thriving industry. A very significant industry.
I am saying this for the benefit of these men and women,
Quebec's sovereignty cannot have the impact Liberal and
Reform members would like us to believe. With Canada
showing an $800 million deficit-and it is important to keep this
figure in mind-in agriculture each and every year, Quebec is in
a strong bargaining position when the time comes to negotiate
with the rest of Canada.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi stated in this House
that the Quebec government was cutting funding to agricultural
research and development. He asked us very
seriously-probably confusing one level of government with
the other because he is newly elected at the federal level-to
take the matter up with the Government of Quebec so that the
situation can be remedied.
I just want to point out to the hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi and all the hon. members of this House that
the best solution to Quebec's budget problems is for Quebec to
become sovereign. Quebec's share of the federal agriculture
department's budget of more than $2 billion should be $500
million-that is how much should be spent in Quebec-but the
figures prove otherwise. Instead of 25 per cent, we are actually
getting 12 per cent; for research and development, it is more like
10 per cent.
11499
I will conclude by saying that the best solution to Quebec's
agricultural development problem is to achieve sovereignty.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to remind
the hon. member that, in remarks made earlier today, he used
words that almost fit my description of unparliamentary
language. I would simply ask him to be careful when referring to
what the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said.
(1615)
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead for his spirited speech
regarding agricultural producers in his riding. I too represent an
agricultural riding in Alberta. I am a farmer and I appreciate his
concerns for the people who are affected.
However, I do want to remind the hon. member that no one is
talking about refusing to buy milk from Quebec, even though
Quebec now enjoys 50 per cent of the Canadian fluid milk
market with only approximately 25 per cent of the population. If
Quebec were to separate, that might influence whether the rest
of Canada would buy milk from Quebec. It certainly would not
buy milk based on a 351 per cent tariff. It would be looking for a
price based on a world price. If it is going to be competing it has
to meet the competition. I see that as the biggest threat, not the
decision of whether to buy from Quebec.
I would like the hon. member to give us some idea of how the
supply-managed producers in his riding can make the transition
from the current system, with 351 per cent as the high tariff on
butter-they are all in that range-down to free trade in
agricultural products, which is going to happen over a period of
time. How do we make that transition easier for the producers? It
is of concern to all of us. He talked about the hundreds of
thousands of dollars that these people have invested. The same
situation exists in the grain farming industry in western Canada.
It seems to me that as responsible people we have to not
pretend that we will have the supply-managed tariffs in effect
forever. We must look at the reality that we are going to have
free trade and there will be zero tariffs down the road. We have
to help these people make the adjustments necessary to get
there. I would welcome his comments in that regard.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the
Reform Party for his question which seems quite relevant. I will
answer his question as clearly as possible. In fact, he is asking
me how farmers can adjust to the new international trade
context, that is, the reduction in tariffs now set under GATT?
Of course, this is a major concern of farmers in my riding and
throughout Quebec and of all dairy and other producers affected
by international trade and tariffs.
Allow me to share with him some farmers' reaction with
respect to dairy production in particular. Many farmers in my
riding said in response to my questions that they would be
willing to compete with U.S. farmers-since they are our main
competition in the area of dairy production-provided they
played by the same rules. In other words, they would if they
were in the position to offer products as good as those on the
American market.
It must be pointed out that in both Quebec and Canada-since
the milk marketing system is the same across the country-not
only production but also quality is subject to regulations. This is
something we can be proud of. If we want to preserve this
quality, we must pay the costs involved. The whole matter must
be considered. I will surely have the opportunity to get back to
this later.
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Gatineau-La Lièvre.
(1620 )
The motion before the House today suggests this government
is providing western farmers with an unfair advantage over
farmers in eastern Canada. Our job has been and always will be
to work with all sectors of the agriculture and agri-food industry
to create opportunities and advantages, not to promote one
sector at the advantage of another or one region over another, as
my hon. colleagues would suggest.
This government's first and foremost priority is to win the
national battle against the deficit. Within that reality of fewer
government dollars, this government is working extremely hard
through the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
to help position the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector to
increase Canada's share in every available marketplace, at home
and abroad. That work has not been at the expense of one part of
the country over another. Western and eastern farmers alike
have said repeatedly that they do not want to be subsidized; they
just want good markets and fair prices.
The changes outlined in this government's budget will help
farmers reach that goal while helping reduce the overall cost of
government through changes that are designed to improve our
efficiency and competitiveness, to remove impediments to
development and value-added production and processing, and
to take maximum advantage of the world's new trading
environment.
11500
This government recognized that structural reform in our
transportation system was long overdue. Reforming the Western
Grain Transportation Act will eliminate barriers to value-added
opportunities, diversifications and economic growth.
Eliminating the WGTA will provide Canada and the agri-food
sector with a faster, lower-cost and more efficient
transportation system. Transportation reform can help us more
effectively comply with the new international trade rules under
GATT.
There is a big difference between subsidies for grain
transportation and dairy producers. In fact, eliminating the $560
million subsidy addresses competitive concerns raised by
farmers in eastern Canada. The annual subsidy, which has
already been reduced by over 23 per cent in the last two years, is
now being completely eliminated as of August 1, 1995. The
dairy subsidy meanwhile is being reduced by only 30 per cent
over a period of two years.
The adjustment package this government is offering to the
grain industry reflects the potential impact of eliminating a
96-year-old commitment to the western grain sector. To
eliminate the subsidy with no funds to help the sector adjust
would seriously disrupt the prairie grain economy because it has
traditionally represented an important source of land value for
prairie producers. An ex gratia capital payment of $1.6 billion
will be paid to owners of prairie farmland in recognition of the
impact on land values that may result from the termination of
the long-standing freight rate subsidies. This one-time payment
is not tied to production or marketing decisions.
A multi-year adjustment package of $300 million has also
been established to address specific issues arising from the
transportation reform. The amount is not excessive. It does not
give western farmers an unfair advantage. Rather it is necessary
to help adjustment of the industry and the transportation system
in the west.
It should also be noted that while the GATT agreement has
brought some discipline to export subsidies, the prairie grain
sector will face considerable competition from subsidized
exports of grain. While the dairy subsidy is being reduced, it is
not disappearing. In fact, our national supply management
system, one of the great advantages of our federal system,
ensures a reasonable return to efficient producers, and this
management system will be maintained.
It is rather ironic that the hon. opposition member calls our
approach to transportation reform an unfair advantage for
western farmers. Some western provinces and producers have
argued the budget cuts to western Canada are substantially
greater than to eastern Canada. They have argued that eastern
Canada is receiving a greater share in adjustment transitional
funding relative to the magnitude of the subsidy programs that
are being eliminated or reduced.
What this tells us is that all farmers, and indeed all Canadians,
are sharing equally, as we must, in the responsibility for deficit
reduction. It is a responsibility we must all shoulder to ensure
the future growth of our agriculture and agri-food sector and to
maintain our competitiveness on a global scale.
(1625)
This government is creating opportunities for western and
eastern Canadian farmers alike. As my hon. colleagues know,
this government has set aside considerable funding for
adaptation initiatives. While the overall budget for Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada may have been reduced by 19 per cent,
the department has initiated a 20 per cent increase in its
adaptation funding. This reflects the industry's shift in direction
toward acquiring financial security from the marketplace rather
than from government programs. This adaptation funding is
available equally to farmers in eastern and western Canada to
help improve the sector's ability to grow and capture markets.
This government's package of reforms to grain transportation
is not inconsistent with the position set out by the Quebec
coalition on the WGTA in December 1994. The package of
subsidy reform is fair and balanced with respect to different
situations in different regions of our country and in different
sectors. All will have to do their share in contributing to deficit
reduction and all will share in reaping the benefits.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to ask a
question of the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn.
I am quite taken aback by his very weak defence of the
elimination of the Crow benefit for western Canadian farmers. I
am taken aback because he says in his remarks that the
elimination of the Crow benefit will take away almost half of the
net farm income from farmers in Saskatchewan alone; it will
reduce their land values by a significant amount; and it will
double and in many cases triple freight rates for the
transportation of grain. He said: ``This is creating opportunities
for farmers'', that the Liberal program of eliminating the Crow
benefit for farmers, which will devastate rural Saskatchewan
and western and rural Canada, is creating opportunities for
farmers.
This is reminiscent of another movie. The movie I refer to is
in Saskatchewan with Grant Devine, the PC premier who
bankrupted the province-he and his cabinet-almost
single-handedly in nine short years. It was one of the wealthiest
provinces in Canada. They fired 275 highway workers and their
comment at that time was not ``creating opportunities for
farmers''; their comment was that they were freeing up the
workers to participate in the private sector. That is exactly the
same kind of comment, the arrogant positioning of the Liberal
government with respect to the elimination of the Crow, that we
hear today in this House of Commons.
11501
I find that personally distasteful. I predict, and many farmers
and other people in Saskatchewan predict, that come the next
federal election we will not see one Liberal member of
Parliament re-elected as a result of this single attack on farmers,
as well as the rail-line abandonment issue.
The member for Malpeque, another Liberal member who
voted in favour of the abolition of the Crow benefit, is now
chairman of an agriculture subcommittee going around the
country listening to farmers' concerns, joined by Reformers and
other Liberals, to see what impact the elimination of the Crow
benefit will be. We can tell them what the impact will be, but
having the Liberal member for Malpeque and his other members
go around the country listening to farmers' concerns is like
putting a pack of wolves in charge of the hen-house. Liberal and
Reform members are saying: ``We want to hear what the impact
will be, Mr. and Mrs. Farmer. Please tell us. Although we voted
to eliminate it, we are going to try to listen to your concerns.''
That is a sham. That is a scam.
The Liberal member for St. Boniface, who participates in this
debate from his seat, does not understand the issue because he
does not have any rural component in his constituency. If he did,
he would be in jeopardy of losing his seat as well.
How does the member from Dundurn explain that the
elimination of the Crow benefit and massive rail-line
abandonment will increase exports when in fact grain will not be
produced for export in the same quantity as it is now? Farmers
will be going bankrupt in substantial numbers and people will
see a smaller number of farmers farming in western Canada.
How does he square that?
(1630 )
Mr. Bodnar: Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentions the
bankruptcy of farmers. The bankruptcy of farmers in
Saskatchewan, should any arise, will be as a result of the
provincial NDP policies not as a result of Liberal policy at the
federal level.
Let us not forget that some policies in Saskatchewan which
the hon. member has been espousing as being so wonderful are
by the NDP government. It is the same NDP government in
Saskatchewan that would not lower the provincial sales tax,
which chased away business into other provinces. It is the same
government that would not reduce the aviation fuel tax until
pressured to do so, again chasing jobs away. This is because the
NDP government in the province of Saskatchewan did not want
to lower its equalization payments from the federal government.
The NDP government in Saskatchewan has been living like a
welfare bum off the federal government. That is what it has been
doing. As fast as we have been creating jobs in Saskatchewan
under infrastructure and other programs, the Government of
Saskatchewan has been destroying those jobs.
I do not believe the hon. member is in a position to be
commenting on the devastation of the agricultural industry,
which is not occurring in Saskatchewan. In fact, production is
going up in other sectors such as hog production and cattle
production. The whole industry will benefit rather than suffer, as
indicated by the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the remarks made by the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Dundurn and the questions posed by the hon.
member for Regina-Lumsden show the conflict that exists in
the agricultural sector and the need for reform.
Of course, we are concerned about the changes or budget cuts
recently announced by the Canadian Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food. In its motion, the opposition denounces as unfair to
some Canadian farmers the budget cuts recently announced by
the Minister of Finance. These people are clearly acting in good
faith but I am sure that they are mistaken.
Sometimes, our colleagues opposite do not realize that this
country is facing a crisis as a result of the deficit accumulated
over the past 15 to 20 years. Our deficit represents 73 per cent of
GDP. We can no longer put it off. Whatever difficulties await us
in the future, certain problems must be solved, namely bringing
public spending under control and introducing sound
management for all Canadians without exception.
The Department of Agriculture was asked to cut spending by
19 per cent. Other departments were also required to make
sacrifices. The Department of Agriculture met the challenge and
found a way to sweeten the pill by ensuring that the cuts are fair
to all farmers across Canada.
Breeders in animal feed deficit areas receive feed grain
transportation subsidies aimed at reducing the cost of this feed
and allowing breeders to compete. Financial help is provided to
breeders almost everywhere from the Atlantic provinces to the
Yukon, including parts of Eastern Quebec, Northern Ontario and
British Columbia. Those are the facts.
(1635)
A subsidy on which rely the producers in most provinces,
including Quebec, is about to disappear, but there is more. The
government recognizes that this may not be a popular measure.
It also knows that it cannot, and must not, ask producers to
drastically change their operations overnight.
Contrary to what some might think, the government is willing
to listen. During our post-budget consultations, we learned that
11502
the initial date set for the elimination of the FFAP, the Feed
Freight Assistance Program, which was October 1, did not give
enough time to the producers and to the industry to adjust to
such a major change. Consequently, the government agreed to
wait until December 31, 1995, and not reduce the level of
assistance provided during that period.
While the government will eliminate the subsidy provided
under the FFAP, it will inject $62 million, over the next ten
years, in the regions where the FFAP is currently in effect. Part
of these funds will be used to make the payments provided under
the program, until it expires later this year. The government is
also providing financial assistance by giving a lump sum
payment to western farmers affected by the repeal of the WGTA.
We are receptive to the concerns of producers, while also
showing fiscal restraint with the taxpayers' money.
This financial assistance will be provided to affected
producers in every province and region in the country. How will
that money be spent? As you know, we do not have that answer
yet, but we decided to seek the help of experts. The government
feels that those who are most qualified to answer that question
are the producers, the people in the food and cattle industry, the
feed producers and the animal farmers from the regions which
will be most affected by the gradual elimination of the FFAP.
This is why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
announced that consultations would be held with the producers,
in the coming weeks and months, to look at ways to use the FFAP
adjustment fund and the transition fund. Moreover, these people
will look at various financing options offered by other programs
run by the Department of Agriculture, including the joint
investment project in agri-food research.
The government is aware that hard times lie ahead. This is not
necessarily the best solution, but under these circumstances, we
have to act. However, we would be grateful if the opposition
could come up with better solutions. I remind the House that,
because of the disastrous economic situation we have inherited
from the previous government, we have no other choice but to
take rather drastic measures.
National consultation is the only way to establish closer ties
with representatives from the agricultural industry. Together,
we can find solutions, come up with new ideas and even reach
compromises that would ensure that all farmers are treated
fairly. This agricultural reform should have been implemented
several years ago. Think about what is happening in the area of
fisheries and oceans, where the fish stock has been declining for
the last ten years, where we are still waiting for changes that
should have been made more than 10 years ago, and look atthe results. We do not want the same situation to occur inagriculture.
(1640)
The whole world is undergoing unprecedented changes and in
turn we have to make fundamental changes to preserve our
agri-food industry.
Finally, all those who know something about agriculture
realize that this industry has been very efficient in the past in
Canada. We are one of the most fortunate countries in the world,
because our agri-food industry has evolved rather nicely.
However, with all the changes that were made in terms of GATT
and NAFTA, and with the competitiveness of the United States
south of our border, we are under a lot of pressure.
There are times, I must say, when the dealings of the United
States on the world market create unfair competition. A country
with a tenth of its population is bound to be affected by its
actions. This is why the Department of Agriculture must make
changes. We do not want the situation to worsen. It could have
very disastrous consequences for all of Canada.
So, we must recognize that the measures put forward are not
perfect. But nothing is perfect in this world. Any way, the
important thing is to act. As the situation evolves, we will make
adjustments to ensure that all farmers are treated fairly.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I agree up to a point with the hon. member for Gatineau-La
Lièvre who shares with me the position of vice-chairman of the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I must
admit that the hon. member is very knowledgeable on
agricultural matters.
However, I may remind him that the country's current debt
was not created by the Americans, the French or the Mexicans.
Around 1969-70, the debt was almost nil. I will not tell you who
was governing the country at the time, since you know that
better than I do. But in 1984, when Liberals were ousted, the
debt totalled around $250 billion.
In nine years, the Tories brought the debt close to $500
billion. His team was responsible for creating at least half of the
cumulative debt. Today, the government is asking or rather
telling farmers to do their share to reduce the deficit it created in
the first place. And farmers, oddly enough, are being asked to do
a bit more than that.
My friends opposite did not mention the fact that during the
past fiscal year, 328,000 flights were logged by public servants,
not including members of the House of Commons and senators.
The cost: $275.5 million. They do not mention that.
Earlier, while listening to the hon. member for Gatineau-La
Lièvre, I was reading an editorial by Claude Rivard, Quebec
11503
president of the dairy producers, who had the following to say:
``As far as reducing the deficit is concerned, we expected Mr.
Martin and his government to do what they promised: a budget
that would be hard but fair''. You may recall that for a month
they were saying that the budget would be hard but fair. The
article goes on: ``Well as far as we are concerned, the Chrétien
government was hard but unfair''. That is the perception Quebec
farmers have of this budget.
And what about the major banks that declared a profit of $3.5
billion in one year? They will be asked to pay a meagre
additional $100 million as a temporary tax, spread over 18
months.
(1645)
I realize that the major banks are among those that make the
biggest donations to the party's coffers. There was the
Conservative Party, but since they are out of the picture, I will
not mention that.
So I agree we have to reduce the deficit. But, instead of
coming down hard on farmers, I would like to add, for the
benefit of the hon. member for Malpèque, that in 1988-89-and
I am about to conclude, Madam Speaker,-spending in the
agri-food sector, as a percentage of total federal spending, was
3.5 per cent. In 1994-95-the fiscal year which just came to an
end-this percentage was 1.6 per cent; and in 1996-97, it is
expected to be 1.2 per cent. So I am not very pleased with the
way this government has treated and will treat agriculture in
Canada.
Mr. Assad: Madam Speaker, I must correct something. My
colleague opposite said that, in 1984, the Liberal government
left behind a debt of $250 billion. The debt was not $250 billion,
but $160 billion. There is a big difference. In 1984, in terms of
the Canadian economy, the debt was one of the lowest among the
industrialized countries. I therefore find it a bit odd that he is
providing incorrect figures. He could look at the facts.
Secondly, he mentioned that Mr. Rivard, the head of the dairy
producers association, had said it was a tough budget. It is true.
It is pretty tough, but it must be remembered that a Liberal
government elevated the dairy industry to its present level. With
milk quotas, dairy farmers in Quebec have become some of our
wealthiest farmers. We must look at both sides of the issue.
I would tell my colleague across the floor that he should try to
quote figures accurately. There are consequences for failing to
do so.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Verchères-international trade; the hon.
member for Cumberland-Colchester-health; the hon.
member for Lévis-youth strategy.
Debate resumes with the hon. member for Lotbinière.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to talk about agriculture, a critical sector of our economy.
The official opposition is using this day devoted to agriculture
to set the record straight in this area. I would not be surprised if,
last week end, some members opposite forgot to reset their
clocks.
Our job is to set the record straight regarding the last budget
which has left Quebec farmers with a rather bitter aftertaste.
This last budget shows once more how unfair this government
is.
The transition measures planned for Western producers
following the elimination of the Crow rate are typical of the
double standards applied by this government. Our party's
position is clear: we support the elimination of this subsidy
which created undue distortion in grain transportation.
However, we are against the $2.2 billion transition payment to
western producers. By reneging on its commitments, the federal
government is pitting eastern producers against their western
counterparts and creates new trade distortions. Once the subsidy
is eliminated, grain producers in remote areas will be tempted to
dump their products on the domestic market. Otherwise, they
will have to pay for transportation costs to foreign markets. This
will lead to lower grain prices in the west, and higher prices in
the east, since they will reflect the real transportation costs.
(1650)
Moreover, beef and dairy farmers in the east will be doubly
penalized, compared to their competitors in the west, since they
use cereals as feed.
This is not an attack against western producers. It is the
federal government, and no one else, which is upsetting
domestic markets by introducing compensatory measures which
apply only to the west. The government created an imbalance
when it introduced the Crow rate and it now creates a new
imbalance by doing away with it. It should have either cut the
subsidy without compensation or cut it and compensated
equitably all producers. It is probably too much to ask from
people who, as usual, acted without considering the
consequences.
Following Martin's budget, the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food will see his budget go from $2.1 billion to $1.7
billion in three years. Two thousand positions will be abolished
because of these cuts.
Rather than cutting the budget in this way, why did the federal
government not transfer the resources to the provinces? They
could have rationalized spending, taking into account the
programs they already manage. All the federal government had
to do was withdraw from this field of provincial jurisdiction.
Again, this is a perfect example of duplication since two levels
11504
of government are going to compete against each other at the
expense of the industry. By eliminating overlaps we could have
avoided some cuts.
Quebec would certainly not have slashed research and
development, and the experimental farms of La Pocatière and
L'Assomption would have survived. In the farm community, as
well as many others, we question the relevance of paying taxes
to Ottawa when we do not get in return the necessary resources
to develop our industry.
Also, we are still not getting our fair share of federal spending
in agriculture, since we are only receiving about 12.4 per cent
when 17 per cent of agricultural revenues come from Quebec.
Meanwhile, the west is taking the lion's share with about 60 per
cent of federal spending.
The situation in Quebec worsened since 1980, when our share
of spending was 16.4 per cent. Moreover, taxes paid by our
farmers help maintain policies which compete with their own
production. Yes, many Quebec farmers are questioning the use
of remaining in a country which lets them down at the slightest
provocation. On the other hand, we know that we will have to
counteract the fear generated by federalists.
The fear campaign began when federalist mercenaries
published statements concerning the dairy industry in Quebec
which, according to them, would be threatened by sovereignty.
We are told that a sovereign Quebec would loose half its quota of
industrial milk, which would lead to the closing of thousands of
dairy farms in Quebec.
According to federalists, sovereignty would be catastrophic
for the Quebec dairy farmers who supply the federation with 48
per cent of its industrial milk whereas Quebec only represents
25 p. 100 of the Canadian population.
Let us analyze the facts calmly. It is incorrect to say that a
sovereign Quebec will no longer trade with the rest of Canada.
The Quebec dairy industry is not a blessing, nor a gift or an
advantage of federalism. It is just an economic fact.
Therefore, the worse case scenario should take into account
the fact that the value of the trade between Quebec and Canada is
more than $80 billion and that trading is not one way only. If
Quebec is to lose its trade with the rest of Canada, is not the
reverse also true?
Comparing one scenario to another, members will admit that
this one defining an economic area which is advantageous to
both parties is more realistic. True, it will not win an Oscar in
the horror category or for fiction. But it is also true that people
prefer movies with a happy ending. Here is a true script: just last
Wednesday, dairy farmers from Quebec and Canada signed a
memorandum of agreement on the integration of marketing
operations for fluid milk and industrial milk in six eastern
provinces. In these six provinces, farmers will be paid the same
price for their milk and will share a common quota.
(1655)
Together, these provinces represent 85 per cent of the
Canadian industrial milk quota. Such integration will eliminate
interprovincial barriers to milk supply. Quebec played a
substantial role in this issue. Nobody was tempted to ignore it.
Without Quebec, the Canadian milk policy would fall down.
The dairy farmers from other provinces know that and
understand perfectly. In this pre-referendum period, they
acknowledge the importance of economic integration with
Quebec. We have put the federalist scare scenario far behind us,
have we not? Canadian dairy producers know that the day after
Quebec votes yes in the referendum, Canada will maintain an
economic union with Quebec, not to please Quebecers but to
protect its own interests.
Who would dare think of excluding Quebec from the supply
management system, from quotas? Producers from other parts
of Canada would have to compete with the highly competitive
Quebec dairy producers and the Canadian market would
experience a shortage of products from Quebec. The GATT
would prevent Canada from slapping on new trade restrictions to
prevent dairy products from Quebec from making inroads into
its market.
The GATT prohibits the imposition of new restrictions on
markets. Maintaining a common economic link would permit us
to ward off pressure from the Americans, who have remained
opposed to customs tariffs on Canadian dairy products.
Federalists are also trying to use NAFTA to scare us.
Even though the United States always tries to get the most out
of its trading partners, Quebec will invoke the GATT to protect
its customs tariffs, just like the Canadian government does.
If we absolutely must talk about threats to the dairy industry
in Quebec, let us talk about the latest federal budget. That is the
real threat to the dairy industry. The government is reducing its
industrial milk subsidy by 30 per cent over a two year period.
Obviously, with 48 per cent of the quota for industrial milk,
Quebec will have to absorb a large part of the cuts.
Calculating quickly, that will represent an income loss of
$3,775 for medium sized dairy producers, whose average net
income is $25,000. This will mean a 15 per cent drop in income,
in addition to the increased cost of livestock feed stemming
from the loss of subsidies for grain transport and feed transport,
to which I referred at the outset.
I repeat that no compensation will be offered in this budget to
Quebec farmers, who will be the hardest hit.
In closing, please allow me to quote the Quebec Minister of
Agriculture, Marcel Landry, after the Martin budget was tabled.
He said that Canada's new federalism is a big tax grab, a
reduction of services, and national standards. On this subject, he
recommends taking control over our taxes as soon as possible
and starting to map our own paths for the future-
11505
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry but the hon.
member's time has expired. Questions and comments. The hon.
member for Malpeque.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
want to point out to the hon. member that I am one federalist
who is not trying to scare Quebecers or Quebec farmers. I am
trying to make sure the farmers understand the facts as they
relate to Canada, especially in terms of the supply management
system.
I am assuming it was an oversight on the part of the member
when he talked about 12.4 per cent of the direct moneys to
Quebec farmers and that he did not think was a fair share.
Quebec has 48 per cent of the dairy quota.
Has the hon. member done any calculations? If he has could
he table any calculations on the real benefit to farmers in Quebec
of the Canadian supply management system in terms of dairy,
poultry and eggs?
The member talked about the loss of the subsidy. I will agree
that is a loss. I am a dairy producer and I accept the cutback in
the subsidy in terms of my contribution to deficit reduction. At
the same time I know full well, as does the member, the dairy
industry operates on a cost of production formula which assures
efficient farmers reasonable returns on their cost of production,
labour and investment. That is a pretty good deal. We know they
are getting that deal from Canada.
(1700 )
I have a last point I want to make. It may just be a factual
error, but I would not want the member to leave the wrong
impression. The member said there was no compensation for the
loss of the feed freight assistance program. Adjustment moneys
have been put in place for the loss of the program. We face that
in Prince Edward Island as well. In fact $60 million has been set
aside for farmers to use in order to adjust to the loss of the
program.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to
my colleague from Malpeque. He spoke about equity. He
admitted in his speech that an inequity problem had existed for a
long time between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
He said that he used to be a farmer in the Maritimes. He knows
full well that, a few years ago, potatoes from the Maritimes were
fully subsidized for export to the Quebec market, while Quebec
farmers had to pay transportation costs for their potatoes.
Farmers in Quebec and the Maritimes were competing for the
same Quebec consumers. If we are going to talk about equity, we
should really do so.
With regard to transportation, the Crow rate has been
eliminated, but some compensation formulas are still unfair to
Quebec. Twenty-five years ago, I was too young to be involved
in politics but some politicians, in whose footsteps I have
followed, have told me: ``Jean, you will see when you grow up
how difficult it is to fight the federal government''. I now realize
that what I was told 25 years ago is still true today. All I am
asking the government is to be fair to Quebec and the rest of
Canada.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I would gladly let my hon. colleague from
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead speak but, as you so rightly
said, I am the member for Québec-Est. My riding of Québec-Est
is an urban riding. I am not from a rural but an urban riding. I
know of a number of farmers in my riding but they are all
retired.
I nonetheless appreciate the importance of agriculture. I know
that agriculture is one of the pillars of the economy, particularly
in Quebec, which is about to become a country. Agriculture is a
basic economic sector. I also learned a thing or two about this
sector from working, a few years ago, for Agriculture Canada
minister Eugene Whelan, who was considered as one of the
greatest ministers of agriculture in Canadian history.
So, I am familiar with this inequity issue that was discussed at
length today. It is well known that Quebec farm producers were
treated less fairly than those from the rest of Canada, and
Western Canada in particular. The latest budget tabled in this
House by the Liberals provides a most glaring example of
inequity. It is plain obvious.
While Western producers are very generously
compensated-we are talking about $2 billion-subsidies paid
to milk producers in the East are being cut by 30 per cent. I must
say that this is nothing new. There was much talk about this here
today. Quebec has not been getting its fair share for ages now.
(1705)
Had one quarter of federal spending for Canadian agriculture
been going to Quebec, since it is normally calculated on a per
capita basis, Quebec would have been much better off. Instead,
Quebec got 10, 12 and sometimes as much as 15 per cent, but
never a full 25 per cent share of federal spending. According to
my calculations, on this basis, Quebec's shortfall for the past 15
years, since 1980, is between five and seven billion dollars.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): It is a disgrace.
Mr. Marchand: Quebec has paid between five and seven
billion dollars out of its own pocket in support of agriculture in
Western Canada and the rest of Canada. If only Quebec farmers
had benefited from such investments in their province, Quebec's
agriculture would have been even stronger than it is, and that
does not include the Crow rate, which cost the federal
government between $600 million and $800 million a year.
These
11506
investments in western grain transportation were very
discriminatory and they were made solely in favour of western
farmers.
A quarter of that money came from Quebec and statistics
show that, during the last 15 years, Quebec lost two billion
dollars more. These are huge losses. When the federal
government announces the elimination of the Crow rate and
talks about a compensation package, it only has in mind western
farmers, the constant winners for 15 years, with the grain
subsidy and the unfair federal investments in agriculture.
Quebec has always lost out. The unfairness is blatant, even more
so when one recognizes that Quebec farmers earn on average
about $25,000 for their very hard work.
A farmer can work up to 80 hours a week. He works the
equivalent of two jobs for a total salary of $25,000. So, the 30
per cent cut in milk subsidies and the 15 per cent cut in farmers'
revenues are a blow to milk producers. It is a blow because their
revenues are not that high. The inequity is obvious and we have
discussed the subject at length.
The overriding theme is that Quebec, in practically all areas,
has always been subjected to this sort of unfairness. Even
though the other members in this House will not admit it,
Quebec has been a cash cow for the rest of Canada. This is
obvious in every sector, whether it is the sale of goods and
services, or the research sector. As regards the latter, over the
last 15 years, Quebec has been getting, on average, 10 to 15 per
cent of research investments. Ontario was the big winner, with
an average of 50 per cent of the total federal assistance. Again,
Quebec lost money.
I could give you a whole list of examples where Quebec was
the loser, but I will stop here. At some point, Quebecers will
have to put their foot down and say: ``Enough is enough! We are
fed up with these injustices''.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Hear, hear.
Mr. Marchand: This is why Quebec farmers must also
assume their share of the risks involved in that venture.
Obviously, there are some concerns. Achieving Quebec's
sovereignty will not be a breeze. Nobody said it would be.
However, in the middle and in the long term, there is no question
that Quebecers will benefit from such a move. This is no
question about that.
There is a transition period which raises several issues,
including for the farming community.
(1710)
Indeed, farmers too wonder what will happen once Quebec
opts for sovereignty.
The hon. member for Lotbinière answered some very
important questions earlier. The government is resorting to
fearmongering when it says that Quebec dairy producers will
lose all their quotas. Such arguments are not reasonable and are
obviously based on emotions.
Quebec buys beef from Alberta, grain from the western
provinces, corn and soya from Ontario. We buy a lot more
outside the province than we sell. Do you think that, all of a
sudden, the rest of Canada will refuse to buy our butter or our
cheese, and that Quebec will no longer buy beef from Alberta?
Of course not. It is totally unreasonable to think that the rest of
Canada would force us into such an unfair situation.
I certainly believe that sovereignty will be beneficial to
Quebec farmers.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from
Québec-Est who clearly described the obvious advantages for
Quebecers to opt for sovereignty as soon as possible. It has also
been demonstrated that the federal system does not work. I know
that my Liberal and Reform colleagues do not like it when we
talk about inequity, even though it reflects the real situation, so
let us say that the federal system does not work, if this is the
expression the federalists would rather use.
On that issue, the hon. member for Lotbinière was very
eloquent. He used figures and several arguments to show that it
is impossible to ignore how the Canadian Department of
Agriculture has harmed the interests of Quebec.
Let me conclude my remarks which can be interpreted as a
question to the hon. member for Québec-Est.
Without asking for more than what Quebec is currently giving
to the federal government in the area of agriculture, and given
the fact that Quebecers already pay 25 per cent of all federal
taxes, if we were to get our hands on a similar proportion of the
agricultural budget and to manage the whole thing, then we
would be able to provide our farmers with an additional $500
million-since the federal Department of Agriculture has a $2
billion budget-in addition to the $300 or $350 million budget
of the Quebec Department of Agriculture.
I know how capable, passionate and proud our Quebec
farmers are and I am sure this will give them a competitive edge.
So, I want to say thank you to my colleague from Québec-Est.
Mr. Marchand: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my
colleague from Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.
What he said is true. Quebec farmers will likely have a greater
share of the province's revenues, money that was not available
to them before because it was distributed elsewhere. But once
11507
Quebec becomes sovereign, farmers will have the chance to
receive more money from the government.
We must also recognize the strength of the UPA and of Quebec
farmers. Our province is certainly the best organized province in
the agricultural industry in Canada. It is in excellent shape. It is
well structured. Farmers have a good knowledge of their trade
which will allow them to take advantage of new markets,
particularly of the new American market that is opening up. If I
am not mistaken, under the new agreements, we will have access
to 5 per cent of the American market. Therefore, Quebec
farmers are in a good position to take advantage of Quebec's
sovereignty.
(1715)
I would like to come back to the issue of milk quotas. Dairy
producers must understand that Quebec will not become
independent overnight after a victory in the referendum. There
has to be a period of negotiations. The current agreements, such
as the GATT and NAFTA, will stay in place. There will be
negotiations between Canada and Quebec and they will not
necessarily be conducted sector by sector, farmers with farmers,
bankers with bankers. These will be comprehensive
negotiations between Quebec and Canada. A framework will
have to be established, and when the parties are able to look at
the situation rationally, without letting their emotions interfere,
the rest of Canada will understand that, in the agricultural
industry, Canadian producers will have to maintain a good
relationship with Quebec producers in all sectors in order to
protect themselves against unfair competition from Americans.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to comment
on the Official Opposition's motion denouncing the government
for giving Western farmers an unfair advantage over their
Eastern counterparts.
The facts do not support the motion. They show that each
individual, each region and each sector contributes its fair share,
no more and no less, to reducing the deficit.
The 1995 Budget contained fair and balanced measures to
address circumstances that differ from one region and sector of
the country to another. It is worth mentioning that our reform of
the WGTA is consistent with the position adopted by the Quebec
coalition in December 1994.
Generally speaking, the government is eliminating its
transportation subsidy programs, including the WGTA in the
West, feed freight assistance in BC and Central and Eastern
Canada, as well as various transportation subsidies in the
Maritimes. What we are looking at is not a proposal to draw a
parallel between the East and the West, but rather a principle to
be implemented nationwide.
However, where we have eliminated transportation subsidies,
we are providing assistance to those who are hit the hardest, be
they in the East or the West.
As the hon. members know, the Western grain transportation
subsidy will be abolished as of August 1, 1995.
In the adjustment measures it has offered, the government
took into account the potential impact of the elimination of this
96-year old commitment toward the Western grain industry. The
prairie farmland owners will get an initial payment of $1.6
billion in relation to capital, which is equivalent to three more
years of the annual subsidy of $560 million.
In the budget he brought forward, the Minister of Finance
made it clear that this ex gratia payment to prairie farmland
owners was to offset the potential impact of the WGTA reform
on the land values. This is not a gift from above nor a regional
development subsidy.
The financial aid granted is not excessive and does not
provide undue benefits to Western farmers. However, it will
help grain producers adjust to changes. The GATT Agreement
established certain disciplinary rules for export subsidies, but
the prairie grain producers still have to compete with subsidized
wheat exports.
The dairy subsidy is to be reduced by 30 per cent over a two
year period, but the government remains committed to
maintaining our national supply management system.
(1720)
This system is one of the major benefits of federalism and it
gives a reasonable income to efficient producers both in the east
and the west.
Dairy farmers do not get a compensation package because
their subsidies, contrary to the WGTA subsidies, have not been
eliminated. But we are looking for ways to improve the dairy
industry competitiveness. Consultations will take place with
dairy farmers on the future of their subsidies.
We have been considering for 25 years the pros and cons of a
reform of western grain transportation subsidies. So, we
understand very well the reasons behind such a change. The
solution we found with the industry takes into consideration the
new circumstances of world trade, our fiscal situation and the
need to be more sensitive to market forces.
This kind of dialogue did not take place in the dairy industry.
We do not advocate any particular reform, but we think the time
has come for us to determine with farmers and other players the
best way to support the competitiveness of the dairy industry.
We intend to initiate discussions this year.
11508
The minister has announced that his parliamentary secretary,
the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, will hold
consultations with the industry on the way we should use the
large amount of money still available.
Cuts in agricultural spending take into account the improved
financial outlook for the agricultural industry, the new
discipline imposed by the new general agreement on
international subsidies and the difficult fiscal situation of the
government.
Interestingly enough, while the official opposition condemns
us because we allegedly make deeper cuts in eastern Canada
than in western Canada, others accuse us of doing just the
opposite. Critics take the elimination of the WGTA subsidies
out of context and ignore the $1.6 billion compensation
payment. The official opposition does the same with the 30 per
cent reduction in the milk subsidies and forgets about factors
that will cushion the impact of that reduction and the
government's commitment to the national supply management
system.
The 19 per cent cut in the agriculture department budget is
exactly the same as the average reduction in all federal
departments. In other words, the budget cuts at Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada represent about 4 per cent of the total cuts of
$7.2 billion proposed in the federal programs review. The fact
that the AAC expenses represent approximately 4 per cent of the
total federal expenses is not a coincidence.
We had some difficult choices to make given the critical
situation of the debt and the deficit. All the budgetary changes
reflect the need to materialize the government's vision of the
agri-food sector in Canada and the need not to let the deficit
jeopardize our future.
Our vision is based on financial security and the vitality and
viability of that sector. Only a continuing and sustainable
growth of the rural regions and the urban areas will make this
materialization possible. This government's priority is to
implement the necessary framework to help that sector find new
markets, create jobs and ensure its own development.
An investment in the agri-food sector is an investment in
growth for all regions of Canada-whether from the East, the
West, the North or the South.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to commend my colleague for his balanced speech
that looked at both sides of the issue. I would like to ask him a
very important question.
I suspect-if he disagrees with me, I will not be upset in any
way-that the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois today
was just to score political points, to try to play one part of the
country off against another.
(1725)
They did not sincerely believe that one region had been
treated more or less favourably than another, they simply
wanted to get one region to play off against another. They have
been unable to look at the situation and this issue in a balanced
way. As I said earlier, I will not be upset in any way if my
colleague disagrees with me. I would like to have his comments,
sincerely and honestly.
Mr. Bertrand: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon.
member for Saint-Boniface for his question.
I sort of agree with what my colleague has said. Il is true that
our government was faced with very tough decisions to make
and I sincerely believe that the decisions the Minister of Finance
had to make were very difficult for all regions in Canada,
whether in the East or in the West. I believe that the cuts that
have been announced in the past or that will be in the future are
fair and legitimate. I can hardly understand why the Official
Opposition is trying to set the East against the West.
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to take the last couple of minutes to state my
disapproval of the motion being put forward by the opposition.
I am surprised that my colleagues in the agricultural sector of
the Bloc Quebecois would actually put together such a motion. I
know and work with them very well in our committee. I am
surprised that they are trying to suggest to the House and to the
Canadian people that those areas of the budget related to
agriculture are anything but fair to all areas of the country.
Everyone in the agricultural community recognizes that we
require fairness in dealing with our debt and deficit situation.
That part of the budget prepared by the Minister of Finance
dealing with agriculture certainly was given a great deal of input
by the minister of agriculture. They tried to deal in a fair and
equitable manner with the areas of supply management and the
western grain transportation issues.
One disappointment I have had since becoming chair of the
standing committee on agriculture has been hearing hon.
members in the House claim that one part of the country is
getting a better deal than another part. I also was disappointed
that a number of commodity groups and farm organizations
spend too much time arguing over who got what rather than
working and pulling together not only as commodity groups but
putting together different aspects of an organization to help
Canada in our commitments to export trade.
It will be in the export sector that agriculture and rural Canada
will find the jobs in the future. The government has made a large
commitment to exports. I feel that if the different groups get
together and if the Bloc Quebecois put aside its partisan political
interests, it would want to co-operate with all Canadians to
make sure that Canada's agricultural products are exported
around the world.
11509
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5:30 p.m., it is
my duty to inform this House that under Standing Order 81(19)
the time allowed for debate on the motion has now expired.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
11509
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved that Bill C-244,
an act respecting a national solidarity day for the aboriginal
peoples of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, recognizing that the starting
speaker is allotted up to 20 minutes, I would like to seek the
unanimous consent of the House to see if I could share this
20-minute spot with one of my New Democrat colleagues.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the generosity in
allowing my colleague to join me in co-sponsoring the bill. In
the Order Paper there are a number of co-sponsors. I refer
specifically to the member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake,
the member for Regina-Lumsden and the member for
Burnaby-Kingsway. Others have also indicated to me they are
in support of the bill.
This is the second time I have actually tabled the bill. The first
time it received the support of every aboriginal organization in
the country. It received support from countless bands across the
country and also from many urban organizations of aboriginal
people and all the significant leaders of aboriginal peoples. To
my knowledge no one has yet indicated their opposition to it,
either among the aboriginal or the non-aboriginal communities.
We only have one hour for debate. In the closing moments I
would hope either the debate would collapse, which would then
allow a voiced vote to send it off to the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, or simply
unanimous consent to send this off to the appropriate standing
committee for continuation.
The bill is fairly straightforward. I do not suspect it would
take an awful lot of study and examination. There may be the
will of the House to provide unanimous consent to move through
all stages before the hour is out, which we have done on previous
occasions.
Mr. Solomon: A great idea.
Mr. Riis: My hon. colleague from Regina-Lumsden
suggests this is a good idea. We will see as the hour progresses.
The preamble of Bill C-244, an act respecting a national
solidarity day for the aboriginal peoples of Canada, is as
follows:
Whereas it is desirable that Canadians designate a day in recognition of
Canada's original inhabitants;
And whereas Canadians seek earnestly to set an example of their commitment
to honouring native cultures;
And whereas June 21, being the longest day of the year and marking the
changing of the seasons, should be designated as a day in tribute of Aboriginal
solidarity;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Therefore this act may be cited as the National Solidarity Day
for the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Act. If it passes it will be
just that.
A point of clarification is needed. A number of my colleagues,
particularly in the Reform Party, have asked whether this is a
legal holiday. The point is not to make it a legal holiday but to
designate it as a day when Canadians from coast to coast join
with aboriginal peoples from coast to coast in acknowledging
the tremendous cultural contribution First Nations and
aboriginal people have made to this country. There is some
question about who the first Europeans were who arrived on
these shores. I take some pride in saying that my forefathers, the
Vikings, were probably the first Europeans, although some
people suggest it was the Irish. Some suggest the Chinese.
Whoever they were it is important to say they arrived on the
shores of North America and Canada to meet incredibly
advanced cultures; cultures that had existed in some cases in
rather hostile natural environments for hundreds and hundreds
of years, thousands of years in many cases.
(1735)
They had developed not only an incredible harmony in terms
of working with each other and complimenting each of the
organizations, tribes, clans and cultures in existence but they
worked and lived in harmony with the natural environment.
When the first explorers from Europe arrived on Canadian
shores they found by and large people who complimented their
efforts and assisted them. They gave of all their own resources
and so on to facilitate in the exploration of what we call today
Canada.
11510
Then the colonizers arrived. The settlers arrived. They met a
relatively welcoming culture, a welcoming people who
introduced them to the realities of living in this part of the globe.
One can imagine the incredible suffering that would have
occurred with some of these original settlers if the original
inhabitants of those areas were not there offering co-operation,
support, guidance and help at virtually every turn.
Things took a turn for the worse. It was then that we as a
non-aboriginal culture began to practice what can only be called
cultural genocide in many cases with intent, in other cases
indirectly. The reality was disease, sickness, illness, violence
and all sorts of aspects resulted in the genocide of aboriginal
cultures, almost to their extinction.
Right now as we speak there are only a handful of original
aboriginal languages left in the country. Thank goodness that at
the 11th hour we have to give full credit to the aboriginal leaders
across the country who stood up and said: ``This is the end. We
will now reverse this process''. Through incredible leadership
they have reversed the process of cultural extinction. Today
aboriginal cultures from coast to coast are probably richer, more
vibrant and more dynamic than they have been for a long time.
I want to refer to a number of aboriginal leaders in my
constituency. Every member could stand in their place this
afternoon and do the same. There are outstanding individuals
who in a number of ways through their leadership ability and
commitment to not only advancing the cause of their own
peoples but the country as a whole have made these tremendous
gains possible.
I refer to people like Chief Nathan Matthew, Chief Manny
Jules, Chief Ron Ignace, Chief Richard LeBourdais and many
others from the Shuswap nation of central British Columbia. I
acknowledge those same statements could be made for
aboriginal leaders from coast to coast.
Mr. Solomon: Chief Sol Sanderson from Saskatchewan.
Mr. Riis: Chief Sol Sanderson from Saskatchewan and David
Ahenakew and others as my colleague says. There are so many.
We owe them so much.
We must consider that before us in the next number of years
probably the most important social issue will be the relationship
between aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people and
sorting out this complex and growing relationship.
I refer to the emerging reality of self-government, of
self-determination and of self-reliance for aboriginal peoples,
the resolution of land claims, cultural preservation, social and
economic development, educational training and general
cultural advancement.
I acknowledge the minister of Indian and northern affairs who
has in his own way provided much needed leadership in a variety
of these areas.
(1740 )
When we look at the last 18 months, there have been
significant advancements in terms of a move toward
self-government, self-determination and self-reliance,
particularly for progressive Indian bands across the country to
say nothing of the Inuit, Dene and Metis advancements as well.
In order to permit my hon. colleague to say a few words, I will
conclude my remarks by saying that at a crucial time in the First
Nation's evolution in our part of North America, it is very
appropriate for us as parliamentarians on behalf of those we
represent to extend a hand in acknowledgement of the
contributions made by the First Nations.
We must tell them we recognize and appreciate those
accomplishments and that we would like to work
co-operatively, positively together for the advancement not
only of aboriginal peoples across Canada but Canadians
generally. We do acknowledge the existence of First Nations and
what that entails.
I would like to finish my remarks by referring to the Indian
Act and how this act, in my judgment, was a lie from the
beginning. The lie is betrayed in the first line of the act: ``This is
an act respecting Indian people''. This was not an act respecting
Indian people and it is for that reason I ask my colleagues to
extend a hand now and recognize June 21 as a solidarity day for
aboriginal peoples.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the
fine motion presented today by my colleague from Kamloops. It
is a motion to recognize a day of solidarity with aboriginal
peoples. It shows a lot of understanding of the challenges that
face our societies.
I would like to think that every day I stand in solidarity with
aboriginal peoples. However, that is not the case across the
country. It would be very useful to have a day to specifically
remind ourselves of the injustices to native people and that there
are specific things we need to do to address those injustices and
meet future challenges.
The royal commission on aboriginal peoples has released an
interim report on suicide. We must actively work to address the
recommendations on that issue.
The Senate has just released a report on the treatment of
aboriginal veterans from World War I, World War II and the
Korean war. We must as a nation actively work to address the
grievances of aboriginal veterans.
The House of Commons standing committee on Indian affairs
has in the past reported on the lack and the inadequacy of
housing in aboriginal communities. This issue must be
immediately addressed.
11511
An environmental panel looking at the acceptability of low
level military flight training over Innu land in Labrador reported
that land claims in jurisdictions must be dealt with quickly. This
is a critical issue which the government must pursue as soon as
possible.
The list goes on. Currently committees of the House are
examining the issues of self-government, of aboriginal
education, of aboriginal fishing and economic development, of
mental health among aboriginal people and the future of
resource management in areas where aboriginal communities
are located.
There is an urgent need for Canadians of all racial and ethnic
backgrounds to acknowledge the history, heritage and future of
Canada's first peoples. The adoption of a day of solidarity is
certainly one small step in the right direction.
In my own constituency much is happening in this regard.
Within the aboriginal communities chiefs like the late Big Bear,
Poundmaker, Ahtakakoop and Seekaskoch are focal points for
the development of interpretive and educational centres.
Non-aboriginal communities have begun to sponsor or jointly
host powwows and other cross cultural activities.
Individuals like the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian
Nation's Chief Blaine Favel have talked about the need to foster
stronger human and economic ties between non-aboriginal and
aboriginal communities and people. Tribal councils like the
Meadow Lake Tribal Council are demonstrating that successful
aboriginal businesses can contribute a great deal to the success
of neighbouring non-aboriginal communities. There are
negatives and positives in the relationships that exist between
our societies. If we are ever to overcome the negatives and make
the future positive we must take a few small steps first. This bill
sponsored by the hon. member for Kamloops and supported by
the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden and other members of
the House provides us with just such an opportunity.
(1745)
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise to support this bill.
I commend the hon. member for Kamloops for bringing it to the
House. The day which he talks about would be a day of
reflection.
I would like to quote Georges Erasmus, who said:
The history of our people needs to be told. We need to present accurately
what happened in the past, so that we can deal with it in the future- I don't like
what has happened over the last 500 years. We can't do much about that. But
what are we going to do about the next 500 years? What are we going to do about
the next ten years?
On this day of reflection these are the things which we should
be thinking about. We should be thinking about the fact that
when the Europeans landed here the Indians fed them, showed
them how to avoid scurvy and asked for nothing. They asked
Jacques Cartier for nothing. We should reflect on the Truro
wampum, the covenant chain, the broken treaties, the food
which they gave us.
My background is Irish and Italian. The Irish think that the
potato came from Ireland. It came from the Indians. The Italians
think the tomato came from Italy. It came from the Indians. They
had over 1,200 different plants when we arrived. It was a
self-sufficient nation.
We should reflect on their path of tears. We took away their
voice. We made them non-persons. We put them on reserves. We
put them in residential schools. It was not good enough to put
them in residential schools, we moved them to other provinces.
It was not good enough that they were in schools in other
provinces, we said: ``You shall not go home from the age of six
to eighteen''. They did not go home, not even for Christmas or
holidays. Then we decided we would take away their language
and their culture. To back all of this up and to make the kids go to
residential schools we invented the pass laws. If the parents did
not give up their kids to go to these schools they did not get a
pass to leave the reserves.
Show me an Irish family or an Italian family or any other
family that came to this country and was treated like that. In
other words, the visitors to this country were treated better than
the people who had been here for 10,000 years. We should
reflect on that.
My friend reminded us that we should reflect on the Indian
Act. It is archaic. It is an act which should not exist in any
country.
We should reflect on the dams at Grand Rapids, Churchill,
Nelson and Cheslatta that took away their livelihood. We took
away their very being. We should reflect on what we did to the
Haida Gwaii and the Micmac with our development of the
forests. We should reflect on what we did with minerals.
Because we needed minerals in northern Ontario, in came the
Robinson Superior treaties. That is why we have those treaties,
because we needed minerals.
In my area we took away the sturgeon and the wild rice. Not
only were they food sources, they were religious things to them.
They were there for generations and then they were gone.
We should remember our land grabs on those days, and the
people who have come and gone: the Elijah Smiths; the elders of
the Yukon; Jake Fire of the Mohawks, a traditionalist who came
to a meeting unarmed and was shot; Frank Calder and the
Sparrows. These are not individuals, these are families. For
three generations the Sparrow family in B.C. has been saying the
same thing. We should reflect on that and we should remember.
We should also reflect on what they are doing. They now have
over 5,000 businesses, representing 31,000 employees.
Twenty-five years ago only 600 to 800 aboriginal students were
in post-secondary schools. Today, as I stand here, they have
11512
150,000 graduates, with 22,000 in post-secondary institutions
this year and 23,000 who will be in post-secondary institutions
next year.
They had the leadership and they were articulate. On this day
that the hon. member is proposing we should think of that.
(1750)
In the past 17 months, and to me it feels like 17 years, we have
tried to implement the promises of our red book. We have
negotiated with the Micmacs. We have said: ``You've done so
well in education, now it is time to take over jurisdiction''. The
Micmacs in Nova Scotia are doing just that.
At the meeting when we signed the agreement, one of the
elders now, but once a chief said: ``You know when I started this,
Ron, there were only four Micmacs in the whole province of
Nova Scotia in post-secondary. I came to this meeting tonight to
sign with high hopes in my heart. I saw a car there. There were
three kids in this car and they were out of gas so I stopped and
helped them. All three were Micmacs, all three were university
graduates''. We should remember that.
On the Manitoba dismantling, a year ago people in the House
of one party thought it was craziness. Within three or four
months the public said maybe it is important. A month before
the signing they said it is historic. Now they say at Harvard that
it is the most significant aboriginal self-government agreement
in the world. That is the spirit.
In British Columbia it is difficult because we are doing
contemporary treaties, in spirit and intent. There are now over
120 First Nations negotiating at five tables with 50 people from
our side bringing in contemporary and modern treaties.
We intend to dismantle in northern Ontario. The meetings will
be held in the next two or three months. We intend to move
jurisdiction in Treaty 3 in the Fort Frances area and that is going
on now.
We are moving oil and gas. This is the way it works. There are
110 oil and gas chiefs, 50 are on significant oil and gas reserves.
They do not own it and they do not manage it. We have to give
them that because it belongs to them. It is on their reserves. That
will be done.
In Quebec we are dealing with the Inuit, the Cree, the
Montagnais, the Huron. We are dealing with them face to face
with dignity and respect, and agreements are being reached
there.
The same thing happened in the Yukon. You all went through
that as members. I would like to recall to you the night we voted.
I looked up at the Yukon delegation sitting in the gallery. They
were all in their traditional garb. We applauded and they
applauded. They started crying and our hardened members here
started crying. Hardnosed Liberals were crying over this. That is
the kind of commitment we must have. The same thing will
happen in the Northwest Territories.
I wish I could go on and on, but my time is limited. I want to
talk about what can be done and what we should remember on
that day. How can we? It seems so simple but it is difficult. It is a
triangle. At the top of the triangle is dignity, respect and
self-government. At the bottom of the triangle are adequate
health facilities, adequate housing facilities and adequate
economic development. If we do not do these things at the
bottom, the triangle is going to collapse.
There will be opponents. They will say we are bleeding hearts.
They will say we have our agenda. They will say the Indians
have too much right now. I do not feel I am a bleeding heart. I do
not feel I have an agenda. I have eyes to see. Erasmus is asking
us to see.
What will it take? It will take courage to stand up to these
arguments. It will take knowledge of what is out there. It will
take compassion. We have to have compassion. It will take an
attitude that we will talk face to face. One Metis leader said to
me: ``We've talked back to back and side to side too long. We
must talk face to face''. We can do it.
In the Northwest Territories, they have nine official
languages, four more than the UN. They have translation in their
legislature. The Russians have come here to see what we have
done. That is the attitude we should have as Canadians, not just
doing a good job but the best job in the world, where people will
come to us.
(1755 )
Today the Irish, the Scots, the English and even the French are
flying Canadian flags. If we are to have a flag in the aboriginal
portfolio it should be the aboriginal people and other Canadians
saying it is a flag of tolerance, a flag of dignity, of sharing and
respect. It will work. That is why this day is important and that is
why I will support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker,
the Bloc Quebecois also intends to support the motion moved by
the hon. member for the NDP.
It is a subject with which I am familiar, and I have been trying
to learn more about it for nearly a year and a half, since it is
extremely complex. It is not easy to understand because after all
we have 635 communities in Canada. When I say communities,
these are often reserves spread out across Canada. And there are
not only communities but also nations. Furthermore, there are
nearly 50 different languages and dialects, which is rather
surprising.
There is among aboriginal nations a definite desire to really
go back to their own traditions and language, and they are to be
respected for that.
11513
Ten minutes is not much for a subject as complex and indeed
edifying as this one, because it is always interesting to talk about
this and see how these exchanges take place and how aboriginal
peoples try to negotiate with us, because these negotiations are
based both on tradition and the modern way of doing things.
However, I have decided to concentrate on symbols in my
speech, because aboriginal peoples use many symbols. I would
like to talk to you about one which has my particular interest:
wampum.
So what is wampum? There are several definitions. And
although there is more than one definition, there is one that I
find particularly interesting and I would like to expand on that.
Wampum refers to white and black beads, often strung
together in parallel strands. At the time, especially in the
seventeenth century, trade was very important. Often trading
between the settlers and those who had been there for 25,000
years took the form of an exchange of presents, and wampum
was something that was very important to them.
The origin of the word is Algonquian. I have here an
interpretation of wampum which we are sometimes given on the
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I tend to agree with this
interpretation. Several chiefs came to explain what it meant, and
I think wampum has both an historical and a contemporary
connotation. I think that what is explained and interpreted in the
wampum beads has an entirely modern application today.
So I will read what wampum means to most of the native
chiefs, and this is the interpretation I attach the most meaning
to. It goes as follows: ``Our relations are not those of father and
son, but of brothers. These two rows''-these are the two rows
of beads I mentioned earlier-``represent boats sailing together
on the same river. One belongs to the original people''-those
who were here before us-``with their laws and customs, and the
other to the European people, with their laws and customs. We
travel together, but in our own boats. Neither shall try to steer
the boat of the other''.
I find this is very representative of the relations between us,
the Europeans, and the native peoples. Naturally, I would add
that we must not try to sink each other's boat, either. So we
understand the symbolic importance.
In the 17th century, wampum meant a lot to the officers of the
British crown, with whom gifts were exchanged. It was a very
popular gift.
As is the case today, the more gifts there were, the more the
exchange was important. Even today, I am offered gifts every
time I visit certain reserves in Canada and Quebec-with very
few exceptions. For our part, we also developed the habit of
bringing along some little offering to give them.
(1800)
In many cases, the size or number of gifts is not as important
as the symbolic value of maintaining this tradition of
gift-giving. This allows a fruitful exchange with Aboriginal
peoples because their traditions are being respected.
Although the Europeans knew that the wampum was a symbol
of commitment, it seems that these commitments were not
honoured. People must be made aware of this, and this
awareness campaign could take place on June 21.
We denounced the old South African government over the
issue of apartheid. I find it outrageous that in a country as open
as Canada is at this time, there are still 635 reserves. We are
ghettoizing these people by confining them to parcels of land.
We took away between 90 per cent and 95 per cent of their lands,
making billions of dollars in the process, in return for a social
contract under which they were often set aside, ignored or
shunted off to lands that were not even productive. We said in
the social contract that we would look after them.
I think that if June 21 is ever designated as Aboriginal
Solidarity Day, we should consider the impact of this legislation
and the importance of dismantling it as soon as possible. Canada
has had this law for 100 years and that is 100 years too many.
I also want to say a few words about June 21. This is an
important date that was not chosen inadvertently. June 21 is the
day of the solstice, that is, the longest day of the year. This is not
just in Canada. Throughout the world, aboriginal peoples often
celebrate this particular day. I was in Cancun, for instance, and I
can certify that the Mayas, when they built their pyramids, were
very much aware of the solstice.
On the longest day of the year, at a given moment, you can see
a snake come down from the pyramid in Chichen Itza, the snake
being, of course, a symbol of the longest day. The snake comes
down from the pyramid at six o'clock in the evening, I believe,
and often these temples and pyramids are built to mark the
occurrence of the solstice. So June 21 is a very important date,
and I think that if we decide on a national day, it should be June
21.
Finally, this is a day on which we should try and mix European
and aboriginal cultures as much as possible. In a way this has
already happened. The minister mentioned examples of food, of
ways in which we exchange items, but there is also other
aspects. If we take certain details of our daily lives as
Europeans, for instance, what could be nicer than to go
tobogganing with our children. Now the toboggan was invented
by the aboriginal people, along with canoes, snowshoes, certain
items
11514
of clothing such as moccasins. They taught us how to use furs
and certain skills such as how to survive in the bush, how to trap
animals and how to hunt. All of this we learnt from the
aboriginal people.
We should use this day to increase our knowledge of each
other's cultures which unfortunately, as I see it, have become
increasingly isolated in the past number of decades.
So the answer is not the red book or the Canadian
Constitution. It is up to us individually to have an open mind and
be receptive to the other culture. We must show compassion, we
must listen and we should keep an open mind. We should not let
ourselves be polarized by our differences: the Canadian nation,
the Quebec nation and the aboriginal nation. We should try to
understand each other and be generous and open. If we do that,
June 21 will only make us richer, and I think this day should be
an opportunity for us to learn as much as we can about aboriginal
culture, and we in the Bloc Quebecois will be delighted to
support this motion.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise to address and support
Bill C-244, which proposes to recognize June 21 as a national
solidarity day for aboriginal peoples.
In the last two weeks Canadians have demonstrated an
understanding of the important principles behind this bill,
principles of celebrating equality and partnerships. Last Friday,
aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians from across the
country, including the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, gathered in Vancouver to celebrate the National
Aboriginal Achievement Awards. Fourteen aboriginal
Canadians were honoured for their outstanding contributions.
On Thursday evening at nine o'clock, all Canadians can share in
this celebration because it is being televised nationally on our
CBC.
(1805)
Canadians also celebrated the uniqueness of our cultures and
heritage on March 26 at the annual Juno awards. A touching
tribute to Buffy Sainte-Marie in particular highlighted the
central role of aboriginal cultures in defining the broader
Canadian culture.
This is what we are talking about today, marking the
achievement of aboriginal people and their tremendous
contributions to this great nation. These contributions span the
spectrum from politics, business and law to entertainment,
athletics and culinary experience.
For generations aboriginal people have made a visible,
internationally recognized contribution that has for too long
been largely unrecognized in our country. I firmly believe in the
principle of this motion, as does the government and everyone
on this side of the House.
We had these very principles in mind when we sat down to
write our red book. Our goal was and is for a future where
aboriginal people enjoy a standard of living and quality of life
and opportunity equal to those of other Canadians. Our goal is a
future in which aboriginal people live self-reliantly, secure in
the knowledge of who they are as unique peoples; a future where
all Canadians are enriched by aboriginal cultures and are
committed to the fair sharing of the potential of our nation; a
future where aboriginal people have the positive option to live
and work wherever they choose; and one where aboriginal
children grow up in secure families and healthy communities
with the opportunity to take their full place in Canada.
This government recognizes the special relationship that
exists between aboriginal people, the first inhabitants of this
land, and the Crown. We are committed to fulfilling our
obligations and to building a new partnership based on trust,
mutual respect and participation in the decision-making
process.
It was for these reasons that we put aboriginal issues at the
forefront of our agenda. I am pleased to see that my hon.
colleague from Kamloops also regards aboriginal issues in such
a serious manner.
The goal of enabling aboriginal people to assume their
rightful place as full partners in Canadian society is not a goal of
one group; it is a goal shared by millions of Canadians. Clearly
aboriginal issues involve more than just our aboriginal people.
They involve each and every one of us. That is why I believe it is
important for all Canadians to participate in marking the
contributions past, present and future of aboriginal people. In
these efforts, our focus should be on partnerships,
commemoration and positive action.
Clearly before a decision like this is made, it is essential to
seek consent from the aboriginal community. When our ultimate
goal is to create a full and equal society, it would clearly be
regressive for us to sit here and legislate a special day for
aboriginal people without their explicit support.
I strongly feel that the hon. member's bill is worthy of our
consideration and debate, particularly as we celebrate the first
year of the United Nations International Decade of the World's
Indigenous Peoples. By supporting the United Nations
recommendation to pronounce August 9 as an International Day
for Indigenous Peoples, we may also have an opportunity to
bring aboriginal issues further on to the international stage.
I want to thank my hon. colleague for bringing this bill before
us. It is an important reminder that aboriginal issues must
continue to be a priority for all Canadians. I thank him for the
opportunity to participate in this debate.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this first debate
of Bill C-244, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the
aboriginal peoples of Canada.
11515
I am sure the member for Kamloops initiated this bill with the
best of intentions, borne out of concern for recognition of the
contribution of native cultures to the Canadian mosiac.
Canadians are proud of the uniqueness of native cultures and
their contribution to what we call Canada. From coast to coast,
respective Indian tribes have brought their own specific
background and history to what we have built in this country. We
in Canada are all unique as a consequence of native cultural
contributions and from those cultural contributions brought by
others over the past centuries. That understanding and respect
for many cultures is why Canada stands as a beacon of tolerance,
compassion and stability.
(1810)
Since becoming a member of Parliament, I have met and
visited with aboriginal people from every region of Canada. The
diversity among aboriginal peoples is obvious and they are the
original Canadians. Their cultural legacy is a major contributing
reason why Canada is different from the United States.
Canadians enjoy this distinction.
I do urge caution in playing politics with the dynamism of
native cultures. Our native people are a sensitive, intelligent and
proud people who, despite years of inequities, outright
discrimination at times and at other times criminal mishandling
of their affairs by others, have continued to carry on their
cultural pursuits and have developed a community of interest.
My party supports native peoples' independence and
full-fledged partnership in this country, we support their
self-sufficiency, and we support the removal of the albatross of
the Department of Indian Affairs from their necks. We support
their advancement, not a reinforcement of the past.
As I said previously, theirs is a dynamic culture that deserves
to grow and flourish no less than any other in this country. The
tremendous cultural contribution native peoples have brought to
this country stands on its own merit. It is a rich and endearing
culture, not one to be isolated and ghettoized, as we did under
section 91.24 of the BNA Act and then again under many aspects
of the Indian Act. This is what our native cultures are trying to
shake off. The surly bonds of colonialism must be relinquished.
As I understand it, recognition by this Parliament of a day of
recognition is innocuous in that there is no statutory holiday or
out-of-pocket expenses associated with this recognition.
Is it necessary to talk about national solidarity for aboriginal
peoples? This has connotations of Poland climbing out from
under the yolk of communist oppression. Surely, we can
celebrate aboriginal culture without calling it Solidarity Day.
This sounds confrontational. Let us not build walls. Let us
nourish without singling out or separating our aboriginal
peoples from the mainstream. Let us build on our strengths, our
consensus, the very thing that has been the strength of Canada in
the face of adversity.
Canadian consensus, more than any other government action,
has protected the minority against the tyranny of the majority in
modern times.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take
part in this debate. I would like to commend the hon. member for
Kamloops for bringing this issue to the floor of the House of
Commons.
It has long been an important premise of this country that we
work to achieve equality in this society. Unfortunately, this has
not always been the case. For hundreds of years aboriginal
people have not been afforded the same opportunities as many
Canadians. It is time to attempt to correct these past wrongs.
That is why this government is committed to taking action to
help aboriginal people assume their rightful role as full partners
in Canadian society.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development, I would like to focus my
comments on the work the government is doing in consultation
with aboriginal communities and organizations. In our red book
we dedicated an entire chapter to aboriginal issues. Most
important in our platform was the recognition of the inherent
right of self-government.
(1815)
In January 1994 the minister launched a national consultation
process on how best to implement the inherent right. With these
consultations now almost completed, I feel confident that we
have some very exciting times ahead.
I would like to focus on three areas that are fundamental to
achieving our goals: resolving land claims; changing the Indian
Act; and dismantling the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
First we need to try to create certainty with respect to
aboriginal rights and title as well as opportunities for economic
development in aboriginal communities. Resolving outstanding
land claims is part of that solution.
Claims fall into two categories: specific and comprehensive.
The specific ones arise from the alleged non-fulfilment of
treaties and other lawful obligations such as the Indian Act.
Since coming to power our government has settled over 50
claims of this nature in all parts of Canada. Comprehensive
claims, on the other hand, are based on the concept of continuing
11516
aboriginal rights and title which have not been dealt with by the
treaties and other legal means. These agreements define the
ways in which aboriginal people assert rights over land and
natural resources.
Currently the Government of Canada, the provinces and
territories and the First Nations are considering 11 of these
comprehensive claims. Benefits of economic development
which is most important will be part of these negotiations. We
are moving forward on these claims with the goal of helping
aboriginal people forge a path of self-sufficiency, a path that is
an essential component of the inherent right of
self-government.
At the same time however, there are some real obstacles. I am
referring specifically to the Indian Act. The act gives the federal
government the authority to strictly regulate First Nations and
their lives. This includes reserve lands, elections, education,
amusement centres, and so on. The act prevents the First Nations
from managing their own affairs.
That is why the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development recently announced the willingness of the
government to amend the act if First Nations want these
amendments. This of course would be an interim measure. The
goal of the federal government and aboriginal peoples is to make
self-government a reality. Under that reality there would be no
need for the Indian Act.
Clearly, all this means redefining the role of the Department
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. What it really
means is that the department's responsibilities will gradually be
turned over to First Nations and the department will not be
needed.
December 7, 1994 was a historic day for the Manitoba First
Nations. The government along with Grand Chief Phil Fontaine
of the Association of Manitoba Chiefs signed the first
dismantling agreement for the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development. This agreement will give full control of
program administration to the First Nations people of Manitoba.
Moreover, it sets the stage for real change for both the federal
government and First Nations. Dismantling will eliminate the
federal government's role in decision making affecting the daily
lives of aboriginal people, a role dating back to 1876. It will go a
long way toward resolving and restoring dignity, honour,
self-reliance and self-government to the First Nations.
It is important to remember though that dismantling will not
occur overnight. We agreed in the red book to wind down the
department at a pace determined by the aboriginal people. This
is significant given that our objective is to create real and
meaningful partnerships with the aboriginal people.
This cannot be done by simply unilaterally imposing our will
and our impressions of what should be changed and how things
should change. We take our lead from those aboriginal leaders
and communities who have their own ideas, time frames and
goals. Dismantling will be achieved based on negotiated
agreements, reasonable action plans and realistic timetables, all
of which will be established jointly by the federal and
aboriginal governments.
Most important, dismantling will assist First Nations in
implementing their inherent right to self-government.
Ultimately this means gradually shutting down the department's
regional office in Manitoba.
Our government is seeking to refurbish our relationship and
rebuild its nature on a government to government basis. We can
change the way we carry out our responsibilities. We can try to
correct our past wrongs. We are creating a process by which
aboriginal people will control their own lives.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty to advise
the House that pursuant to Standing Order 44, the original
speaker, the member for Kamloops, will automatically close the
debate.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, my
comments will be very short.
This is one of those moments when the House of Commons
works incredibly well on an issue in that all sides see merit in it.
It is appropriate to recognize that all those who have spoken
have done so in a sense as co-sponsors of this initiative. The
positive aspect of Private Members' Business is that it is not a
party event or initiative; it is simply an initiative that individual
members take and it is supported in that fashion.
In light of what has been said and some concerns my hon.
colleague raised regarding the term solidarity and whether that
was appropriate or necessary, on second thought I tend to agree
that mention of the term solidarity is not absolutely necessary. It
is something that could be examined quickly in committee.
For clarification, I would like to seek the unanimous consent
of the members of the House to send this off to committee for
further consideration.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Riis: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I want the
record to show it was a Liberal member at least-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): That is not a point of
order; it is a point of debate.
Mr. Rideout: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, is it a
request that this matter go off to committee or is it a request for a
vote?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The motion in effect
would be to adopt it at second reading and send it to committee.
We do not have unanimous consent.
11517
There being no further members rising to debate and the
motion not being designated as a votable item, the time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper pursuant
to Standing Order 96(1).
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to
comment with respect to the Speaker's last words. I am not
debating the Chair and I want that clearly understood. I want to
put on the record that I stood in my place and I wished to say a
few words about this business before it expired. The Speaker
was busy doing other things but I wanted to participate-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): If I may remind the
member, when the member for Kamloops rose that meant debate
had closed.
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.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We will suspend the
sitting until 6.30 p.m.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.24 p.m.)
_______________
(The House resumed at 6.28 p.m.)
11517
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker, a
few weeks ago, I questioned the Minister for International Trade
about the trade dispute between the U.S. and Canada over goods
subject to quotas, such as poultry, eggs and dairy. At the time,
the trade minister was unable to give farm producers the
assurance that Canada's position will prevail over that of the
U.S. Canada's position, according to which the GATT Accord
takes precedence over NAFTA regarding agricultural
commodities subject to quotas is steadfast and flawless.
Since the Americans never challenged the tariff structure
submitted by Canada during the Uruguay Round, particularly
with respect to yogurt and ice cream, it would be very difficult
for them to come and ask Canada for tariff concessions for these
commodities now.
That being said, the restructuring necessitated by the shift
from a quota system to a tariff system will particularly affect
dairy producers, 50 per cent of which are found in Quebec.
Throughout this transition period, dairy producers will have
to contend with the federal government's decommitment in
several areas. Of course, this decommitment will have a major
impact on them, as it will affect their competitiveness in the
short, medium and long term.
First, in the short term, the federal government's decision to
reduce by 30 per cent, over the next two years, its subsidies to
industrial milk producers will result in significant losses for
these producers.
Indeed, the Quebec federation of dairy producers estimates
that these cuts will result in a 15 per cent loss of revenue for
industrial milk producers. This translates into a loss of $3,775
for a medium-sized dairy farm producing 25,000 hectolitres of
milk.
These losses, which will result in a shortfall of close to $34
million for the Quebec industry, will also be felt when, as is the
case now, there is a need to invest in modern infrastructures to
compete with American producers.
Incidentally, dairy producers, unlike western farmers, will
not benefit from any compensatory measure following this
reduced federal assistance. Again, this shows the double
standard applied by the federal government.
The withdrawal of federal support to the dairy industry will
also have an impact in the middle and in the long term, since
several so-called green programs, under the GATT, will be
eliminated. These programs deal with genetic evaluation, milk
recording, dairy animal improvement, and research.
Reducing or eliminating funding for these various programs
will have very serious repercussions, because these moves not
only threaten the programs that already exist, but they also
affect Quebec's and Canada's ability to remain leading
innovators in the dairy industry on the world scene.
While we are cutting that which would allow us to stay on the
cutting edge in this sector at the very centre of our economy, the
Americans are planning to invest more than $600 million over
the next five years in so-called green farming programs under
the terms of the Uruguay Round agreements.
What logic did the federal government use when it decided to
cut research and development programs in the dairy sector,
although studies show that for each dollar invested in genetic
improvement or in quality control in the dairy sector, Quebec
and Canada taxpayers reap seven dollars in benefits?
No, dairy producers vigorously oppose any funding cuts to
so-called green programs because the industry regards them as a
priority. Obviously, there is no way that I or the Bloc Quebecois
can support such acts on the part of the government and that is
11518
why I am behind the dairy producers all the way when they
petition the federal government to stop dismantling their
industry.
Not only is the government jeopardizing the future of our
dairy producers, but it also seems that its incompetence is
robbing the dairy industry of its means to grow in an
increasingly competitive world market.
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to respond to the comments of the opposition this
evening. However, I must remind the member that his comments
in no way, shape or form are related to the question he asked in
the House. That is what I will be responding to because I believe
that is what his constituents want an answer to.
The United States has requested a NAFTA chapter 20
consultation concerning the application of Canada's World
Trade Organization tariff equivalents to U.S. dairy and poultry
products. The initial round of consultations took place on March
1 in Ottawa.
We in Canada have consistently maintained that both the FTA
and the NAFTA make clear that Canada has preserved all its
GATT rights with respect to supply-managed agriculture goods,
including the right to apply the World Trade Organization
tariffication provisions to U.S.-origin agricultural goods. In our
view, Canada's approach to tariffication of dairy and poultry
products is fully consistent with our international trade
obligations under both NAFTA and the WTO.
With respect to ice cream and yoghurt, in response to the 1989
GATT ice cream and yoghurt panel report, we indicated that
Canada would implement the panel findings in the context of the
Uruguay Round. In the Uruguay Round, Canada and all other
WTO parties agreed to tarrify their import restrictions. In our
view, Canada's tariffication of quotas on ice cream and yoghurt
addresses the GATT panel report of 1989.
(1835 )
I can assure this House, all the dairy farmers and the
opposition that we will continue to strongly defend Canada's
tariffication approach on all supply-managed commodities.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Health.
On March 27 of this year, Statistics Canada released its study
on 39 medical procedures performed in hospitals across Canada.
One of the procedures studied was hysterectomies. The
hysterectomies that are performed on the women in my riding of
Cumberland-Colchester are at a very high rate, as a matter of
fact an alarming rate, the highest in the country. We have almost
1,137 hysterectomies performed per 100,000 women, when the
national average is approximately 437.
In the county next to mine, Annapolis Valley, the rate is 137
per 100,000 women. That is a significant spread. Ten times more
hysterectomies are performed in Cumberland County than in
Annapolis County and they are in the same province of Canada.
This is a health issue. We know there are major causes of
female problems that warrant hysterectomies. The number one
cause is cancer of the ovaries, the cervix or the uterus;
trophoblastic disease is another cause; fibroids; endometriosis;
birth control in women where pregnancy would have meant
certain death; and a few other reasons, such as Down's
Syndrome, resulting in mentally handicapped children.
Hysterectomies are a very normal procedure, but they are an
invasion of women's health. That concerns me very definitely
and very sincerely.
We have tracked down the sincerity and the integrity of these
numbers. They originated in the Department of Health in
Halifax, Nova Scotia, and they have been tracked to the
hospitals. The numbers have great significance, they have
integrity and they are valid.
My question for the parliamentary secretary is, will we
investigate this phenomenal anomaly, which is very significant
to the invasion of women's health? Whether it is due to
overzealous doctors looking for cash crops on surgical
procedures or whether it is due to fundamental underlying health
problems for the women of Cumberland County, I would ask the
parliamentary secretary to pursue this great anomaly.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks a very
interesting and a very pertinent question. It is one in which we
are very interested at Health Canada, mainly because it has to do
with the issue of the health of Canadians and of Canadian
women.
Before I speak any further on the issue, I want to tell the hon.
member that the issue of the number of services delivered has to
do mostly with provincial governments and the medical
profession. Therefore, that is not something I can comment on.
At the same time, I can tell the hon. member that variations by
region and by area may sometimes have some very valid reasons
in specific interventions in health.
Be that as it may, the federal government is very interested in
overall health care servicing: the type of services we get and the
quality of services given across the country. We are working
with provincial governments and with health care providers to
find out how it is we can improve the quality of care and the
appropriateness of service.
For example, the Minister of Health has just given money to
the Canadian Medical Association to provide Canadian clinical
practice guidelines. We need to look at the appropriateness of
care to set clear guidelines and priorities for care so that we are
11519
doing the right things to the right people at the right time. This
kind of thing is what we are interested in dialoguing on, an
evolving evaluation of care, et cetera.
With respect to the issue of women's health, that is of great
concern to us. The minister has committed herself to looking at
health issues. We have not done enough research and enough
work on women's health issues to be able to assess
hysterectomies, the validity of them, when they should be done
and how often they should be done. We are going on very old
data. We need to set up centres of excellence for women, which
we are committed to, which will investigate, do the research, get
the data and look at the appropriateness of care for women in
this country.
I am glad the member asked the question because we believe it
is something we need to look at. We have already embarked on
the kinds of dialogue we need with the providers and with the
provinces to ensure that we provide appropriate care in this
country.
(1840)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, on March
30, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development a
question on the effectiveness of his Youth Strategy. Of course,
since his answer was not satisfactory and contradicted his own
department's assessment of his own program, I would like to get
back to this matter. Allow me to reiterate my quotes, taken from
page 2-41 of the Estimates for the Department of Human
Resources Development.
The first one stated that program evaluations revealed no
significant improvements in terms of job opportunities
compared to what could have been anticipated without the Youth
Strategy program. The second quote, a little further along,
indicated that the Canada-New Brunswick Youth Strategy also
increased participants' dependency on social assistance. Still
further along, the Strategy is described as not obviously
affecting dependency on social assistance in Newfoundland.
Participants and non-participants alike were more dependent on
social assistance after the program. Considerable money was
spent.
For example, the Canada-New Brunswick agreement
provides that $120 million will be spent. The Youth Strategy
program in Newfoundland will spend $56.6 million. If I have the
time, I would like to give you some statistics for Quebec to show
that young people's dependency on social assistance increased
not only in New Brunswick and Newfoundland. I will give some
statistics for Quebec.
In 1991, Quebec had 116,000 welfare recipients under 30
years of age. In 1995, we now have 140,000 young people on
welfare, of whom 74,000 are under 25, if we want to correlate
this with the figures from Statistics Canada used by the
Department of Human Resources Development. I find it hard to
understand, and I hope the parliamentary secretary will be more
persuasive than his minister, that although according to a
document prepared by the department, an internal assessment of
this program shows there has been an increase in the number of
young people on welfare, the minister says it is the best program
in the world. I find that hard to believe.
There is also the fact that last year, we had cuts in
unemployment insurance totalling $2.5 billion. Bill C-17
increased the waiting period for unemployment insurance
benefits, reduced the benefits themselves, and also reduced the
benefit period. As a result, there has been a significant increase,
in Quebec and other provinces as well, in the number of people
who go from unemployment insurance to welfare. The most
frequent casualties of this situation are young people, because
they have 40 per cent of the insecure jobs in Canada and are the
first to be unemployed, and thus the first casualties of cuts in
unemployment insurance. Their only alternative is welfare. I
wish the parliamentary secretary would be a little more
forthcoming than his minister about the assessment of this
program.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for the
sincerity expressed about young people. I know he is a member
who truly cares about young people.
Going back to the original question about the programs in
Newfoundland and New Brunswick, he said: ``The results were
devastating''. That is why the Minister of Human Resources
Development has decided to discontinue this ineffective
initiative and to focus on what really works in this country for
young people.
It is also important to remind the hon. member that this
initiative dates back to the Conservative years. Our approach
toward young people has changed quite drastically to the point
at which if we look at budgetary items related to youth
employment we have seen an increase over last year even though
we must consider our fiscal situation.
The youth internship program is exclusively designed to help
young people make the transition from school to work. Over
2,000 young Canadians will have benefited from our sectoral
streams. By that I am referring to the programs launched in the
environment, in logistics, in Canadian auto repair and services,
electronics, electrical, manufacturing, tourism, all jobs with a
11520
future. Also in the community and school based stream
approximately 80 projects have been initiated. Over 4,000
participants have participated.
The funding for youth internship programs has been increased
to $118 million in 1995-96 from the 1994-95 figure of $25
million. This speaks to the excellent record the government has
established in the area of youth.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2
p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.46 p.m.)