TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 10, 1994
Bill C-29. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 4093
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4124
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4126
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4129
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 4129
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4133
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4133
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4134
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4134
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4135
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4135
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4136
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4136
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4137
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4137
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4138
Bill C-22. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and amendment. 4138
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 81;Nays, 136 4138
Consideration resumed of motion 4139
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4147
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 4160
Consideration resumed of motion 4164
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 4166
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 4167
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 4169
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4192
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4194
4093
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 10, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's responses to
11 petitions.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
in accordance with Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to
table in the House, in both official languages, the report of the
Canadian Group of the InterParliamentary Union. This is the
report of the official delegation that represented Canada at the
91st InterParliamentary Conference, held in Paris, France, from
March 19 to March 26, 1994.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-29, an act to amend the
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, to table a petition which has been duly
certified by the clerk of petitions.
An ethanol industry will provide definite stability for
agriculture, particularly in western Canada and for the Canadian
economy, as ethanol is one of the most environmentally friendly
fuels available.
Some 200 petitioners have called on the government to extend
the exemption on the excise portion of ethanol for a decade to
allow the strong and self-sufficient ethanol industry in Canada
to go forward. I present the petition on their behalf.
* * *
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
Question No. 19 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 19-Mr. Charest:
What is the estimated total dollar impact that will result from individuals
making a capital gains election to secure a lifetime exemption for gains accrued
prior to the budget day for (a) the guaranteed income supplement, (b) veterans
allowances, (c) the child tax benefit, (d) the old age security repayment, (e) the
age credit repayment, (f) the alternative minimum tax, (g) the GST credit, (h)
other non-refundable credits, (i) other programs and other features of the tax
system; and, in each case, what is the estimated number of people affected and
the average increase in taxes or loss of benefits; and what is the overall total
effect of this?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): The precise dollar impact that the election for the
$100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption will have on the
various provisions mentioned in this question, such as the child
tax benefit or the alternative minimum tax will depend on the
number of people and the income and age characteristics of
those who choose to use the election.
4094
The election allows individuals to exempt up to $100,000 of
capital gains. In most cases the cost associated with using the
election will be relatively small compared to the potential tax
savings of exempting capital gains. Nevertheless, it will be up to
the individual to determine whether he or she wishes to utilize
the election.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question
enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4094
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1010)
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food) moved:
That this House note the proactive work of the government, in co-operation
with farm organizations, industry representatives, and the provinces, to enhance
the agriculture and agri-food sector of the Canadian economy, contributing to
the well-being of farmers, food security for consumers, sustainable agriculture,
economic growth and jobs, and building the sector to be among the best in the
world.
He said: Madam Speaker, allow me to begin debate this
morning by saying what a pleasure it is for me to be back in
Canada and back in the House after my recent travels on behalf
of Canadian agriculture and agri-food.
In mid-April I went to Morocco with my colleague, the
Minister for International Trade, for the signing of the new
GATT agreement and to continue our very difficult negotiations
with the United States on a variety of bilateral trade issues in
agriculture between our two countries.
After Morocco I was in east Asia with the Governor General
and 15 Canadian farm leaders and agri-business leaders to
promote trade with the countries of that particular region of the
world. It was a great honour to be part of that state visit. It was a
pleasure to meet personally and directly with so many of
Canada's major international customers and to hear directly
from them about what they are looking for from us.
Canadians have a good reputation in the Asia-Pacific region
based upon our past history of friendship with the countries of
that part of the world and based upon our strong reputation as a
supplier of the world's highest quality products. Our delegation
was warmly welcomed at every stop. I think we helped to
solidify our bilateral relations in each of the countries that we
visited.
Still there is no place like home and I am indeed happy to be
back. I feel I should warn hon. members opposite that having
dined in Asia upon worms, sea slugs and scorpions, I am ready
for any challenges that might arise in the House.
Our government has been in office now for six months. We
were elected on a platform that we put forward in our red book.
We have spent the first half year implementing the fundamentals
of that platform. We promised job creation, fiscal responsibility
and a more responsive government, a government committed to
integrity. We have been delivering on those commitments.
Job creation for Canada is inextricably bound up in the issues
of international trade. Our top priorities have been concluding
trade agreements and developing new markets. The trips I have
made in the last month or so to Morocco and the Far East and our
extensive round of bilateral negotiations with the United States
are important parts of delivering on that job creation promise.
We have also made a number of key moves on fiscal
responsibility, particularly the budget presented in February by
my colleague, the Minister of Finance. While I am speaking
about the Minister of Finance, I would like to thank him and
thank all my caucus colleagues for pinch-hitting for me last
week in the agriculture debate which was called while I was
away.
As far as responsive government is concerned, we are
involved in extensive consultations in all areas of government
every day with Canadians from across the country, not just with
businesses and organizations but with all Canadians: workers,
farmers, students, people who make the country function day by
day. Of course we still have a lot to do. As they say, Rome was
certainly not built in a day. However I believe we have laid the
foundation and we are getting on with the job in agriculture,
agri-food, and a broad range of government priorities. As the
Prime Minister said last week, we are offering Canadians a good
government and we will try very hard to continue to do so.
(1015 )
In the agriculture and agri-food sector we promised to pursue
financial security for farmers, food safety and security for
consumers and a sound environmental policy over all.
The motion before the House today talks about making our
agri-food sector one of the very best in the world. That is our
goal and nothing less will do.
Last night I had the opportunity to attend in Toronto a final
meeting of the Agri-Food Competitiveness Council of Canada.
It is a group of individuals representing a broad cross-section of
the agri-food industry in this country. They have been at work
over the course of the last three years to develop the concept of
competitiveness in the agri-food industry and to describe how
that concept can be incorporated in the establishment and
4095
functioning of government policy and how that concept can be
used to enhance the quality of our agri-food sector in Canada.
The Agri-Food Competitiveness Council has established for
itself the objective of making Canadian agriculture and
agri-food number one in the world in comparison with its
international counterparts. That is a goal and an objective which
I share, and this government shares, an objective which is
embodied in the motion before the House today.
I consider it my great good fortune to have been asked by the
Prime Minister last November to preside over the very
important agriculture and agri-food sector of the Canadian
economy. This sector is vibrant and exciting. It is a very
important part of the Canadian economy, accounting for a
significant portion of our gross domestic product and a
significant portion of Canadian jobs. It is also an area that I
believe has huge potential for the future in terms of economic
growth and job creation which were the fundamental
underpinnings of our red book commitments in 1993.
However, this portfolio is no place for a faint heart. This
sector is entering a period of change and reform of significant
proportions. Our government has spoken often of the major
reforms we anticipate in such fields as social security, which has
been the subject of previous debates in this House.
The changes to be expected in agriculture and agri-food,
while perhaps less talked about than some other areas, are of a
similar magnitude and importance for the farm and food sectors
of Canada.
Let me deal for a moment with the issue of financial security
which I mentioned is part of our red book commitments.
Farmers constantly tell me that they want to earn their
incomes from a decent marketplace and not from the high levels
of subsidies that have prevailed in agriculture over the last
number of years. They do not want handouts. They want a decent
market. However, they will continue to need some reasonable
degree of protection as a matter of public policy against the
vagaries of the market, the weather and external disasters which
are beyond their control.
Therefore, we are pursuing a two-pronged approach to
financial security. As our platform promised, we are working on
developing a new safety net system for agriculture in Canada
based upon the income of the whole farm to replace the ad
hockery of the past and the current, very expensive patchwork of
programs.
This idea, the whole farm income concept, has won the
support of farm organizations and the provinces. A national
farm safety nets committee and federal and provincial officials
are pressing forward with a number of proposals that will be
presented for consideration at the next meeting of federal and
provincial ministers of agriculture which will be held in
Winnipeg in July.
The fundamental principles underlying our work with respect
to the safety nets programs and this concept of whole farm
income are as follows. First, to the largest extent possible, what
we do in farm safety net programming must be GATT consistent
so that we do not in future trip over trade rules that can destroy
the best domestic programs.
Second, our programs must be production and market neutral
so that farmers are making their own production and marketing
decisions and those decisions are not driven by this or that
subsidy from a government.
(1020 )
Third, the programs must be actuarially sound and fiscally
responsible. That goes without saying, given the economic
context in which all governments in this country find
themselves at the present time.
Finally, our programs must be user friendly from the farmers'
point of view so they are effective, affordable and easily
understandable by farmers.
While we are working on the safety nets front, at the same
time we are also working very hard to ensure that the agriculture
and agri-food sector has access to the domestic and
international markets which will ensure prosperity for the
future. That is why we plunged into the GATT negotiations and
in the short time available to us, between the date our new
government took office, November 4, and the conclusion of the
GATT negotiations in the middle of December, in that very short
time span I believe we came out of the process with a deal that
does meet the fundamental needs of our country.
Searching for those good international markets is also the
reason why I have travelled to Mexico, South Korea, China and
Hong Kong in the last few weeks promoting trade and helping to
open doors to our exporters.
For the same reason the Minister for International Trade and I
have sat eyeball to eyeball with our U.S. counterparts to try to
settle some long standing bilateral issues in agricultural trade
between Canada and the United States. That trade amounts to
something in the order of $12 billion a year in total. It is big, it is
important, it has been growing and it is mutually beneficial on
both sides of the 49th parallel. It is obviously advantageous if
we can arrive at an overarching framework agreement that will
in the final analysis lay to rest the disputes that we have been
working on once and for all and allow our trade opportunities
between these two countries to grow and flourish in the future.
The negotiations have been difficult. The issues at stake here
are not easy to resolve. In the process of the negotiations I
believe that Canada has been fair and flexible. Our approach has
been to try to maintain existing levels of trade between our two
countries and to work toward enhanced levels of trade wherever
reasonable and realistic.
4096
This process started last November in our negotiations with
the U.S. and it has been a difficult process. As a matter of
principle, we have committed ourselves not to get into any kind
of horse trading of one group of farmers against another, or one
region against another, or one commodity against another. We
believe that the various issues on the table for resolution need to
be dealt with on their own merits, individually in their own
right, without any tradeoffs as between commodities, regions or
farm groups.
We are ever mindful of the fact that we are here in this
government and at the negotiating table on behalf of Canada to
serve the whole country and not just one part of it.
In the bargaining we will not roll over and play dead. We will
not sign a deal that does not respect Canada's national interest.
If the United States should decide at some point to act
unilaterally against Canada with what we consider to be unfair
or punitive measures, then Canada will fight back to defend its
vital national interests.
That having been said, however, I would like to emphasize
that we are not spoiling for a fight. I will keep talking at the
negotiating table as long as there is something useful to talk
about. As Winston Churchill once said, jaw, jaw is better than
war, war. Of course he was not talking about a trade war but I
think the quote applies just as well in our present circumstances.
If we can have a good agreement it would obviously be in our
interest to have one. Canada is prepared to keep the negotiations
going constructively until we arrive at the most reasonable
result.
(1025 )
When the new GATT agreement is in place some time in 1995,
we will have at long last an effective, rules based trade
environment in the world for agriculture. To help position
Canadians to take maximum advantage of our agri-food trading
opportunities, our platform suggested two initiatives.
One initiative is the establishment of an agri-food industry
council to advise the government on all matters related to
improving Canada's market position and the promotion of
economic growth and jobs.
As I mentioned a moment ago, there has been an institution in
place over the last three years that has been focusing on the
competitiveness issues in agriculture, namely the Agri-Food
Competitiveness Council. That council will be going into the
sunset, if you will, in June 1994 because it was scheduled to
wind down at about that time.
However, building upon the good work of the Agri-food
Competitiveness Council over the last three years and building
upon the other consultative efforts that have been undertaken by
the government in our first few months in office, we can see in
the months ahead the foundations upon which we will build our
agri-food industry council as suggested in our red book at the
time of the election last year.
The other proposal we talked about in the red book was for a
foreign agri-food marketing service. This service would
enhance the ability not only of the government but of the private
sector to identify international market opportunities. It would
receive the best possible market intelligence from around the
world and would position Canadian exporters to the greatest
advantage possible to take advantage of those marketing
opportunities. That is another proposal from the red book on
which I propose to move in the months immediately ahead.
In implementing both of these initiatives, we are seeking to
achieve an objective which the agri-food industry has already
established for itself. That is the objective of increasing
agri-food exports from Canada by 50 per cent over the course of
the next five or six years.
The industry wishes to see our present level of exports, which
is in the range of $13 billion annually, rise to a level in the order
of $20 billion annually by the turn of the century. Our initiatives
in terms of agricultural competitiveness, trade and marketing
will be aimed toward helping our private sector and our farm
organizations achieve that ambitious export objective.
While I was in Asia over the course of the last two or three
weeks, I was discussing with our buyers and potential buyers
what we need to do in Canada differently or better in order to
expand our trade. There are a couple of important messages that
flowed from those discussions overseas.
First of all, we must take every possible opportunity to
diversify our marketing potential and our marketing
opportunities. We have perhaps in this country over the last
number of years been preoccupied with our trade prospects on
the North American continent. The reason for that is
understandable. Markets in North America are close to us. They
are well understood by us. They are reasonably easy to access.
The infrastructure is there. The personal and cultural links are
already in place. The trade in North America is rather simple and
easy for us to comprehend and exploit.
It is more complex and more difficult to seek and pursue and
exploit markets that are overseas in Japan, Korea, China, Hong
Kong, in the whole Asia-Pacific region or in Latin America.
While we would never want to diminish our trading
opportunities in North America, we have to be very mindful of
the huge opportunities that exist elsewhere in the world,
particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, which is the fastest
growing economic zone on the face of the earth, and in Latin
America, which is the second fastest growing economic zone on
the face of the earth.
4097
We have to broaden and diversify our trading horizons in order
to take those vast markets elsewhere into account.
(1030)
Second, we need to listen very carefully to what those markets
are telling us. I think we have had a tendency in this country to
say that we should simply go out there and sell whatever it is we
might choose to produce. Maybe we have to turn that equation
around the other way and think more of how we can produce
what it is the world wants to buy. We have to listen to our
customers, listen to our markets and make sure that we are
producing, processing, further processing and adding value in a
way that will tailor make our products and our commodities to
suit the markets into which we wish to sell them.
Third, we have to put ourselves in a position to deliver into
those markets in a timely way. We in this House and in the
Canadian grains industry all know that in the last couple of
months we have had some enormous difficulties in delivering on
time. That is an issue that not only the grains industry but this
government takes very seriously.
In that spirit over the course of the last number of days I know
the subcommittee of the House Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food and the subcommittee of the House
Standing Committee on Transport have been conducting very
useful hearings. They have come forward with some ideas they
wish the government to consider. They may rest assured the
recommendations coming from those subcommittees will be
given very careful consideration as we try to get to the bottom of
what has gone wrong in terms of grain handling and
transportation in this country over the course of the last number
of months and producing the formula that is needed to solve
those problems and to correct the situation for the future.
Furthermore, I have invited many of the major players in the
Canadian grain handling and transportation system to meet with
me on Monday of next week at a private meeting in Winnipeg.
The doors will be closed, our jackets taken off and sleeves rolled
up to focus expressly on this problem this year and to find out
what we together can do to resolve the difficulty.
I am not interested in finger pointing and blame laying. That
is an exercise that is a mug's game that quite frankly gets you
nowhere. I want a good, thorough, candid, honest assessment of
the facts. I want practical solutions to deal with the problem so
we can alleviate the situation as much as possible this year and
then for future years make sure that this country does not get
itself into that kind of jackpot again.
It is a serious problem and I want all involved to know that the
Government of Canada takes it very seriously.
Beyond the meeting next Monday in Winnipeg I also hope to
engage the western grains industry in some broader discussions
that go beyond the immediate problem with delivering our
products through the congestion on the west coast. I want to
involve the grains industry in an exercise of coming together to
develop a common vision of where we want this industry to go
in the years ahead.
I want to invite farm leaders and those who are involved in
operating various parts of the system to think about the year
2000. What kind of a grains industry and a grain handling and
transportation system do we want as we turn the century and
look toward the future.
Let us begin planning and working together now to develop
that system so that when we get to the turn of the century we
have positioned our country in the most advantageous way to
take advantage of our marketing opportunities around the world.
Our meeting on Monday in Winnipeg is partly to deal with this
initial urgent situation on the west coast and partly to begin that
process of looking toward the future and building toward the
future in the kind of grain handling and transportation and
marketing system we want to have by the year 2000.
Let me just say a word about orderly marketing. That has been
a very vital topic of discussion from time to time in this House
and in the standing committee on agriculture.
(1035 )
One of the great success stories in the Canadian agri-food
sector over the last few decades has been the supply
management concept that was invented by a previous Liberal
government about a quarter of a century ago. Supply
management has helped the agri-food sector in eastern Canada,
especially Quebec, to prosper.
Knowing how important supply management is to the Atlantic
provinces, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, our
government made a very special effort to ensure that it is
protected under the new international trade regime. We will
have to make some changes to supply management in the wake
of the GATT just as we expect other countries will have to adjust
some of their practices and systems to conform with the new
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
The agreement that we achieved in Geneva and signed in
Marrakech allows us to impose strong tariffs in place of what
used to be import border controls. Those systems of tariff
equivalents will ensure that our orderly marketing systems can
continue to function successfully in this country for as long as
we domestically want them to do so.
Quite apart from the GATT there are other changes that will be
required in our supply management systems if those systems are
to thrive into the future and to contribute effectively to
economic growth.
4098
We need to find a new domestic consensus on how our supply
management system should operate, a consensus that removes
some of the rigidities that are currently threatening to destroy
the supply management system from within, never mind any
international trade rule changes. Perhaps the largest challenge to
our system is not international but in fact domestic and finding
that domestic political will and that domestic consensus to allow
our systems to function into the future.
My parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Prince
Edward-Hastings, is heading a small federal-provincial
industry task force on orderly marketing that will make
recommendations to federal and provincial ministers of
agriculture when we meet in Winnipeg in July.
That task force has been hard at work since last January. We
have already received one interim report from the task force.
The work has been well received to date. Obviously more
remains to be done. My provincial colleagues and I are anxious
to receive the final output from the task force process so that we
can position ourselves to meet the GATT requirements well in
advance of the implementation dates in 1995.
I want to say a word about food safety and security. Canadians
have been blessed over the years with the world's best and safest
food supply. Our platform promised to maintain this standard of
excellence.
Maintaining our exceptionally high food safety record and
our internationally recognized animal and plant disease status is
critical to consumer and foreign customer confidence in food
supply. It is an essential selling point in marketing our agri-food
products both at home and abroad.
My department's food production and inspection branch is
working now with industry on a business plan that will ensure
the health and safety of our food supply while at the same time
trying to improve efficiency.
At present the federal, provincial and municipal levels of
government all have a role to play in food inspection. The
responsibility is further divided among agriculture and food
departments, health departments and consumer and corporate
affairs departments.
We are seeking a national inspection system that would
streamline delivery among all of the various jurisdictions and
inspection agencies. It would also provide equal treatment for
imported products which under current rules sometimes escape
inspection.
We will not compromise on the excellent food safety record
that Canada enjoys but I believe we can reduce costs and better
help our industry to compete.
The motion before the House today also deals with the
environment. There is no subject more important over the long
haul than the environment. When future generations write the
history of this century, they will look back at our generation and
judge how we have discharged our responsibilities to maintain
the environment that we inherited. More than any other
generation that has gone before us we have it in our power to
ensure the sustainability of our environment. We can no longer
claim ignorance of the consequences of our actions.
(1040)
Our agri-food platform placed a high priority on conserving
our soil and water resources. It stressed the importance of
integrating economic and environmental goals. Now we are
working with all interested parties to do just that, to develop
long term approaches to sustainable agriculture that integrate
our environmental goals and our economic and social goals.
Our rural areas and farming communities must be safe,
healthy and vital places now and long into the future. These long
term approaches will guide us as we develop a new national soil
and water conservation program. This involves reviewing our
programs on the economic side, for example, for their
environmental impacts. It involves continuing to help our
agri-food industry acquire the environmentally sound input
products, technologies and practices that the sector needs to
meet our goals for a sustainable industry.
In this regard I am working now on improvements to the
present regime governing pesticide availability and use in
Canada. Again, my parliamentary secretary is playing a large
role in this endeavour to ensure that Canadian producers are not
placed at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.
Alongside our concern about the environment and our desire
to be competitive and to reach out into global markets goes our
very great emphasis on research and development in Canadian
agriculture. There are those who might believe that R and D is a
kind of exotic frill that you throw aside when times get tough
and hope you can pick up again when you are feeling more
affluent. But science, research and development are not
something you can turn on and off like a tap. It requires
persistency and consistency of focus and effort and financing.
That is why in dealing with the budget for the Department of
Agriculture for the current year, while we have had to absorb the
same kind of restraint that applies to every government
department across the board, in making our spending and
priority and allocation decisions we have tried very hard to
retain our emphasis on research and development, absorbing
some deeper cuts elsewhere in order to preserve R and D. I think
we have been able to do that in the budget for 1994-95.
In addition to that we are launching some new initiatives with
the private sector, some joint ventures in research and
development funding with the private sector to leverage more
private dollars into agricultural science. We are thereby
building the pot bigger and deeper for the funding that is
necessary for research and development in this vital part of the
Canadian economy. Only by being on the leading edge of
international science will
4099
we be able to retain our position on the leading edge
economically of agriculture and agri-food in the world.
I want to say a brief word about rural renewal. That is a
responsibility that falls to me under the mandate given to me by
the Prime Minister. Shortly after the election he asked that I
establish within my department a rural renewal secretariat to
provide a focus within government and between governments
for rural issues and rural people. That rural renewal secretariat
is now up and running within my department.
Part of its job is to co-ordinate the activities of the federal
government on issues that relate to rural Canada. Part of the job
is to act as a liaison between federal departments, between the
federal government and the provinces and between governments
and a whole range of agencies and organizations in the private
sector so that we can clearly identify the thrust that we want to
achieve on behalf of rural Canada.
(1045 )
Within my department a variety of programs bear on the
question of rural renewal. There is of course the system of farm
debt review boards across the country. There is the farm
business management program. There is the Canadian rural
transition program. There is the rural opportunities initiative.
There is also the Farm Credit Corporation which has, as of last
year, undergone an expansion in its mandate to make it more
flexible in dealing with issues that relate to financing in rural
Canada.
There are also other related agencies such as the PFRA, the
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, which has a long
history stretching back to the 1930s in western Canada in rural
development and rural renewal. There is also the co-operatives
secretariat within my department as a method by which
government can bring a special focus on the co-operative
movement and how co-operatives, especially in rural Canada,
can be involved in economic development, renewal, growth and
jobs in the future.
I have established for myself an agenda for the balance of this
year to review all of these various programs and initiatives that
already exist within government to determine whether they are
achieving the objectives that were originally established for
them and to try to bring to all of these programs, agencies and
initiatives a clear, sharp focus on the real issues of rural renewal
and adaptation in rural communities. We will be focusing
especially on value added, community based, economic
diversification and development as an augmentation, if you will,
to mainstream agricultural programming and policy. We want to
have this special focus on the opportunities and the future for
rural Canada.
Last October Canadians put their trust in this new
government. Of all of the options available during the election,
Canadians decided we were best equipped to lead Canada at this
crucial time in our history.
In one of my first addresses as Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food I told members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool last
fall that we could not be all things to all people. We would be a
sincere and honest government that would work very hard to
earn the public's trust and try to be down to earth, fiscally
responsible, open, accessible and accountable.
I also said that as minister I want to be a pragmatic problem
solver. I do not want to get hung up on dogma or philosophy. I
want to put myself in a position to act in the best interest of
farmers and the Canadian agri-food sector. That is still very
much my approach and the government's approach.
As I have travelled across the country in the last six months I
have been struck by what I sense is a new feeling of optimism
and confidence among Canadians and among farmers. I believe
that Canadians generally support the direction that the
government has taken in its first six months in office.
I believe that if we continue to implement our agri-food
platform as described in the red book at the time of the election,
four years from now our agri-food sector will have taken its
place, as this motion before the House today suggests, as among
the best in the world.
In closing I want to thank and to pay tribute to the members of
my caucus, especially the rural members, who have been so
vigilant, hard working and constructive in their pursuit of good
agriculture policy. They are making a very solid contribution as
they represent the vital interests of their constituents. I thank
them very much for that hard effort.
I also want to invite the members of the opposition to play a
positive role as well. No doubt we will come at some issues from
very different perspectives, but I hope the bottom line will be
that we all have the best interests of Canadian agriculture at
heart.
(1050 )
In the debate today and in all agriculture debates I hope we
can set aside the partisan bickering, avoid the rhetoric and cheap
shots and focus instead on the real issues. I want to assure
members of the opposition that positive advice offered
constructively will get a fair hearing from me no matter where in
the House it comes from.
Having said that, I look forward to listening to the debate
today. I hope it will make a positive contribution to the
development of agriculture and agri-food policy for Canada.
4100
Before I take my seat I would advise the House that cabinet is
meeting this morning and I may have to slip away in a few
minutes to participate in the cabinet meeting. I hope members
will understand that does not represent on my part any
disinterest in what is going to be said today in this debate. I will
only be absent for a few moments and will be following the
debate very closely through the balance of the day.
Mr. Benoit: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, to ask
unanimous consent of the House to ask questions of the
agriculture minister.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wonder if the minister
heard your point of order. He has just said he had to leave for
cabinet. Do we have unanimous consent for the minister to stay
for questions?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Madam Speaker,
it is a great honour for me to speak on agriculture.
I extend my best wishes to the Minister of Agriculture on his
return from his Asian trip. He has returned determined to act in
the agricultural sector. I know that this is a very difficult field in
which to work, and I also know that the Minister is beyond
reproach, a person of high calibre in the world of agriculture.
This motion that the government is proposing to us today,
dealing with agriculture and agri-food in Canada, must be read
carefully. It must be read very carefully because it is made up of
mere generalizations about Canada's farm economy, good
intentions, statements of fine and good intentions that, for the
most part, hide the tough reality that this country's farmers are
facing.
It is fine with me if the government is bursting with fine and
good intentions about agriculture and if, through its Minister, it
makes promising statements about agricultural development;
but can the spinelessness, the inertia, the near-paralysis that this
government has shown in several fields since being elected
barely six months ago be hidden? Can the iniquity that the
federal government has shown toward Quebec for many long
years be hidden?
In the motion we are debating today, for example, we read,
and I quote:
That this House take note of the proactive work that the government is
doing- to enhance the agriculture and agri-food sector of Canada's
economy-
But I ask you, Madam Speaker, what proactive work has this
government done lately? Is it the signing of the GATT, which
from several standpoints has been a deep disappointment for
Canada's supply-managed sectors, and which has produced for
us, among other things, a worrisome situation in the poultry
sector? Is it the studies and reports, however manifold, by the
kindly officials at Agriculture Canada? Is it the objective of
increasing Canadian exports by 50 per cent in order to reach $20
billion by the year 2000?
(1055)
Madam Speaker, I am quite prepared to be optimistic, like
Canada's Minister of Agriculture, and it is quite all right with
me if his fine intentions bear fruit, but all his fine words hide
another reality: we must not ignore the fact that agriculture, in
both the western and eastern parts of this country, is
experiencing many significant, serious structural difficulties.
For example, the Minister has just trumpeted the fact that he
spent three weeks in Asia to stimulate Canadian farm exports. In
fact, the Minister signed one single contract with Korea: one
small contract for 50,000 tonnes of feed grains, with a country
that has been an established export market for Canada for
several years. The Minister hastened to tell us that he has
developed, in addition to this small firm contract, several new
export possibilities; I stress that they are new export
possibilities only, with no firm contracts.
Elsewhere, when we read the media dispatches recounting the
ups and downs of his trip, what strikes us most clearly are the
criticisms by the Japanese and Chinese of Canada's grain
transportation system. That is no small thing, coming from the
Japanese and the Chinese, and at a time when we in Canada want
to expand our Asian markets. These longstanding customers had
so many doubts about our western Canadian grain transportation
system that the Chinese, in particular, did not sign a new wheat
contract, and the Japanese decided to look elsewhere, to the
Australians, for their canola supply; until now, Canada had a
near-monopoly in canola exports to Japan.
All this happened because, in 1994, Canada has a grain
transportation system that is no more effective than it was in
1908. Is this a reasonable objective, then: is it reasonable to
increase Canadian farm exports by 50 per cent in order to reach
$20 billion by the year 2000 while, right now, we are incapable
of meeting existing contracts because there is a crisis in
transportation on the Prairies, costing the entire Canadian
economy a great deal of money? This year alone, $35 million
will be spent in demurrage costs of ships waiting to load in the
port of Vancouver.
Canada has already lost sales of approximately 200 million
tonnes of wheat because of this ineffective and poorly-run
transportation system. Listen, getting to and from the port of
Vancouver by train is, on average, no faster today than it was 80
years ago. That does not mean that it is not in Canada's interest
to increase its exports to Asia. That is even desirable, but if we
use plain common sense, should we not first ensure that we have
an adequate transportation system enabling us to meet our
4101
existing contracts with foreign countries before compromising
ourselves in contracts we will be unable to meet?
That is as if a business person were trying to double his or her
customers while not being able to meet the demand from present
customers. That thinking shows a certain lack of logic. We can
also wonder what Agriculture Canada, the federal government,
and the Department of Transport are doing about grain
transportation, because this system has been ineffective for
more than a decade. It has not been ineffective for only a few
months, as the Minister said.
In the 1970s I was an assistant to one of the greatest ministers
in Canada's history, Mr. Eugene Whelan, and the grain
transportation problem existed then too.
There have been at least three separate federal statutes, two
government agencies, two departments, and several other
interested parties governing grain transportation: such an
administrative mishmash that one wonders whether any
planning has taken place.
(1100)
At least, it is obvious that no one can take responsibility for
the present crisis. Mr. Warren Joly of the Western Canadian
Wheat Growers' Association said, and I quote:
[English]
The Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association said: ``We
are in this mess because of a disastrous policy and now we are
trying to address it with an inefficient, knee-jerk system''.
[Translation]
The minister has received a dozen suggestions for improving
the system, a very inefficient system. I would even be tempted to
ask him to set up a commission of inquiry to find long-term
solutions to setting up a transportation system in the West that
would meet the needs of Canadians.
And to think that in spite of the crisis the port in Thunder Bay
and the St. Lawrence are not used at full capacity. Over the past
ten years their use has decreased by nearly 50 per cent. In fact,
the seaway is steadily losing quantities of grain to the detriment
of eastern ports. Since 1984, the amount of grain transshipped
has dropped from 12 million to 6 million tonnes. However, a
Great Laker can carry an amount equivalent to 250 railway cars,
and the turnaround time in Thunder Bay is four days shorter than
it is in Vancouver.
According to Mr. Glen Stewart, president of the St. Lawrence
Seaway Authority, the Western Grain Transportation Act
encourages pouring grain into the Pacific ports, and this is
detrimental to the St. Lawrence. The situation is understandable
up to a point, because we do have more clients now in the Orient
than we do in Europe. But this does not explain how grains going
to Africa and Europe first go to Vancouver and are then sent
through the Panama Canal. Even though there is a crisis in the
western grain transportation system, only 35 per cent of the
grain goes through Thunder Bay and the St. Lawrence.
Are we to conclude that Agriculture Canada is unable to
develop a good western transportation system, or must we
conclude that Agriculture Canada is promoting western
agriculture to the detriment of the east? Canadian products are
of high quality and world renowned, but it is obvious that
Agriculture Canada, a part of this federal government, is doing a
less than satisfactory job.
As a department, Agriculture Canada has a long history.
Initially, its primary responsibility was to ensure western
development and, to some extent, Agriculture Canada's
attention has remained focussed on the interests of western
Canada. Frequently, this duty to promote western development
was carry out in a manner that was extremely prejudicial to the
interests of Quebec.
We just have to look at the estimates for Agriculture Canada
over the past 10 or 15 years. In 1980, for example, Quebec
received $300 million from the federal government, and the
west, that is, the prairie provinces, received $1 billion-55 per
cent of Agriculture Canada's budget. In 1987, Quebec received
$410 million, while the West received $4 billion-76 per cent of
the total budget. Last year, Quebec received $372 million, while
the West received $1.5 billion-more than 50 per cent of
Agriculture Canada's budget.
The federal government's unfair treatment of Quebec is
demonstrated in a variety of ways.
(1105)
In the 1980s, for instance, federal spending went up eight
times faster in the West than it did in Quebec. In 1987, Quebec
contributed more than $1 billion in taxes for the development of
western agriculture. Quebec spent twice as much money on
western agriculture as it did on its own agriculture, through the
Quebec government.
Grosso modo, from 1980 to 1992, the amount of aid to the
West increased from 42 per cent of the federal budget to nearly
64 per cent, and the amount of aid to Quebec went from 30 per
cent down to only 10 per cent; this means that the 25 per cent of
Canadians who live in Quebec pay into a system that gives back
only 10 per cent. This is not very profitable for farmers in
Quebec.
Speaking of grain transportation, why is it subsidized all the
way to the Pacific going west, but only as far as Thunder Bay
going east? And still speaking of transportation, why are so
many railway lines being shut down in Quebec, on the pretext
that they are not cost-efficient, while nearly 25,000 km of lines
are maintained in the West, even if they are not cost-efficient,
on the pretext that they are essential for the Canadian economy?
4102
Agricultural diversification is yet another situation where we
find Quebec has been unfairly treated. While the federal
government has been investing for many years in western
diversification, Quebec has received nothing. Over the past ten
years, the area used for potato crops in the West has increased 30
per cent, while in Quebec, it has increased only 2 per cent. And I
could add a number of other examples.
In 1988, a report produced by the Coopérative fédérée du
Québec, the Union des producteurs agricoles, and the Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, summed up perfectly the
effects of the federal government's discriminatory policies
toward Quebec by saying, and I quote: ``The inequitable policy
affects the level of competitiveness of Quebec farmers in
comparison with their counterparts in the West, particularly in
terms of grain and livestock production. Canada's agricultural
policy contributes to the displacement of livestock production
from the east to the west of the country''.
A further illustration of Agriculture Canada's feeble defence
of Quebec's interests is the case of Grand Pré milk, produced by
the Groupe Lactel. Grand Pré milk has been sold in Puerto Rico
for 15 years, accounting for 40 per cent of the Puerto Rican
market. In 1991, the Americans changed the health standards.
Grand Pré milk lost this lucrative market.
A change in health standards was tantamount to the
Americans' imposing a non-tariff barrier on us. In spite of this,
the federal government did not respond. They could have taken
certain measures, but they decided to do nothing, and their
inaction led to the consequences I mentioned.
Why did the federal government not take action to protect a
sector that was lucrative for Quebec, whereas in other
sectors-there are many examples-the federal government
took immediate action, such as the recent case, for example, of
American beer in Ontario. In this case, the federal government
responded very quickly in protecting the interests of breweries
in Ontario. The interests of Quebec do not prompt the same
response in the Department of Agriculture.
The most recent example of the government's spinelessness
and inertia is, of course, the GATT. Article XI of the GATT was
important for producers working under a quota system and of
extreme importance to Quebec, since 42 per cent of its
agricultural monetary earnings come from such products.
The Minister had promised to protect article XI, but he came
back empty-handed with nothing but tariffs that are supposed to
have the same effect, but that bring the whole supply
management system into question again. We can see its effects
in the poultry sector; a trade war has arisen between Quebec and
Ontario.
(1110)
With the new tariffs, farmers will have to adapt to an entirely
new system within six years. That is a very short time for those
farmers.
Earlier, the Minister of Agriculture was telling us how he
wanted to negotiate with the Americans, sector by sector,
following the GATT agreement. In fact, that is not what he is
doing; he is negotiating a package deal with the Americans
because, when all is said and done, he has not succeeded in
establishing clear directives under the GATT. Even the new
tariffs of 300 to 350 per cent have succeeded in flooring
consumers once again: they have the impression that they are
paying too much for their food products when that is not the
case.
In its negotiations with the United States, Canada seems to
want to fold once again where products affecting Quebec,
including ice cream and yogurt, are concerned. According to all
reports on the negotiations, Canadians appear to be giving the
Americans greater access to the Canadian ice cream and yogurt
market, in order to protect the volume of wheat exports from the
West. Is this not another case in which Quebec comes out the
loser in federal agricultural negotiations?
The Bloc Quebecois is warning the federal government. We
will never agree that the interests of farmers in eastern Canada
should be sacrificed in order to allow better access to the
American market for Canadian durum wheat. We will oppose
any tradeoffs between the regions in order to reach an agreement
with the Americans.
Agriculture Canada appears to have a carefree and careless
attitude toward the development of agriculture in Canada. That
attitude is surely not the fault of the present Minister. And we
are well aware that agriculture is not a very easy sector of
activity. No doubt the present Minister has many problems with
his party, because it seems that, when agricultural issues arise,
they are always set aside or not given as much attention as issues
affecting other sectors. So it is not the fault of the present
Minister, but we have a system that seeks to make cuts to farm
programs, at a time when great changes are taking place in
agriculture.
Basically, Agriculture Canada is operating in a laxist mode,
letting market forces take over. Instead of protecting farmers
and encouraging the infrastructure in order to increase the
number of farmers, it lets market forces take over and seems to
encourage the largest integrated companies that have ever more
control over the agricultural sector. This means that farmers will
eventually become employees, not independent managers. It
should be noted that farmers have very low incomes and work an
abnormally high number of hours, and that 73 per cent of them
declared off-farm income in order to supplement their income.
4103
Half of the farmers' wives have no income for the work they
do on the farm, because farm businesses do not generate enough
income. Farmers are not rich operators. In 1992, nearly 22 per
cent of farms lost money. This trend toward loss of income and
loss of farms is part of a longstanding pattern. There are fewer
and fewer farmers in Canada, and active farmers are less and
less well off financially. It cannot be said that this is a passing
phenomenon; it is a trend that has been evident for a some years.
(1115)
Who then can say that farmers are well served by Agriculture
Canada? Surely not Quebec farmers. How can the government
claim in the motion before us today that it is contributing to the
well-being of farmers and to job creation?
This government, which claims to be concerned about the
well-being of farmers, is in the process of dealing another blow
to the farm economy. A tax on food, a proposal currently being
discussed by the government, could have a disastrous effect on
farmers. Imposing a tax on agriculture, which is already in an
extremely tenuous situation, would be tantamount to taking an
additional one billion out of farmers' pockets. One billion more
to be subsidized by farmers. As a result, a great many of them
could be forced into bankruptcy.
Despite the uncaring and unfair attitude of the federal
government, Quebec farmers have rallied solidly behind their
association, the UPA, and have shown that they can compete on
world markets. They are eagerly looking forward to Quebec's
sovereignty because they already know that the money Quebec
spends to support agriculture in Canada will be available for
Quebec farmers. In view of the federal government's actions
over the past ten or fifteen years, Quebec farmers have had to
band together and build a strong organization. The way in which
they have organized themselves has proven to be the envy of
other provincial farm organizations. Their organizational ability
is their strength.
Farmers also realize that they will be the first ones to benefit
from sovereignty since the Quebec government will then have
money to spend in the regions. It will begin by shoring up the
regions with money from new taxes and it will ensure that
structures and support systems for farmers are in place. This
group will be first in line to benefit from this situation and that is
why they are eagerly looking forward to this day. They have
already established several organizations in anticipation of
sovereignty.
At a Montreal gathering in 1991, farmers recognized the
importance of decentralization. They called for powers to be
redistributed from the top down to give regions more autonomy
and more decision-making authority. I am confident that this
will prove to be the strength of Quebec farmers.
In conclusion, I have to say that the government's motion,
however well-intentioned it may be, is full of oversights and
neglects the problems which Quebec farmers are facing. I am
proud of Quebec's farming community and I know that it will be
the first to benefit from the money flowing from Quebec
sovereignty.
[English]
Mr. Easter: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
minister made it clear this morning that he would not get caught
in horse trading, region against region or commodity against
commodity. The member is misinformed in terms of the-
(1120)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, I am afraid
that is more a point of debate than it is a point of order.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Madam Speaker, I thank
the minister for this open debate on agriculture, a debate which
is truly needed.
I believe that government involvement in agriculture over the
past 20 years has created one disaster after another. I say this
with absolutely no intent to attach blame or to point a finger but
rather to emphasize the need for well-focused changes in the
direction and the relationship among government, farmers and
agri-business.
I appreciate the minister's speech this morning and I agree
with much of what he said. The real test of course is in the
interpretation. It is my greatest hope that his interpretation is at
least similar to mine.
We urgently need a change in the direction of our agriculture
policy. We must all put aside partisan politics and old
disagreements and work together toward policies which
demonstrate that we have learned from the mistakes of the past
and recognize the new realities of the future. When I say we, I
mean everyone who has a stake in agriculture at all. This
includes farmers, businesses which buy, sell or process farm
products, government agencies and regulatory bodies and the
various levels of government.
I must also stress the need for all members to really listen to
the ideas presented by the members of the other political parties.
One thing I know for sure is that we all have the best interests of
farmers in mind as we go through this debate today. I have no
doubt about that at all.
Because we are all sincere I believe we owe it to each other
and to the people we represent to try not to distort the intent or
the proposals and the ideas that each of us present here today.
Farmers tell me that they are frustrated with farming because
they have little control over their business and have too few
choices when it comes to buying and selling. They feel they have
too little control over factors such as unfair restrictions and
access to markets due to trade wars between Europe and the
United States and unfair import restrictions into Japan and
Korea; a grain handling and transportation system which fails
them again and again and is much too expensive; safety net
programs which do not work well and are ever-changing caus-
4104
ing instability; and high taxes and high input costs which make it
difficult to compete.
They feel they have too few choices because marketing
systems restrict their options and because overregulation limits
their ability to find alternatives to dysfunctioning programs.
With these concerns in mind I will briefly outline the principles
which guide Reform agriculture policy.
Canada's agriculture policy should focus on allowing a
self-reliant, market driven industry to develop. Reformers
believe that all sectors of agriculture can be competitive if given
a fair environment in which to operate both within Canada and in
the world marketplace.
The role of government in this market driven industry is
twofold. First is to provide market responsive education and
training, infrastructure and regulation which will allow farmers
and the rest of the agriculture industry to become and remain
self-reliant. Second is to support and defend farmers and
agri-business against situations over which they have little
control such as unfair foreign subsidies, trade distorting
influences and certain natural hazards.
Government should not be a partner with farmers or
agri-business because government has proven very clearly in
the past that it is a partner that farmers cannot afford and one
that cannot be trusted.
During my speech today I will present an overview of Reform
agriculture policies under the headings of safety nets, marketing
reforms, transportation and grain handling, research and market
development, and creating a healthy business environment for
agriculture.
As I present our policy I will point out specific examples of
lessons we can learn from certain policy initiatives of the past 20
years. Emphasis will be placed on the need to reduce regulation
and legislation which has a negative impact on the industry by
limiting options.
(1125 )
Also there is a need to reduce overlap between federal
departments that affect agriculture, between the federal
government and other levels of government, and between
government and industry. Removing regulations and reducing
overlap will reduce the size of government and reduce costs.
Removing these hurdles, barriers and red tape will also increase
the bottom line for farmers and agri-business.
Increasing farmers' profit margins will reduce the draw on
safety net programs. Government involvement in safety net
programs may be necessary to support and defend farmers
against the negative effects of circumstances over which they
have little or no control. These situations arise from foreign
subsidies and other trade distorting actions, natural hazards and
to some extent market cycles which occur in the open market.
Safety nets must be market neutral and available in an equitable
way to all sectors of the industry.
To this end, Reform has proposed three safety net programs:
first, a trade distortion adjustment program; second, an income
stabilization program; and third, an improved crop insurance
program. We also propose keeping the Advance Payments for
Crop Act to reduce the cash crunch induced selling in the fall,
and vigorously enforcing countervail duties where dumping can
be demonstrated.
The trade distortion adjustment program would compensate
farmers from all sectors for damage done by subsidies in other
countries, or limited access to markets through unfair import
tariffs and the like. The program would include automatic
triggering mechanisms based on the historic volume of exported
products. It will not require producer premiums and will
compensate farmers for a predetermined percentage of damage
done by a subsidy on a competing commodity, or by unfair
restrictions to market access.
It is our sincere hope that future GATT agreements will
eventually reduce the amount of funding needed under this
safety net program.
The Reform income stabilization program would shelter
farmers in all sectors from the impact of market cycles which
occur in an open market environment. This program could use
NISA as its base, but would be modified and expanded in the
following ways.
It would apply to all commodities in all sectors, that is, it
would involve the whole farm approach. Supply managed
sectors will have access to this program as tariff levels are
reduced enough that the uncertainty and the instability of the
marketplace creep into their pricing system.
Contributions would be based on gross margins in a way
which would apply fairly across all sectors. The 3 per cent
interest bonus would be replaced by tax deductible
contributions.
The total level of government matched and unmatched funds
will be subject to a regenerative cap which will be equitably
applied across all sectors. There will be no limit on the level of
contribution per farm unit so we would not discriminate based
on size.
Upon a farmer's retirement these funds may be transferable to
an RRSP or a RRIF.
The Reform Party also proposes as a part of the safety net
package an improved crop insurance program to protect against
some of the damage caused by natural hazards. The
requirements of this program are: getting enough farmers
involved in a particular area to make it administratively sound;
maintaining present federal-provincial farmer funding
arrangements and being actuarially sound within that
arrangement; providing all risk yield loss protection; and a
nationally consistent design across all sectors.
4105
In implementing these or similar programs there are some
important lessons we can learn from past and present programs.
Take GRIP, please. I have heard this a lot over the past few
weeks from my constituents. There are more holes in GRIP than
there are gopher holes in Saskatchewan, and that is a substantial
number.
I could spend the rest of my time complaining about the flaws
and problems with GRIP, but I know that most members already
understand these problems and see the flaws. Besides, it would
definitely ruin my day, probably everyone's day. Let us not get
into finger pointing, but let us make sure we learn the lessons
that have to be learned from programs like GRIP.
That is a brief summary of our safety net proposals. As for
marketing reforms, we believe they are required to allow
farmers to build more profitable, self-reliant industry. The
Reform Party supports the right of farmers to form and operate
co-operatives, commissions and marketing boards, as long as
these bodies receive their direction from the farmers they serve.
Farmers must be free to build a viable, self-reliant, market
driven industry in which they can make their own decisions
about how products are marketed. Government need only
provide the basic rules and minimum scrutiny of these groups.
(1130)
Most of the farm organizations and marketing boards in place
could continue to operate under the policy we are proposing.
Some organizations will however need substantial changes to
make them work well in the world marketplace. Two examples
are the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management.
There is substantial support across the prairies for major
reform of the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers feel stifled and
unfairly limited by the monopolistic powers of the board. While
there is considerable support for maintaining some aspects of
the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers want the ability to bypass
the board when they feel it is not doing a good job of marketing
or when they see better opportunities which they can access
either directly or through a grain company.
The Canadian Wheat Board then should be reformed in the
following ways. First, farmers should control the board. A board
of directors should be elected by farmers and replace the
appointed commissioners. This board of directors could choose
to keep all or some of the commissioners. Those who argue that
the wheat board advisory committee already gives farmers some
control over the Canadian Wheat Board are wrong because the
wheat board advisory committee has absolutely no power.
Second, the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board should be
expanded to include any grains, oilseeds or specialty crops that
it chooses to handle, but farmers must be allowed to compete
with the board through grain companies or directly.
The third change to the Canadian Wheat Board would be that
farmers have the right to choose between a pool price or a daily
cash price. Some of the current wheat board powers should be
maintained, for example the power to pay out advance payments
on grain and the power to provide loan guarantees as long as
other countries continue to use this practice.
I have received a few form letters from people worried that I
am proposing the abolition of the Canadian Wheat Board. Of
course that is not my intent or the intent of Reform. I want to
take this time to assure them that I do not believe the wheat
board should be abolished but rather improved to serve farmers
better. Farmers want more choices and they must be given more
choices.
I believe these changes to the Canadian Wheat Board will
increase the price farmers get from the marketplace. This
increase in market revenue will reduce payments needed for the
safety net programs.
Since the first Reform task force met in 1990, of which I was a
member, Reformers recognize that with new GATT deals supply
managed sectors will need to adjust to freer trade within a global
marketplace.
As a farmer it has been extremely difficult for me to watch as
governments have pretended supply management can remain as
it is. This stand has been taken mainly for political purposes and
is a disservice to supply managed farmers. It is time for
politicians to be open and honest with farmers from the supply
managed sectors and help them prepare for the reality that as
tariff levels drop they will be forced to compete especially with
American producers.
On a positive note, a huge American market will open up to
Canadian farmers. The extremely high tariff levels currently
allowed under the GATT agreement will most likely be reduced
at a faster rate than is projected right now. The free trade
agreements, pressure from the Americans, and possibly new
GATT agreements will cause this accelerated reduction in
tariffs.
Canadian supply managed farmers can compete with anyone
in the world if they are given the opportunity to do so. I
encourage the government to do what is right instead of what is
politically easy. I encourage the government to prepare supply
managed farmers and to allow them to prepare themselves for
the new challenges and opportunities ahead.
I would like to talk a bit now about what is wrong with the
transportation and grain handling system. Simply put, it does
not accomplish what needs to be done, that is move farmers'
grain. It is one of the most heavily regulated parts of the
agriculture industry. There is too much legislation and too many
bodies involved to properly manage the system. There are no
incentives or penalties in place to make it work better.
4106
(1135 )
A few days ago there were about 1,000 cars of canola meal
sitting near Lloydminster. Why, at a time when the industry
desperately needs more cars to deal with the problems in moving
grain, should there be 1,000 cars sitting on a siding near
Lloydminster? I will bet a brand new pair of cowboy boots that if
the system had the incentives and the penalties in place this
1,000 car mistake would have never happened. Or, if by chance
it did, it certainly would have been dealt with very quickly. We
need the incentives and the penalties.
At the joint agriculture and transportation subcommittee
meetings on grain held last week there were two interesting
proposals for dealing with this highly regulated and
overadministered system.
The Grain Workers Union suggested that there be a czar who
would be a type of overseer for the entire system. While the GTA
was intended to be that czar it did not succeed partly because of
interference from the Canadian Wheat Board. We tried the czar
solution and it has not worked, at least so far.
The second proposal came from United Grain Growers. It
suggested deregulating the industry and putting into place a
system of initiatives and penalties to increase efficiency.
However, when asked if a better solution would be to let
railways take control of car allocations, the representative from
UGG agreed.
With these changes guidance would come from the National
Transportation Act as it does for others involved in
transportation. To make this work it would be necessary to put
the Crow benefit directly in the hands of farmers, either through
our trade distortion adjustment program, a similar program or
some type of pay the producer option. This would be a more
viable solution to persistent grain transportation problems.
Reform's policy on transportation subsidy is to direct the
Crow benefit into our trade distortion adjustment program. This
takes care of the dilution problems that arise from some of the
pay the producer options. Our policy will still provide for the
benefits the pay the producer options provide by forcing the
railways to become competitive. Furthermore, it will encourage
more value added on the prairies through diversification and
further processing. If the government were serious about jobs it
would pursue a method of giving farmers control over the
transportation dollars. That would create real jobs, long term
jobs and productive jobs on the prairies.
Reformers believe that the grain handling industry should be
deregulated, that railways should be responsible for car
allocation, and that they should be administered through the
National Transportation Act.
Problems in the grain handling part of the system contribute
to problems in grain movement. Frequent and unnecessary
strikes and lockouts have cost Canadian farmers through lost
sales, demurrage, et cetera. Strikes should not be allowed in the
grain handling system. A mechanism must be put in place to deal
with labour disputes before a contract expires. This solution will
work well for grain handling companies, for workers and most
important, for western Canadian grain farmers.
I would like to touch on two more areas in conclusion:
research and development and creating a healthy business and
trade environment. Research and development must be a top
priority in any agriculture policy. Private industry depends on
research and marketing agriculture products for its very
existence. Therefore it is important that government work to
co-ordinate its research with that of the private industry.
The auditor general's report stated that there are over 800
research projects funded by Agriculture Canada. These projects
seem to be uncoordinated and improperly priorized. While
Agriculture Canada has been moving in the direction of private
industry guidelines, there is a need for more of the stimulus
behind these research projects to come from the private sector.
Reformers strongly support and promote an open market
system as a type of economic system within which business
operates best. Reformers recognize that to make an open market
system work well there must be some regulation. The
government's role is important in dealing with certain
situations, for example unfair trade practices on the part of other
countries. That is why Reform proposes much tougher
anti-combines and fair competition legislation and recognizes
the need to enforce import control regulations when dumping
occurs. We believe this type of system works much better than
the heavily regulated system of substantial government
involvement that we currently have.
(1140 )
In summary, having proposed these substantial agricultural
reforms, my greatest concern is that the government has and will
continue to make cuts in agriculture spending before it has
released farmers from the burden of overregulation. For
example, the government followed through with the 10 per cent
cut to the Crow benefit which was implemented by the former
government. This reduction in spending was not preceded by the
necessary changes in regulation which would free up the
transportation system and let farmers get around the heavily
regulated system.
I cannot stress enough the importance of getting farmers and
farm related businesses more choices through less regulation
and better co-ordinated programs as funding in agriculture is
decreased. Better targeted spending with fewer and more
co-ordinated programs will allow for further spending cuts of
between $150 million and $200 million with about the same
amount of money going to farmers.
4107
Once again, I thank the minister of agriculture for allowing
this very important debate. I urge him to examine carefully the
alternatives we present on this side of the House, as well as the
alternatives from members of other political parties.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed
listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Vegreville, but
there was a considerable number of contradictions in them. I
refer specifically to the case the member mentioned about 1,000
cars of canola meal that sat on a siding in Lloydminster for a
month. There is no question that was a problem for the
transportation system.
The member was talking about how well a deregulated system
would work. In fact the reason those 1,000 cars sat on that siding
was that some private individual or company tried to gain
advantage for itself, was able to load those cars and get around
the regulatory system. As it so happened the ship was not in port.
The product could not be moved. While it was trying to obtain
individual gains, complications for the system as a whole were
caused.
As the committee recommended, the rules under the Western
Grain Transportation Act need to be applied more vigorously.
The GTA did not do its job. In the regulatory system the rules
and the penalties need to be applied. In its proactive way the
subcommittee on transport and agriculture made the
recommendations to get around the problem. I am sure the
ministers will act on them next week.
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, I would have been very
surprised if the hon. member had not stood and made a comment
or two. I appreciate his comments.
I see no contradiction in what I said about the cars sitting near
Lloydminster. I have proposed in my speech that there should be
a system of penalties and incentives in the system. Right now we
have hopper cars that have been paid for by the taxpayers of
Canada and by farmers directly through the Canadian Wheat
Board. Yet there is no way the system can charge railway
companies or shippers demurrage or some other kind of penalty
for not using these cars properly. If we had that type of
mechanism in place this absolute blatant abuse of the system
would not happen.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Madam
Speaker, I agree with the member for Malpeque who listened
closely, as I did, to the comments of the member for Vegreville.
The comments were riddled with contradictions. One of the
biggest was early in his remarks when he talked about the fact
that governments should not be a partner with farmers or with
agri-business. Then he went on to outline the Reform's
three-point program which puts the government in partnership
with farmers and agri-business. It did not make sense.
Would the member qualify or further explain what he meant
by saying that there should not be any partnership and why he
called for a partnership?
(1145 )
At the same time I would like him to deal with the issue of the
majority deciding an issue. Clearly in Saskatchewan the
majority of farmers who attended government sponsored
discussions on transportation, clearly those who have attended
the conferences of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the National
Farmers Union and other farm organizations in Saskatchewan
have spoken in favour of the status quo for grain transportation
and the maintenance of the Crow benefit.
Yet the member who believes very strongly in letting the
majority decide continues to argue that the interests of the large
corporations and the large farmers should be put above the
ordinary producers throughout Saskatchewan and other parts of
the prairies.
I would like the hon. member who speaks eloquently about
agriculture and other issues to explain these things to me and
other members of the House.
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, I have never been accused of
speaking eloquently before. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Vanclief: But accused of other things.
Mr. Benoit: I have been accused of a lot of other things, that
is right.
First of all, in terms of the majority of farmers deciding, it is
very simple to deal with. The hon. member feels he is right, I
have a good feel for what the majority feels. Let us hold a
plebiscite and decide the issue. It is as simple as that.
In terms of a partnership, my concept of a partnership is two
or more bodies that work very closely together and have equal
control. I believe the safety net programs the Reform Party is
proposing take that government control and interference out of
the safety net mechanism, so it is not a partnership. This is
money provided by taxpayers to help farmers deal with
situations which are largely beyond their control. I think that is
legitimate, but it is not a partnership, nor should we have a
partnership.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Madam Speaker, I hate to prolong
this discussion on the contradictions in the hon. member's
speech, but I do not know how we can do anything but.
4108
In one minute within his speech, as the previous member from
the other side has just suggested to him, he goes on and on about
government involvement. Then, as has been well said, the
member for Vegreville certainly has not answered very well on
how he separates his comments about no government
involvement.
It reminds me of a phone call I had from the hon. member's
province two or three weeks ago. It was from an individual who
said there had been a meeting of 150 randomly selected farmers.
They did not want anything to do with supply management.
They did not want anything to do with any type of organized
marketing in any way, shape or form. They did not want
anything to do with any government support. They did not want
anything to do with the NISA program. I said: ``You do not want
anything to do with government''. He said: ``That is right. All
we want is government there if there is a trade war and if there is
a weather problem''.
I ask the member to comment on whether this is how he feels
the government should be involved in support in a safety net
program for agriculture. As I said to that gentleman, it seems he
did not want to have fire insurance on his barn, but if it started to
burn down he wanted the right to go to town and the insurance
company would be obligated to sell him a policy at that time.
Is that the way the hon. member thinks a government should
plan ahead for the future of this important industry? We as a
government are in the safety net. We are meeting with farmers.
The majority of the people in the national safety net are key
players, participants from the grassroots in putting that plan
together, the task force on orderly marketing in the dairy, egg
and poultry industries, all of the players involved in that
industry are around the table.
I suggest to the member that he notice what is being done.
Government's role is to listen to opposition, listen to the
grassroots and facilitate with the restrictions, legislation and
financial restrictions in a responsible manner for the good of all
Canadians. I would suggest that is being done.
Mr. Benoit: I appreciate the comments from the hon.
parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister.
For such a strong attack on what I said, I am not so sure that in
the area of safety nets we have such different ideas. I guess that
will be determined down the road.
(1150)
However, both prefer some kind of whole farm approach to
the problem. I have never said no government involvement. I
said this industry is tremendously overregulated. There is much
too much government interference. We can get rid of a lot of it. I
believe the safety net programs that I outlined will cut down on
the amount of government involvement tremendously. It will
take the market distortion out of the system that is there now.
I did not want to get into the flaws of the GRIP program, but
GRIP has just demonstrated almost everything that can go
wrong with a government program. It really has. It was supposed
to be market neutral and it is far from that. It encouraged farmers
to grow wheat at a time when the market said not to grow wheat.
There were flaws in the basic design of the program and there
were lots of flaws in the administration and in the overlap of
administration between the federal government and the
provinces.
GRIP is a program that interferes in farmers' business and in
their decision making process way beyond what any government
program should.
I am saying there is a matter of degrees here. I assume with
our difference in philosophy the programs the Liberal
government comes up with to replace the programs in place now
will involve too much government involvement but I am going
to continue to give input along the way. Hopefully I can at least
affect somewhat the outcome of this process.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Madam Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 43(2), I will be sharing my time with the
member for Gatineau-La Lièvre.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak in this debate on
agriculture, since it is a subject of vital importance to my
constituency of Vaudreuil, which is largely rural. Most of my
constituents earn most of their living from agriculture: dairy
farming and grain farming.
Overall, agriculture in Canada and in Quebec is modern and
efficient, very much thanks to the partnership established by the
government and the agricultural community. These structures
are the results of adaptation. In a context of ongoing change, this
sector must continue to adapt. In its policies and programs, the
Canadian government will continue to help this sector adapt to
new market conditions and improve its competitiveness.
Our government will maintain and even increase its strategic
investments in research, infrastructure development and skills
development. Partnership with the farming community and the
provinces will help us determine the best way to use these
resources. Partnership is essential if the industry as a whole is to
take full advantage of the opportunities the new trade
agreements offer.
[English]
The agri-food industry is a pillar for the Canadian economy.
All Canadians and Quebecers profit from investments in this
industry. Our government is committed to helping farmers in
every region of Canada, but we must recognize that this kind of
support comes in many different ways.
4109
The federal government's intention is to act in the best
interests of the agri-food sector. This commitment applies just
as well to farms in Quebec and in the prairies, for they are all
essential elements in the whole Canadian agri-food system.
Statistics do not reveal the whole picture and can often be
deceiving. We must look beyond the numbers and the columns.
Government support in the agri-food sector cannot be evaluated
solely on direct payments to producers through various different
programs. We must take into account indirect transfers such as
research or market development and those governed by controls
such as border control for quotas.
Canada is recognized world-wide as a healthy and high
quality agri-food producer and exporter. Agricultural producers
across Canada profit from this fine reputation. Quebec's
agri-food sector holds a predominant place within the Canadian
economy. This is a very tangible factor, one which many regions
seek to emulate.
On average a Quebec producer earns the highest net income in
the country. In 1993 the income produced by agriculture
activities reached $3.8 billion. This represents 16 per cent of
total Canadian revenues, while manufacturing brought in $11
billion. In the last 12 years in financial terms, the global income
of Quebec farmers has increased 67 per cent.
(1155)
In 1993 the value of Quebec's agri-food imports reached $1.2
billion or 9 per cent of the total Canadian export market
proceeds. Quebec's hog industry holds 32 per cent of the
Canadian market and is the number one seller abroad. In 1992 it
accounted for $294 million or 40 per cent of all Canadian
exports in this sector.
I am not taking into account the enormous potential of
world-wide commercial markets. The hon. minister of
agriculture has seen it himself when he recently travelled to
Asia. Some of Quebec's industrial leaders such as the president
of the Union des producteurs agricoles, Mr. Pellerin, and the
president of the Coopérative fédérée de Québec, Mr. Massicotte,
were part of the commercial delegation travelling with the hon.
minister of agriculture.
[Translation]
There are 38,000 farms in Quebec; they help supply over
1,000 processing plants and 12,000 food stores. Quebec
agriculture and the Quebec agri-food industry account for 15
per cent and 21 per cent respectively of Canada's gross domestic
product in those sectors. Hundreds of thousands of
jobs-415,00 jobs-depend on the Quebec agri-food sector:
that figure represents 22 per cent of jobs in Canada's agri-food
industry, and 14 per cent of all jobs in Quebec.
In the processing sector, the Quebec food and beverage
industry accounts for 25 per cent of the Canadian market. That is
a vital market. Among Quebec manufacturing industries, the
processing sector is in first place in terms of value added and
deliveries, and in second place in terms of direct jobs.
The processing sector has grown by 24 per cent in seven years.
Nearly one-third of deliveries from the Quebec agri-food
industry are destined for the rest of Canada. Agri-food sales to
the provinces are three times higher than exports of the same
products on world markets.
It must be recognized that this success of Quebec's
agriculture is the result of the work of the people in the
agricultural community. The performance I have just
highlighted, however, was made possible by the support of
public administrations. Indeed, the two levels of government
have been intimately linked to that prosperity. And, whatever
the Opposition may say, the federal government plays a role of
the utmost importance in the agri-food sector. It carries out its
mandate in a fair manner, taking into account the special needs
of each region in the country. We provide energetic support for
the expansion of industry by working in partnership with the
provinces, the sectors of this industry, and the farmers.
Our income security programs, our research initiatives, our
agreements with the provinces, our food inspection program,
and our commitment to rural regions and to the environment are
designed to ensure the vigour and growth of this industry. Our
government works with the industry and the provinces in order
to ensure long-term stability for producers. Together, we shall
develop an income protection system that will meet the basic
needs of all sectors without distorting market signals, a system
that will allow farmers to make enlightened decisions based on
co-operative advantage, not government programs.
The agri-food sector is an important source of jobs and
economic activity. That is not the result of chance, after all! The
federal government is a key player.
(1200)
We have a role to play and we will play it, now and in the
future. We will continue to help the industry to grow by setting
up programs to promote the development of new products and
new markets and improve productivity, programs to help
processors, programs to promote training and programs to
provide easier access to credit.
As far as GATT is concerned, the rules may have changed
somewhat, but the Canadian government has successfully
negotiated an agreement that protects supply management and
its foundations. The Canadian economy and the economy of
Quebec will benefit substantially under the agreement
concluded at the GATT talks, and it is also a good agreement for
Canadian and Quebec agriculture. In the course of the GATT
negotiations, the Canadian government was able to obtain tariff
levels that will ensure not only the survival of supply
management, as I men-
4110
tioned earlier, but also its future prosperity. The tariffs will be in
effect long enough to provide a stable and secure framework for
producers in the industry.
The case of our trade relations with the United States is a good
example of this government's determination to defend the
interests of the Canadian agri-food industry. Our firm response
to the Americans and their threats of trade sanctions against
Canadian wheat was praised by the industry. If necessary, we
will react as promptly and vigorously in any other sector. We
will not play off one region against another or one group against
another group.
The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food has 1,400
employees in Quebec. At the national level, 23 per cent of the
department's employees are francophones, and the federal
government invests an average of $360 million annually in the
agri-food industry in Quebec.
Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member
for Gatineau-La Lièvre. He will need a little less time, and I
will now start my concluding remarks, since I have about a
minute or two left.
I would like to quote very briefly a number of revealing
figures: Federal investments worth $42 million annually in the
food inspection sector whose 850 employees are spread
throughout Quebec's regions, and $27 million annually plus 415
jobs in research. Incidently, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
has had a network of research establishments in Quebec since
the beginning of the century. We are everywhere:
Saint-Hyacinthe, Lennoxville, La Pocatière, Sainte-Foy and
Normandin, to name only a few.
The federal department also spent $65 million in recent years
on building or updating its research facilities in Quebec. The
federal government also finances many research and marketing
projects under the Canada-Quebec agreement on agri-food
development and the agreement on regional development. The
list of programs and agreements is a long one, representing tens
of millions of dollars, and this does not include the dairy
subsidy, $107 million for Quebec in 1992-93, and the fact that
the agri-food sector in Quebec benefits from research carried
out elsewhere in Canada, and vice-versa. Research funding
provided by Agriculture Canada benefits all Canadians and all
Quebecers.
[English]
In closing, our mission is quite clear. Under the auspices of
consultations and through a policy of dialogue the welfare of all
Canadians will be served by maintaining the wholesomeness
and the marketing value of agri-food products, by developing
the region's potential and diversity and by protecting agriculture
resources and the environment.
Yes indeed, the agri-food industry is facing great challenges
but we will meet them together. We will carry out our program in
a spirit of partnership and respect for provincial jurisdictions.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Madam Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Vaudreuil. There is no doubt that with
regard to research, Quebec is not unfavourably treated at
Agriculture Canada, but that may well be the only one where it is
not at a disadvantage. This business of federal spending inequity
between Quebec and Western Canada is old news.
(1205)
For the hon. member for Vaudreuil's information, inequities
have existed for decades, in the sense that the federal
government has been giving Quebec much less than its fair share
by comparison with Western provinces. In Quebec, organizers,
the Ministry of Immigration and farm organizations have met on
several occasions in 1988, and in 1991, to denounce this ongoing
inequity.
I want to tell the hon. member for Vaudreuil this inequity
turned out to be for the best. The fact the federal government
was not as involved as expected and not contributing as much as
it should drew Quebec farmers closer together. That is why in
Quebec, farm organizations are so well organized, motivated
and aggressive; they never had the chance to grow as dependent
on the federal government as some other provinces.
That is why these organizations can courageously and
confidently seek harvest markets abroad. It is also why Quebec
farmers are waiting with anticipation for sovereignty, because
then, they will benefit from investments made in their regions to
strengthen infrastructures that will help them. There is no doubt
farmers are among those who stand to gain the most from
sovereignty.
A second comment regarding GATT. The hon. member for
Vaudreuil praised this agreement, like all government members
do. He said farmers would benefit from tariffs that would help
support the supply management system for a good while. But the
transition period is one of the terms and conditions so poorly
negotiated by the government. Six years is a rather short
transition period. To compensate for article XI, the government
could have obtained at least ten years to give time to the
agricultural industry to adjust.
Farming is not like toy manufacturing; it is an extremely
complex industry that requires a very long time to adjust to new
conditions. We must admit that the Canadian government has
shown weakness in the GATT negotiations by accepting a
4111
transition period of only six years. This is one aspect among
many in which the federal government was not fair to Quebec
farmers.
Mr. Discepola: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that a question
was asked. If the hon. member wants to ask me a question, I will
be pleased to answer it. So far he has only made comments.
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre): Madam Speaker,
of course, agriculture is a crucial sector in our country's
economy. Like the industrial and technological sectors, it plays
a capital and inescapable role. That much is crystal clear. The
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade better known as GATT
will come into effect in 1995.
For the first time in the history of international trade, GATT
will subject the agricultural sector to a set of predetermined
trade rules that will apply to all countries.
(1210)
Article XI has been replaced with customs tariffs that will
allow our supply management systems to survive in a new era of
international trade.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of the agriculture
or agri-food sector in our national economy, and I listened with
interest to my colleagues opposite, the hon. members for
Québec-Est and Vegreville, whose criticisms were not
unjustified, far from it. I agree with them that there is certainly
room for improvement and, as the hon. member for Québec-Est
talked about grain transportation, there is no question that this
government must resolve the issue of grain transportation.
It is true that it does not make sense, that there are no excuses
in the world. But let us not forget that the problem has been
around for years. We are not more responsible than others,
except that our government has a duty to find a solution.
Although the grain and wheat sector was extremely
important, previous governments let the situation deteriorate
from month to month. There is no excuse and I am sure that the
Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister are very aware
that solutions must be found.
We cannot let a sector of our economy suffer as was the case in
the past. There are so many issues at stake in the agricultural
sector but I just want to address a few that were mentioned by
our colleagues.
The hon. member for Québec-Est said that the failure of
GATT with article XI-well, a failure-when all the countries in
the world agree on an issue and want a trade agreement, it would
be rather difficult for us to go against an agreement signed by all
the other countries. Some claimed that the six-year transition
period was too short, but I think that six years is more than
enough time to adjust, especially with today's technologies.
Let us consider the little time we had to adjust to free trade. I
do not want to start an argument with my colleague, but you used
to belong to a political party that was in favour of free trade and
you did not criticize the fact that we had very little time to adjust
to the changes caused by free trade.
Free trade came in at a bad time and many Canadian
companies were affected. The hon. member's own leader was
one of those who favoured that free trade agreement-even your
other colleagues in the Parti Quebecois did all they could to
elect the previous government in 1988.
In any case, that transition period was so short that we have
suffered the consequences. We must be consistent and know
what positions we took in the past. So your argument about six
years for agri-food does not stand up. I think that six years is
reasonable. It is one of the factors.
Our colleague from Québec-Est also mentioned a company. I
do not know if it is just by chance or because the field interests
me, but he referred to a Quebec company called Interal
Marketing Inc. which produces Grand Pré milk. This Quebec
company exported its product to Puerto Rico where it held 40
per cent of the market and provided a good return to Quebec.
This problem arose a few years ago and I was interested in it.
When I was in the opposition, I had the opportunity to raise the
issue in the House and to make representations for the company.
(1215)
I spoke many times with the company president, Michel
Gilbert, and very recently I wanted to find out what the decision
was. A panel of Canadians and Americans was set up to solve
this problem, since Grand Pré makes its product in accordance
with hygiene and other standards. I wish to inform my colleague
from Québec-Est that I received a letter from Mr. Gilbert which
says: ``Thank you very much, Mr. Assad, for following up the
above-mentioned matter. As a result of your efforts, the
minister''-meaning the former minister, Mr. Wilson-``finally
decided to refer the matter to a panel''.
This question of Grand Pré is an important factor. They went
to the panel. I heard recently that this panel's decision will be
known in a few weeks. Like the officials at Foreign Affairs who
are dealing with this issue, I am sure that the decision will be
favorable and that Grand Pré products will be back on store
shelves in Puerto Rico and regain the market which they held
before. This is an important point.
Since the free trade agreement, many Canadian companies,
not only industrial companies but also agri-food, have had
difficulties. We know that the Americans have used tactics to
limit access to the U.S. market because they knew that we could
compete and had quality products.
4112
As our minister said, the quality of Canada's agri-food is
probably among the best in the world. That is no exaggeration;
we know it is true.
As regards the part of the Department of Agriculture's budget
allocated to the West, to Quebec or to any other region, the hon.
member for Québec-Est said that the situation may be a blessing
in disguise, because since Quebec farmers were receiving less,
they set up various co-ops such as the UPA, an organization with
which I worked in the past when I was a member of the National
Assembly. This may provide part of the answer; it may be true.
However, I am not prepared to say that Quebec did not get its
share.
Let us go back to the days of Eugene Whelan, the former
Liberal Minister of Agriculture who created the supply
management system and quotas for dairy products. I know that
the hon. member for Québec-Est worked for Mr. Whelan's
department then. When milk quotas were established, which
province got the lion's share? It was Quebec of course. That
province was providing 48 per cent of the total dairy production.
This was a major component of the province's agricultural
sector. I knew many Quebec farmers who had milk cows. This
was a phenomenal success for these people. Their family farm
increased in value, they had a guaranteed income, and things
were going well. This is something which must not be
overlooked when you look at the situation of Quebec's
agricultural producers.
Indeed, it is a blessing in disguise that we have to create
various bodies. I attended several meetings held by the UPA and
other agricultural organizations in the riding I represented as
member of the National Assembly, and it is true that many
initiatives were taken by our farmers in Quebec, but this is to
their benefit because the market is very competitive right now.
The technological sector has a major role to play. This past
experience will certainly help us in the future.
As regards horticulture, I had a meeting a few days ago with
officials from a Quebec provincial organization. I was told that a
fantastic market exists, just south of here, in the Boston region
and certain parts of New York State, where the population
exceeds 15 million people. There is a very short but very
important period during the year for Quebec producers,
especially in the field of fruits and vegetables, when they can
meet the demand.
(1220)
Over the years, the agricultural sector has taken an
increasingly important place in our economy. I even said before
that agriculture has become more important than national
defence. If we leave that sector in the hands of our neighbours or
other foreigners, we will pay for that and the price might be very
high. Consequently, I believe it is necessary, and in fact it is this
government's responsibility, to correct the mistakes made in the
past. I am convinced, considering the Minister of Agriculture's
determination, that we can arrive at solutions.
I hope that the hon. member for Québec-Est will stop
comparing the East and the West, or Quebec and the West,
because this simply does not solve our problems.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, but the hon.
member's time has expired. We now move to questions and
comments.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Madam Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. member.
He pointed out during his debate, quite proudly it seemed, that
Quebec had received a lion's share of quota under supply
management particularly in the dairy and that it was probably
more than a fair share. Does the member feel that it is fair for
any part of the country to get more than what would be
considered a fair share of any type of program, or quota in this
case?
Does the member feel that is one of the problems with the
present supply managed system as it is now in that it will not
allow one part of the country, which maybe can compete and
should and does have a natural advantage of some type or some
other type of competitive advantage, to improve
competitiveness to gain a larger share of the market?
Does the member feel that this is part of the problem with the
system, at least as it is now?
Mr. Assad: Madam Speaker, I must say to our colleague from
Vegreville that I have always been sold on the system we have
whereby we have control of the markets and the production. I
have always been sold on that aspect of it.
The member posed the question: Is it good that one section
can benefit by this and another section will suffer? I do not
believe so.
To go back to the member's first question, I mentioned that
when we came in with the gestion de l'offre-I forget the term in
English unfortunately, but marketing boards or whatever it is. It
is true that when it came to milk production, Quebec was the big
winner with 48 per cent of the production in Canada. At that
particular time in our development, yes Quebec was the big
winner, but I do not think we expected it to be the big winner all
of the time and it was not. There were other times when it came
to agriculture in Quebec that it was not the big winner. It was
probably the west that benefited. However, that was another
particular time.
Over a period of 25 to 30 years, if we have in mind to correct
the shortcomings, we will all benefit. We cannot feel that at one
time we benefited more than at others. It just so happened that
the milk production and the way we had structured it was very
favourable for Quebec. But it was very favourable for the whole
of Canada also in the way that our farmers were guaranteed a
price and they could produce a product that was second to none
from the point of view of quality and otherwise.
4113
I do not see any problem. We have to look at the long term in
agriculture. That goes for our attempts by our new Minister of
Agriculture to open up in Asia and elsewhere. It is going to take
time. In time we can solve our problems providing we all work
together and not one against the other.
(1225)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Madam Speaker,
it is actually a comment. In general, I am completely in
agreement with the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre. There is
little disagreement. The member for Gatineau-La Lièvre is a
highly respected member of the Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
I simply wish to say that, yes indeed, concerning the milk
quota, Quebec was given very generous treatment, but that may
be the only sector in the federal system in which Quebec was so
favoured. For example, unfortunately, in 1991, the sales of
Grand Pré milk to Puerto Rico were lost. The member told us
that he still hopes to win back this market for Grand Pré milk, I
hope so too. Now that we have a new Minister of Agriculture,
perhaps he might be persuaded to assist this industry, which
accounted for 40 per cent of the Puerto Rican market.
In conclusion, article XI was concerned with free trade, but
there is a difference between an open market and free trade. But,
to start with, since we are speaking of Article XI, six years may
not be long enough in the sectors that have quotas for such a
fundamental structural change.
Mr. Assad: Madam Speaker, I would just like to bring to the
attention of our colleague that the period is long enough, I am
convinced, to adapt to new international regulations. The
problem with the six years does not lie there.
What I am concerned about in the six-year period, is whether
our neighbours to the south will really follow the rules of the
game. I do not wish to prejudge, but we have seen in the past that
our neighbours to the south, the Americans, do not always
follow the spirit of the agreement. The issue of Grand Pré milk
that you have raised is a classic example. In my opinion, they
found unfair tactics to prevent Grand Pré from keeping its
products on the shelves of stores in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, I am honoured to speak to you about agriculture today.
I am very pleased to see that the Government has followed the
example that the Official Opposition set for it by focussing the
debates on agriculture. I feel that this subject is very important
and goes beyond partisan matters.
The Official Opposition's first day this year was devoted to
agriculture, and we now have another opportunity to make our
views known. This is rather the way I see it, an opportunity to
say what we feel the government should do with respect to
agriculture in the years to come.
I will be speaking about this issue as a representative of the
riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, whose long
agricultural tradition makes people very proud. This can be seen
in the dairy industry, where producers have made their mark and
have distinguished themselves among organizations across
Canada as being very competent; the same is true in other
production sectors. There is also a riding where there are
institutions such as the Institut de technologie agricole and the
federal government's experimental farm in La Pocatière, which
certainly played a role in the development of agriculture in our
region in the past.
However, I feel we should draw attention in the House to the
fact that agriculture in Quebec reflects to a certain extent the
situation elsewhere. We have gone from a protectionist system,
a Canada-wide protected system in which Quebec's production
was concentrated more in the dairy industry, and the West had
certain other advantages. Now we have moved to an open system
in which we will compete with the rest of North America, the
Americas and the entire world. In this open system, the
divergent interests that can be found in the various regions of
Canada will be even more present than in the past. In a closed
system, there were certain rules within which we were able to
interact, but now, we will no longer be in control and we will
have to ensure that each region is able to find its place in the
scheme of things.
(1230)
Another point is that we had a centralized system under which
milk was trucked in to be processed near the markets. Under the
new system, the open system, we will have to maintain a
centralized approach for mass production, but at the same time,
we should allow for something that does not exist today, namely,
decentralizing milk supplies to small processors of agricultural
products.
For instance, in Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, in my riding, we have a
factory that processes organic milk. Near Trois-Pistoles, a small
cheese factory, the Fromagerie Petit Loup, has started producing
cheese for local markets.
In the maple syrup sector, there has been a substantial
increase in exports, but there is still room for expansion. I think
the minister should realize it is important to leave room for new
players on our export markets. A number of large co-operatives
have been involved in exporting maple syrup for a long time, but
there could be room for small operators as well. In my own
riding, la Cuvée de l'érable would like to develop the equivalent
of an ``appellation contrôlée'' which already exists for wine.
4114
These people have good ideas. They do not have much money,
but they manage. What they need is some help in reaching those
export markets. Right now, they are not always in a position to
take advantage of these markets, and it would therefore be
useful to have programs to help these small operators.
It has been said repeatedly, and I heard this at the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission from the present Minister of
Foreign Affairs, that in the future, we will no longer enjoy the
same protection for milk production in Canada. What happens if
Quebec becomes sovereign? GATT and the free trade
agreements have changed the rules. The answer is, of course,
that we will have to manage on our own, because we no longer
have any protection. When time comes, we will have to be able
to compete and face foreign markets.
In this connection, it will be very important for Quebec to
diversify its products. I am thinking, for instance, of fresh lamb
which has increased market share but should be able to take an
even larger share of the market. This market would require
Canada to look at what New Zealand, among others, is doing in
that area, so that we could take a larger share of the market. This
would have a beneficial impact on stabilization payments. At
the present time, because we cannot sell our production in a
more effective way, there are stabilization costs that could be
avoided.
Beef production is another sector where production
diversification should take place. Quebec does not have its share
of the Canadian production and now that the Canadian system I
was mentioning earlier has collapsed under international
pressure to open markets, we will have to find ways to have
more beef processing in Quebec.
There could also be a debate on hog production. There is a
very hot environmental controversy in this area, because
environment protection organizations want a production method
that is not harmful to the environment. However, we know that
production could be increased in Quebec and Canada, as we
have developed a very enviable reputation in hog production.
We should have the possibility, in the future, to intervene more
adequately in that field. We should inform the whole population,
because the debate around hog production is a very emotional
one. The government has the responsibility to provide
information where needed to ensure that people understand the
situation.
(1235)
What I would like to say is that in the future-because we are
really talking about the agriculture of the future-we should
have flexible, focused and supportive structures, capable of
reacting rapidly to changing signals in the market place. In the
past, since we were in a protected system, we did not have to
watch markets so closely.
In the next few years, if we do not watch how the markets
evolve, we may find ourselves in situations where we will
produce things that consumers do not want. We are going to have
to adjust very quickly, and it is very important for the
government to understand that, in this area, its huge bureaucracy
does not always respond with the necessary speed and that the
impact on the economy could be disastrous, especially if we do
not adopt adequate policies in that respect.
The main criticism I have regarding today's motion is not so
much the use of the words ``pro-active work'', but the fact that
we are still in the consultation mode. Agriculture is a sector in
which the government is going to have to stop consulting and
quickly implement a global intervention strategy.
It is all very well to say that we support producers, that we
have a good relationship with all the organizations, but if we
miss the boat, it will not solve our problems. We need an
interesting global strategy.
This strategy should first promote export assistance
programs. We should pave the way for new players and, since
they will no longer be protected, we should help those farmers
who saw themselves only as producers, play an increasingly
larger role in the food chain as a whole.
Regional research and development is another issue dear to
my heart. We already have the facilities. I mentioned the
experimental farm in La Pocatière, but I believe that in the
future, it will be important to establish adequate research and
development institutions in regional areas to provide direct
service to local stakeholders. We will have to avoid making the
mistake of concentrating research and development
establishments near major centres because, by so doing, we
would prevent research and development from meeting the
needs of local producers.
There is a slightly more touchy issue I would like to raise
regarding the government motion, namely the fact that the
government should not forget the Quebec industry. Allow me to
quote what Agriculture Canada said about the Quebec agri-food
industry in its corporate intervention strategy. Page 5 contains a
few words about the human and cultural side of the industry and
they read as follows: ``Despite the efforts of the Canadian
government to provide services in both languages, many Quebec
entrepreneurs make too little use of the national development
tools available to all Canadians. Canadian associations often
have trouble adjusting to this reality. As a result, Quebec's
industry often tends to withdraw into its francophone
environment, a situation which presents an additional challenge
for regional departmental authorities''.
Mind you, these words were not written by nasty
sovereigntists, but by Agriculture Canada's regional
management committee for the Quebec region. We on this side
are truly
4115
concerned that in the future, language will not prevent Quebec
farmers and stakeholders from getting the credit they deserve.
I would also like to mention new areas such as big game and
cattle production, backgrounding, ethanol production which has
already been mentioned by other members from other regions,
and feed exportation.
These are areas in which we need to expand, something which
was not necessarily done in the past, perhaps in light of the
protectionist system in place. I mentioned the response to
environmental challenges. I think it is rather obvious that if
agriculture is to retain its favoured status with Quebecers and
Canadians, it must meet the environmental challenges of the
21st century. This is an important consideration.
(1240)
Human resources development is another important
intervention sector where the Canadian government is much
weaker, not because of the individuals in the system but because
of the system itself. Perhaps more than other sectors, agriculture
is one area that reflects the Canadian federal system's paralysis
and inability to adequately meet human resources development
needs.
While Canada is one of the countries that spend the most on
job training, it is also one of the countries that spend the least on
the person being trained in the end. In an open system like we
have today, it can be said that, at the end of the day, human
resources are a country's only competitive advantage.
Therefore, we have to give our agricultural labour force the
training it needs to adjust to new crops and new market
demands, to ensure that our people can deal with the changes. I
think we must recognize our shortcomings in this respect.
The current Canadian educational structure is very out of date
and does not allow us to meet needs quickly, especially in
agriculture where this type of adjustment will be needed in the
next few years.
I also think it is important to have an intervention tool flexible
enough to accommodate various sectors such as dairy products,
pork, horticulture, grain and maple syrup production, which all
need their own intervention strategies. Our good old
bureaucratic dinosaur may find it difficult to meet the needs of
each sector and we must find adequate and effective ways to
spend the money in the right places and to delegate to the right
entities to avoid losing money in the bureaucratic channels and
to give much more to the producers, the processors and those
who put their products on the domestic and international
markets.
In conclusion, Canadian agriculture as it now stands gives me
the impression that it will be very difficult if not impossible to
have a Canada-wide balanced policy that would not put one of
Canada's regions at a disadvantage. Access to markets to the
South, North-South markets, whether in British Columbia, the
Western provinces, Ontario, Quebec or Atlantic Canada, will
necessitate a number of very well-structured actions, and
definitely not competition between provinces by which one part
of Canada would gain something over another because of it has
more political weight.
In that area, we have reached the same point as with the rest of
the free trade issue. In the 19th century, we used to need large
government structures to create vast markets, with the political
market and the economic market being one and the same. We
have moved beyond that now. We no longer need these big
political markets to create economic markets. This happens to
be one of the reasons why Quebec as a whole has supported free
trade, because the concept, the essence of free trade -not the
transition phases but the very principle of free trade- would be
beneficial to Quebec in that it would promote increased trade
with other countries, the United States in particular, as well as a
return to the direction development should always have had in
North America, that is to say from the North to the South, as
opposed to the more artificial East-West direction established
by the Canadian confederation, which does not really meet the
needs of the continent in terms of development.
So, this is one thing we have to contend with in the
agricultural industry, but I bet you that with their drive, farmers
will manage to get by in the future. It would be important
however that the governments support them appropriately.
Whether you look at the future from a federalist standpoint for
Canada or from a sovereigntist one like I do for Quebec, in either
case, an extremely decentralized approach is called for. The
centralized approach some may have known in the past will no
doubt rebound on those who chose that particular approach.
We need a different approach for the various regions of
Quebec.
(1245)
We need a body that can make decisions quickly and we need
integrated regional development. I will give an example from
our area. A milk-processing plant in Trois-Pistoles closed. Now
all we see are milk trucks going to Montreal and the processed
milk comes back in plastic bags. This is very bad for regional
development. A region is not there only to provide raw
materials; it can also do processing and occupy markets. I think
that free trade will be an opportunity if we take the time to adjust
and can meet the needs of the market.
In conclusion, I will simply reread an excerpt from article 31,
which I mentioned last week during the opposition day debate
on agriculture: ``The future depends on decentralized authority
in the hands of regional decision-making bodies that are in
touch with local reality. Unfortunately, the shared jurisdiction
for agriculture and the very different interests of Canada's main
agricultural regions provide poor support for the initiatives of
Quebec farmers''. Quebec farmers are doing the same thing as
the Bloc Quebecois; they are using the federal system so that
Quebec gets as much out of it as possible. But like many other
interest groups in Quebec, they are beginning to realize that
4116
sovereignty for Quebec is an essential tool if Quebec agriculture
is to win on the markets of the 21st century.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the comments made by the hon. member
opposite who uses sovereignty like sugar. Just as you put sugar
on cereals and other things, the hon. member uses sovereignty
here and there to try to sell it. However, he chose a very
inappropriate time to do so.
For example, he said that we no longer need major markets,
referring to the East-West market. If the hon. member knows
agriculture like he claims to-and I am convinced that he does,
after listening to him talk about dairy trucks in his riding-he
should also know that this same East-West market buys some of
his province's milk production, since that production far
exceeds the needs of Quebecers. There is nothing wrong with
that; in fact, it is a good thing and we should not deny that this
situation exists. We must not say, as the hon. member seems to
imply, that it is bad. Why should it be bad for Quebecers to sell
milk elsewhere in Canada? Why is the hon. member trying to
deprive his own constituents of this benefit?
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, I think I will have to start over
again, because the hon. member does not seem to have
understood very well. I referred to what the future holds,
because we have to look to the future, not to the past. And if the
government thinks otherwise, it will have to make some
adjustments. In the future, the markets for our agricultural
products, whether it is milk or anything else, will be the North
American and international markets.
There is no doubt that markets are necessary for these
products. We approved the free trade agreement and insisted on
having acceptable conditions precisely to have access to the
largest possible markets. I never said that we did not want to sell
milk in Western Canada. I said that the old system, which
protected production, is being replaced by a new global market
in which we will have to compete.
The major part of my speech had to do with suggestions I
made to the government concerning what, in the years to come,
should be put in place in the agricultural sector. I only referred
to the issue of sovereignty at the end of my speech, and I did so
to clearly indicate that small economies such as Norway,
Sweden and other countries with a population of less than ten
million people can do better than the current federal system,
which was not able to adjust over the years. I gave the example
of vocational training where, again, the federal system was not
able to adjust and avoid creating a situation in which there are
about 1.5 million unemployed for 500,000 jobs available. Any
system which gives such results deserves to be changed.
(1250)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Madam
Speaker, after listening carefully to the member opposite, I can
tell you that he did not clarify anything. He said in his speech,
and he can read it himself in Hansard, that the East-West trade
in agricultural products was not proceeding naturally. He even
said we were faced with an artificial situation.
Earlier, he tried to make amends by saying: ``Well, I was not
talking about the past, but about the future.'' Does the hon.
member consider that the east-west trade in dairy products from
Quebec to other regions in Canada is artificial? Because if that is
the point of view of the Bloc Quebecois, I can assure you that it
is not the opinion of Quebec producers.
Interprovincial trade, in dairy products for example, seems to
me very logical, but they want Quebec producers to believe that
it would be better for them to have access to the bigger US
market than to sell their milk elsewhere in Canada. To
paraphrase Mr. Winston Churchill, who made sure he was using
parliamentary terms, the opposite of the truth has never been
stated so clearly before.
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, I will not use the words ``bad
faith'' because I believe they are not acceptable here.
I have always maintained that, right now, the Quebec farm
industry is ready to compete on international markets. That
includes the Canadian market and the American market. And
with the appropriate tools, we will be able to compete in the
world market. However, to achieve this goal, we must be able to
diversify our production and to go from a protected economy to
a market economy where we will have more freedom.
As far as our trade activities with Western Canada are
concerned, I see no problem with that, but I hope that we will be
able to improve the Canadian system which has often impeded
on the marketing of Quebec products on foreign markets,
because the networks needed to achieve the expected results
were not in place.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Madam Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. member.
If his party's cause is successful and Quebec does separate,
understanding that Quebec has a large share of market quota in
dairy products now, how does he expect dairy farmers in Quebec
will deal with the large loss in market share that will certainly
occur with a separate Quebec?
How are they going to deal with that huge loss of income and
their lack of access to the Canadian market? I would assume that
if supply management remains in place that the quota for the rest
of Canada will be redistributed among the other provinces.
4117
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.
Quebec farmers began to think about this question some years
ago. What has been undertaken in Quebec is a diversification of
production.
There have been production increases, and I gave some
examples of them in my speech, such as the diversification of
production in the area of pork, for example. In the area of milk,
there is also the issue of processing products better, as well as
targeting specific niches.
I gave the example of Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, where there is
plant that processes biological milk, but in North America there
are possible niches for this type of product, which will mean
that, instead of selling the traditional quart of 1 per cent or 2 per
cent milk and trying to market it to all of North America, we will
be able to offer a product like biological milk processed into
milk, cheese, etc., to a niche of the population interested in that
type of product.
The other factor aside from milk is that there are all the other
kinds of changes. It is acknowledged, for example, that in the
entire Lower St. Lawrence region, the whole St. Lawrence River
region really, there is excellent land and production there can be
diversified. I do not say that the federal system has
``imprisoned'' Quebecers in milk, and that they were not pleased
by this, I say that the advent of the GATT, of the international
system, has led to changes and that it is necessary to face them.
(1255)
The way that can be done in a sovereign Quebec will be to
have total control over the way in which we want to conduct our
agriculture in the future and thereby reach the right markets,
without being caught in a federal system that would have to
defend not only our interests but the interests of the West, which
is quite natural, and the interests of the Atlantic provinces,
whereas for Quebec, those interests, in the future, will coincide
less and less with those of the rest of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Madam Speaker, I would like to
point out to the House and to all those who are watching,
particularly the dairy producers in Quebec, that the member
opposite in the last few minutes commented at one stage about
wanting protectionism for the dairy industry. In one of his last
statements he said: ``The Quebec dairy industry wants to move
to a free market system''. I suggest that he cannot have it both
ways.
His colleague who spoke before him this morning made the
statement that in his view the agreement that was reached at
GATT has destroyed the orderly marketing system for dairy,
eggs and poultry in Canada. There is nothing further from the
truth. If anything, it strengthened it considerably, compared to
what it could have been had we not negotiated as a government
as well as we did on behalf of and with the producers.
In his very next statement his colleague said that the tariff
protection that is there is going to make the product too
expensive for consumers. I want to point out to people that the
Bloc Quebecois seems to want it both ways. I suggest as the
member for Vegreville said that if that is what they want and at
the same time they want sovereignty and separation, they better
start looking for markets.
I have had a lot of dairy producers from other parts of Canada
than Quebec approach me recently and make comments about
where that quota is going to go if and when Quebec separates.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Madam Speaker, I hope that I will have the same
amount of time as the Member took to ask his question.
I feel that in the whole range of trade between Quebec and the
other provinces, be it in agriculture or other areas, it is very
much in people's interest, especially in Ontario, to find out who
the other's best customer is. Trade between Quebec and Ontario
benefits both parties. The same holds true for the other
provinces. When I say that we will have access in a sovereign
Quebec to the North American market, I mean that Quebec will
be a party to free trade agreements and the GATT as a sovereign
state, as all other countries have done.
Canada will be the first state to have an interest in Quebec's
being a party to such agreements, because as long as it cannot,
we will have a difficult situation on our hands. I would like to
conclude simply by saying that it is important to point out that in
the past, we operated according to a given system. We are now in
a state of transition, and in the future we will have to interact
with foreign markets. It is in this context that our agriculture
initiatives must be as flexible and as mobile as possible.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Madam Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Malpeque.
I have been listening to the most recent comments. While
some members of this House feel that separation is a fait
accompli, I can assure members that members on this side of the
House do not share that point of view.
I believe that the number one priority of government is the
health and well-being of its people. This government is
committed to promoting and sustaining the health and
well-being of rural communities through agricultural policy
renewal. Our agri-food industry is at risk and we must stop its
erosion by using agricultural resources more effectively.
4118
This government is committed to rebuilding our rural
communities by ensuring a more equitable share of the food
dollar for farmers and their families. A healthy community is
one that is not only economically viable but is also
environmentally sustainable.
(1300 )
One of the measures that this government will undertake
toward this end is rural renewal. Rural renewal is a
multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral challenge that must be
addressed through a multi-departmental approach. The
challenge is to form effective partnerships to bring about
healthy rural development.
To encourage this the minister of agriculture has established a
rural renewal secretariat that is working in partnership with all
branches and levels of government as well as the private sector.
The objectives of the secretariat are: to assist rural people in the
realization of their developmental goals; to provide
collaboration among various government programs and farm
community organizations; and to promote and facilitate
improvement in the economic, social and environmental
conditions of Canada's agricultural communities and rural areas
so that they may be sustainable and self-reliant contributors to
Canada's economy.
This rural renewal secretariat is being developed through a
reallocation of government resources. No new money is being
used. We are not reinventing the wheel. A myriad of approaches
has been tried in the past with questionable results. What most
of these initiatives have clearly discovered is that rural Canada
cannot be sustained by government transfer payments and
cannot be rejuvenated by top down policies and programs.
The approach that shows the most promise is one which will
promote and facilitate bottom up initiatives, recognizing that it
is at the grassroots level where the ideas are found and the drive
and dedication to make things happen occur.
The role of the federal government must be to provide the
policy environment and the tools for community driven rural
development. This is the course of action this government has
already embarked upon and this is the course of action that will
bring results.
The people who live in rural Canada must be the driving force.
They are the key to building healthy rural communities. There
are success stories out there, stories of people starting with an
idea, creating a local business and providing employment for
local people. It is the objective of the rural renewal secretariat to
share these case studies to assist others in turning their ideas and
their resources into sustainable businesses.
The challenge this government has taken up is to create an
environment which provides rural Canada with the necessary
tools to give it the opportunity to succeed.
In the red book this government committed itself to
stabilization programs to reduce the impact of fluctuating
markets. I am glad to report that this government has embarked
on a consultative process to refurbish Canadian farm safety net
programs.
This government is also actively pursuing several research
and development initiatives. The government realizes that
research is a key component to competitiveness in the agri-food
sector of Canada. Programs include the oat research program
and the PSE pork research program; not only programs but also
the actions and attitudes of the minister, his parliamentary
secretary and my colleagues who are actively involved in the
rural caucus.
One thing is very clear. Members of the rural caucus, whether
they are from the west, north, Ontario, Quebec or the maritimes,
are dedicated and determined to ensure a high quality of life for
the members of our rural and agri-food communities.
While the agri-food industry is not part of my own
background, I live in a small village, Mount Albert, which
derives its existence from the surrounding farmland. As a
member of Parliament I have had the wonderful opportunity to
get to know individual agri-food producers.
In the riding of York-Simcoe which I represent the First
Nations people laid the foundation for our agricultural
traditions. Later the United Empire Loyalists and Quakers were
among the first settlers to break the land and till the soil. To this
day the riding of York-Simcoe retains its agricultural heritage.
The close proximity of the Toronto market contributes to the
prosperity of local agri-food producers. Since the York region is
the fastest growing area, the market for York-Simcoe
agri-food producers is continuously growing. The wonderful
infrastructure of highways enables local agri-food producers to
reach their markets.
(1305 )
In addition, the close proximity of St. Lawrence Starch
provides an excellent opportunity for corn producers to sell their
corn.
Potatoes grown in the Mount Albert region and the Alliston
area are arguably the finest in the land. Although my colleagues
from P.E.I. may differ, I believe York-Simcoe potatoes are
superior.
The geographical position of the riding and the nature of the
soil enable farmers to cultivate a variety of crops. Lake Simcoe
is an undeniable drawing factor to the region and part of the
watershed that helps to sustain farms in the surrounding regions.
4119
The tourists and cottagers will note the large number of dairy
and beef farms that grace the landscape of York-Simcoe. There
is also the world renowned Holland Marsh. Despite its small
size, the Holland Marsh produces 85 per cent of Ontario's
celery, 75 per cent of its onions, 95 per cent of its lettuce and 60
per cent of its parsnips.
The Muck Research Station is also located in the Holland
Marsh. This station researches all aspects of vegetable
production on muck or organic soils. Extensive weed, insect and
disease control research trials are conducted in co-operation
with industry, Agriculture Canada and the University of Guelph.
In the Bradford district there is also the integrated pest
management program which continues to develop and evolve.
IPM encourages responsible crop management and a
sustainable, quality food supply for Ontario. The IPM program
now includes onions, carrots, celery, lettuce, potatoes and sweet
corn. As a result of its implementation insecticide use in onions
has been reduced by 80 per cent.
With the assistance of Agriculture Canada, this program has
become a leader in IPM development in Canada and North
America. It is partnership programs like the Muck Research
Station and the IPM program that Agriculture Canada needs to
continue to sponsor in order to further world development.
This government is tackling the rural renewal challenge in an
open and honest approach based on consultation and fostering
partnerships. Success or failure rests not in Ottawa nor in our
provincial capitals. Rather, it rests within our rural communities
so that they can become sustainable and self-reliant
contributors to Canada's economy. If rural Canada prospers then
all of Canada prospers.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member is to be commended for her speech,
especially when she stressed the need to ensure that our rural
communities will have a satisfactory quality of life in the future.
She said at the beginning of her speech that no Bloc member
should assume that sovereignty is a fait accompli. During the
election campaign, we told Quebecers that we were
sovereigntists and that we were there to defend the interests of
Quebec, and what we have been saying this morning is part of
that approach because, surprisingly, Quebec rural communities
were practically unanimous in voting for the Bloc to represent
them in the House of Commons. So we can at least respect the
opinions of the people who elected us.
I have the following question for the hon. member: Is she
prepared to ask her government to include as part of its future
policy on agriculture that farm products can be processed in the
producing areas, so that for instance, if an area produces milk,
beef and grain, first and second level processing can be done as
much as possible in the area, and that it would provide programs
to encourage this approach?
[English]
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
his comments. I would like to be assured with the fact that the
Bloc is not working toward separation in Quebec.
As far as the member's comments about having processing
done locally, if we think of what community economic
development is all about, it is ensuring that we have healthy
local economies. By that I mean economies that serve the local
community and do not contribute to environmental degradation
but contribute to the ability of people to work locally so that they
can spend money and spend time with their families locally.
(1310 )
It is also very important when we are thinking of the agri-food
industry to think of the effects of hauling raw materials over
long distances and what that means for the quality of our food.
That is a consideration as well.
However, as the hon. member knows, it is not government that
dictates the policy of the private sector. Therefore while we can
look at measures that encourage local community economic
development it is not the federal government's place to tell the
private sector where it has to produce and how it has to produce.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to the hon. member's speech in which she
alluded to the fact that rural Ontario has a lot of challenges in
front of it.
As a farmer I agree with her. In fact, one of the major
problems, and I would like the opinion of the member on this, is
a lack of education as to what happens in rural Ontario compared
with what is happening in urban Ontario or Canada for that
matter.
I am wondering if the member would tell me what kind of an
education process she envisions to better inform urban Canada
of what happens in rural Canada.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
He probably has some understanding of my background which
is in education and not directly in the agri-food industry. It is
absolutely crucial that those Canadians who live in the densely
populated urban areas understand the impact of our agri-food
and rural communities on their health and well-being.
The area of connection is around food. When we talk about the
quality and sovereignty that this nation must have over its own
food, when we talk about the right kind of price, fair pricing for
our food, that is a point on which rural and urban communities
can connect.
4120
There is a bit of a misconception out there that farmers are
somehow benefiting greatly because of the price charged for
food. If you look at what is actually given in terms of the farm
dollar at the farm gate it is quite low in terms of all of the hands
that this money flows through.
When consumers go to a grocery store or a restaurant they
may be concerned about the price of food, but that is an
important area to start talking about, what actually happens
within the processing food management, food growing system.
That is one area of interaction.
Another area of interaction is understanding the way our rural
communities support our urban communities economically.
What are the things our farmers need to have in order to have
effective farms in agri-food businesses? What kinds of
equipment and other supplies do they need? Also, there is the
fact that they contribute to our towns and villages because they
come into the larger centres and they shop and they buy.
I think if we take a look at food, that interface and the
economic contribution even though there are fewer and fewer
Canadians who are directly involved in the agri-food industry
we will see what a tremendous benefit it is indeed to Canada.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Madam Speaker, it is
certainly a pleasure for me to rise on this debate in support of the
proactive approach the minister and this government are taking
to enhance the agriculture and agri-food sector of the Canadian
economy.
I might say in beginning that my colleague who spoke earlier
should try some of those P.E.I. potatoes from that beautiful red
soil. It is unlikely she would then go back to her own variety.
(1315 )
The proactive approach starts right here in the House of
Commons with the new government and in committees with the
participation of backbench MPs, both from the government side
and members opposite. I believe there is a new sense of
democracy in the land. As a government we said we would give
members of Parliament more power and that we would give a
voice to committees. That is evident every day in the
discussions in the various committees and is quite a turnaround
from the past administration.
The tragedy of the past administration is that many of its
policies are still ongoing today in the new administration.
Let us look at the work of the agriculture committee. I think it
adds to the leadership provided by the government. The
estimates we had before us and are before the committee as yet
still contain some of the policies of the past administration. It
will take some time to get the new policies of the government in
place.
The agriculture committee has been very serious in doing an
intense analysis of the department's estimates and looking at
ways and means that the department can better deliver services
to the farm community. We have been very open about that
analysis. We believe that the views of all members are important
and should be considered. In that way the government gives a
renewed voice to primary producers, to the agri-food industry
members, through their members of Parliament at the
committee and House of Commons levels.
Let us take a look for a moment at the aggressive direction the
government has been taking in the past six months. Let me start
with what is a very difficult issue, GATT article XI(2)(c). It has
been raised by members opposite to a certain extent. They are
claiming that we have undermined producers of their ability to
survive and prosper in some areas. We did have a stacked deck
against us, left there by the previous administration. We have set
up a process to retain the benefits of the supply management
system and at every opportunity we talk about how supply
management could be used as a model of development for rural
areas in other countries around the world.
Changes that happen at the GATT negotiations are not without
difficulty, but that is what leadership is all about and that is what
this new Liberal government is showing. We have admitted up
front to the loss of article XI(2)(c). We did not try to put a spin
on it as previous administrations had tried to do. In fact, because
we believe in primary producers and have great confidence in
the farm community, we have involved them in a process to
retain the benefits of the supply management system and move
on to greater prosperity we hope in the future.
At this stage I must address some of the points the member for
Québec-Est made in suggesting that the government failed
Quebec relative to article XI(2)(c). Nothing could be further
from the truth.
It is because of strong national policies that Canada has put in
place over the years-most of those policies were started under
a previous Liberal administration-that Quebec has been able to
make the gains it has. For instance, Quebec's net farm income
has grown steadily over the past 20 years as a result of the
stability and the national programs that we put in place. In fact
the member for Québec-Est on April 28 had this to say: ``With
milk definitely we have had a certain advantage in Quebec over
the west, that is for sure''.
I do not mind admitting that the attempt of members opposite
to try to misconstrue the facts and show that certain moneys are
going west or going east and not going to Quebec are creating
grave difficulties for us as a nation because the wrong
impression is left. Let me tell you that this national government
wants
4121
to ensure that dairy producers and chicken producers in all
provinces retain the advantage that supply management has
given them. We will continue to do so with the processes we
have set up in order to see that supply management survives into
the future.
(1320)
Let us examine the stance of this government versus that of
the previous administration in terms of the trade action and trade
rhetoric coming from our neighbours south of the border. The
United States continues to challenge our agencies, our
marketing of grain, ice cream and yogurt and other areas. It
knows full well that we have won every trade dispute that has
been put to any panel. We have won before the International
Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, the
Binational Trade Panel under CUSTA and just recently under an
international trade audit.
However, instead of lying down and dying the government has
said, as the minister said this morning: ``This minister will not
lie down and die. Canada will fight back''. That is leadership.
He is standing up for our producers and our nation and that is
something new.
Another example of the proactive policies of the government
is that we recognize full well the trouble in the transportation
sector in terms of the car allocations of grain moving west. We
immediately came together and set up two subcommittees, one
on agriculture and one on transport. These committees held two
intensive days of hearings. Out of them we came up with some
recommendations in which we basically suggested that the GTA,
the Grain Transportation Agency, should apply the rules of the
land.
Where the previous administration failed to apply the
penalties that should have been imposed on the railways for not
moving product and not putting the capital investment on the
rolling stock into place, this government and its members
through the committees have said that the penalties should be
enforced and that the GTA should live up to its responsibilities.
We have recommended that to the minister and the minister is
moving forward. The minister of agriculture is moving forward
to a meeting on May 16.
I have always been concerned about the policies that lead to a
continuing reliance on off-farm income. Liberals will not be
working toward removing more farm families from the land but
rather working with them to strengthen their ties to the land and
the farming community. The government will be working to
ensure that farmers become less dependent on off-farm income
which not only merely supplements family incomes but is often
one of the pillars which ensures the very survival of farming
operations.
We are pursuing policies in which primary producers can
achieve the majority of their income from the farm. We will
work toward implementing marketing programs to do this.
In conclusion, though the government has been very proactive
and has provided strong leadership, one of the important factors
is the minister of agriculture. Last weekend when the minister
was in my riding he showed that he is a leader of the times, that
he believes strongly in the Liberal policies that were in the red
book during the election campaign. He is willing to sit down and
listen to producers, discuss with them and build that strong rural
community base in the interests of primary producers and the
agri-food industry and businesses all across Canada that this
country sorely needs.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Madam Speaker, the hon.
member referred to off-farm income and that his Liberal
government would do its best to ensure that farmers do not need
as much off-farm income as now.
I wonder if the member could explain to me exactly how the
government will do that. Will it have policies that discriminate
against farmers who have off-farm jobs? Just exactly what can
be done in terms of policy to stop the movement to off-farm
income or to stop farmers from supplementing farm income
with off-farm income?
(1325 )
Mr. Easter: Madam Speaker, members should look at the
kind of policies we talked about during the election, the
emphasis on supply management, the emphasis on
strengthening and enhancing the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board is a prime example. It is an
agency that maximizes the returns from the marketplace back to
primary producers and has shown that it does a reasonably good
job of marketing. Certainly it has been having some difficulties
as a result of the unfair use of the export enhancement program
in many of our foreign markets, but it is still able to maximize
returns to primary producers.
The way we hope to achieve a lessening of the dependence on
off-farm income is through good marketing structures, through
assisting primary producers with better financial arrangements
and through farm credit. As we get down the line and are able to
put before the House of Commons more policies in the future,
members will see the fruits of our labours in terms of giving
primary producers the opportunity and the right to be able to
earn the majority of their income from their on-farm operations.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Madam Speaker, I
enjoyed very much the hon. member's speech. In fact I would
like to say to the hon. member that if he does have a deal on
potatoes, I do not have my garden in yet. I would be more than
happy to take him up on that.
4122
One of the things I noticed as a new MP and a person who has
lobbied for the farm perspective all the way through is that
previous to the GATT negotiation and the signing of the
agreement we have now, there was an us and them situation in
agriculture, us being supply management and them being grains
and red meat. The GATT agreement laid down a foundation for
farm policy where it got rid of that situation within agriculture.
We are now all beneath one umbrella working together.
I would like to know what the member's opinion is on the
direction we are heading right now under the new GATT
agreement, looking too at the situation that all our policies if we
are going to deal internationally have to be green.
Mr. Easter: Madam Speaker, one of the endearing
characteristics of this administration compared to the last is that
when we run into some difficulties as we did with the supply
management sector at GATT, it is willing to put its trust and faith
in producers. It will bring producers together to try to have them
understand directly the implications of some of the changes that
are being made, to involve them in the process, to actually
consult and to listen to those producers who are going to be
directly affected by any changes that come about in the future.
That is one of the characteristics of the government.
We are seeing it through our committee structure. We are
seeing it through the minister of agriculture and the
parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture. It is an
ongoing process, building on our strengths, knowing the rules
and knowing the obstacles that are before us. In that way we are
going to again reclaim and regain a strong primary production
sector.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Madam Speaker, I
would like to advise the Chair that Reform speakers will be
dividing their time with the exception of the leader of the
Reform Party who will be speaking later in the debate.
I would like to thank the hon. member for a chance to address
the very important topic of agricultural reform. It is clear to
many people that the counterproductive programs in place today
cannot be fixed by simply cutting them without replacing
existing programs with something else.
(1330 )
Most hon. members would agree that changes are needed in
how we help Canadian farmers compete in the world market of
the 1990s. The question of what type of change has not yet been
resolved.
I would like to talk about the problem of subsidies and how
they relate to transportation. We know that subsidies largely do
not work. Not only do subsidies drain the public purse, they
actually retard economic development.
We are fortunate in Canada to be able to learn from the
mistakes of other countries like New Zealand, which had no
choice but to drastically slash its farm and transportation
subsidies. Between 1979 and 1983, a period of just over four
years, farm subsidies in New Zealand tripled from $440 million
to $1.2 billion per year. The former president of the Federation
of New Zealand Farmers pointed out that these subsidies had
inflated land prices, made it difficult for younger farmers to
enter the industry, and ate up much of the value of the land.
The more the farmers received in subsidies, the more they had
to pay in taxes for fertilizer, farm chemicals, machinery and
transportation. The subsidies had a practical effect of limiting
the choices of farmers when it came to deciding which products
were the most economically viable to produce. Finally, the
heavy subsidization paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand
encouraged wasteful and inefficient land and transportation
practices.
The former finance minister of New Zealand, Roger Douglas,
has a warning for countries with heavily subsidized agricultural
sectors. He said the following:
New Zealand was able to demonstrate to the world the true effect of such
subsidies, and I would say to those other countries: ``The results of your policies
are that your poor are poorer than they need to be; your jobless are more
numerous than they need to be; your taxes are higher than they need to be; your
economic performance is worse than it needs to be; and your farmers
nevertheless continue to go bankrupt''.
Sounds very familiar to us here.
In 1984 New Zealand ran into a debt wall. It was unable to
borrow money to continue to fuel deficit programs and had to
slash agricultural subsidies to almost zero. With no other choice
the new New Zealand government withdrew agricultural
subsidies and farm prices fell 40 per cent. The market values for
some livestock fell to one-third of their original value and many
farmers were driven off the land.
In spite of the hardships created by the withdrawal of
subsidies, New Zealand today finds itself in an enviable position
in the world market. The economic growth rate of the country
will probably be about 3 per cent this year, the second strongest
in the OECD. New Zealand now boasts as many farmers as it did
a decade ago. Perhaps most important, farmers are free to
choose what types of produce are the most economically viable.
The result of this is that New Zealand has diversified into
many areas previously closed through directed subsidies and
overregulation.
I believe Canada can learn a lot from the New Zealand
experience. Canada is fortunate to have more time to change
than New Zealand did. If we use this time to make wise
decisions, Canada will be able to achieve the benefits of a
4123
market driven agricultural economy without facing many of the
hardships suffered by New Zealanders.
No matter how long we wait, Canada will still have to make
the transformation from a centralized and over-subsidized farm
economy to a market driven economy. If we wait too long we
will not be able to assist our farmers in the transition.
One thing is clear. We have to change our policies. Three
factors external to the agricultural sector are coming together to
force us to change.
First, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade specifies
that all members, Canada included, will have to modify their
domestic agricultural programs to conform to a world of
reduced subsidies and greater market access.
Second, there is an urgent need to keep Canada's debt from
growing. Agricultural subsidization has put an enormous strain
on our national resources and has had a negative effect on the
industry.
Third and last, the Canadian agricultural industry needs to
diversify if it is to survive.
(1335 )
The subsidization programs by previous governments forced
Canadian farmers to produce and export only certain crops and
only in an unprocessed form. Farmers want to be able to choose
which products to develop and how to transport them.
If there is a trade war in wheat but not in wheat products then
it only makes sense to sell wheat products instead of wheat. In
addition, these value added products will create additional jobs
and will help us avoid trade disputes over grain.
Reform believes that we have to change our agricultural
policies to reflect a more market oriented approach and that we
should do so with the least amount of disruption possible.
Whatever their failings, free markets drive efficiency. Events in
New Zealand are only the latest of many examples which
underscore this fact. Markets allow farmers, grain companies
and carriers the freedom to choose. Change and efficiency in a
market oriented system are driven by the free choices made by
the market participants.
Also, it should be recognized that there are some
circumstances, such as international trade disputes, that farmers
cannot control. For problems like this we need to redirect the
funds currently used to subsidize transportation toward a trade
distortion adjustment program and crop insurance safety net
system. To demonstrate how we think this can be done let me say
a few words about Reform's policy on transportation.
Under the present system trains loaded with U.S. bound grain
are travelling as much as 1,400 kilometres out of their way so
prairie shippers can take advantage of attractive federal freight
subsidies. Ironically, at the same time we are told that farmers
stand to lose over $200 million because there is poor grain
movement.
Clearly the present grain transportation act does not
encourage efficiency in the transportation system. The WGTA is
a direct federal subsidy on grains and oilseeds paid to the
railways. Because it encourages farmers to export grain instead
of shipping it to Canadian processors, the WGTA results in the
creation of provincial programs such as the Alberta Crow
benefit offset program set up for the purpose of counteracting
the WGTA, subsidies to balance other subsidies.
Second, the government currently subsidizes 57 per cent of
the cost of shipping prairie grain by rail to various ports. This
takes away any incentive for the railways to increase efficiency
since they get paid anyway.
The third point is one of the most important. Under the WGTA
farmers are given no incentive to diversify into higher value
crops or to ship to domestic processing facilities. I can think of
no better job creation program than to allow the market to create
its own jobs in our dying rural areas by allowing farmers to make
the decision based on cost effectiveness as to where they want to
ship their farm produce.
Reform proposes that we do away with the WGTA subsidy and
redirect funding to a trade distortion adjustment program to
compensate exporting producers as a direct counter measure to
foreign subsidies on competing products. This would force the
railways to develop efficient methods of transportation and
would allow farmers to choose which method of transportation
is the most cost effective for them. At the same time it would
encourage rural development by adding a market driven
incentive to process raw goods into value added goods.
Reform also suggests the deregulation of the rail
transportation system and the elimination of regional
development as a goal of transportation policy. The markets are
far better at creating development than the huge bureaucracy
which currently exists.
Under the present system farmers can be held hostage to grain
handling strikes at any time. The elimination of the WGTA and
the creation of a more efficient system would allow farmers to
seek alternative means of transportation if this occurred.
Let me end by saying that Canadians involved in the
agricultural sector can and will compete in the changing world
economy if only given the chance to take control of their
involvement in the market. External factors will eventually
force the necessary changes with or without our agreement.
Unlike New Zealand and other less fortunate countries, we
have the chance to create a viable, self-reliant and market
driven agricultural industry before we are forced to. Reform
believes now is the time.
4124
(1340 )
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Madam Speaker, I
enjoyed the hon. member's speech very much. In fact the
subsidies she talked about are a basic pet peeve of mine.
When they got into trouble in New Zealand, they had
something they called welfare for sheep. That was the subsidy
program they had. In 1984 when New Zealand had to realign its
debt there was an 80 per cent write-off of equity in that country
which I imagine the hon. member is well aware of.
As a poultry producer dealing under supply management at
the present time in my farming operation I collect two subsidies,
the farm tax rebate and the fuel tax rebate.
Since the early 1950s I have watched my industry go from
producing a four pound chicken in 14 to 16 weeks to producing a
four pound chicken in 37 to 41 days, a male or a female.
Under this type of system our industry has had a capital influx
into research and development, R and D, which is one of the
most important things in agriculture today. As a farmer I know
that is true.
I am wondering what the hon. member thinks about supply
management when she talks about the subsidy system from
which we are not really collecting and being market responsive.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. I am sure he knows a great deal more about this
subject than I.
I think it is very clear given the trade agreements we are
negotiating and have negotiated that supply management is no
longer up for debate. It is going to be forced to be phased out by
the requirements of the agreements we have negotiated with
trading partners.
We have to think ahead about how we can make it easier for
our producers to move into these new market realities. That
could be by way of measures to ease the transition for them and
to assist them in finding better ways to manage and to compete
in the marketplace.
We agree with R and D. I think that R and D is one of the
things this country needs and should continue to be encouraged
by the government and by our tax system. We also could point
out that more efficiencies have resulted as the hon. member has
said. That again is proof positive we can do better when these
things are managed properly.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs): Madam Speaker, I listened with
great interest as well to the hon. member's speech. I would like
to remind the hon. member that Canadian grain exports were
really not subsidized except through transportation until the late
1970s and to some degree in the 1960s. We responded to
international pressures which created subsidies.
In terms of the figures, the subsidies for grain exports are
highest in the European Community and second highest in the
United States. There was one country which did not compete in
subsidies. That was Argentina which is an example the hon.
member did not choose, choosing New Zealand which
approached this more recently.
Given the fact that the subsidization of grain exports in
Canada apart from the transportation subsidy occurred after the
1980s would the hon. member have taken a different course? If
we had not subsidized grain at that point, is it not quite likely
that Canadian grain exports would have diminished to the level
of Argentina's during that period?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to say that
when we are fighting in an unfair competitive position where
trading partners are being heavily subsidized that we must find
ways to assist our own industries. That is why we welcome the
recent GATT agreement which diminished these international
subsidies and allowed us to compete on a more level playing
field.
(1345 )
At this point we are reversing that trend, as I understand it.
Now the question is what we can do to make our industry more
competitive in this new regime of freer and fairer trade.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to
address the subject of agriculture.
Because of my rather extensive experience and background in
agriculture I have a bit of trouble when I read the motion as put
forward. It talks about proactive work of the government and
uses phrases and words such as co-operation, enhance, building
the sector to be among the best in the world, and sustainable
agriculture. Sustainable is a good catch phrase. It is one that we
as farmers have heard and used ourselves for some time now.
Farmers are not looking for fancy catch phrases or motions but
some assurance of where we are headed from this point.
As I have said I was born and raised on a farm. As such I have
had the enjoyment of learning firsthand about picking rocks on
our land. I have been involved in farming virtually all my life.
For many years I operated about a 3,000 acre grain farm with
one of my brothers who continues our family farming tradition
today.
The farm was started by my father with the help of the
Veterans Land Act shortly after the second world war. My
family has quite a tradition of being on the land. Something I
have witnessed and something I have personally felt is what I
call the farmer's love of the land. The enjoyment of actually
producing from one's own efforts is the very reason so many
farmers today continue to struggle against all odds every year
4125
when the economics of their business would dictate that in
reality they should just give up and do something else, do
something more profitable.
This love of the land could be equated to the similar feelings I
am sure aboriginal peoples have for their traditional lands, or
that foresters feel for forests, or pilots for the skies. In short,
farmers are happiest when they are working on their land or
working with their livestock.
Back home right now I know they have started preparing the
soil and planting the 1994 crop. As I said earlier, they
desperately need some assurance from the government that it
intends to support those efforts with more than simply more
empty rhetoric.
Over the years I have been involved in many farm
organizations working on behalf of my fellow farmers. For a
while I was president of the B.C. Grain Producers Association.
As such I served as the director responsible for grain with the
B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I have had the opportunity to
witness firsthand farm programs that I would say were designed
by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. By that I mean programs that
have been unnecessarily cumbersome and heavy in
administration, programs designed more to justify an ongoing
need for government jobs than for sustaining agriculture.
The reality is that farmers are not asking for a handout. They
never have and they never will. They just want to be able to earn
a decent return on their investment and labour. In short they
need to know if their industry will be protected from
circumstances completely beyond their control.
Because farmers sell their products on the world market they
are price takers, not price setters. When our competitors,
namely the EEC and the U.S., choose to continue the seemingly
never-ending trade war, it is our farmers who are caught in the
middle.
City dwellers simply do not understand some of the sacrifices
their rural cousins are called upon to make. I am speaking about
the need for off-farm income. It has been well documented that
in order to sustain farm operations farmers' wives are working
off farm. Farmers may spend many days themselves in the
wintertime away from their families just to sustain their farming
operations. Also they have to make do with much lower
standards of living in some cases than those of their urban
neighbours.
(1350)
I am concerned that when urban people drive by and see a
farmer working his fields they relate his efforts to a small
businessman rather than to an industry. They should be better
educated about the situation. When they see a farmer and
consider the need to sustain agriculture and to assist farmers,
they must look at it as a primary industry similar to forestry, oil
and gas or mining rather than a small business. It is not fair to
equate farming with small business because like forestry, it is
renewable.
I have always been somewhat upset when I pick up a
newspaper and read about another subsidy to farmers. We have
to recognize that all industries at different times, especially our
natural resource industries, call upon both levels of government
to support them. At different times both levels of government
provide tax incentives or royalty holidays or initiate specific
programs to assist major industries. As I have said, agriculture
should not be viewed any differently.
Over the years there has virtually been a flood of farm
programs supposedly designed to assist farms to remain
sustainable. As has already been outlined, some programs have
taken the form of transportation subsidies, the Crows Nest Pass
rate which eventually became the Western Grain Transportation
Act. There are various feed freight assistance programs and
those types of things. Some have been designed to protect
farmers from natural disasters, natural elements. Crop insurance
is a program put in place to provide that type of protection.
There have been many others implemented to protect farmers
from price fluctuations in the marketplace. The western grain
stabilization program was such a program. It was proclaimed in
1976 and was eventually dissolved 15 years later in 1991. I know
from personal experience on our farm that in consultations
among my father, my brother and I, we chose not to participate
in that program because we could see that it was not sustainable.
By the way it was initially set up, it was not a good program for
farmers.
As president of the B.C. grain producers I was personally
involved with the special Canadian grains program that came
about because of the trade war. In 1985-86 it was recognized
that the WGSA was simply not addressing needs because it did
not foresee how badly prices would drop.
We have moved through myriad programs over the years, and
now we have come to GRIP and NISA. I am sure I could spend a
lot more time than I have available today talking about all the
problems that have developed with GRIP and NISA. Actually
NISA is the one program that has been a relatively bright light in
the darkness of government programs.
Despite all the problems with the programs that have been
created in the past, we still talk about being proactive and
co-operating with farm groups and farmers. The discussion
seems to centre around which commodities to include in new
programs on the horizon to replace GRIP and NISA.
As mentioned by my colleague earlier, Reform suggests a
different route. It suggests elimination of the present farm
support programs and instead the diverting of funds into
basically three separate programs. The trade distortion
adjustment program is an all-sector program, an all-inclusive
program designed to address some of the concerns of my hon.
colleague
4126
across the way and what is going to be facing the supply
management sector and other sectors.
We talk about a program specifically designed to offset
foreign intervention and foreign competition through unfair
subsidies our foreign competitors might be granted that we in
this country do not have. We talk about other areas. As I have
said, NISA has been a relatively successful program. We talk
about making it more inclusive and making it applicable to all
sectors of agriculture rather than just the grain sector.
(1355)
We would continue to require crop insurance to offset the
elements, the natural disasters that always occur and that
farmers must be protected against. That briefly outlines my past
history and what I say our government must move toward in
relation to farm safety net programs.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, the member for
Prince George-Peace River talked about the Reform
agricultural policy. He also talked about the elimination of farm
support programs.
Could he be a little more specific so that we on this side would
have the benefit of knowing what farm support programs that are
in place now he wants to eliminate? Could he give the specifics
on that?
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. colleague on the other side of the House for his
comments and question.
There are a number of programs. The two I specifically
referred to were the gross revenue insurance program and the
Net Income Stabilization Act. There is also the feed freight
assistance program that we talked about. My colleague referred
earlier to western grain transportation. There are a number of
programs for livestock, feed development initiatives, and
economic and regional development agreements. A wide range
of programs are presently in place.
Rather than having all the specific programs that actually end
up distorting one sector of agriculture to the detriment of
another, Reform is suggesting that we should be looking at the
whole farm approach to protect farmers regardless of whether
they are producing chickens, grain, milk or whatnot. We have to
protect all farmers in all sectors against unfair foreign practices.
To do so we need to move toward all farm and all sector
programs with both our trade adjustment distortion program and
our new income stabilization program, which would be an
enhanced NISA and applicable to all sectors instead of only the
ones it currently covers.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
4126
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday I
had the pleasure of participating in the opening of the Canadian
Military Heritage Museum in the city of Brantford, Ontario.
In the words of the board members, Canada's military
heritage collections are part of the history of all Canadians. The
story of our military past should be understood and made
meaningful to all Canadians, many of whom have had no direct
experience of war or the part played by conflict in Canada's
history.
The museum is a wonderful museum. It has displays of
original armaments, vehicles and uniforms from Canada's
earliest conflicts right to the present. Most striking are the
pictures that depict Canadian men and women in the heat of
battle.
I would like to congratulate those who have made the museum
a reality and invite all Canadians to Brantford to share in the
Canadian Military Heritage Museum.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, the green
revolution launched by Horne, a copper smelting operation in
Noranda, is worthy of note today since it stands as proof that a
mining company can conduct its operations without polluting
the environment.
The company derives no less than 15 per cent of its supplies
from various recycled products. More than 150 suppliers from
around the world do business with Noranda. These include such
well-known companies as IBM and Kodak.
In addition to making an economic contribution, Noranda
enriches the quality of life in the community by making
substantial grants to local agencies.
The technology employed at the Horne smelter goes far
beyond our borders. Agreements for the export of continuous
smelting technology have been concluded with China, allowing
the Horne smelter to make a name for itself in terms of its
technology, productivity and concern for the environment.
4127
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, the joint
subcommittee of agriculture and transport has been dealing with
the crisis in grain movement in Canada. The testimony of these
meetings clearly demonstrates there are too many
uncoordinated and overlapping government organizations
attempting to control and regulate grain movement.
There is no clear authority. One organization often interferes
with the actions of another. This has led to a transportation and
grain handling industry which has failed miserably. This is
unfair to Canadian farmers.
Reform agriculture policy has always recognized the need for
a less regulated industry and the evidence supports our position.
The government must back off. We must allow farmers to
control the system they pay for and which exists to serve them.
It is my sincerest hope that this government will recognize the
need for less government regulation and for a more market
driven grain transportation industry.
* * *
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River): Mr.
Speaker, May 14 to 20 is mining week in Ontario. The mining
industry has been and continues to be the cornerstone of our
economy, representing 16.2 per cent of total exports.
I wholeheartedly support the ``Keep Mining in Canada''
campaign and the Save Our North organization which have been
actively working to keep mining alive and well in this country.
As the member of Parliament for Timiskaming-French
River, as a northern Ontario MP and as a member of the natural
resources committee, I have been working and will continue to
work to raise the profile of our Canadian mining industry and to
push for mining incentives for exploration and development in
Canada, especially in northern Ontario.
On behalf of all members of this House, I wish to extend my
best wishes to the mining industry, to the over 100 mining
communities across Canada, and to all Canadian miners and
their families for a very successful mining week.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of myself and the many constituents who have petitioned
this House, I congratulate the Minister of Justice for bringing
forth draft amendments to the Criminal Code and the Customs
Tariff Act.
These draft amendments would restrict the sale and
distribution of serial killer cards and board games. We do not
need products which commercialize and glorify violent crime.
There is too much violent crime as witnessed by my constituents
in the village of Clifford in the senseless shooting of Joan
Heimbecker.
I trust that members from all sides on the justice committee
will work co-operatively to achieve the restriction of these
offensive products.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior): Mr. Speaker,
May 10, 1994 is a day that will go down in the history of South
Africa. The swearing-in of newly-elected President Nelson
Mandela marks the beginning of a new era of growth, common
vision and national reconciliation.
Having witnessed the birth of a democratic nation, I was
pleased to see that the Black majority was able to express itself
freely, with pride and tolerance and without fear of reprisals.
With all communities working closely together in the fields of
education and government, the new South Africa will become a
model to be emulated by others.
[English]
The black majority's dream has been realized through Nelson
Mandela's vision for a new South Africa in which a government
represents all South Africans through a spirit of co-operation
and peaceful coexistence.
This era of rebirth for South Africa will set an example for all
African countries to strive to offer every citizen, regardless of
tribal affiliation or racial association, hope for their future
generations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, according to a
study conducted by Florida State University, women and
children account for between 75 per cent and 85 per cent of the
world's refugees.
(1405)
However, in the past ten years, one and a half times more men
than women have been admitted into Canada as refugees.
Furthermore, the refugee selection process applied at offices
located abroad is also biased against women. Indeed, women
living in refugee camps must demonstrate their potential to
integrate the country in question. Considering that in many
4128
countries, women receive less formal education than men, they
are less likely to satisfy admissibility criteria.
It is time that we denounce this situation on behalf of all those
seeking refuge in countries that respect human rights.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, about one
hour ago in my riding of Beaver River students and staff of J.A.
Williams High School in Lac La Biche joined together to offer
their sympathy to families that have lost loved ones at the hands
of young offenders.
They joined to form a heart with the word yes underneath it;
yes to major changes in the Young Offenders Act.
They are telling us it is not just the older generation that is
concerned about youth violence, they are also concerned. They
are puzzled as to why the identities of all young offenders are
protected. What about the rights of citizens to be informed of
potential dangers in their own neighbourhood? Young people
who commit criminal acts must be held responsible. All
Canadians are angry and frustrated at a court system that allows
young criminals to thumb their noses at the law.
I congratulate the students at J.A. Williams High School for
their initiative. We should listen to them and to millions of other
Canadians. They are telling us loud and clear that yes, the Young
Offenders Act needs reform. The government must act now.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, the
constituents of London-Middlesex believe that
communication is a vital link in the development of a unified
community.
In 1993 a large area of land including the village of Lambeth
was annexed to the city of London. Lambeth is now part of
London and as such receives most of the same services and
utilities as the residents of London.
There is one exception. That is that Lambeth residents are
subject to long distance telephone rates when calling
surrounding communities.
The community of Lambeth has a strong social and
commercial dependency with neighbouring exchanges. It does
not seem fair or equitable that Lambeth residents do not receive
extended area service in the same manner as other London
residents.
An overwhelming number of my constituents are in support of
the CRTC providing extended area service to the Lambeth
telephone exchange. On their behalf I ask that the government
consider this unique situation which would go a long way in
improving our vital community communication links.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, I want to
address the issue of serial killer cards and games.
It is particularly troubling and indeed perverse to think that
someone is profiting from the depiction of such horrific murders
which serve to deviously corrupt our young people and attack
our basic values of respect for life.
I applaud the Minister of Justice for introducing draft
legislation banning the sale of such cards and games. He is
leading the way to a more decent and respectful society.
I would encourage members of the justice committee who
must now work at ways to refine and strengthen the legislation
to follow through with firmness and determination. Let us put an
end to this new form of obscenity and hate.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
address a matter of great concern to the electorate. That is the
quality of service that is delivered to the taxpayers by
government.
Many of our civil servants are hard working, dedicated
people. However, I have discovered many incidents of poor
attitude and indeed the inability to deliver personal services in
many departments of government.
A recent freeze on public sector wages has been imposed on
government employees. This freeze is, at the choice of the
public service, being borne by the junior employees; that is to
say incremental increases have been curtailed. As a
consequence the freeze on mid-line management is minimal as
it would only forgo modest cost of living increases.
As it is generally the more junior ranks that deal with the
public, I fear that this policy will further erode motivation and
reduce service. This is occurring at a time when the private
sector is embracing concepts like total quality management.
I believe that it is time the public sector did the same.
4129
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois applauds the government's decision to finally
comply with the Federal Court of Appeal judgment and pay a
bilingualism bonus to RCMP members who occupy bilingual
positions.
This puts an end to a lengthy dispute between RCMP members
and their employer who, must it be reminded, had decided not to
provide this bonus, supposedly ``to preserve cohesion within the
forces''.
(1410)
If it is serious about bilingualism, the government must
continue to pay bilingual bonuses inasmuch as it provides true
incentive and compensation for the added complexity of
bilingual positions.
Considering there is much room for improvement in the
federal Public Service, particularly with regards to the use of
French, the government must make sure this bonus is awarded
for language skills of the highest level to provide services of the
highest quality.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to report that all aspects of Referendum '94, the world's
first electronic referendum, are running on target.
An independent auditor has been appointed to ensure security
of the vote and we are in the process of enumerating all North
Vancouver high school students for the separate voters list for
students.
MT&T Technologies has had representatives in North
Vancouver training the volunteers who will handle everything
from voter enumeration to getting out the vote in the period of
June 15 to 20.
The decision has been made to issue separate secret voter
numbers to all MPs. Yes, even the Speaker will be able to vote in
this referendum on three suggested changes to the Young
Offenders Act.
The time is right. The topic is right. Canadians are about to
show the world how Canadian developed technology can be used
to run a secure democratic referendum as easily as picking up a
touch tone telephone.
The Speaker: That is probably the only vote your Speaker is
going to get in this Parliament.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, today there is
widespread concern that our communities are being threatened
by youth crime. We should however, divorce perception from
reality.
First, we must remember that most youths are law abiding,
hard working young people. It is important to recognize that 60
per cent of crimes committed by young people are property
crimes. Also, of all violent crimes reported in Canada 86 per
cent are committed by adults, not youths.
The Minister of Justice will shortly introduce legislation that
will propose specific changes to the Young Offenders Act.
Canadians will also be heard by a committee when the
legislation undergoes a thorough 10-year review.
The protection of society cannot be achieved solely by
amending legislation. It is crucial that we adopt a
multi-disciplinary approach to combat the underlying causes of
youth crime.
Crime prevention is an important area where our communities
can share this responsibility. We must not forget that the home is
where most attitudes are first developed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to call the attention of the hon. members of this House to
another action taken by our government to stimulate the
Canadian economy.
Yesterday, in a joint announcement with the Quebec
government, the Minister of National Heritage announced the
extension of the Gaz Métropolitain natural gaz pipeline in five
regions of Quebec.
The $34 million investment will be part of the
Canada-Quebec deal signed under the infrastructure program, a
program designed as a cornerstone of our commitment to put
Canadians back to work immediately.
This announcement is solid proof that this program is
working. The Gaz Métropolitain project will result in 1,820 jobs
being created in the Lac-Saint-Jean, Abitibi,
Mauricie-Bois-Francs, Laurentian and Estrie regions, which
correspond to Bloc Quebecois ridings.
Furthermore, the Gaz Métropolitain pipeline extension will
pump $125 million-
4130
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, today is a historic day for the people of South Africa
and indeed for the world.
We join in celebrating the end of the evil system of apartheid,
the election of the first democratic Parliament, an election I had
the privilege of observing, and the inauguration of Nelson
Mandela as president.
Let us also remember the thousands who have faced exile and
death on the long road to freedom, people like Stephen Biko
whose grave and family I visited.
Let us pay tribute to all those Canadians who have worked in
solidarity with the black majority in South Africa to help make
this great day possible.
Most important, let us resolve to do everything in our power
to support the new government of South Africa as it seeks to
overcome apartheid's legacy and bring jobs, homes, land and
peace to that beautiful land.
(1415)
[Translation]
As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said: ``This is a day of
liberation for us all, Blacks and Whites together''. Amandla!
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, three
people were cruelly murdered in 1992 in a restaurant in the
constituency of Cape Breton-The Sydneys.
When the member for that area was presented with a petition
demanding the return of capital punishment signed by 60,000
people, his response was: ``We'll give it serious consideration
when bills are being drafted''.
There are only 66,000 people-
Mr. Boudria: Order, order.
Mr. Goodale: Remember the rules.
The Speaker: Order.
_____________________________________________
4130
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
Yesterday, after condemning the UN's decision to withdraw
its peacekeepers from Rwanda, the minister said that in fact
reinforcements should be sent to that country. However, on May
5, the Deputy Prime Minister, who disagreed with the minister,
said that she refused to consider the feasibility of sending
reinforcements and acting on the request made by the UN
Secretary General.
In the case of Haiti, yesterday the minister seemed to support
the U.S. proposal to send a UN force, although on May 4 in the
House, the minister rejected out of hand the possibility of armed
intervention.
My question is this: How does the minister explain this
about-face by the government, this change of policy in its
approach to the events in Rwanda and Haiti, and are we to
understand that in the case of Rwanda, Canada not only supports
the secretary general's request for additional peacekeepers but
intends to participate personally?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I can inform the Leader of the Opposition there has
been no change in policy. The Leader of the Opposition may
want to see an element of contradiction, but I think it is a case of
wishful thinking on his part.
Both in Rwanda and Haiti, the Government of Canada is
pursuing very specific objectives: to persuade the parties to stop
killing each other, and to support all humanitarian efforts to help
the people in those areas. And in the second case, to bring
Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the president in exile, back to Haiti. In
both cases, anything we can do in co-operation with our partners
and allies will be in line with the government's objectives.
We may have to fine-tune our approach in the weeks to come,
but the objectives remain the same, and there has been no change
in policy on the part of the government.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I would be more inclined to use the word ``zigzagging''
instead of fine-tuning in referring to the government's foreign
policy.
I want to ask the minister, who is now mentioning the
possibility of armed intervention in Haiti, why on May 4 he said
in this House, and I quote: ``Canada did not contemplate the
possibility of an armed intervention, as we are convinced that
stiffer economic sanctions would overcome the military junta''?
What made the government change its mind so that it could
now consider sending in the troops instead of maintaining an
economic embargo?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I may remind the hon. member that there have been
quite a few zigzags in his political career. All things considered,
I think-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
4131
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Jacques Parizeau now has a
wait and see attitude: The wait-and-see attitude is back.
Mr. Ouellet: He may call this zigzagging, but I can assure
him that the Government of Canada is prepared to do whatever
zigzagging it takes to get President Aristide back to his country.
With our allies, and more specifically with Haiti's friends, we
are pursuing a series of measures to convince the Haitian
military that they cannot usurp the government, they cannot
keep depriving the people of a democratic government, and that
we will continue our efforts, first of all with measures we feel
are effective, in other words, a total embargo, to bring back
President Aristide.
(1420)
If this approach is not successful, we will consider the next
alternative. For the time being, we have not changed our
position, and we continue to believe that total sanctions will be
successful as a way to take power away from the military in that
country.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, after asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs about his
government's position on international issues, I was somewhat
surprised to see him stoop to domestic squabbling. We can
assume that the minister who is responsible for the lofty domain
of international affairs is never far removed from his partisan
concerns.
Does this fine-tuning-to borrow a euphemism from the
minister- of the government's approach to foreign affairs mean
that Canada has not obtained all the guarantees expected from
the Dominican Republic with respect to compliance with the
economic embargo and that consequently, the minister is now
going back to the American proposal because the total embargo
contemplated by the minister is doomed to fail?
[English]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that in our
discussions yesterday with the U.S. ambassador to the UN, we
reviewed a series of initiatives that have been taken in order to
make sure that President Aristide returns to Haiti.
It is quite clear that if we want to follow the agreement of
Governors Island, at some point there will have to be the return
of police forces to assist in re-establishing democracy in Haiti.
I suspect that the hon. member is misinterpreting when he
talks about forces. We are not talking about military forces. We
are talking about police forces that should go back to Haiti. I
draw this to his attention.
Clearly our objective is to implement the Governors Island
agreement. Canada is fully supportive of this. We have been in
the forefront in making sure that sanctions are applied and that
total sanctions are imposed by the UN. We are quite pleased that
diplomacy and our representations now have the full support of
the American government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In
mid-June, the second to last frigate will be completed and 700
workers will be laid off at MIL Davie. In November, the frigate
program will end and there will only be 80 employees left, who
will maintain the shipyard. At best, if the Magdalen Islands
ferry is built, construction would begin in February 1995 at the
earliest. The government has everything it needs to make a
decision, including MIL Davie's business plan.
Is the Prime Minister aware that his government's
inexplicable slowness in making a decision on the islands ferry
and the ``smart'' ship is doing serious harm to the Lauzon
shipyard and making thousands of workers who are waiting for a
decision lose all hope?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
as announced in the House this week, MIL Davie's business plan
was filed only last week.
The hon. member rightly says that everyone is concerned
about the future of the MIL Davie shipyard, but surely building
the ferry for the run between Prince Edward Island and the
Magdalen Islands will not be enough to keep MIL Davie going.
I wish to assure my colleague that the Government of Canada
is trying to co-operate on this issue, but besides the recovery
program for MIL Davie based on its business plan, financing
would have to be found both for the ferry and for the ``smart''
ship. We are all concerned with this issue and we are trying to
work as quickly as possible.
Nevertheless, we should point out that the financial plan was
submitted only last week, as an opposition member indicated
earlier this week.
(1425)
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, could the
Prime Minister tell us how many more people will have to be
laid off before the government makes a decision on construction
of the ferry at MIL Davie?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
nobody wants to see shipyard workers laid off. Practically all
Canadians across the country know what happened in the
shipbuilding industry in British Columbia, Newfoundland,
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec. We know full well
that we must try to maintain an industry that is important to
Quebec and Canada.
However, in a project such as this, we must ensure that not
only is the business plan tabled, but also that the financial
4132
statements are in order, and that shipbuilding has a viable future
not only for the shipyard but especially for the workers.
We are all working on this. We met with Quebec ministers. We
are now trying to find the financial resources needed to arrive at
the solution that I am sure my hon. colleague would like to see as
soon as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
On Mother's Day a number of us attended justice rallies in
Edmonton and Calgary. These were held to commemorate the
deaths of Barb Danelesko, the young Edmonton mother who was
murdered in her home by young offenders, and to demand action
to reform the justice system and address the roots of crime.
While the government has assured Canadians it is studying
these problems and working on amendments to relevant
legislation, the public is crying out for action now.
Is there not some element of the government's criminal
justice reform package that it could bring forward now for
passage before the summer recess, at least as a symbol that the
government is capable of acting swiftly on this major public
concern?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House
yesterday, we propose to bring forward specific legislation,
particularly in relation to the Young Offenders Act but also
dealing more broadly with the question of sentencing under the
Criminal Code.
We propose also to announce the creation, the structure and
the composition of a national crime prevention council within
the weeks to come. Before the House rises in June, it will have
before it legislation with respect to specific changes in the
Young Offenders Act and sentencing as well as particulars of the
crime prevention council.
I cannot tell the hon. member that this legislation will be
enacted by the end of June. I can say in response that we will
have concrete proposals before the House and that is in keeping
with the commitments we have made throughout the session.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the minister's answer. We have heard this and the
timetable before.
There must be something in that package, a change to the age
of application to the Young Offender's Act, perhaps a change in
the accountability of the parole board, something that the
government could bring forward expeditiously and get passed to
recognize the public's demand for swift action.
My supplementary question is this. How is it that when the
government wants to act swiftly to undo certain acts of the
previous government, like cancel the helicopter and Pearson
airport deals, it can act overnight? How is it when it wants to ram
a bill on redistribution of politicians' seats through Parliament it
can use closure to expedite that? Why will the government not
act with the same urgency and swiftness when the lives and
property of Canadians are at stake?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, may I say two things in
response?
First of all, the process of criminal justice reform is an area of
law that uniquely engages the interests of the provinces, for they
pay for much of it in terms of administration, particularly with
young offenders. It seemed to the government that it was
appropriate, indeed necessary, at the end of March when we
convened a meeting with our provincial and territorial
counterparts, to solicit their views with respect to the proposals
we had. As a result of that consultation there are changes in the
proposals we will be bringing forward.
(1430 )
The second and equally important answer that I proffer to the
hon. member is this. One must not think that the problems of
crime and violence in this society are going to be dealt with by
specific amendments to this or that piece of legislation. That
will help and we are going to do it. But what is really going to be
required if we are going to make a significant difference in the
safety of communities in this country is a longer term approach
toward crime prevention.
The hon. member ought not to think that just changing a
statute is going to get that job done.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian public is not stupid. If these types of answers had
been advanced at these public rallies, that nothing can be done
because of the complexity of federal-provincial relations or
nothing can be done because the cause lies deep and far behind,
the minister would have been booed off the stage.
My supplementary question is for the Solicitor General.
We understand that the prairie vice-chairman of the National
Parole Board says he wants an apology for inaccurate
accusations of his involvement in the release of convicted
murderers.
What is the government's policy on officially apologizing to
victims and citizens for the failures of the National Parole Board
and is not this something that the government could do swiftly
and expeditiously?
4133
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
this government wants to do more than apologize for omissions
of the previous government. It wants to bring forward
legislation very soon to modernize and improve the parole and
corrections system so that the concerns of the public in that
regard will be answered to in a concrete way.
I hope that we will have the support of the Reform Party when
we bring forward this legislation because it is action people
want, not just words.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. This morning, we learned
that close to 140,000 Canadians might be carrying the hepatitis
C virus, several of them through blood transfusions without
knowing it. After the contaminated blood scandal, this new
problem again raises the issue of public health and safety in the
context of blood transfusions.
Does the minister agree with the head of the federal office
regulating blood products, who says that it is pointless to try to
track down those who received contaminated blood transfusions
and now carry the hepatitis C virus, because no vaccine or
preventive treatment exist? Does the minister share that
opinion?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as
you know, Canada's blood collecting system is recognized as
one of the best in the world. It goes without saying that there will
always be problems. Right now, the commission headed by Mr.
Krever is looking at blood contamination problems to ensure
that Canadians enjoy the best possible protection for their
health. We are anxiously waiting the commission's report.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister not realize that her primary obligation is to intervene as
minister responsible for public health? Will she order an inquiry
into the circumstances surrounding this new contaminated
blood problem, and will she demand that the Red Cross contact
all those who may have been contaminated?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
blood transfusions, like any other medical procedures, are
relatively safe but there are never 100 per cent guarantees.
Hepatitis C infection is certainly a case in point. We are
continuing to monitor the progress. We know that the Canadian
Red Cross has brought in testing of donors and has made
considerable progress.
(1435)
As always, there are new threats and we must deal with them
as efficiently and effectively as possible. We believe that Justice
Krever in his report will address some of these very serious
issues.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, last
Tuesday two federal prisoners walked away from the Ferndale
minimum security institution in Mission, British Columbia.
When they escaped the press release issued by Correctional
Service Canada stated that the two escapees were considered
low risk.
On Friday these two low risk offenders were arrested in
Oregon after robbing a store at gunpoint. When these two low
risk offenders were arrested they were driving a stolen car of a
man who was found strangled to death in his apartment and
guess what, these two low risk offenders are suspects in the
murder.
What guarantees can the minister give this House that there
are not other such low risk offenders in Canada's minimum
security prisons?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the Commissioner of Corrections has just announced the setting
up of a national inquiry into this whole situation. I am asking
him to review this as a matter of urgency because protection of
the public has to be our priority.
That is what I think the public wants whether the people in
question are in a maximum security institution or a minimum
security institution.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I
suppose the national inquiry might get at it in the long run but we
want to talk about crime prevention in the House.
One of these low risk offenders was Michael Kelly Roberts.
The criminal record of this low risk offender includes a 25-year
sentence for attempted murder of a police officer and a life
sentence for the murder of a fellow inmate. In 1988 he walked
away from a minimum security prison as well and was on the
loose for two years.
How could anyone, let alone a professional in Correctional
Service Canada, mistake Roberts as a low risk offender and what
action will be taken against the men who made this ridiculous
decision?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
this is something I want to review urgently with the
Commissioner of Corrections in view of what I think should be
our priority and that is protection of the public.
4134
The point made by the hon. member is an important one and I
will insist that the Commissioner of Corrections take it aboard.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Health.
On April 27, in answer to a question put to her by the Official
Opposition, the minister stated that, before issuing a notice of
compliance, her department must ensure that the medication is
efficient and safe for the people of Canada.
Since BioVac has been waiting 22 months to obtain approval
for its BCG cancer vaccine, are we to understand, from the
answer provided by the minister, that the Department of Health
does not consider the vaccine an acceptable drug to be
marketed?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I
said on April 27, we have to follow a process, whereby the
Department of Health along with its researchers and scientists
must ensure that the medication they are about to approve will
serve its purpose.
The 22-month delay may have been due to the great number
of drugs we have to examine. As you know, we have a deficit and
debt problem. We receive a lot of submissions for new drugs. As
the list gets longer and longer, so do the delays.
There is no reason why the medication should not be approved
shortly.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
Does the minister not realize that her department's failure to
follow up on BioVac's submission is, in fact, very harmful to
this Quebec company, all the more so since its Toronto
competitor had a similar medication approved a lot faster?
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let
me assure the hon. member that in all cases we are extremely
efficient at doing our work at Health Canada.
At no time do we wish to jeopardize the lives of Canadians. At
no time will we allow ourselves to not do our work properly
because we have been lobbied by one company or another. I
speak for Health Canada from the day I took over on November
4.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Foreign Affairs in consultation with the U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations discussed the reconstituted
UN peacekeeping mission to Haiti.
Trade sanctions have not worked in the past partly because of
the uncontrolled border between Haiti and the Dominican
Republic. Can the minister inform the House whether Canada
will send peacekeepers to either the Haitian border to enforce
UN trade sanctions or to uphold democracy after Mr. Aristide
returns to power?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, as you know, the United Nations passed a resolution to
impose a first set of sanctions against the military regime in
Haiti. It has a period of time to comply and if it does not comply,
full sanctions will be imposed against Haiti.
In the meantime diplomatic efforts are being made in order to
obtain the co-operation of the Dominican Republic in order to
ensure that the border is totally closed so that the military is not
receiving products that it should not get because of the
sanctions.
We have every reason to believe that the Dominican Republic
is going to co-operate and adhere to the UN sanctions.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, it is to be hoped that
can happen. It has not in the past.
We have had a great many debates on international
peacekeeping in this place. Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs
explain the specific criteria that he will now utilize to determine
whether Canada should provide peacekeepers especially to a
place like Haiti? How does the safety of our peacekeepers factor
into this decision?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that according to the
Governors Island agreement, under the United Nations a
mission of police officers was supposed to be sent to Haiti to
assist the Haitian authorities in forming a police corps that could
complement the work of the government in ensuring a stable
democratic government in counterbalance to the influence of the
military forces.
It is in this spirit of the Governors Island agreement that
Canada has agreed to send RCMP officers to take part in this
operation. Indeed, we will honour our commitment in this
regard whenever the forces return.
We have not talked about sending military forces and this is
not an option that we are considering at the moment.
4135
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. In a report tabled in this
House in November 1989 concerning the GST, the Liberals, then
in opposition, said that if the government really wanted to
protect the poor against inflation by adjusting the credits and the
thresholds, it should fully index the protection given to the
poorest right from the beginning.
Now that his party is in power, and no matter which tax
replaces the GST, is the Minister of Finance still of the opinion
that the tax credit mechanism for the poor should be fully
indexed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
(Quebec)): Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Standing Committee
on Finance is currently studying the GST, and the member
knows this full well. It is certainly a very far-reaching reform of
the tax situation. I feel that we will have to wait for the report.
(1445)
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, I repeat
my question to the Minister of Finance. Whatever the tax that
will replace the GST, does the Minister of Finance still believe
that the tax credit system to protect those with low incomes will
be fully indexed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the position of our
party, that is, the need to protect those with low incomes is very
clear in all our policies. It is very clear in the position of the
Minister of Human Resources Development. It is very clear in
our desire to create jobs and it will be very clear in our job
creation program, to truly protect low income Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In its recent study the Canada 21 Council refers to the
reconfigured armed forces. It would suggest a new and
distinctly Canadian structure for Canada's army.
Does the minister see a revitalized reserve force in Canada's
military, or what role does he envisage for Canada's reserves? If
there is a new role for the reserves when will it be announced to
the public?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member knows that a joint committee of the House and
Senate is studying defence policy at the moment. Certainly any
recommendations it has with respect to force structure will be
greatly received by the government.
The reserves have provided an integral part of Canada's
armed forces for many years. In fact in Bosnia in the last
rotation 20 per cent of those serving were reservists. We want to
encourage that tradition remaining within the armed forces. To
what degree I am not sure; it depends on the advice I get from my
colleagues. At the moment we have about 30,000 and whether or
not that is raised or lowered depends on the defence review.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Prime Minister admitted that his cabinet
ministers are using private chartered aircraft as well as the
Challengers. Now we have a bizarre situation in which taxpayers
are being gouged twice for ministerial travel. On the one hand
they have to pay for the purchase and maintenance of the
Challengers. At the same time they now have to pay for private
chartered aircraft as well.
When is the Prime Minister going to put an end to this double
dipping at the taxpayers' expense?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am
sorry I was not here yesterday to answer the hon. member's
question which was based on a faulty premise.
[Translation]
I am surprised that she watched ``Le Téléjournal'' and ``Le
Point'', when I gave an interview, given the attitude of her party
on bilingualism. It is a great surprise to me that she understood
the French I was speaking that evening.
[English]
I want to say to the hon. member that yesterday the Prime
Minister made no such admission in question period. Certainly
the remarks I gave in that interview were entirely out of context.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I suspect
that in English yes means the same as oui en français, with the
exact script we have in our hands.
My supplementary question is for the minister. Yesterday we
did realize DND and the minister must give approval for
ministerial travel. It seems very unfortunate we are looking at a
situation where at least the perception is that people are having
to pay twice. The Reform Party is asking that the government
save tax dollars by using charter aircraft or rented aircraft.
4136
I ask the minister to say either yes or no, oui or non. Are they
using private aircraft and, if that is the case, would they accept
the Reform Party's suggestion in its entirety that the
Challengers be sold-
The Speaker: Could the hon. member please be precise and
put her question now.
Miss Grey: I will put my question now. Will the government
sell the Challengers now and have cabinet ministers travel by
commercial flights when possible and only by charter when
necessary?
(1450 )
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, first I
should like to say that I have no specific knowledge of any
chartered flights taken by any of my colleagues.
Again, the hon. member should have looked at the entire
review. Had she been there when I did the entire 20-minute
taping she certainly would not have got that impression. I would
like to ask her a question.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, what is good for the goose is
good for the gander. This morning in the Globe and Mail-
The Speaker: Order. We will go on to the next member.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Several immigrant aid organizations deplore the current
sponsorship provisions of the Immigration Act that can lead to
abuse from the sponsor, usually the spouse. It appears that
immigration officers leave women and children at the mercy of
violent family members and under the threat of sponsorship
withdrawal.
In cases where violence and sponsorship withdrawal threats
are involved, what measures does the minister intend to take to
give the victim a recourse other than ministerial discretion, if
she is not eligible for permanent resident status?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question. It is an issue that our officials have been studying for
four months.
[English]
We have an internal task force looking at sponsorship
breakdown, the fact that some people fraudulently break their
contract with this country. I think we should look very carefully
and very toughly at those individuals.
Second, there are those individuals in Canada who, through
no fault of their own, have been hit by the economic impact and
are thus not in a position to sponsor those individuals.
There is a third category that is growing of individuals who,
under the threat of going to the government and pulling the
sponsorships, are physically violating women. That is under
active consideration.
We have engaged the provinces so that we can come up with a
package that is not only tough with those who break the law but
sensitive to those individuals who through no fault of their own
find themselves in impossible situations.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, is the
minister aware that some immigrant women sponsored by their
spouses are extremely vulnerable and does he not believe that
they should be better protected than they are now?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, yes, the government is sensitive to
that. We should also say with some degree of pride that our
country is the only country that has offered gender persecution
guidelines within the IRB. It is the only country in the world.
During my discussion with the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees I learned that they are now in the
process of trying to export those gender persecution guidelines
around the world.
In the international context we have also raised the reality of
there being some 20 million refugees around the world, the
majority of whom are women and young children. Regrettably
the majority of refugees selected from camps are men. We have
spoken about that publicly. We need to redress some realities
that have stared the world in the face for far too long.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Today the bank increased its lending rate by 34 basis points to
what is now 6.61 per cent. When the present Minister of Finance
was in opposition he often insisted on the lowering of interest
rates because high rates retard economic growth, reduce
employment and tax revenue. We know that they also raise the
cost of servicing the debt. The two effects combined will result
in a larger deficit.
(1455)
Will the minister now consider further spending cuts that he
knows are the only way to prevent increasing the deficit and the
4137
possible disastrous dumping of Canadian bonds by investors,
which in turn will lead to even higher interest rates?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, at the time
we brought in the budget it was one of a very few times if not the
first time a government set in place contingency reserves in
order to meet unexpected matters.
The member also knows that these contingency reserves,
growth in employment and a number of other things arising out
of confidence as a result of the activities of the government have
given us better economic indicators in almost everything else.
We are on target and there is no further need for a minibudget.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, a
leading bank just published a report saying that if the interest
rate remains one and a half percentage points above that
predicted it will in fact wipe out the contingency reserve.
Furthermore the contingency reserve is in the budget as
spending and the deficit will be increased by this continuation.
What criteria will the minister use in deciding that interest
rates have risen such that he has to act, that he has to make new
spending cuts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that any
comments-he did this in the preamble to his first question-I
made in terms of interest rates were made when I was a member
of the opposition. It is not incumbent upon the Minister of
Finance to make comments about interest rates. May I say,
therefore, that I look forward to the member making continuing
comments about interest rates for many years to come.
The fact is that in our budget we provided for substantial
spending cuts arising out of structural reforms which are very
important to make the economy work. Those structural reforms
are in place and are working. We are also delighted to see that
our budget is being brought on course and kept on course by high
unemployment-by low unemployment insurance benefits.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) Oh, benefits. They have to
understand that unemployment insurance benefits is a phrase. I
know it is hard for the opposition to grasp a whole phrase at one
time.
At the same time there is confidence in Canadians. That is
what is going to turn the situation around.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Members of the public have shown concern for the need for
blood testing of sexual offenders to determine if they are HIV
positive or to determine whether they carry a transmittable
venereal disease.
What if anything is being done in this area to detect such
diseases and to prevent the spread of such diseases to victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I met last Friday in my office
with a woman known publicly as Margo B., a victim of sexual
violence, who discussed this matter with me from a powerfully
personal perspective.
I want the House to know that I expressed to Margo B. on that
occasion my admiration for the courage with which she has
drawn public attention to this important question.
I want the House to know as well that I told Margo B. that we
are considering the question. We recognize its complexity. It
raises criminal law as well as health and constitutional issues.
We have it under consideration. Indeed I told her that an
interdepartmental report we received recently recommended
against compulsory HIV testing in such circumstances but that I
did not consider that the end of the matter.
Finally I told her then, as I tell the House now, that I expect the
Department of Justice will be in a position to make its
recommendation to the government in this connection by about
September of this year so that we can get the matter before the
public for discussion at that time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister responsible for seniors.
The federal government is getting ready to introduce a
centralized telephone system which uses voice mail to answer
all inquiries about government programs from senior citizens.
In future, all inquiries from seniors will be routed to a
telephone exchange in Montreal.
Given the special needs of seniors and persons with
disabilities, will the Prime Minister recognize that the
widespread use of so-called voice boxes in dealing with clients
such as these is totally inappropriate?
4138
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I disagree completely with the
statements made by the hon. member and by the president of the
union.
On the contrary, our proposal calls for highly personalized
and speedy services. For example, clients wishing to speak to
someone in person will receive a response in half a day, instead
of seven; those wishing to obtain pension information will
receive a reply in one day, instead of thirteen; the response time
in the case of appeals involving seniors will be reduced from
eight weeks to one day.
Certainly our government has made it a priority to provide
less costly, more efficient, and more humane services to seniors.
This is not what the hon. member would have us believe.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
Today the minister tabled legislation to deal with the east
coast fisheries disaster. We want to avoid a similar catastrophe
in the west coast fishery. Local media reports in my west coast
riding indicate that DFO is reducing-
The Speaker: Order. Will the hon. member please put his
question.
Mr. Duncan: Will the minister tell the House that already
scarce west coast DFO enforcement and management programs
will continue and that diversion of funds to the aboriginal
fishing strategy will cease?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, indeed the member is right. As was promised by the
Prime Minister, we tabled legislation today to deal with foreign
overfishing. Another red book commitment has been kept.
Let me say as well, because it is important to note it, that the
legislation is not partisan in nature. It has received the support
of the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party. I want to
acknowledge the support of the leader of the Reform Party and
his party, the support of the New Democratic Party, and I
understand the support of the Conservative Party.
We will give the same kind of attention to the problem of
fishing and overfishing on Canada's west coast that the House of
Commons, united, has given to the problem of overfishing on
the east coast. This is one case where the country speaks as one
in the interest of Canadian citizens.
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Costas Patrides,
Minister of Agriculture, Natural Resources and the
Environment for Cyprus.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
4138
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning
the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester
B. Pearson International Airport, be read the second time and
referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Speaker: It being 3 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the amendment.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 38)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jennings
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
4139
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)-81
NAYS
Members
Adams
Arseneault
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-136
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Alcock
Augustine
Bergeron
Bertrand
Copps
Crête
Daviault
Godin
Jacob
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacAulay
Manley
Mercier
O'Reilly
Péloquin
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Stewart (Northumberland)
(1525 )
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
Mr. Comuzzi: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
apologize for being delayed. I was wondering if you would
allow me to cast my vote on the government side.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
(1530 )
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to
say what a privilege it is to have the opportunity to take part in
the debate today. I feel very honoured to be able to work with the
Department of Agriculture and Agri-food, a department that has
such a real impact on the lives of Canadians.
The agriculture and agri-food portfolio is one that affects us
all to probably a greater extent than many others, although
different departments in the federal government affect our lives
each and every day. However, agriculture and agri-food is one
that contributes to economic growth and job creation,
international competitiveness, market development and
domestic prosperity. Fundamentally and most importantly it is
one of the major players and is responsible for providing and
ensuring a healthy and safe food supply for Canadians.
I also feel very fortunate to work with the present Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food as parliamentary secretary. I enjoy
very much working in co-operation with him, in facing and
meeting the challenges head on that are coming to the industry
today, seemingly at a faster rate than they ever have before.
The agriculture industry is one that changes very rapidly. It
always has and quite frankly probably always will. It is an
industry that is made up of individuals, whether primary
producers or processors or anyone else in the very large
agri-food chain. It is made up of people who are very resilient
and very determined to be successful. They are efficient
producers,
4140
efficient players and holders of the links in that chain. It is also
a pleasure to work with them.
We know that Canadians feel very strongly about the
agri-food industry and even passionately about food. When we
are on a holiday or on weekends or a dinner at home with our
family some of the strongest memories we have are about food.
It is said that the way to a person's heart is through their
stomach. We in Canada have to stop more often than we do and
remind ourselves how fortunate we are as Canadians to have the
food system we have.
I want to remind members and anyone who might be watching
about the importance and the value the agri-food industry plays
in providing Canadians with the safest and most reasonably
priced food of any country in the world. Once in a while we see
an analysis that states the country south of us spends a slightly
smaller percentage of their disposable income on food
consumed at home. Basically we are neck in neck with them.
On average Canadians spend about 10 or 11 per cent of their
disposable income on food. When that is compared with some
other countries in the world where it is two, three and four times
higher and when you consider that the food provided to all
Canadians is without question the best and the safest in the
world, we are doing a pretty good job. Canadians are getting an
incredibly good return on their investment and their food dollar.
Not only does the agri-food industry provide the food on our
plates but it also plays a major role in the balance of trade.
(1535)
About 8 per cent of the products that we export in total are
agri-food products, whether in bulk or further processed
products, to the tune of about $13.5 billion. The agri-food
industry from the primary producer right through to the
restaurant and food service industry employs about 15 per cent
of the population, about 1.6 million or 1.7 million Canadians. It
is no small player.
The agri-food industry plays a major role in the sustainability
of our environment and is being asked to play a more major role.
It is certainly willing to play a more major role and to take
responsibility for soil and water conservation. Last but not least
the industry plays a major role in the social fibre and fabric of
the nation. I could go back through all of these and outline areas
where the government is very active.
This morning the member for Québec-Est brought up a
number of issues that he thought needed to be discussed, but I
want to remind him that he did not bring up one issue that the
present government is not already addressing.
One of the other speakers from the opposition made the
comment that they had an opposition day on agriculture last
week. They tried to claim that they beat us to the punch. I would
remind the opposition that the government about five or six
weeks ago announced that there was going to be a full day of
debate in the House on agriculture.
One of the things the government is doing which has not been
done in this way before is listening to the concerns of opposition
members about the agriculture and agri-food industry. It is the
substance of the debate today that is so important. I would like to
take a few minutes on some of that in a minute or two.
I would also like to express to everyone how pleased we are to
see the eagerness that all of the players in the agri-food industry
are exhibiting in attacking and approaching the challenges and
opportunities that are before us in the agri-food industry today.
There is a real determination among Canadians to put their
shoulder to the wheel, to work with government, to work with all
of the players to help support and facilitate what needs to be
done in adjusting to the new trade regimes that we have to deal
with.
We know as a government that the direction and input must
come from the bottom up, but it is the duty, as other members
have said today, of government to deal with and to facilitate and
to consolidate the concerns of everybody in the industry,
whether that be by methods of financing, whether it be in
legislation, whether it be in enforcement, or inspection or
whatever.
I would like to take a few minutes to talk about how fortunate
we are with the food inspection and safety programs we have in
Canada today and the initiatives that the present government is
moving with in that field. Canadians have the best and safest
food supply, as I have already said, of any country in the world.
We intend to keep it that way.
It means that we have to get a lot of agencies and a lot of
different groups working together. The country's food safety
mandate is shared among different federal departments, as well
as with provincial health and agriculture departments and with
municipalities.
On the federal level Health Canada is responsible for health
related food safety matters; the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans looks after fish and fish product safety and quality;
while Agriculture and Agri-food Canada is responsible for the
quality and safety of agri-food products. It discharges this
responsibility through activities including inspection, labelling
and pesticide regulation.
Partnership and consultation are keys to the success and to the
successful management of a healthy and safe food supply in this
country. With so many players involved in the issue of food
safety, it is important to ensure that there is consistency, to
clarify the roles and eliminate duplication in order to maintain
the most efficient food safety system that we possibly can and,
quite frankly, that we do have.
4141
(1540)
Before I get into what the department of agriculture is doing
in order to ensure that safety and that the efforts are
co-ordinated among all that are involved, I would like to
mention the mandate of the department. As I say, different
departments are involved in food safety but it has the mandate of
agriculture in there.
The main one is the role carried out by the food production
and inspection branch, which is the regulatory arm of the
department. The food production and inspection branch
develops and establishes health and safety standards which the
agri-food industry is required to meet. It also sets out to protect
the Canadian agriculture industry in controlling the introduction
and spread of foreign animal and plant diseases and pests that
may enter the country from outside our borders. That indeed is a
very important role that it plays as well.
In 1976 that branch was formed and three years later the food
inspection directorate was created within the branch. The
mandate of that directorate is based on four pieces of
legislation: the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Meat
Inspection Act, the Food and Drugs Act and the Consumer
Packaging and Labelling Act. From the titles of those people can
draw the conclusion of what they basically deal with.
Over the years the food inspection directorate has developed
various programs and policies and has provided services to
clients that have allowed the Canadian agri-food sector to
prosper and be competitive on a world market. The directorate
has been instrumental in contributing to the department's high
level of credibility in the area of food safety through its ability
to handle complex situations and balance, what many times are
political, social, scientific and economic interests.
The world is changing but the agriculture and agri-food
sectors' commitment to food safety is not changing. What we do
have through the food inspection directorate is the relentless
determination to carry out the job that needs to be done and we
will not let up on that pressure.
Change is happening very rapidly. Today's global economy,
as we know, is reshaping the structure of the agri-food industry.
There is a stronger emphasis on trade and a significant increase
in imports and exports determines and dictates that the
consumers' tastes are diversifying. The department has to be
able to deal with those increases in imports and the variety of
imports that they must inspect and determine their safety and
health for Canadians.
The growth in volume in the kind of food imports will place
increased pressure on the department. We know that we can
meet that with determination. We must meet that and continue
the good job that we have done at the same time as improving its
efficiency. We have to do what we have done better. We are able
to do that and we will have to do it with probably less funding
and fewer people. Therefore it is important that we have the
co-operation between the provincial and municipal
governments and the private sector to carry that out.
For their part as well, the consumers are becoming more
aware of food issues. Today's consumers need more information
and increased assurances that the food they eat is safe. Now
more than ever consumers are very concerned about the
effectiveness of food inspection and food inspection programs
and how food safety is regulated.
Rapid advances in the agricultural technology area are also
having an impact on the product services and markets for food
companies. The regulatory framework surrounding these
changes needs to be equally responsive and regulations must be
in place quickly to allow companies to take advantage of new
opportunities while making sure that the food safety and quality
concerns are still being met.
Today's agri-food industry is a very different one than it once
was. The industry has become more self-regulating and is
largely self-reliant, often taking the lead in exploring the new
technologies and new methods of productions and processing
that are leading to improvements in the agri-food sector. This
presents a challenge but not one that we cannot meet and are not
meeting. We are doing an excellent job but it is a challenge for
government in that it must now try to regulate food safety in
areas where we may not have had a lot of activity or
participation in the past.
(1545)
We have put in place initiatives to tackle these new realities
successfully and we believe that the answer lies in the
development of a revised food inspection system strategy. The
department of agriculture, through the food inspection
directorate, has been working toward this and has set out a
number of initiatives which will lead us to that goal.
One of those initiatives is the national food inspection policy,
one of the department's ultimate goals with an objective which
was approved by the federal and provincial ministers in
Charlottetown at a federal-provincial agriculture ministers
meeting last year. It calls for the establishment of common
standards between provinces and federal agencies in order to
provide for food safety and food disclosures.
The benefits of such a system are many and the efficiencies
are many. It will streamline the inspection delivery system. It
will enhance market performance and competitiveness. It will
reduce trade barriers and regulatory pressures on industry. It
will facilitate and harmonize processes and offer a flexible and
responsive inspection system.
A national food inspection system is, as I said, a top priority
for everyone in the Canadian agri-food inspection area. It will
ensure that consumers continue to have access to a high quality
4142
food supply and a safe food supply, and it will ensure the
harmonization of national standards.
As well, there is the food safety enhancement program and the
general trend across the agencies involved in food inspection to
work on a common health and safety standard which will
increase mutual recognition of inspection and reduce
duplication.
These agencies apply the hazard analysis and critical control
points principles to their inspection practices and this is an
internationally recognized approach to controlling and
monitoring the food processing operations. Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada is working with industry to implement the
principles of the hazard analysis and critical control points
program and the department will be consulting with industry on
an ongoing basis to develop that program.
As well, there is the common inspection approach at the
interdepartmental level which will adopt the principles I just
talked about based on an inspection approach being developed
through common Government of Canada inspection standards
which will be implemented using a mutually accepted audit
protocol.
A tremendous amount is going on and has been going on
regarding food safety in Canada. The federal departments are
now concentrating their efforts on defining the specific
requirements for other highly identified risk areas in the food
processing industry.
There is also a single access food labelling service. We have
had a situation for a number of years in which labelling has been
quite cumbersome. One of the results of the recent government
reorganization was the consolidation of food labelling activities
involving the former Department of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada which will
streamline that operation.
The evidence through these initiatives is very clear. The
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food takes its role very
seriously in the food safety area. Food safety is something which
every Canadian should not take for granted. We work very hard
at maintaining and upgrading our food safety standards in this
country and I am certain that everyone can appreciate what an
enormous responsibility it is.
In closing, I would like to state that the increased mutual
recognition by government departments of inspection should
reduce the complexity of dealing with the federal government.
This is good news for industry because federal departments will
be using common language and common interpretation of
regulations as well as uniformity in rating and enforcement at
processing establishments.
I said at the beginning that the whole agri-food industry was
facing a lot of challenges and opportunities. It reminds me of the
story of the commander in a war zone who radioed his platoon
officer out in the field. He said to the platoon officer: ``Officer,
how is it this morning?''. The officer said: ``Today we have
enemy to the left, enemy to the right, enemy in front of us and
enemy behind us. We won't miss them this time''. I challenge
the industry, and I know it is accepting that challenge, to turn
that the other way.
(1550)
Our industry has opportunities in front of us, behind us, to the
left and to the right, whether they be in Asia, whether they be in
Latin America, whether they be in our neighbour to the south,
whether they be in Mexico or whether they be in Europe. The
opportunities are there.
I challenge everyone. I look forward to more comments from
the opposition members today and input from them. As the
minister said clearly this morning, we welcome those. We will
consider those. We will put them in the hopper, as the term is
used, because we do not want to miss any opportunities there.
I congratulate the industry for the eagerness with which it is
meeting the challenges before us and the opportunities before
us.
In closing, I want to refer to a festivity that was held in
Toronto last night which the minister, I and some others had the
privilege to attend. It was the final presentation of the
Agri-Food Competitiveness Council. I want to remind everyone
of the vision that it wants to keep before the industry and the
challenge that is there, one that I know we can meet. I will state
that in closing. There is nothing to stop us from being the
premier agri-food sector in the world.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. secretary to the minister.
The member mentioned that there are several departments
involved in food safety, several agencies outside of the
department of agriculture, all these people involved in dealing
with food safety. Is that perhaps part of the problem not just in
the food safety area but in agriculture in general? Are there too
many different groups involved in making the decisions in food
safety and in other areas?
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone right off the
top of their head can give a yes or no answer to that. What we are
doing within the department and within the government is
taking a complete overview of everything that is going on.
When we were in opposition we said that in every department
whether in agriculture or in any other ministry we needed to
have a look to see whether everything was operating as
efficiently as it can. As far as food safety is concerned, yes, there
is work going on between the provinces and the federal
government to see whether we need to continue any duplication
if there is
4143
duplication in food processing plants. I will use those as an
example.
Quite frankly I see no reason why if we have a set of rules
good enough for interprovincial trade it should not be able to be
meshed with whatever the rules are for inspection for
international trade. There is no sense in inspectors chasing
themselves around different plants inspecting for
interprovincial movement of products and then somebody else
coming in and saying they have to inspect for international
movement of product as well. That is being looked at.
Canadians have the right and need to be concerned. When I
say need to be concerned about the safety of Canadian food, they
need to be and they are but I want to reassure them that they have
no justification to be worried about what is there. Out of the 11.5
thousand employees with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
over 4,000 are involved in the inspection of processing facilities
in the Canadian food supply in total. We do an excellent job in
providing Canadians with safe food.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest earlier to the minister of agriculture when he drew our
attention to the importance of the federal-provincial
governments working together with the private sector. Again,
that has been reiterated by the parliamentary secretary to the
minister of agriculture.
At the moment in British Columbia the federal government,
the B.C. government and aboriginal groups are negotiating land
claims. Part of that process is to set up a whole set of advisory
boards with the various stakeholders involved in the final
outcome. Of course the critical players are the cattlemen of
British Columbia.
Vast tracts of their land, leased land and deeded land, are
potentially involved. Their representative on that advisory
committee has had to swear an oath of secrecy and therefore is
unable to communicate to cattlemen and other livestock
operators throughout British Columbia.
(1555)
I am really simply asking the parliamentary secretary if he
would take time to look into this increasing concern that people
in the livestock industry in British Columbia have.
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, yes I will. I will give a
commitment to the hon. member that I will look into it and get
back to him on the situation as far as discussions are concerned.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed
listening to the parliamentary secretary to the minister of
agriculture as he showed how this government intends to
strengthen and maintain the food inspection and safety of
agricultural products.
There is another area where Canada has shown leadership
certainly and in which we are recognized for producing a high
quality product at reasonable prices and that is in the supply
management sector. The parliamentary secretary has been
charged with a great responsibility in terms of maintaining the
benefits of that sector.
I am wondering if he could give us a few comments in terms of
how those discussions are coming along and where that is at.
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to.
As the hon. member for Malpeque has said, the task force on
the future of orderly marketing, the supply management sector
and the dairy, egg and poultry sector has been ongoing since
about mid-January of this year. It was a small task force that
started out by putting together the work that had already been
done. We did not reinvent the wheel or redo anything.
We assembled the work that had been done by a number of
task forces and groups of individuals in the industry over the last
number of years. We assessed the processes, the issues and put
them all together in a report. We reported to the federal and
provincial ministers meeting at the end of March on all of the
issues, all of the processes in place and where to deal with the
issues that were there. We went on past that and suggested
processes and participants we felt should be in those processes
going on for the next number of months.
As a result we now have five commodity committees, one for
each of the supply managed sectors. They are meeting. I am
pleased to say that representatives of every group of
stakeholders within the agri-food chain from the farmer or
primary producer to the consumer are represented around that
table. They are sitting down and will be reporting back to the
task force on their recommendations on how to deal with the
issues. We will reporting the recommendations to the ministers
in July again.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments earlier on
agriculture.
The parliamentary secretary is familiar with my riding and
with some of the federal institutions in my riding. In particular,
in reference to his remarks about safety and continuing to
investigate new ways of producing safe agricultural products he
will be aware, I am sure, that in the Agassiz agriculture research
station there is a new program being initiated on manure
handling and composting and all that sort of thing.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could comment on the
future of that kind of study in the Agassiz research station. I
know the people back home are dying to know.
Mr. Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that one of the
critical regions in Canada as far as what we call waste disposal is
the Fraser Valley. I have had the pleasure of travelling through
there a few times, not enough times, because it is a beautiful
area. There is a high concentration of livestock there. There is a
4144
challenge in the disposal of foreign material that comes along
with raising livestock.
There is work going on there at Agassiz. The federal
government and the department are very keen to work with those
at Agassiz, work with the industry people and the commodity or
livestock groups in that area to solve that problem. I say solve
the problem but it is not a problem. It is just that there are
technologies that are coming forward for better disposal of
agricultural wastes, livestock wastes. We look forward through
Agassiz and through other areas in the department to working
with the industry.
(1600)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate I
want to thank the last intervener from Fraser Valley East and the
parliamentary secretary for use their of parliamentary language
in dealing with the nature of the last question.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
place today to set the record straight about the agricultural
industry.
The government introduced a motion in which it boasts about
its proactive work in the agriculture sector. To listen to it all is
well with the world. But then that is often the case when the
opposition ventures constructive criticism.
I can tell you that my riding is mainly rural. So, I have
excellent feelers in that sector. I may surprise you by saying that
the federal government is indeed pro-active in the agri-food
sector, in Western provinces. You can certainly count on the
government to be active in Western Canada!
I will give you supporting figures in a moment. Before I do
however, I want the government to understand that it is not
enough to be pro-active or claim to be; you must also know
where you are going and, more importantly, if you are on the
right track.
Quebec has a real plan for the future of the agri-food sector.
The agricultural community knows what it wants and has taken
the necessary steps to achieve its goals.
When the government decided to impose its policy, it did not
stop to think for one second that this may not be consistent with
the priorities and development targets set by the community
concerned. Unlike the government, this community takes a
concerted approach.
Here are a few examples. In February 1991, Quebecers
involved in regional development and in the agri-food sector
met in Montreal, where it was decided that the community had to
take its future in its own hands.
Other objectives developed during this summit conference of
the rural community included: respect and promotion of
regional and local values; joint action by regional and local
partners; diversification of the regional economic base;
protection and regeneration of resources; restructuring of the
political power from the base up, an objective we did not hear
the people across the floor mention.
This led to the creation of advisory committees, which are
incidentally very active in my riding.
These committees raised consensus on the general approaches
to be favoured in promoting the development of the Quebec
agri-food industry at the Trois-Rivières summit in June 1992.
Some recommendations to come out of it are: recognize, value
and support the training of human resources; ensure the
permanence, development and growth of agri-food companies;
readjust current income security programs based on production
costs; develop income security programs compatible with
international trade rules; provide financing for agricultural
enterprises and their transfer without massive debt; consider
support for non-viable companies that could be reoriented
within the sector and help people leaving farming.
We see that the farm community has taken action to control
decision making in fields of concern to it, but the government
must avoid making life difficult for them. Our party has also
dealt with the situation.
Agricultural companies and processing plants must be
encouraged to be self-sufficient by helping them adjust to new
market requirements, to win new markets and to increase their
competitiveness by lowering their production costs. The
government should note this. We could finally break the vicious
circle of dependence on subsidies.
But be careful! This does not mean blindly cutting budgets.
The transition will take some time. We want this transition to go
smoothly, but this is unlikely since the government signed the
GATT agreement.
The agri-food sector competes directly with foreign
competitors now that the Canadian government has thrown farm
programs and practices into upheaval.
(1605)
Let us talk about GATT. Does the government think it acted
proactively when it signed the GATT agreement on November
15? This government did not even ensure a settlement of the
trade disputes that could arise with the Americans. The
Americans, who still seem to have the upper hand at their own
game-and you know that baseball is their national
sport-managed to lead Canada to the negotiating table on all
agricultural issues.
Are all negotiations in good faith not conducted on a
case-by-case basis? Unfortunately, our government tried to
play cautiously and defensively. Yet our national sport is
hockey. A long
4145
time ago, experts realized that offence is the best defence. The
Montreal Canadiens could only count on Patrick Roy this year
and you saw where it got them.
Why not denounce the barriers the Americans put up against
our products? Why not denounce the numerous measures taken
to subsidize U.S. agricultural products? Why not condemn the
hypocrisy of the Americans who accuse Canada of practices
they themselves have used for a long time? The government may
call this being proactive, but where I come from we refer to it as
inertia.
Meanwhile, the Americans are having fun at our expense. The
GATT and NAFTA agreements did not resolve all Canada-U.S.
trade disputes. Far from it. The Americans even decided that
quotas will be imposed on durum wheat exports effective July 1.
This date would be quite a coincidence, if negotiations fail! In
return, Canada threatens to retaliate against certain American
products if the U.S. carries out its threat of imposing quotas.
A trade war is looming. The Bloc Quebecois is asking the
government not to yield to American pressure, and not to sign a
bad agreement for Quebec and Canadian farmers for the sole
purpose of ending the conflict.
Another indication of the Canadian government's apathy in
these negotiations with Americans is its willingness to negotiate
a ceiling on Canadian exports of durum wheat to the United
States. Canada is not guilty of any illegal trade practice in this
case; yet, it is prepared to penalize itself. Americans are the sole
responsible of their problems, since they subsidize their durum
wheat exports. You can understand American producers who
prefer to export their production. Canada is only satisfying a
need. It is a simple market law which Americans do not respect
because it is detrimental to them. Oh, inertia.
In the context of our party's position regarding the future of
this most important industry, we feel that farmers must be
considered as entrepreneurs and that regional entrepreneurship
must be supported; also, agricultural development policies must
be distinguished from regional development policies; finally,
the government must promote an awareness by farmers
themselves of the importance of the environment to promote
agriculture.
The government does nothing in its negotiations with
Americans, and it does nothing inside our borders either. I did
say at the beginning of my remarks that the government can have
a proactive approach. But I also added that it was mostly
proactive in Western Canada. The federal government
subsidizes Western crop diversification, and so much the better
for that region. However, this is done to the detriment of
Quebec. We say: Whoa, there! Here are some facts: Between
1981 and 1991, cultivated acreage for potatoes increased by 30
per cent in Western Canada, by 9 per cent in the maritimes, and
by a mere two per cent in Quebec.
(1610)
During the same period, beef production in the West increased
by 4 per cent while it fell by 13 per cent in Quebec. In pork
production, an area which Quebec has been developing for some
years, the situation is critical. I know whereof I speak, because
there are processing plants in my riding.
Again during the period from 1981 to 1991, the swine
population in Quebec fell by 16 per cent and increased by 39 per
cent in Western Canada. In the production of lamb, Quebec is
also at a disadvantage compared to the West. While Quebec's
lamb population increased by only 8% between 1981 and 1991,
that of the West grew by 33 per cent. Even in hothouse crops,
despite its energy advantages and its proximity to markets,
Quebec lagged behind the West.
During this same period of 1981 to 1991, the area devoted to
hothouse crops increased by 67 per cent in the West, compared
to an increase of only 46 per cent in Quebec.
The proactiveness of the federal government here takes the
form of unfair competition at the expense of Quebec producers
because of subsidies to Western farmers. It is as simple as that.
If only these subsidies made sense, but they do not. As in many
areas, the government intervenes without consultation or
consults the wrong people.
Departments should assess the results of their actions. In
agriculture, the Department is involved in the analysis,
organization and dissemination of information on agri-food
markets. Very well, but, here as in other areas, the Auditor
General notes serious shortcomings. He found that the
information gathered did not necessarily meet the users' needs.
Another example of public money being wasted, with decisions
being made in ivory towers, when it might be easier to check
firsthand what the clients' true needs are.
The government always takes heavyhanded action, when it
should concentrate on avoiding duplication with provincial
initiatives. Quebec has understood this, as industry and
government have been working together for a long time to
implement strategies to conquer new markets. It is not only
Quebeckers who have understood this.
At the Sixth Outlook Conference on the future of the
agri-food sector, which took place in Quebec City on March 9,
Ms. Cooper, project co-ordinator at the Guelph Food
Technology Center, made this point: ``In the fight between the
federal government and the provincial governments to decide
who is going to lead the industry, the governments developed
programs that overlap or conflict with others. This is a waste of
public money and increases the debt''.
Ms. Cooper, whose remarks were published in the journal La
terre de chez nous, maintains that an effective government
4146
encourages companies to become more competitive.
Governments should be more responsible and more effective in
their actions.
She also stated that governments should ensure more and
more transparency and relevance with respect to money
invested.
Many agricultural producers in Quebec are sovereigntists. I
understand them. In a few minutes, I have shown how the federal
government is ineffective for them, and they could go on at
length about this subject. What is known is that the number one
solution for our agricultural producers is to decentralize
decision-making mechanisms and to provide effective budgets.
Is the government willing to take this approach?
[English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I commend
my colleague for his dissertation this afternoon on the subject
with which I find myself quite familiar.
I found his observations on the agricultural scene in terms of
how the federal government treats Quebec rather interesting.
(1615 )
He alluded to the fact that there are certain commodity groups
where there are problems. He mentioned potatoes, hogs and
cattle. There are some aspects of agriculture that were not
discussed or mentioned in his speech, one of which was supply
management.
Can he tell Canadians and those of us in the House today how
the percentages of the total amount of production of poultry and
eggs and supply management in the milk industry have been
affected and how his province has been affected.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: I will gladly answer this question, Mr. Speaker.
You know, when I quoted figures in my speech earlier, it was to
impress upon this House and this government that, regarding
supply, Quebec has often been cast aside.
We were talking about supply and demand. As a result of the
GATT agreements, the agricultural sector will suffer many
losses, not only in Quebec, but across Canada.
I would also like to say that it makes me sad when I see, as I
did recently-and I want to come back to this because this is the
starting point, the signing of the GATT-farmers' associations
were formed to oppose it. While some aspects were beneficial,
protection had to be sought against other aspects. It is like when
you make a deal; there is no point giving and giving, you have to
keep something for yourself.
That is the point I was trying to make in my speech. We have
been giving too much and for no reason. We are worth a lot in
Canada and in Quebec.
As far as quotas on milk are concerned, I can tell you that
farmers have been asking what will replace them. One of them
told me: ``Look, I will loose everything within a few years
because my quota which was worth so much will not be worth
anything any more because of free trade, of the GATT''. Canada
should have negotiated protective clauses.
I would have to do the same thing if I owned a business and
dealt with other countries or had employees. In any case, we
have to protect ourselves and our interests. In so doing, we are
protecting all Canadians and Quebecers.
But rest assured this is not over yet and I think it will do more
harm than good. We are told to think in terms of globalization,
but as I said in my remarks earlier, we must also be competitive.
Let us not forget that unless we are able to compete on the global
market, we will do very poorly.
I believe that Providence and common sense are both required
in this matter, even if it is politics or agriculture. I also believe
that we must always strive to obtain as much as possible and the
best deal possible for Canada and Quebec. That is why I chose
that angle in my remarks, saying: ``Look, Quebec has
traditionally received less for grain transportation like all the
rest''. I could have gone on for 20 minutes. Let me tell you that
as a Quebecer and a member responsible for representing the
people of Quebec and Canada, I will do my very best to get as
much as possible for them and protect our interests, instead of
giving it all to the Americans or other foreign countries.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the member which I ask on behalf of Quebec dairy
farmers.
Quebec has a surprisingly large percentage of the dairy quota
within the supply managed system. Quebec depends on markets
beyond the borders of the province in this arrangement. If the
Bloc gets its way and Quebec does separate then certainly
Quebec dairy farmers will lose that production which is
presently being sold in the rest of Canada.
What is the member going to tell Quebec dairy farmers about
the prospect of virtually overnight losing this market outside
Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to answer his
question because I have the impression that on learning of a
sovereign Quebec, farmers or, to go even further, cows will give
less milk on account of being afraid. That is not the case. I would
like to set the record straight. You can rest assured that whether
it is Quebec or the other provinces, it has never been said that for
years there have been tariff barriers between Quebec and
4147
Ontario or between other Canadian provinces. No such thing has
never been said to the Canadian people, but today it has to be
said. We had not even become sovereign, and yet there were
tariff barriers between Canada's provinces. Did that make
sense?
(1620)
Do not worry, the agricultural sector will not be any worse off
in a sovereign Quebec. There will be agreements, but we will not
be dealing with barriers. In the agriculture committee, we were
told that if cows ever gave less milk, there is a new hormone, on
which a one-year moratorium has been imposed. We said no to
protect human and animal health. Wait a minute! Technology is
so advanced, and we are being pressured by multinational
pharmaceutical companies. You can rest assured that at that time
there will not be a problem with supply and demand or the lack
of milk.
I can tell you that, as far as milk is concerned, whether it is
Canadian or Quebec milk, it will always be easier to sell without
BST, unlike what comes from the U.S.A. You can tell me in a
year from now, when the current moratorium is lifted.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, the
last two speakers were on a particular theme so I thought I would
continue to run with it for a minute.
In my riding, which is probably one of the highest density
supply managed ridings west of Ontario where there is actually
more of Canada, there is a real concern. In B.C. we have what is
called Fraser Valley butter in a Fraser Valley butter wrapper, but
it is not produced in the Fraser Valley. It is produced in Quebec,
shipped to British Columbia, and then wrapped in what they call
a Fraser Valley butter wrapper.
To follow up on the earlier comments of the hon. member,
what are you going to tell the Quebec dairy industry? If the hon.
member believes that there is a readiness, a willingness or an
eagerness to have the milk and cheese and butter produced in
Quebec when we could very easily do it by increasing our
production of industrial milk in B.C., there is some kind of sad
mistakenness here.
What are you going to tell the dairy farmers in Quebec? The
market is going to be cut virtually in half.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague is
referring to production or overproduction. At one point, there
were quota problems in the dairy industry and I remember quite
vividly farmers dumping milk in creeks. I believe the dairy
industry in Quebec is trouble free at this time.
I am not looking for problems where there are none. I like to
deal with problems as they arise and find solutions to them. I
have always maintained that there are no problems, only
solutions. You can rest assured that when Quebec and Canadian
farmers encounter a problem, they will confront it head on and
seek out a solution together. They will not turn a blind eye to it.
Have no fear, they will be open, honest and to the point. Our
farmers are capable of adjusting very quickly.
[English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, as I was thinking
about participating in this debate today, I could not help but
reflect on its timeliness.
In my riding of Brant as in many ridings across this country
we are now seeing our agricultural community out in full force.
They are out and visible because now is the planting season for
1994.
In my little village of St. George the tractors are on the
highways pulling discs, cultivators, drills and sprayers. If you
look closely you can see that the tractors are in the fields 24
hours a day. Local mechanics, tire repair operators and carriers
of fuel are working at the beck and call of our farm community,
all because our farmers are working. They are working hard
against time and against the elements to get our crops planted
for this year.
The opportunity to debate the issues facing Canadian farmers
today is very timely and important. The debate is not only
important for farmers, producers and retailers of food. It is
important for each and every one of us as a Canadian.
What we are talking about is our national food supply. When
we think about our national food supply there is one issue that
we cannot ignore. That is the issue of security; security of
supply, security of health and safety and the financial security
that our farmers who grow and produce the food for this country
and hopefully for more and more of the world require.
(1625)
Let us think about security of supply. Canada has a very, very
good record in that area. Over the last 40 years we have been part
of the green revolution and have helped to identify, develop and
now use seeds, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and fertilizers
that have helped us increase our yield exponentially.
As we move into the next century we are also moving out of
the green revolution and into the genetic revolution. I expect
very much so that we are going to have considerable debate in
this House as we move into that biotechnological revolution.
I believe that we will in the end make good and clear decisions
and that we as a country will continue to be able to provide and
supply food, not only for ourselves but for the rest of the world.
4148
When we think of security of health and safety, we have an
excellent track record in Canada. We have come to expect that
the quality of our food will be the best in the world. Our
ministries of agriculture and health have insisted on it and we as
Canadians may have even come to take it for granted.
It is very possible that as we make transitions in the world of
agriculture and agri-food we are going to see more and more
products from around the world. I think we will then find very
clearly that Canadian produce has been the best quality bar none
at a good and affordable cost. I believe that Canadians will
continue to insist upon the availability of Canadian food
products.
We can also think about security from the point of view of
financial security for our farmers. When I think about that I am
optimistic. I continue to be optimistic. I read in the current farm
media that there is an understanding or a belief that in Canadian
agriculture we have a sleeping giant that is now just awakening.
It gives me pause to feel optimistic.
As I have said we have a good, solid supply of bulk
commodities. It is a quality supply of bulk commodities. I
believe that as we work with our farmers, and I too am a farmer,
to become better entrepreneurs, to be better marketers, to be
more innovative and creative in our product slate and our crop
slate and our market sources we will ensure our financial
security as an industry.
I believe quite fully that the agricultural and agri-food sector
of our economy will be a driving force to ensure a strong
economy for this country. I believe that the government has a
role and responsibility to help our farmers move in that direction
so that we can ensure our own financial security.
There are a number of things that this government has already
done in that regard. First, as many of my colleagues have
identified, we have signed the GATT agreement. In that
agreement we identified what subsidies are all about and how
subsidies can truly interfere with the marketplace, particularly
in agriculture.
We have a world trade organization that will help us
adjudicate the times when we believe that subsidies are playing
an unfair role in the world market. Our government has gone a
long way and will continue to work to make sure that the General
Agreement on Trade and Tariffs works effectively for us.
As well our government is working hard at looking at
interprovincial trade barriers that are stopping us from having
effective trade here at home. I have been very pleased to see the
work of the Ministers of Industry and Agriculture in terms of
getting their provincial counterparts to work together to break
down these interprovincial barriers. As we become more
successful in our market development at home so will we
become more successful in the broader marketplace.
(1630)
A third area I must highlight is the general focus that this
government takes in ensuring that as a government we reduce
red tape, we reduce government intervention that gets in the way
of our agri-food business as well as all business. We want to
make it so that government is there supporting small business
and, in particular, given this debate, the agri-business, so that
we can continue to develop effective markets and be able to sell
our commodities not only here at home but to the broader world.
As we try and work to help our farmers and our farm
communities become more entrepreneurial we also have to
accept the responsibility and the understanding that we have to
make life predictable, or as predictable as we possibly can, for
this sector of the economy. Fighting, as I mentioned earlier,
against the natural elements of floods, disease, drought, we have
to make sure that we have some kind of safety net that is there in
support of our farm community.
As well as talking about the development of new markets we
have to recognize that the marketplace is a very unpredictable
place. As we encourage our farmers and our farm communities
to step out, to think about new crops, to find new market niches
and to be more aggressive in our activities around the world, we
have to provide a safety net that will allow them the confidence
to do that.
I would like to recall the work of Alvin Hamilton under the
Diefenbaker government, of all governments. Back in the 1960s
when we made our first grain sales to China, that was a
watershed that really solidified the western grain marketplace.
It is this kind of activity that we have to build on and improve
and step out and grow with. I think our government plays a
significant role in helping our agricultural and agri-food
industry to do just that.
We are talking about social safety nets here. I believe, as on
many occasions we have already done, our government is
looking forward to introducing and making more aware and
making more usable the whole farm approach to safety nets.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Prince
George-Peace River reference the NISA, net income
stabilization account, approach to security and safety nets. That
program is a new program, a bright light in our safety net
situation, to quote him.
I would also like to identify that the Ontario Federation of
Agriculture, the federation to which I belong, is working hard in
support of the notion of whole farm safety nets: ``The OFA is
committed to the concept of a whole farm approach to safety
nets and will continue to work with commodity groups and
4149
government to evolve a meaningful and equitable set of safety
nets that are available to all producers''.
I support that approach. It is the approach of the Liberal
government. I have talked to producers in my own riding, some
of whom are covered by programs like NISA and feel very
positively about that program, others who are not but are
interested in being covered. I feel that this notion of whole farm
support is the right one. It encourages our farmers to develop
their farms in a complete way and not to carry on growing crops
that may not be the best for their properties because those are the
crops that receive subsidy. It is the right approach and the
approach that becomes even more important is the one of
making sure that we consult with producers and with growers as
we develop this whole safety net transition.
That is what my growers are saying to me. They say: ``We
need the social safety net. The whole farm approach has
appealed to us but please, please do it in concert with the
producer''.
This government will, I believe, make that its hallmark.
Whether it be in the ministries of finance, immigration or
agriculture, what we are seeing is that our government is one
that consults with those who are particularly concerned.
In terms of our security and financial security for farmers, I
feel very optimistic in that regard.
(1635 )
This government is here to support our farming communities.
I believe we have a very bright future as Canadian
agriculturalists and that agriculture will play a significant role
as we continue to develop our new and global economy.
I feel glad to have been able to participate in this debate and I
also want to thank the minister for providing this opportunity for
me and for all my colleagues in the House to talk about this very
important issue to the Canadian people.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the hon. member for her comments and her speech.
I would like to ask if she believes farmers should be exempt or
non-exempt on the Liberal GST replacement tax on machinery
and equipment that is pending.
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): I appreciate that question, Mr.
Speaker. As you may know, the hon. member and I both sit on
the GST review committee.
We have heard some very appropriate and clear submissions
from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. As a farmer I do
believe that farmers should continue to be exempt and that we
have to work very closely to find new solutions to improve the
cashflow situation that farmers face as they pay their GST up
front and then have to wait for those rebates to come back.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. member.
It may have been a slip of the tongue, I am not sure, but she
referred to the farm stabilization programs as being social safety
nets. I just want to clarify whether that was in fact a slip of the
tongue or does she see farm stabilization programs as a type of
social safety net.
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member
drawing that to my attention.
It was a slip of the tongue. I feel that these are very much
programs that are there to help our industry, the agricultural
industry, propel itself into the future. I look forward to having
that safety net so that we can actively pursue new and broader
markets.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Mr.
Speaker, as a grain farmer representing the rural constituency of
Dauphin-Swan River in western Canada I firmly believe that
we need a long term vision for the grain industry.
The current difficulty in moving grain is just one of a number
of issues affecting Canada's grain and oilseed industry. The
short term immediate problem must be addressed to ensure that
it is not repeated next year.
However, it is also time to take a look at the grain marketing
system as a whole. We must be prepared to ask ourselves if our
industry is positioned properly to build on the opportunities that
are out there.
The new trade deals offer new market opportunities and the
Canadian grain industry must examine how it can best take
advantage of these opportunities. New trade agreements,
notably the North American free trade agreement and the GATT
deal, mean obligations that the Canadian government must
meet.
For example, the GATT requires that we make changes to the
WGTA for shipments to the west coast and to Churchill. The
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has asked
representatives of the grain marketing system to a meeting in
Winnipeg on May 16.
Why should the industry and government work together to
develop a vision for the future? First, the marketplace is
changing, trade patterns are shifting, traditional markets for
Canadian grain are disappearing, Asian countries and the
Americas are now the focus of Canada's grain marketing efforts.
These changes in trade patterns mean different demands on
Canada's grain handling and transportation system.
There are also production driven demands as farmers turn to
higher income, alternative special crops. We are selling to fewer
larger institutional buyers and more to individual buyers such as
millers who require just in time delivery. This changes, for
example, the time and resources required to ship our grain.
(1640 )
As we look toward a vision for a grain policy framework,
clearly decisions we make today on a number of grain issues
need to be based on a long term vision for the grain industry.
Today I would like to outline the policy framework we intend to
4150
use as a basis for working with industry to shape a vision for
where we want the grain marketing system to be in five to ten
years.
The first area is transportation. My hon. colleague will or has
already outlined the steps we are taking within the industry to
resolve the serious short term system capacity problems
plaguing the industry.
Other transportation issues include the St. Lawrence seaway,
the WGTA issues, rail system efficiencies and the NTA rate
setting. On the St. Lawrence seaway, the Standing Committee on
Transport has established a subcommittee to review the seaway
system. This government is grateful to have this report.
On WGTA, by June the minister will have reports from the
producer payment panel on methods of paying the benefit and
from the Grain Transportation Agency on efficiencies. A study
was also undertaken of the NTA rate scale.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food plans to
announce a process for reviewing the recommendations on all of
these issues so that the government is in a position to make
decisions by the 1995 crop year.
The industry is very concerned about a number of grain
marketing issues, but the issue is very divisive. The Canadian
Wheat Board for its part already has made important studies
toward positioning itself to meet new global marketplace
demands. For example, it has made changes to improve its price
information for producers and the industry. It has made changes
to the quota system so there is better information on the amount
and quality of grain in the country elevators.
In the trade area we are faced with a combination of
tremendous trade opportunities in the U.S. mixed with increased
protectionist pressures. Canada continues to work toward a
negotiated settlement. That is good for Canadian agriculture.
Our objective is to achieve a settlement before the 90-day
consultation period which is up in July. If agreement is not
possible and the U.S. acts to restrict imports of our wheat we
have the right to retaliate, and we will. Canada will not roll over
and play dead.
In the regulatory area, the Canadian Wheat Board and grain
commission have made numerous changes in their operations
which are contributing to greater industry competitiveness. For
example, the Canadian Grain Commission has examined ways
of handling grain that are not visually distinguishable.
Visual distinguishability remains an integral part of our
grading system. Our commitment to a grading system which
ensures quality and consistency remains unquestioned. We are
also considering options as to how the grain commission
regulates terminal elevator tariffs. The goal is more flexibility
for grain companies and, in turn, a more flexible grain handling
system overall.
There is an industry based committee in place now to continue
monitoring the implementation of regulatory review
recommendations over the course of this year.
Another factor in the whole grain policy area is the safety net
programming. In order for the industry to change in the face of a
changing global marketplace it must be supported by a strong
safety net program. Currently a committee representing farm
groups and federal and provincial governments is reviewing the
Canadian farm safety nets.
Its consensus is to make a whole farm safety net program
available to all commodities. They also agree that some type of
additional support or supplementary programs may be needed to
deal with specific regional or commodity problems as they
arise.
Federal and provincial ministers of agriculture expect to
receive the committee's report in July. The goal of this
government is a safety net program that is GATT consistent,
market neutral, financially sound, affordable, effective and
understandable. Our policy framework involves decisions on
WGTA before the 1995 crop year, continued implementation of
the regulatory review over the next year, overseen by the
industry based advisory committee, a negotiated settlement in
our trade dispute with the U.S. before the section 28 deadline in
July but only if the settlement is a good deal for Canada, and
finally whole farm safety nets for the 1995-96 year with
companion programs if necessary. The committee of producer
representatives and federal and provincial governments will
work together toward this goal.
(1645)
These are the means we have established to achieve our goals
and the timeframes we have set. On this basis the minister has
asked representatives of the grain companies, railways, grain
handling labour unions and government agencies to a meeting in
Winnipeg on May 16.
We must move immediately to re-establish Canada's
reputation as a reliable supplier of export grains and oilseeds. It
is critical that the people who own and run the system come
together now to set their collective sights on the next five or ten
years.
Before we make decisions today we must ask ourselves what
kind of a grain marketing system is needed for a competitive
tomorrow.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to join with other members in this debate on the
challenges facing Canadian agriculture and some of the
alternative approaches to resolving those challenges.
In doing so I want to begin like other members by
acknowledging and stressing the importance of the agricultural
sector to
4151
Canada's future. Agriculture is important because we all have to
eat, because of its contributions to GNP and the balance of
payments and because, as others have pointed out, it is the
economic underpinnings of most of rural Canada.
However, there is another reason why agriculture is
important. It is because it is a primary resource industry in full
transition, a transition which if successfully accomplished, has
lessons to teach every other primary resource sector.
In other words I believe there is an old agriculture based on
old trading patterns, old financing methods, old marketing
techniques, old relationships with governments that are passing
away. There is a new agriculture that is more knowledge based,
more market oriented and more internationally competitive that
is struggling to be born.
This challenge of transition faces all our primary industries:
forestry, mining, energy and the fisheries. However, if we can
pioneer and find adjustment strategies to guide the transition of
agriculture from the old to the new, I am convinced that many of
these solutions will have application to other primary sectors as
well.
I want to suggest therefore that the acid test of the
government's agricultural policy and the acid test of the
agricultural platforms of the Bloc and ourselves should be how
well do these facilitate the transition of the old agriculture to the
new. Do these policies and platforms provide adequate bridges
whereby farmers and agri-business people can pass over from
the old agriculture to the new? This is the standard by which we
ought to judge both government policy and opposition
alternatives.
I should add that this need for transition policy or bridge
policy in agriculture has been repeatedly drawn to my attention,
not just by theorists but by farmers themselves.
In the spring of 1993 prior to the federal election I received a
letter from a Saskatchewan farmer in which he wrote these
words:
We feel like we are on an economic island, isolated from the economic
mainland and opportunities to make a decent living, isolated by trade wars at
depressed prices, marketing systems we can't control, inefficient transportation
systems, safety nets that don't work well and ever-increasing taxes and input
costs. What we desperately need are bridges over troubled waters, bridges that
lead to a better economic future.
What then are some of the key questions that will allow us to
test whether government policy will truly assist farmers to
participate in the agricultural economy of the future? Let me
discuss three of them.
First, does the government's policy provide any prospect of
tax relief for farmers or at least a reduction in the tax component
of input costs?
(1650 )
Measured by this standard the government is not getting off
on the right track. Its general budgetary policy is to spend $40
billion more this year than it takes in or $110 million more a day
than it collects in tax revenues. Farmers know that these levels
of expenditure mean that taxation levels are likely to rise, that
the tax component of input costs will rise, and that the cost of
money as measured by the interest rate is also likely to rise.
To date I have not heard from the minister or from government
members. I have not heard them in the forefront of demanding
deeper spending reductions that would lead to tax reductions for
their agricultural constituents.
We have even heard from some Bloc members in this debate
who seem to think that the answer to the problems of the
agriculture industry, and presumably other industries, is still to
spend yet more government money on additional or enhanced
programs.
Spending more taxpayers' money is not the answer to any
industry's problem. In contrast, Reformers continue to call for
reduced federal expenditures.
It is our conviction that the single greatest thing that the
federal government can do to stimulate agricultural recovery in
the context of freer trade is to simply get the cost of government
down to the point where this is reflected in lower taxation levels,
a lower cost of living and a lower cost of doing business for
Canadian farmers.
We even believe that the agriculture sector could be
persuaded to take less by way of program expenditures if it
could be assured that every other industrial sector would do the
same thing to the point where there is an absolute reduction in
the cost of doing business for all of us.
A second question for testing the relevance of agricultural
policy is does that policy reduce or maintain the dependence of
the agricultural sector on government.
During the years when government involvement in
agriculture was considered to be the solution to every problem,
we witnessed enormous growth in provincial programs and
regulations, federal programs and regulations, and the overlap
between the two. To date we see very little in government
initiatives to reduce the dependence of agriculture on those
programs in concrete terms.
For example I have not heard, but perhaps I missed it, the
minister call for a clear definition of the responsibilities of the
private agricultural sector, the provincial departments and the
federal departments so as to eliminate excessive overlap and
regulation.
Moreover it appears from the current budget and the estimates
of the agriculture department that it intends to keep in place the
dozen or so income support programs maintained or instituted
4152
by previous governments including crop insurance, revenue
insurance, net income assistance, loan guarantees, livestock
feed development initiatives, assistance to agri-food
producers, cash flow enhancement programs, western grain
transportation subsidies, the dairy commission subsidy and so
on.
Reformers on the other hand call for a phased clear-cut
reduction in the dependence of the agricultural sector on both
levels of government.
We believe it is the private agricultural sector which should
have the right and responsibility to make the vast majority of
agricultural production, transportation and marketing decisions.
We believe the primary role of the provinces is in the
maintenance and development of the human and physical
resource base of the industry, education and training for the
farmer of the future and preservation of the soil.
We believe that the primary responsibility of the federal
government lies in the maintenance of health and product safety
standards for agriculture, the negotiation of international trade
agreements, the enforcement of import and anti-combines
regulations, and the operation of national income maintenance
programs as long as these are necessary.
In order to further reduce agricultural dependence on
government and excessive regulations, Reformers advocate the
consolidation of the current plethora of income support
programs into three. These have been mentioned by my
colleagues.
They include, first, an expanded crop insurance program to
protect agricultural producers from natural hazards. Second is a
trade distortion adjustment program to shield at least partially
agricultural producers from foreign subsidy injury. A third
question for testing the soundness of agricultural policy is does
government policy respect and enhance the farmer's freedom of
choice, the right of the farmer himself or herself to make those
production, transportation and marketing decisions upon which
the success or failure of the farm unit depends?
(1655)
On this question of freedom of choice, we see a hesitancy on
the part of the government. It is the same hesitancy evidenced by
the government when it is asked to experiment with more direct
methods of democratic decision making in other areas, like
using referendums to establish the legitimacy of aboriginal
self-government in Manitoba, to give Canadians a say on
criminal justice issues like capital punishment or to democratize
the Senate.
Reformers advocate greater democratization of economic
decision-making in agriculture. We believe the present
government appointment system for the Canadian Wheat Board
should be replaced by a board of directors elected by producers
through a fair and democratic process.
In order for grain producers to benefit from every available
market opportunity we believe that producers should be given
the opportunity to democratically examine their organizational
and jurisdictional options. This would include introducing
greater domestic and international market competition;
permitting the wheat board to trade in grains and oilseeds;
allowing the purchase of wheat and other grains on either a cash
basis or a pooled initial final price basis and implementing
special opting out provisions for entrepreneurs interested in
developing better export markets.
The net effect of all these reforms is to increase the freedom
of choice for the Canadian farmer with respect to production,
transportation and marketing decisions affecting their own
future.
I want to conclude by raising one further question which is on
the minds of almost every farm family in Canada when they
think of the future and any government policy that is intended to
help them prepare for that future. That is the question whether
government policies or alternatives offered by the opposition
provide any genuine basis for hope for a better economic future
for Canadian farmers and their children.
I personally believe that there are reasons for hope for the
Canadian farmer, that bridges can be built between the faltering
agricultural economy of the past and the new agricultural
economy of the 21st century, over which the majority of our
farm people can pass.
There will always be a growing market for food even though it
may be badly distorted and obscured by everything from
government trade wars to private monopolies. What we must do
is figure out how to access our fair share of that changing
market, which is what building the bridges of marketing, safety
net and transportation system reform is all about.
The world is slowly lurching toward more liberal trade
including freer trade in agricultural products. The signing of
CUSTA, NAFTA and the GATT agreements are good and
hopeful signs. What we need to do is hold our trading partners to
the spirit and the letter of these agreements and not let them or
ourselves slip back into the old world of protectionism.
We also need to build bridges which will enable our producers
to survive the transition from a heavily subsidized agricultural
sector to a less subsidized one, which is what our safety net
reforms and particularly our trade distortion adjustment
program is all about.
In addition, tax relief and a lowering of the cost of doing
business must be offered as the light at the end of the tunnel, to
persuade all our resource and industrial sectors to become less
dependent on government. It is up to this Parliament to build the
bridges from unbalanced budgets and excessive taxation to
balanced budgets and lower taxation, which is what the Reform
Party's federal spending reforms are all about.
4153
It is up to this generation of Canadian voters and farmers to
build these bridges, not just for ourselves but so that the next
generation, the children of farmers, may enter and prosper in the
new agricultural economy.
I conclude with this. In the 1920s and 1930s, in the heyday of
agricultural reform in this country led by the old progressive
party there was a poem on bridge building that was frequently
read at farm meetings across the country and was often quoted in
the House during the great agricultural debates of that year. It is
a simple poem which eloquently expresses the ultimate reason
for building bridges from the past to the future in any field of
human endeavour, including agriculture. It provides the
ultimate reason for advocating and supporting real agricultural
reform regardless of our politics. I will close by reading it. It
says:
An old man, going a lone highway,
Came at the evening, cold and gray,
To a chasm, vast and deep and wide,
Through which was flowing a sullen tide.
The old man crossed in the twilight dim-
The sullen stream had no fears for him;
But he turned, when he reached the other side,
And built a bridge to span the tide.
``Old man,'' said a fellow pilgrim near,
``You are wasting strength in building here.
Your journey will end with the ending day;
You never again must pass this way.
You have crossed the chasm deep and wide,
Why build you the bridge at the eventide?''
The builder lifted his old grey head.
``Good friend, in the path I have come,''he said,
``There followeth after me today
A youth whose feet must pass this way.
This chasm which has been naught to me
To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be.
He, too, must cross in the twilight dim;
Good friend, I am building the bridge for him.''
(1700)
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
intent because being on the agriculture committee I have been
amazed at the contradictions within the Reform Party
agricultural policy. As I listened to the leader of the Reform
Party I am still struck that it is cut, cut, cut, regardless of the
consequences.
What does phased clear-cut reduction mean? Can he be more
specific than that? Where does the Reform Party really stand
with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board and supply
management?
You talk about opening up the board to allow basically off
board grain to be sold and grain to sold through the pooling
system as well. Do you not realize that that works in-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would like to
remind the hon. member to put his question through the Speaker
please.
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, so noted.
I want to point out that maybe there is something that the
Reform members have not learned, and it is that when you set up
that kind of system the lowest seller sets the price. The last thing
we want to see is Canadians competing against each other in
international markets. The Canadian Wheat Board, and as we
have seen with the barley experiment, has shown that it is a good
seller, that it achieves success in terms of selling and maximizes
that return back to producers.
Just where does the Reform Party stand relative to the
Canadian Wheat Board and to the supply management system?
Mr. Manning: I want to thank the hon. member for his
question.
I thought I had made myself fairly clear with respect to the
Canadian Wheat Board. What we are saying is democratize the
way the Wheat Board is organized and makes decisions. We
consider that more important than particular questions about
what decisions the Wheat Board makes. We are prepared to live
with the decisions that are made if you democratize the board.
With respect to the member's comments that he sees
something contradictory in what the Reform Party is
advocating, I do want to say that what we are talking about is the
trend or shift in direction. We are not talking about going from a
very heavy dependency on government and subsidies all the way
to no government, no subsidies, overnight. We are talking about
a shift in direction. We argue that it is not a contradiction. It is
clear the direction in which we would like to shift things. We can
argue about the scope.
I would suggest that if he thinks that is somehow a
contradiction, what we wonder about is the contradiction where
before the election we had Liberals fighting free trade and
fighting any change in the supply management system at all, and
then six months after advocating a completely different
position. If we are guilty of contradictions, we suggest there are
others who are even more guilty.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the
leader of the Reform Party.
I was interested in his comments in so far as they related to
grain transportation and the impact of market forces on grain
transportation.
The hon. member will know that before the 1980s the railway
companies could quite legitimately complain that the regime
existing at that time did not compensate them for the movement
of grain. Accordingly government moved in to pick up the slack
and did so by buying hopper cars, rebuilding prairie branch lines
and a whole range of other things. With the WGTA coming into
effect in the early 1980s it effectively provided for a full
compensatory position in terms of the railways.
(1705)
Now that we have passed through the end of the eighties and
into the nineties, despite the fact that under the WGTA the
railways have been fully compensated and they do not have their
old complaints about shortfalls, we have seen very little, if any,
investment in hopper cars, very little, if any, investment in
infrastructure like prairie roadbeds and so forth. This year we
4154
have a horrendous problem with the levels of service that have
been provided.
In terms of the philosophical position that the leader of the
Reform Party takes, I wonder how he sees in future market
forces being a sufficient discipline on the grain transportation
system to ensure that those agents that operate in the system,
even though they are being fully paid for their services, are not
in fact providing the services in some cases for which they are
being paid.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
I think that whenever you see a demand for a service as he
suggests exists in the grain transportation field not being
adequately provided, what that is telling you is that you do not
really have a proper market operating; that there is still either
too much regulation, or monopoly framework or
semi-monopoly framework because supply is not responding to
demand.
I suggest that what that means is you have to go to further
deregulation and that freight rates ultimately should be set by
market forces. This is what we advocate.
The minister will also notice that in our safety net reforms we
argue taking away the funds that are currently used to subsidize
the railways under the Western Grain Transportation Act, and
channelling them into one of these three income support
programs, in particular the expanded NISA.
We think that provides a measure of protection to the producer
over the changes which market transportation rates would
provide. It is also a mechanism of helping the producer that
would be GATT green. That is our view on how you employ
more market forces to solve the transportation problem and still
provide a measure of transitory protection to the producer.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
also was extremely impressed by the speech of the leader of the
Reform Party.
I sat on the subcommittee on transport and agriculture and
was amazed at the problems of grain transportation in the west.
In fact the problems are critical for grain for the western
economy.
I was curious to ask the Reform Party leader what suggestions
he might have in regard to improving the system.
Mr. Manning: I guess I would just reiterate the remarks I
made to the minister.
Our view is that further deregulation and greater reliance on
market forces is ultimately the best solution to the
transportation problems of agriculture in the west. Many of the
reforms that we advocate would move us in that direction,
although not all at once.
The other thing I would like to comment on, because I have
listened to the speeches made by the Bloc members, is this
comparison between government subsidization of agriculture in
the west and government subsidization of agriculture in Quebec,
the implication being that Quebec is not getting its fair share.
I really do suggest that what the Bloc members have been
doing is comparing apples and oranges, or to use an agricultural
analogy, Herefords and Holsteins. In the west, our agriculture is
essentially serving and competing in an international market,
particularly the international grain market where it is subject to
all these tariff or subsidy wars and it is being subsidized by the
taxpayer.
Quebec to a much greater extent is competing more in a
domestic market and the subsidization is being provided by the
consumer. I suggest if you add up subsidies, not just subsidies
from government but subsidies in general, you will find that the
subsidization levels in Quebec and the subsidization levels in
the west are a lot closer than the Bloc member suggests.
(1710)
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure today to
join in this important debate on agriculture and the agri-food-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. We still have a
little time left for questions and comments. I thought the
member was seeking the floor for questions or comments.
Before I resume debate, were there any other questions or
comments?
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment. The leader of the
Reform Party read a poem that talked about our understanding
where the shift is leading us.
Members should understand where this shift is leading us,
what this absolute sacrifice of power to the marketplace really
means and how it affects us. I will read a two-line quote: ``One
of the key characteristics of a market society is that it isolates us
as individuals. From a market point of view, there is no such
thing as society. There are only individuals and markets.
Families are only units of consumption based on economies of
scale. Communities are only places where individuals come
together to engage in economic activity''.
That is not the kind of community and society I want to live in.
I would suggest that the Reform Party policy that is looking at
shifting in that direction is not the society we want to be a part
of.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not give the
source of that quotation but it sounded like Karl Marx. I would
argue that that philosophy is in disrepute the world over.
The other thing I point out to the member is that it has been
under the heavy government involvement, government
subsidization pattern that we have had for the last 30 or 40 years
that
4155
has seen the destruction of rural community after rural
community all across Canada, and particularly in the west.
Whatever we were doing before, I argue that it is the last thing
we should continue to do if our number one priority is the
preservation of the rural community. The reforms that we are
advocating are a step toward a revitalization of rural Canada on
the basis of market principle.
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, on a point of information, I should
have attributed the source. The source is Christopher Lynn, a
minister in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): That concludes the time
for questions and comments.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, as
you can tell I am anxious to speak in this debate, however I am
glad I did not prevent the interesting exchange we just heard
between my colleague and the leader of the Reform Party.
First let me congratulate the minister in opening this
important topic to a full debate of all parties in the House. My
riding of London-Middlesex is 20 per cent agricultural and
that 20 per cent encompasses four townships of some of the best
farming land in southern Ontario.
It is important to me that my constituents have their views
represented. They well know that the spinoff value of
agriculture in economic activity is something in the order of
four to one. This is a fact that is not appreciated enough by urban
Canadians, just how important agriculture and the agri-food
industry is to the country.
Our party in the red book spoke about making food and the
production of food a matter of national security. That is a
commitment that our government and our minister fully intend
to live up to. I intend to help make sure that it does take place.
As Canadians, we know that we have the safest food in the
world at a very affordable cost. Many of us who are more urban
Canadians do not fully appreciate that fact. It is time that we did
so whatever part of the country we happen to live in.
Earlier I heard the speech of the leader of the Reform Party. I
enjoyed it but I would take issue with one important point
because it is something that has been brought home to me by my
constituents. That is the question of article XI of the GATT.
(1715 )
Our party during the election made the commitment very
clearly, and I know this because I spoke to it a number of times
in the campaign, that we would do everything within our power
as a government if we were elected to ensure that article XI was
maintained.
It just was not there for that to happen. In case there are any
members opposite who forgot the vote let me remind them that
when the actual push came to shove and it came time to vote on
article XI, the vote was 115 against and 1 country for, that
country being Canada.
An elected government can do no more. A member of
Parliament can do no more. We have heard this repeatedly from
the members in the Reform Party. You can do no more than stand
and cast your vote and be counted on what you feel is important.
I intend to do that on some issues like euthanasia when the free
vote comes on that. I intend to do it based on my conscience and
discussions with my constituents, but in my case based on my
conscience because I believe that is how one ought to cast his
vote.
I am drifting into another important but somewhat off the
topic at this point.
The point I am making is that when you cast your vote as an
individual member of Parliament or as a government in an
international forum, that is the ultimate that you can do to back
up your position. This country stood absolutely alone in trying
to maintain article XI at GATT so I take some exception with the
leader of the Reform Party in saying that we were not consistent
on that. That is not exactly what he said but that is the
implication I drew from his comments.
Agriculture is of national importance to Canada from coast to
coast to coast. We know that it is. If Canadians are not involved
in the production of food they are certainly involved in the
consumption of it. There is no Canadian in this country who can
look at the agriculture and agri-food sector with indifference. If
they do then they are displaying an ignorance that I think we
ought to address.
What I would like to do, given the national importance of
agriculture, is to overview briefly on a regional basis the
importance of this particular activity. In B.C. the agri-food
sector is a small but stable component of the provincial
economy contributing just over 2 per cent of the province's GDP
in 1992 and almost 6 per cent of Canada's agri-food GDP. With
its proximity to the Pacific Ocean obviously the sector is firmly
focused on the Asian marketplace where it is beginning to have
considerable export success.
In order of importance, the major sectors of the British
Columbia agricultural industry are dairy, poultry, eggs, cattle
and calves, horticulture, grains and oilseeds.
The prairies, which many of us have had the opportunity to
visit and marvel at the wave after wave undulating prairie with
the fine grain that we see produced there, is now beginning to
diversify into new primary and processed products and is
finding new customers for its exports.
In 1992 the prairie provinces contributed more than 30 per
cent of Canada's agri-food GDP.
4156
I might digress at this point and make the point that I intend to
share my time with my colleague, the hon. member for
Huron-Bruce. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will remind me when
my time has run out.
In Alberta the agri-food sector is the major renewable
resource industry in the province contributing nearly 6 per cent
of the province's GDP in 1992. The southern area of Alberta
produces the most hot season crops and has the majority of beef
lots. The central area has cow-calf operations, hogs, dairy,
grains and oilseeds and the northern Peace River district, which
I would like to visit, has livestock and grain and is noted for
forage seed and honey production.
In Manitoba the agri-food sector contributed some 6.4 per
cent of the provincial GDP in 1992. Wheat and barley
traditionally constitute two-thirds of farm cash receipts in the
province while other major crops include canola, flax and
sunflower. As well the soil and climate accommodate the
production of a variety of special crops such as buckwheat,
sugar beets and potatoes.
Manitoba also as we know has a substantial red meat industry
which constitutes about 25 per cent of the value of agriculture
production in the province. It has a dynamic food processing
sector which in 1991 accounted for almost 27 per cent of the
value of all manufacturing shipments from Manitoba.
(1720)
Some 39,000 people were employed in primary agriculture
production in 1991, about 8 per cent of the province's total
workforce, while an additional 21,000 people were employed in
related industries, hence reinforcing as I said at the beginning of
my remarks the spinoff value of agriculture and the agri-food
sector.
Turning to my own area of central Canada, Ontario and
Quebec's agri-food sectors contributed about 55 per cent of
Canada's agri-food GDP in 1992. The region ships primary and
processed products to the rest of Canada and the United States
and has some highly successful processing firms that have
become multinationals with plants around the world. In 1992
agri-food production constituted 4 per cent of Ontario's GDP
and about 4.3 per cent of Quebec's.
My home province of Ontario is the top agri-food producing
province in Canada with more than 588,000 people employed in
the industry in 1992. Livestock and livestock products
accounted for 59 per cent of farm cash receipts in the province in
1991 and crops such as grains, oilseeds, soybeans, dried beans,
corn and tobacco accounted for some 36 per cent.
As well, much of Canada's food processing occurs in the
province of Ontario. Ontario accounted for 35 per cent of all
shipments from Canadian food and beverage manufacturing
industries in 1991.
In Quebec the dairy industry is the largest component of
agricultural production, producing over 38 per cent of Canada's
milk output in 1991. As well, Quebec accounted for 32 per cent
of all Canadian pork production that year.
Poultry, horticulture and beef are also very important
components of this sector. The province has more than 1,000
processing plants which shipped more than $11 billion worth of
products in 1991.
Agriculture and Agri-food Canada employs about 2,600
full-time employees in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. No
part of Canada has a greater variety of agri-food product than
the province of Ontario. That is very easily reflected in my area
of southwestern Ontario and in my riding of
London-Middlesex.
My colleague from Huron-Bruce who will speak following
me can certainly attest to the diversity of agriculture in
southwestern Ontario.
In Atlantic Canada, and there are members in this House much
more knowledgeable about Atlantic Canada than I, 6 per cent of
Canadian agri-food GDP in 1992 was produced. The region's
biggest agri-food market is the United States but there are also
successes in the Caribbean and in Europe.
In New Brunswick the agri-food sector contributed about 4.7
per cent of the provincial GDP in 1992 with dairy representing
the most valuable agricultural commodity, followed closely by
potatoes at $54 million.
In Nova Scotia agri-food production contributed about 4 per
cent to the province's GDP.
In Prince Edward Island, where the agricultural sector has
long been the mainstay of the provincial economy, about 7.8 per
cent of the provincial GDP was contributed by the agri-food
sector in 1992, not including food and beverage processing. Can
there be any eastern Canadian or western Canadian who is not
familiar with the famous songs of Stompin' Tom Connors
immortalizing the potatoes from Prince Edward Island.
In Newfoundland agri-food production contributed about 2.8
per cent of the provincial GDP in 1992. Some 83 per cent of farm
cash receipts came from livestock operations and 17 per cent
from the production of vegetables and other crops. The majority
of the province's agri-food production is in the processing
industry however. Of the 293 agri-food processing businesses in
the province in 1992 half were engaged in the meat and meat
products sector. The bread and baking products sector was the
next largest at 36 per cent followed by poultry and then fruit and
vegetable processing.
Agriculture and agri-food Canada has about 820 employees
working in Atlantic Canada.
4157
It is quite clear to me as an urban Canadian from southwestern
Ontario and increasingly more so as a member of Parliament just
how vital the agri-food industry is to this country.
(1725 )
When seeking nomination and because I come from an urban
background, I formed an agricultural advisory committee in my
riding, making sure that the different parts of the riding and
different sectors of the agri-food industry were represented.
This obviously led to an increased knowledge of agriculture in
Canada on my part. But as the old saying goes, the more you
learn the more you understand you have to learn about anything
in life. That certainly applies to agriculture.
I commend the people who served and continue to serve on
that committee and who keep me informed as a member of
Parliament from an urban background about the issues, the
needs and the concerns of Canadian farmers.
It would be a sad day when we could not go into our farmlands
and see the family farm still in existence. That is a very real
concern I have come to share with the constituents I represent.
There is tremendous stress and strain on the family farm. I
believe this government will do everything possible to make
sure that a young farmer who wishes to follow in his or her
parents footsteps and continue to farm will be able to do so.
It is a key drive of this government to make sure that those
Canadians who wish to work are able to work. That must include
agriculture. It will be a sad day when my cousins, some of whom
do farm, cannot continue to do that because the family farm has
become obsolete or simply impossible to manage.
I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate today. It is a
great privilege to represent farmers in this House of Commons.
As I said, I will continue to speak on agricultural issues, ask
questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food and
make sure that the voices of my constituents are heard.
In closing on a related note, I hope that my colleagues in the
Reform Party will perhaps reflect on this. One of the objections
in southwestern Ontario to the proposed redistribution, not of
members of Parliament but of individual ordinary Canadians,
farmers living in southwestern Ontario, was that the proposed
redistribution was going to represent a reduction in
representation in the House of Commons for rural southern
Ontario. They want to see the maximum possible voice for their
concerns in the House of Commons. Those farmers in my riding
who represent 20 per cent of my constituency do not want to see
my riding become totally urban and their voice therefore
reduced.
I am not sure that is appreciated by all members in various
parts of the House who are not familiar with rural Ontario. I
thought it was important to share that.
I appreciate the opportunity and I will listen very carefully to
the rest of the debate.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member on his address and the sincerity of his
remarks.
I come back to his references to Article XI and the Liberal
Party's defence of it. My question is really this. Would the
member not acknowledge that this is a classic case of
politicians, and in this case even the government because the
government took a similar position, sending producers precisely
the wrong signal at the wrong time?
What the market was saying to supply management people
during the GATT negotiation was that this particular approach to
protecting supply management was not going to last. The
consumers would not pay the shot. Consumers were saying that
in other ways in Canada by going across the border and buying
supply managed products.
Would not the more responsible thing have been to say to
supply management people: ``Look, this system cannot be
maintained the way it is now. It is going to have to be changed
and we are going to have to find some other way to provide you
with financial security'', which is what we tried to do by making
supply management people eligible for an expanded NISA.
In other words, does the party's and the government's
experience with the article XI business not illustrate precisely
that too much politics, too much government sends the wrong
signals to producers and we would be better to withdraw
politicians and government from any area where they can send
those signals to producers and end up misleading them rather
than leading them in the right direction?
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the Reform
Party for his compliments and for his question. Perhaps I
misunderstood his earlier speech, but I was taking issue with the
suggestion that there was some sort of an inconsistency with the
pre-election or the election position of our party on article XI
and what we actually did once elected. I do not think there was
any inconsistency whatsoever when we voted and stood alone in
the world on article XI.
However one sees article XI and the efficacy of it, I was
wanting to reinforce the fact that we were very consistent on
how we dealt with that important clause of GATT after elected
and what we had said prior to the election.
I will comment briefly on the Reform leader's points which
almost amounted to depoliticizing the agri-food industry. While
I applaud that sentiment I am not sure, knowing the farmers I do
in my riding, I have never met more political people, people
more attuned to what is going on in the country politically and
determined to influence the system obviously to their advantage
as Canadians, as we all seek to use the system to the advantage
of our families and our country in general. I do not think we are
going to see a day when governments are not involved in the
agri-food decision making process. The process is political by
nature, as I see it.
4158
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m. the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4158
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of developing regulations and a program to replace dioxin
producing bleaching processes in pulp and paper mills in Canada and at the
same time launching immediately a campaign to educate the public about the
advantages offered by non-bleached paper products.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion has two purposes. One is to
gently but firmly remind the government with respect to pulp
and paper companies and the activities of the pulp and paper
industry that there is a pollution problem which needs to be
addressed. Second, it is desirable to launch a program of
advocacy with Canadians to see whether there is acceptance
among the users of paper of all kinds, from writing paper, to
pads, to toilet paper, that it is not bleached and therefore not
subjected to rough chemical treatments.
Obviously this question could be considerably resolved if the
purchasing trends of consumers were to change and shift from
bleached to non-bleached products. It is a question that every
consumer asks when walking by shelves in our supermarkets.
The background to the motion is simple. We have a very
important pulp and paper industry. It is a major contributor to
Canada's economy. It helps considerably to maintain a positive
trade balance. At the same time, however, the industry is the
largest industrial user of water in Canada and it is a major source
of pollution.
It is estimated that pulp and paper mills in Canada are
responsible for roughly 50 per cent of all waste dumped into the
nation's waters and account for approximately 5 per cent to 6 per
cent of the common air contaminants from known industrial
sources.
(1735 )
Because of the livelihood of many families, because of the
economic importance of the industry, because of the interests of
shareholders in this industry, and because of the growing desire
to behave as good environmental citizens on the part of
Canadians, I am sure it is in our long term interest to develop
measures that will improve the image of the industry at home
and abroad and therefore secure the livelihood of the families
dependent on the industry.
We are informed by the Chlorine Institute of North America
that pulp and paper bleaching accounts for 14 per cent of
chlorine use in North America. The use of chlorine and its
compounds as bleaching agents results in the discharge of some
very damaging and poisonous substances. By that I mean
dioxins, furans, chloroform and other toxic materials.
The problem with chlorine is that it has an impact on the
environment and human health. We know that chlorine is useful
as a disinfectant. It is useful in many industrial activities. There
is no doubt about that. There are also many negative effects.
When chlorine is used in pulp and paper manufacturing
processes the byproducts include such toxic substances such as
dioxins, furans and PCBs. These elements are known to be
persistent in the environment. They have found their way into
the food chain and human tissue. They have been the subject of a
number of recommendations in recent years by the International
Joint Commission.
A number of health problems are associated with
organochlorines and mounting evidence indicates that some
organochlorines can cause not only cancer but reproductive
dysfunctions, endocrine disruptions, developmental
impairments and immunological effects.
At the present time we must say in assessing the situation that
in recent times there has been a reduction in the use of chlorine
in pulp and paper by the industry due mostly to modernization of
the industry. We welcome that. Many plants are shifting away
from the use of elemental chlorine or chlorine gas to the use of
chlorine dioxide which results in a sharp decrease in the
production of organochlorines and a reduction in the amount of
dioxins associated with bleaching. However chlorine dioxide
discharges contain large amounts of chlorate which is a very
powerful herbicide.
We must raise the question as to whether this change or this
shift is good enough. That question is followed by another one:
Are there alternatives? Alternatives do exist. Also there is
resistance to these alternatives. There is ozone bleaching,
hydrogen peroxide and oxygen pre-bleaching.
These various approaches are now the objects of examination
at the research level, but they would be extremely desirable as
alternative approaches. They are a bit more expensive than
chlorine and chlorine dioxide. They provide not only cleaner
alternatives but involve less cost in the long run. The basic
concept that has to be advanced in this debate is that it is going to
be less costly in the long run if this is seen as an issue that will
affect more than just one generation.
The present regulatory situation raises a question as to
whether it is good enough. Regulations for pulp and paper were
passed in May 1992 and were intended primarily to control
conventional pollutants from mills. No assessment of the
potential harm to human health by effluents from pulp and paper
has been conducted because it is not required under the Fisheries
Act.
4159
(1740)
The regulations control only two members of the family of
chlorinated dioxins and furans. There are many family
members. These are highly toxic because when they enter the
environment in quantities they have immediate and long term
harmful effects and constitute a danger to human health.
In his report in 1993 the auditor general informed Canadians
that the Department of the Environment had not explained why
it had not regulated dioxins and furans according to total
toxicity. One province has done so. That is the province of
Quebec. Maybe others have followed suit.
These regulations do not address directly the pulp and paper
sludge or air emissions because they are not under the scope of
the fisheries act. Nor do the conventional pollution regulations
deal with effects on the environment in general or on human
health. Further the environmental effects monitoring program,
which is to be the main method of assessing the effectiveness of
regulations, does not assess the effects on the environment and
human health for the same reasons.
Next, the auditor general pointed out that the implementation
of some of the new regulations had actually afforded mills that
met regulatory requirements with some protection by allowing
discharge of prescribed amounts under specific conditions. This
is a very tricky situation.
The auditor general reported that incomplete information was
provided on the effectiveness and cost of pulp and paper
regulations. Apparently, while the federal regulations authorize
the government to require mills to provide data on dioxins and
furans in intermediate flows and in pulp and paper sludge at the
mill, not much has happened.
The auditor general also pointed out that of 97 mills not in
compliance at the end of December 1992, 91 mills were granted
permission to continue polluting at preregulation levels until the
end of 1993. All companies that tabled plans by the end of 1993
have been given an extension to the end of 1995.
The auditor general stated in his report that if these extensions
were granted the mid-term effectiveness of the regulations
would be quite questionable. In other words, why have
regulations if extension after extension is granted? It is my
understanding that 26 mills were granted extension until
January 1994 to the dioxin and furans regulations.
We are dealing with a serious situation. I am sure that the
parliamentary secretary or other members will address it in their
interventions later.
In conclusion, one has to raise a basic, elementary question:
Does paper need to be white? Is it really that important? In some
countries paper of different colours is used. I do not want to go
into shades of brown or grey, but the preoccupation or almost
obsession with chlorine white does not exist in many other
cultures. We seem to adhere to that very firmly, I suppose
because the appearance is so attractive. Does it really have to be
that way once we connect in our way of thinking to the fact that
the use of chlorine which is necessary to have white paper is
harmful to the environment in the long term and affects the
ecosystem? That also leaves much to be desired because it can
also have negative impacts on human health.
(1745)
Do we need bleaching? Is it necessary to have white paper
from toilet paper to writing paper? What is needed to do that? I
suggest that if the appearance of our paper is not that important
perhaps we could achieve a change in attitude and in consumer
demand at the purchasing level of the individual consumer by a
program of advocacy.
I would suggest that ways must be found to convey to the
public the benefits of non-bleached paper. We need
comprehensive education, if you like. We need to inform the
public of the merits of unbleached paper.
Industry perhaps argues that there is no demand for chlorine
free paper and it may be right. Yet through education and
advocacy about the desirability of using non-bleached paper we
might witness a change in demand in a very short time.
I am reminded in that respect and you are also, Mr. Speaker, I
am sure, to what happened in the 1970s when we did switch from
phosphate detergents to non-phosphate detergents when the
public became seriously preoccupied with eutrophication both
in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie in particular.
Therefore, an education campaign would perhaps rely on
groups with experience in public education and grassroots
awareness building so as to provide a vehicle to convey this
message. There are many people I am sure who could be
instrumental in an effective campaign Environment Canada
could enlist their help. It seems to me that it is the responsibility
of Environment Canada to initiate this process as it has done so
successfully with other public advocacy programs.
To conclude, there is the government procurement process.
Here the government could set the tone and the pace by
determining what it buys when it comes to paper. If the
Government of Canada were to switch from bleached to
non-bleached procurements and buy the non-bleached paper it
would make an enormous difference. We know the quantities
that are being ordered. All the paper products used by
government depart-
4160
ments if non-bleached could become a very important trigger
and start a new trend in favour of products that are
environmentally friendly, namely non-bleached recycled paper
products.
It seems to me therefore that it is reasonable to raise this
matter in the House of Commons at this point to assess the
situation we are in at the present time. We are perhaps at the mid
point between the very unsatisfactory situation in the 1980s. We
are certainly moving the right direction but we have to
accelerate that process. We have to ensure that the industry does
not become the object of trade retaliation abroad initiated by
environmental movements as we have seen in other industrial
sectors.
Maybe rather than being motivated by negative reasons we
should be motivated by positive ones, namely by the desire of
not only protecting the environment through our industrial
activities but also to practice the concept of sustainable
development which is a key chapter in the red book entitled
``Creating Opportunities''. Sustainable development means that
we are heading for times in which we will need to integrate
environmental with economic decisions.
(1750)
Evidently the pulp and paper industry cannot exempt itself
from this emerging trend. It is a desirable one because it has, as I
mentioned, positive repercussions not only in terms of
environmental protection but also on human health and it is
therefore important that we bring all these concepts together on
the floor of the House of Commons for further deliberation and
hopefully for the advancement of the cause of a well managed
and well protected environment with the long term interests of
the economy in mind.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on the motion tabled by the
hon. member for Davenport, who is also the chairman of the
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development.
I am always impressed by the hon. member's appropriate and
honest comments, which reflect a genuine concern for the
protection of our environment.
Quebec and Canada must make a sustained effort to control
the overconsumption of goods and services. The motion tabled
this afternoon must be supported by every member in this
House, since it aims to significantly improve the quality of
water.
The motion is twofold. First, it proposes to develop
regulations and a program to replace dioxin producing
bleaching processes in pulp and paper mills in Canada. Then, it
proposes to launch a campaign to educate the public about the
advantages offered by non-bleached paper products.
The Bloc Quebecois fully agrees with the need to review
regulations on the pulp and paper industry, even though the Pulp
and Paper Mill Effluent Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans
Regulations were passed as recently as May 7, 1992, under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
These regulations, which came into effect on July 1, 1992,
regulate two types of chlorinated dioxins and furans. In fact,
these two substances were the first ones on the list of primary
interest substances to be evaluated in terms of their toxicity.
These regulations were the result of initial action taken by the
government under the Green Plan to limit industrial pollution.
These regulations are particularly important, especially since
the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations which were passed at
the same time are related to the Fisheries Act which does not
require an evaluation of the possible dangers of effluents to
human health. Consequently, I think it is essential that the
regulations on chlorinated dioxins and furans provide us with
means to protect the health of every human being.
However, the issue of regulations in the pulp and paper
industry is very complex. This industry has played an important
role in our economy for a long time now. Although it has
provided essential financial support, the pulp industry has also
long been an important source of pollution.
(1755)
Even though we still have a long way to go, the results
obtained encourage us to continue on this road. Industry
complains when the government forces it to use new equipment
to meet stricter standards.
Let me remind you here that when a regulation is passed
forcing a company to incur expenses to meet a new standard, it
can reduce its taxable income by deducting a capital cost
allowance and operating expenses from its profits.
However, I would like to voice a criticism of my colleague
from Davenport. He has fine qualities, I admit, but he has a
drawback: he is a Liberal. The Conservative government did
some things that were beyond reproach, of course; it did some
things for which it can be criticized, but one thing it did was to
try to put pulp and paper mills on the road to environmental
protection and sustainable development.
The Liberals were elected on October 25 and the House had
not yet started to sit under the new Liberal team when I read in
Le Soleil: ``Domtar has a year to comply with Ottawa's new
green standards''. Now there are about 15 pulp and paper mills
along the St. Lawrence River. Less than three months after they
were elected, the Liberal Party granted the paper mills an
exemption from a regulation that the Conservative government
had passed here in this House.
4161
Let me read you a paragraph or two:
Ottawa has just allowed Domtar to dump into the water until 1996 twice the
amount of pollution that it usually produces at its Beauharnois plant-
-Beauharnois is in Quebec, my friends-
-says the Société pour vaincre la pollution, SVP.
In an interview in Le Soleil, its spokesperson, Daniel Green,
denounced the one-year delay granted yesterday by the federal
government for these facilities to meet the new ``green''
standards.
Similar permission was granted to most of the 60-odd paper
mills in the province.
And water flows downhill. In my riding, close by, in East
Angus, there is a paper mill, and there is one in Windsor. The
waste, following the Saint-François River, flows by
Drummondville and inevitably ends up in the St. Lawrence
River. Nearly all of the 60 paper mills in Quebec have obtained a
waiver from your government, my friends. I have not heard one
of them get up and yell, not one.
I also wish to draw attention to a report that was just made
public by the Quebec Department of the Environment and
Wildlife. It is the annual report on environmental compliance
for the pulp and paper sector, 1992.
The report shows that, while the Quebec pulp and paper
industry probably experienced its worst financial year in 1992,
the percentage of compliance with standards substantially
improved and the quantities of waste discharged also declined
significantly.
To say that financial constraints oblige us to go slow in our
efforts to reduce the use of chlorine is therefore not as true as it
once was.
(1800)
As we recently discovered in reading the seventh biennial
report of the International Joint Commission on Water Quality
in the Great Lakes, the pollution of these bodies of water has a
drastic impact on human health.
These effects, to name only two, include congenital
malformations and learning disabilities. We are no longer
talking about fish. This winter, opposite Trois-Rivières, at
Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, a third of fish in the channels, the
tommy-cod, were blind. A third. But we are no longer talking
about fish, but human beings. Children are born and it is known,
at birth, that they will have a learning difficulty that can be
determined. This is no laughing matter.
When birds were affected, the females laid eggs with shells
that were too thin to ensure reproduction and people said, ``It is
sad about the birds''. But in this case, human beings are
involved. It is estimated that one person in three will develop
some form of cancer at one time or another in his lifetime. One
person in three. And you know where that comes from, cancer,
from carcinogenic agents, including these we are talking about.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I see that my 10 minutes are already nearly
up. I will conclude by saying to the member for Davenport that
the Bloc Quebecois is, of course, in agreement with his private
member's motion. It remains to be seen whether his party will
have the courage of its convictions and go all the way with a bill
that has teeth.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I thank you
for this opportunity to speak to this motion M-100. The Reform
Party and I recognize the importance of the preservation of our
environment for future generations.
A very important part of our mandate as legislators is to
ensure the environmental sustainability of our industries as well
as the fiscal sustainability of our standard of living. These two
goals are very interdependent. The sustainability of our standard
of living very much depends on a healthy strong resource
industry sector.
If we as lawmakers enact such strict environmental
regulations as to make our resource industries uncompetitive in
the world marketplace, then the income from those industries
will not be there to support our high standard of living.
Therefore we must strike a balance between degradation of
our environment and exploitation of our resources for profit.
The phrase now popular for this balance is sustainable
development. We only have to look at third world countries to
see how the environment suffers when human beings must
struggle just to survive.
It is vital that we do not lose our perspective to the agenda of
the environmental movement. It is with this thought in mind that
I am somewhat confused about the introduction of this motion.
Perhaps it has become somewhat clearer after listening to the
previous two speakers but the wording in the motion itself was
somewhat confusing.
Knowing the background and long experience in
environmental matters of the member for Davenport, I assumed
but now know after listening to him that he is aware that under
regulations passed in May 1992 under the Environmental
Protection Act as of January 1994 the presence of dioxins and
furans has been virtually eliminated from the effluent of
Canadian pulp mills. That makes this motion somewhat
redundant.
Thinking that I might be misinformed on the issue, I consulted
the Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries mill in my riding, the Pulp
4162
and Paper Research Institute of Canada and the B.C. Council of
Forest Production. All confirmed that my information is correct.
I also visited the Alpac mill, the largest single line bleach
kraft pulp mill in North America. I found it to be a shining
example of the type of sustainable development we are striving
to achieve.
(1805 )
This mill is producing 1,600 tonnes per day of the highest
quality bleached white pulp, the best in the world, without
producing any measurable dioxins or furan emissions. This mill
also has one of the lowest AOX or organochlorine compound
levels in effluent discharge of any mill in the world.
The effluent treatment plant makes use of a natural organic
activated sludge biological effluent treatment system, if you can
believe that. In this process micro-organisms which occur
naturally in the river are introduced and thrive on the
contaminants in the effluent, much the same process as the
common household septic tank. The effluent is then aerated and
oxygenated. Solids are then settled into large settling ponds. The
clean water then returns to the river and the sludge is removed
and burned in the power boiler.
Air and water emissions from the mill are continually
monitored to meet the most stringent regulations in the world, as
laid out in its operating licence.
The best example I saw of the technology being used is the
large aquarium in the administration area of the mill in which a
number of goldfish are living in pulp mill effluent. The fish
looked healthy and vigorous with no mutations or growth sores
that were visible. They certainly were not the type of horrors we
heard the previous speaker talk about in our rivers and
atmosphere.
I am not for a minute suggesting that the pulp and paper
industry does not deserve its reputation as a major polluter of
our air and water, but let us give credit where credit is due.
Through a combination of much improved technology, public
pressure and government regulation the industry has developed
an environmental conscience as a means of survival in today's
world.
The environmental movement no doubt was a real factor in
this new environmental awareness. We must continue to be
vigilant in monitoring the industry, but let us not let the
pendulum swing too far as this motion might suggest.
We now have the technology to produce high quality bleached
white paper, a product which certainly seems to be in great
demand in this institution, and I notice it on the member's desk
as well. We have the technology to do this without destroying
our environment.
While the industry has eliminated the highly toxic
organochlorine compounds, other non-organic, non-toxic
organochlorine compounds continue to be present in the effluent
streams. We must recognize that many products we consume on
a daily basis, such as many pharmaceutical products and
artificial sweeteners contain organochlorine compounds. As
well we use chlorine in our drinking water and swimming pool
treatment.
Therefore let us not react hysterically and destroy a very
profitable industry which uses a renewable resource formerly
viewed as a trash forest byproduct not suitable for the
production of lumber. Research must continue on options such
as closed recycling systems. That option is nearing reality. It is
certainly one that is being developed in the Alpac system. The
effluent is not pumped back into the river but instead is
recirculated and reused in the mill. These are some options that
we must continue to explore.
We must continue also to examine the other organochlorine
compounds. If they are discovered to be toxic, let us move
swiftly to ban these elements. But let us not destroy a viable
industry that creates much needed jobs and contributes in a big
way through tax dollars to our high standard of living based on a
poorly informed environmental lobby.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Mr.
Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my colleague the hon.
member for Davenport for his respect for the environment and
his tenacity in promoting the cause of the environment over the
years. I do not think his case was hysterical at all. His case was
in very measured tones in fact in contrast to the two speakers
who spoke after him.
Of course I agree we should not be alarmists. At the same time
I think we should be realists. To suggest that all over Canada
pulp mills are not a problem today is to simplify the notion to a
degree where it is not real any more.
I know there are state of the art mills such as Millar Western in
Alberta and Saskatchewan with closed looped technologies
producing zero effluents and zero toxins. They are models for
mills all around the world, but they certainly are not typical of
all the mills in Canada. In my own province of Quebec right up
until a few years ago, the effluents from paper mills were tragic
to the St. Lawrence. That has been the case all over Canada.
(1810)
We recognize very much the economic importance of the pulp
and paper industry. Of course it is our foremost industry. The
accent was put on it by the hon. member for Davenport in saying
that on the contrary we must be proactive in making sure that the
output of the industry is enhanced, that the quality of its
products sell all over the world. It is in that sense the motion was
produced. We have to see it in a proactive light.
In 1992 after tremendous consultations involving
stakeholders from the industry, from environmental groups and
from governments, the Canadian government decided to
produce a comprehensive set of regulations under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act and also under the Fisheries Act.
The regulations mandated that mills would not produce any
more
4163
effluent that resulted in dioxins and furans by 1994. That has
been the case.
However I will correct my colleague, the critic for the Bloc
Quebecois, when he said it was due to the Liberals that
extensions were granted, as they were. I will remind him that the
amendments to the 1992 regulations providing for extensions
were produced by the Conservative government. If members do
not agree with me they can check it and challenge me tomorrow
in Question Period.
What happened was that these amendments to the regulations
were produced so that when mills applied for extensions of time
before December 31, 1995, there was no choice but to grant
these extensions.
I know we have to do better. We have to examine the chlorine
issue very carefully. There has been a change in gaseous
chlorine used in mills in Canada by a 70 per cent decline. Instead
they are choosing chlorine dioxide bleaching which is far less
harmful to the environment. As a result there has been a
dramatic decrease in the effluents producing dioxins and furans.
I will give some figures which are pretty startling. The total
discharges of chlorinated dioxins and furans as measured in
toxic equivalent units discharged from all pulp mills using
chlorine bleaching in Canada has decreased from over 350
grams per year in 1988 to less than 6 grams in mid-1993.
We have to carry on our pursuit for completely dioxin and
furan free effluents, zero discharge effluents, not just at the end
of the pipe effluents but preventive technologies that will
produce closed loop technologies which will stop discharges of
these altogether. Such is the case for Millar Western.
Some very important initiatives are now in progress. First of
all, side effect research is being carried out today by
Environment Canada and other parties. The report of the study
will be completed in a matter of a few months. The study is
examining the effect of chlorine and chlorinated products used
in pulp mills and other manufacturing uses. Also a
memorandum of understanding has just been signed by the
Government of Canada with the Pulp and Paper Research
Institute to try and establish new technologies in closed loop
circuits so that effluents will be completely toxin free.
[Translation]
There is also the St. Lawrence program just signed with
Quebec, which will force all manufacturing companies-there
were 56 of them, including the pulp and paper mills, and now
there are 106-to reduce effluents, which have been reduced by
70 per cent so far, by 90 per cent by 1998. Consequently,
measures are currently being developed. I know we have to
improve what we are doing. This is why I personally and all the
people in the department are closely monitoring what is
happening especially in the United States, where an extensive
study is under way on chlorine and on the steps to be taken to
eliminate dioxin and furan effluents resulting from chlorine.
(1815)
My colleague from Davenport also spoke about health, and I
agree completely with him. This is why the Vision 2000
component of the St. Lawrence action plan-as will also be the
case in Ontario-will include a component on health to measure
the effects on the health of living species and especially humans.
It is essential that we begin to look into the health effects of
toxic effluents, not only from pulp and paper mills, but also
from all plants.
I agree completely with my colleague that what is needed is a
heightened public awareness campaign so that the public can
find out about the environmental impact of a particular product.
[English]
That is the reason for the ecochoice program and I would be
quite happy if most of our paper, certainly the procurement of
the House of Commons to start as an example, were unbleached
paper. Why not start here as an example?
It seems to me that we can also produce good white paper,
bleached so long as it is under closed loop technology or
non-toxic technology, and at the same time use other measures
which eventually people accept.
I use stationery that is brown in colour, so does my colleague,
and I find it receives acceptance today all over the place. Ten
years ago recycled paper was not acceptable. Today it is.
We have to change our ways, our attitudes, find a means for all
of us, including my colleagues over there, including colleagues
from the Bloc Quebecois, to find a certain consensus that yes,
industry has to carry on. It is our bread basket. It is the way we
live and manage to earn our living.
At the same time it has to be done with full respect for the
environment, for the ecosystems, for our biodiversity, for
human health, not only in one place, perhaps in the member's
riding, but all over Canada without regard to where it is or how it
is done.
We may reach it, not tomorrow or the day after, but we have to
set an objective of a toxic free, dioxin and furan free ecosystem
all over Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There being no further
members rising for debate and the motion not being designated
as a votable item the time provided for the consideration of
Private Member's Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 96(1).
4164
[Translation]
Pursuant to order adopted on Friday, May 6, 1994, the House
resumes consideration of the government motion on agriculture.
_____________________________________________
4164
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to be able to stand here this evening and address the issue
of agriculture, something which I am very familiar with.
I am also pleased to have shared this time slot with my
colleague, also my constituency colleague in the fact that he
neighbours to my south and we share in many ways similar
constituencies with the exception that my constituency is totally
agriculture and I do not share the urban aspect that my colleague
from London-Middlesex does.
This evening I want to draw some points that I think have
already been made today. I want to reiterate a number of points.
(1820 )
I think as we go back and look at the February budget we see
included some very tough measures such as cuts for all
government departments including the agricultural department.
Agriculture grants and contributions were cut by 5 per cent.
Because the government was aware and sensitive to the
challenges facing agriculture producers, major safety net
programs, that is GRIP, NISA and the dairy subsidy and crop
insurance programs, were exempt from these cuts.
There are no huge amounts of money for new programs as we
all know and we do not want to create new cumbersome
bureaucracies. Therefore we must work with the farmers to
prioritize our resources and farmers are going to have to decide
what they want the limited moneys to be spent on.
Just this morning a committee of rural people met with the
farmers representing the corn and oilseed industries with regard
to the way they want to see us spend our money in terms of the
advance payment programs. Later on this morning they also met
with the hon. minister. I understand they had a very congenial
meeting.
The agri-food industry is complex and goes far beyond the
farm gate. The system provides Canadians with the safest and
the most nutritious food in the world and let me suggest also at
the most reasonable prices.
We as a government are committed to develop all
opportunities for growth and have placed priority on the security
of the family farm. This priority can only be achieved by
building solid domestic and international markets, staying on
the forefront of innovation and in the concentration on
stewardship of our natural resources-farmers know this
best-soil, the way we revere this ever so important ingredient
in the food chain.
I want to move to the issue of trade. Trade is this country's life
blood. Offshore markets are expanding especially for value
added products. Canada is losing ground to our competitors for a
number of reasons. However, we through the minister, the
parliamentary secretary and the agriculture committee, are
working to reverse this trend. The minister has stated that our
government's policy will be to work with the different industries
to reach a goal of $20 billion of exports by the year 2000. This is
a major increase from the current level of $13 billion.
We are committed to increasing exports and the minister has
told the department to shift its priorities and to increase support
for export initiatives. The potential for export growth in the
agri-food industry falls within value added products. Also key
is the development of new markets in Asia and in Latin America.
There has been created a new market, an industries branch
that will work with the Department of Industry and the
Department of Human Resources Development to produce a
single window approach to provide support for market
development of agriculture. Agri-food specialists have been
placed in selected embassies abroad and to date the response has
been positive.
The minister along with the Governor General and private
organizations came back from a trade mission to China, South
Korea and Hong Kong to promote the agri-food industry. The
government wants to find new customers while firming up
existing partnerships.
This government has been working hard to cultivate and take
advantage of new trade opportunities post NAFTA and GATT.
With NAFTA we have the opportunity to jump on new
opportunities south of our border in the United States and in
Mexico. We as a government did what we promised and made
improvements to NAFTA before we signed. These
improvements were in areas of labour and environment,
subsidies and dumping, water and energy.
NAFTA was agreed upon to ensure that we have secure access
to our largest trading partner and greater access to a growing
market in Mexico.
To date Canada has accepted 85 per cent of Mexican food
products duty free. Mexico maintained high import duties and
import restrictions on many food products. NAFTA will correct
this imbalance and increase our exports past the pre-NAFTA
levels of approximately $215 million. This will help the whole
agricultural industry including our food processing sector which
4165
currently employs close to 200,000 people and with a
production valued at $40 billion.
Market opportunities in Mexico exist in many food sectors
including fish, shellfish, wheat, barley, oilseeds, pork and pork
products, potato and potato products, canary seed, dried beans,
peas and apples, to name some of the things we export from this
country.
There was little time to rest when we were elected. We had to
jump into the trade issue right away with the GATT negotiations.
(1825)
Recently in Morocco, on April 15, 1994 the trade minister
along with about 120 other governments signed on to the final
act that embodies the results of the Uruguay round of
multilateral trade negotiations. Their agreement will put greater
fairness and predictability to international trade. New trade
rules will apply to all countries equally and differences between
trading partners will be settled more effectively through the
rules of the World Trade Organization. This is essential to
farmers and the agri-food industry.
For the first time in history we have an agreed to definition of
the term subsidy. The agreement also sets out a category of
government programs agreed upon to be non-trade distorting.
This will not happen overnight, but will be phased in over six
years. In most cases this will give domestic industries time to
adjust to the new trading rules.
The agreement will help put an end to a disastrous grain trade
subsidy war that proved extremely costly to Canadian farmers.
In the future Canadian farmers will enjoy greater market access.
The red meat industry will also benefit from this agreement.
Pork and beef producers will enjoy greater opportunities in the
Asian market.
Now allow me to move to supply management. More than 20
years ago this country decided that a made in Canada approach,
the supply management system, was the appropriate structure
for the dairy, poultry and egg industries. Now supply
management is one of the foundations of the Canadian
agricultural economy.
Supply management is and was based on three pillars:
production quotas, a regulated pricing mechanism and import
quotas. After the 1994 GATT agreement one of the three pillars,
import quotas, was replaced by tariffs.
Our party's position is clear. We remain committed and
support the supply management system and will continue to
assure its prosperity. Opposition members are quick to pounce
on us and predict the end of supply management. In December
the Ontario Milk Marketing Board issued a press release:
``Marketing boards have not been dismantled by the recently
announced trade deal under the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trades (GATT). The change coming in July 1995 is that
border import quotas are being replaced by border tariffs so only
the mechanism to keep out subsidized product has changed''.
The industry has accepted this. Currently the government is
working with stockholders to develop new arrangements that
will support the sustainable orderly marketing systems required
in the future.
In December the agriculture minister along with provincial
agriculture ministers established a small task force to provide
advice on changes needed to the supply management system to
address the challenges and opportunities resulting from GATT.
The task force was chaired by the hon. member for Prince
Edward-Hastings and is looking toward an aggressive
marketing approach as key to the future of this sector.
Recently the United States has decided to serve notice of its
intention of proceeding with increased tariffs on barley and
wheat. We regret the action and despite what the opposition
claims we will stand firm in our support of the industry. We will
not trade off one industry's interest for the interest of another.
We will try to use the 90-day consultation period to try and
negotiate a deal to prevent a trade war. We stand ready and we
will not back down. If the U.S. proceeds with unilateral trade
action we will have no choice but to respond in kind.
In fact, Canada would have been much worse off had it not
been included in the GATT agreement. If this had happened the
U.S. would have been free to impose tariffs right away without
the 90-day consultation period.
In looking at the future, we have under GATT clear rules and a
new system of discipline in trade that can be understood by all
parties when developing the new generation of safety net
programs. These programs need to be to the best of our ability
countervail proof.
My view is that we need to develop long term agricultural
policies that will take us well into the 21st century. Farmers
need and want that stability.
Farmers have always said they do not want subsidies, they just
want a fair price for their goods from the market. However, even
with the best trading conditions support programs are still
needed because of the inherent instability of the agri-food
industry, instability caused by such things as weather conditions
and trade wars.
We as a government are committed to replacing the patchwork
of current expensive commodity subsidies with a user friendly,
whole farm income approach. Farming organizations have given
us their strong support in this matter.
4166
To avoid major dislocation we will make future changes over
a period of several years. Safety net programs need to be
financially efficient, GATT constant and market neutral.
(1830 )
In my closing comments, I want to say that this government
has been very positive in the direction that it has taken the
agriculture department. In terms of our agricultural committee
we have now opened the process where the public has been able
to view us in our deliberations, particularly as we deliberated on
the BST question.
We have offered and tabled in this House seven
recommendations. It is the committee's hope and trust that this
House will embrace those recommendations. We encourage all
in this House to support us on those issues.
We also think it was positive that in the past week we were
able to sit down and discuss the difficulties in marketing and
getting our grain to ports on the west coast. A subcommittee of
the transportation committee and the agriculture committee was
established. It is meeting with witnesses on this issue because it
is affecting and impacting on all Canadians. We want to let
members know that we had a very successful conclusion to that
time. Members will be hearing our responses from those
witnesses within the next few days.
I want to say again how important it is that we recognize the
values of agriculture. It is a privilege to have been part of this
discussion and having allowed Canadians to see that agriculture
is truly a part of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to my colleague from Huron-Bruce, and I am
delighted to see that in this House there are several members
who seem to want to defend the interests of our farmers.
However, I would like to have him clarify a point which he
stressed several times when he talked about ensuring the
financial security of our farmers.
I too am familiar with the farmers of Quebec. However, you
know that 49 per cent of the milk consumed in Canada is
produced in Quebec. I therefore wonder how we can tell our
farmers in Quebec that we are going to ensure their financial
security when milk quotas are reduced regularly by a few
percentage points each year, except last year, when they went up
2 per cent or rather, 2 per cent was loaned. Production costs are
rising constantly, and our dairy farmers have been selling milk
at practically the same price for the past five years.
The same holds true for veal calf breeders. The price of veal
has virtually not risen at all since 1978, whereas production
costs continue to rise.
I would like the person who spoke last to tell us, in all
seriousness, how he can say to Quebec farmers that the Liberal
government, which was just elected with a solid majority, is
going to ensure their financial security in the foreseeable future,
not in 50 years, but in a year or two. I would like to hear you talk
about that.
[English]
Mr. Steckle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising
that question. I am sure that his concern and interest in farmers
is quite similar to mine. Whether those farmers be in Quebec,
Saskatchewan or Ontario really is not my point of argument this
evening.
My point is that the farmers' interests in Quebec are best
served by remaining part of Canada. My concern would be that if
they did not remain in Canada the likelihood of farmers' success
in agriculture and their future would certainly not be as bright as
remaining here in Canada.
We have policies in place in this country. We have a directive.
We know where we are going in this country. The supply
management system is not gone. The member mentioned quota
values. Quota values today are stronger than they were just
before article XI was lost. I might say to the member that the
people in Quebec have done very well.
We in Ontario who happen to take shipment of some of its
stocker calves into our province know very well that there is
good cattle there. Ontarians look forward to getting those cattle.
We also know that the cattle industry as one of the many
industries in the agriculture sector has done reasonably well. We
would all like to do better but many sectors have been restrained
from growth and doing the kinds of things they would like to do.
(1835)
I once again assure Canadians that this government has the
interests of farmers at heart. We sincerely indulge upon the
member sitting next to the hon. member in the committee. He
has participated and he has shared. I know the concerns.
I can assure the hon. member that we are there for the farmers
of the future.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, the member
stated during his presentation that he hears from farmers the
comment: ``All I really want is a fair price for my product. I
don't want subsidies''.
How does the member answer this question?
Mr. Steckle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a question
that I rather expected would come from the Reform Party. As
you know, as we have discussed in the agriculture committee-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I hesitate to
interrupt members. I know this debate is of great interest to the
House and the debate has been most interesting. But I would
4167
remind you in your responses to address yourself through the
chair and not directly to one another.
Mr. Steckle: Mr. Speaker, the point is well taken.
Regarding the issue of how to address farmers who say to us:
``What are we going to do in the meantime?'', your leader very
ably this evening in an earlier dialogue said that we cannot get
rid of these subsidies and aids immediately, that it is going to
take some time. We need an interim period where we adjust.
That is what we are asking our farmers to do. They are
prepared to do that. Farmers realize that subsidies are of the
essence at this point in time because we are competing with
countries that are much more highly subsidized than this
country.
The fact that we now have a definition of subsidy is important.
That was defined when we reached our agreement under
NAFTA. I hope and trust as we go into the GATT period over the
next number of years that we will find less and less need for
subsidies.
I trust that farmers in the western part of this country
recognize that we are heading in a direction where we will no
longer need subsidies.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons why I welcome the
opportunity to speak in this debate, but before explaining what
they are, I would like to draw a parallel with a unique
astronomical phenomenon we saw today and I am of course
referring to the solar eclipse which a few hours ago was visible
over a substantial part of the earth and indeed above our heads,
what the scientists call an annular eclipse. In other words, the
sun was visible around the moon, and people who wanted to
watch were urged to wear glasses to prevent any injury to their
eyes.
As we experienced this phenomenon, here in this House we
experienced a total eclipse of vision in the agricultural sector.
However, this particular eclipse has been going on for more than
six months, while the one we saw today will probably not recur
for another 50 years. The Liberal eclipse, unfortunately, does
not require special glasses. We can see its daily impact on
agriculture in Quebec and Canada and on the lives of our
farmers.
(1840)
I became interested in agriculture at an early age, since I come
from a farm background. I had several uncles who were farmers
and raised their children on the family farm, and those children
are now also engaged in farming.
In fact, I was personally very involved in farming for seven or
eight years when I was a beef producer in the riding of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, together with my
father-in-law, who died tragically in a car accident last Friday.
I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to him. His
name was Maurice Brault, and he was one of my constituents,
who like most farmers not only worked on the land, but was a
part of it and made it a part of his life. He passed on to me this
love of farming, of the animals, the forest and everything that
grows on the land, and above all, he passed on his respect for our
land.
I also want to say that I am proud of living in a riding where
farming is the main economic activity. I quoted some figures in
a speech about two weeks ago in this House, and I want to repeat
these figures, because they are very revealing.
In the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, agriculture
is an economic activity that generates roughly $160 million
annually. It is responsible for 2,500 direct jobs and for 10,000 to
12,000 indirect jobs. All of which means that 15,000 people
depend on agriculture in the riding of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. Therefore, it can be
classified as a major industry.
I am also proud to belong to this riding since barely two weeks
ago, Parti Quebecois faithful gathered to elect the candidate who
would run in the upcoming provincial elections in the provincial
riding of Mégantic-Compton. They chose Mr. Jacques Blais of
La Patrie, who is himself a very prosperous farmer and the
owner of a 1,300-acre farm in the municipality of La Patrie. Mr.
Blais is a farmer by profession. He knows the agricultural sector
and will be able to defend the interests of all Quebec farmers in
the National Assembly once the election is held in a few weeks
or, at most, in a few months.
Mr. Blais also belongs to a family that includes at least five or
six prosperous farmers in the immediate region of La Patrie and
Coaticook. These individuals have dedicated their lives to the
farm and to farming. I will come back to this later and give you a
few examples.
Therefore, I am proud to represent this riding. My colleague
from the neighbouring riding of Frontenac was also a farmer up
until his election on October 25 last. He raised cattle in addition
to working as a teacher.
(1845)
Agriculture is therefore more than just words for the people of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. It represents their livelihood,
their survival and even the future, not just their own, but the
future of their municipality, of the entire riding and even of
Quebec.
I would like to give you two examples of initiatives taken by
farmers in my riding which speak volumes about how Quebec
farmers are capable of taking care of themselves and of
benefiting from the spirit of co-operation that has prevailed in
our region for the past twenty years. They are not waiting, and
4168
rightly so, for the government, whether provincial or federal, to
come up with solutions; they roll up their sleeves and work at
resolving their problems themselves.
I would like to start by talking about the RCM of
Haut-Saint-François which includes the municipality of La
Paltrie that I mentioned a minute ago as well as those around
Cookshire, East Angus and Weedon, the locality next to my
colleague's. Within this RCM, a consultation committee on
agri-food, which incidentally was called agri-food table of
Haut-Saint-François, was set up about a year ago.
This Table brings together farmers, of course, but also
processors, distributors and representatives from the UPA.
These people want to look after the interests of the 600 farming
enterprises in that RCM, the total sales of which exceed $40
million annually.
On the subject of agriculture, it is important to stress the
figures and the impact of the agricultural industry on the
economy, because many urbanites believe that farming is
something you do on the side, like gentlemen farmers. In the
riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, farming is a
business enterprise, an industry which requires daily input.
These people got together when they noticed a kind of rural
exodus in the last 10 years or so, especially among young
people, a kind of devitalization of the agricultural community.
They noted that the population of the regional county
municipality was decreasing and getting older since the young
people were moving to the city, more often than not to join the
ranks of the unemployed.
They noted that the education and skill level of the labour
force was low. They also noted that the producers were quite
spread out geographically since the regional county
municipality of Haut-Saint-François is a vast territory and,
with the number of farms dwindling, the distance between
producers is increasing. All the agri-food forum findings I just
mentioned led them to the problem of marketing their products.
(1850)
That is why they decided to join forces and promote
partnership and co-operation among the various players since a
farmer alone on his farm will not accomplish anything if he is
not familiar with market conditions not only to sell his products
but also, when the time comes to invest in his farm, to know
whether he should stay with the same products or diversify into
other sectors and, if so, into which sectors.
That is why the forum produced a strategic development
action plan. They identified new agricultural projects, new
niches through market studies and realized that there was a
demand for certain fruits and vegetables. They also published a
number of promotional flyers, which is a precedent at least in
our region if not in Quebec as a whole, to let people know about
their products.
They also developed the tourism sector. In the last 15 years or
so, our region has noticed an increasing level of interest from
city people who want to spend a weekend or a week on a farm to
see how things are done, how people live, how we produce the
various products sold on the market such as milk and poultry. In
our region we developed through the agri-food forum a farm
tour which is already giving results and increasing, as I said, the
local economic activity level.
We are also interested in labour force training since, as I
pointed out a few moments ago, after noting that many farmers
were poorly educated, we approached school boards to help
solve this problem. Finally, we developed an area-buy policy
when we found out that many people living close by did not even
know the products available from the local farmers.
Also in the region, in the Regional County Municipality of
Coaticook, there is the Coaticook regional agricultural
initiatives centre, an agricultural co-operation and planning
body whose purpose is to develop a dynamic and attractive
economic environment to help consolidate and diversify rural
activities. Local farmers got together at something like the
agri-food forum and shared their experience and knowledge to
develop the agricultural sector further.
What is special about the Coaticook RCM is the diversity of
the stakeholders involved in this project. I will name a few: the
city of Coaticook is not only taking part in the discussions but is
also helping to finance the agricultural initiatives centre, which
gave $450,000 last year, the municipality of Coaticook, the
regional development board, the Coaticook school commission,
49 commercial interests of all kinds in the Coaticook RCM that
invested money in this project, 10 surrounding rural
municipalities in the Coaticook RCM, 56 farmers who invested
time and money in this initiatives centre, and 71 supporters,
ordinary people who are interested in such an initiative and
decided to put their time and money into it; the Government of
Quebec contributed $1.5 million, local groups and individuals
also, and the federal government gave $1,184,000.
(1855)
Mr. Speaker, you are telling me that I have one minute left. I
will conclude by saying that farmers want to take charge; they
want to succeed, but they also expect governments, and
particularly the federal government, to invest more. If you
compare Quebec and western Canada in terms of federal
investments, the figures are very eloquent. I do not have time to
review them now, but I may have that opportunity during
questions and comments period.
I want to point out that farmers in my riding are concerned
about their future, following the GATT agreement. They are
concerned, but not because they do not want to compete on the
world market, quite the contrary. They are concerned about the
negotiations which will follow and they want the government of
Canada to guarantee that they will get support and that
agriculture's future will not be jeopardized in any way.
4169
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite talked in the beginning about the eclipse and eclipse is
right. He leaves the impression that Quebec would do better out
of Canada. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The member continues to portray total darkness to Quebec
producers on the amount of gains they make out of the national
agricultural policy. The facts are that Quebec net farm income
has grown steadily over the past 20 years, a result of stability
and markets for hogs, supply management products and a
growing grain industry.
I might add that these kinds of policies were started by the
previous Liberal administration. Quebec has gained a great
advantage because of them. Another example given by the
member that is a little misleading is that members have to
recognize that over 45 per cent of the industrial milk in Canada
is produced and processed in Quebec but only 25 per cent of
those industrial milk products are consumed in Quebec.
It is because of the national policies we have in place, the
sharing of the national market, the expanding international
markets that Quebec has gained substantially to the point it has.
I want to conclude by saying that with this new Liberal
administration in charge again and being proactive as we are we
can move forward as a united nation in exercising our potential
as a country as a whole, including Quebec, in fostering exports
and profits for Canadian farmers.
(1900)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and, with all
due respect to him, I would recommend that he review the
figures he has just submitted to us, implying that agriculture in
Quebec had continued to make progress in the past 20 years,
thanks, in particular, to the initiatives of the federal
government. The reality is quite different.
You will allow me to cite some figures that indicate the
contrary. There was indeed a period, in particular the period
from 1976 to 1985, when agriculture in Quebec experienced
constant development and a very remarkable improvement. This
was due in great measure to the policies of the then government
of Quebec, that of Mr. René Lévesque.
I will simply recall, for the benefit of the member and the
Minister of Agriculture, that, in 1976, when the Parti Quebecois
took office, Quebec's level of self-sufficiency in food was 47
per cent. In 1985, when the Parti Quebecois was replaced by the
Liberal Party, the twin brother of the Government that now sits
opposite us, the rate of self-sufficiency in food was 78 per cent.
In just nine years, Quebec's self-sufficiency in food
improved from 47 to 78 per cent. After 1985, figures are not
available, since the Liberal Government of Quebec abolished
the evaluation branch of the Department of Agriculture, but the
rate of self-sufficiency is now estimated to be below 70 per cent.
Thus, there has been a falling off.
From 1977 to 1985, agriculture accounted for 1.7 per cent of
Quebec's gross domestic product; from 1986 to 1993, it
accounted for 1.37 per cent of the gross domestic product, a
significant decrease. Farm investment in Quebec from 1980 to
1985-the Member should take note of these figures and use
them in future speeches-averaged $737 million per year. From
1986 to 1993, investment averaged $409 million, a decrease of
45 per cent.
A look at other telling figures in terms of potato production
from 1981 to 1991, when there were either Liberal or
Conservative governments, reveals that the cultivated acreage
for potatoes rose by 2 per cent. In the West, it increased by 30 per
cent. Beef production in Quebec from 1981 to 1991 fell by 13
per cent, whereas it rose by 4 per cent in the West. Pork
production fell 16 per cent in Quebec, whereas it rose 39 per cent
in the West. Lamb production rose 8 per cent during the same
period in Quebec, compared to 33 per cent in the west.
Therefore, instead of being told stories, I would like the real
figures to be used, and I say once again that I fervently hope, and
the farmers in my county hope even more so, that the
government will table policies that will ensure the development
of agriculture in Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I think the
member opposite made my point to a certain extent because
what we are talking about here is a proactive government. He
indicated that between 1976 and 1985 there was continuous
development.
(1905 )
That was as a result really of a strong Liberal administration
operating in terms of federal-provincial cost sharing
agreements, and Quebec benefited greatly as a result of that
leadership.
One other point that I will make is that when one compares
1981 and 1994 net income in Quebec, Quebec has grown by over
60 per cent compared with only about 20 per cent of the rest of
the provinces. Those facts and figures should be known.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Mr.
Speaker, I think we must keep along the same line, since the hon.
member mentions figures the origin of which I do not
know-although I am sure he will be pleased to send me those
figures. I want to remind him that comparisons were made and,
for 1991-92, federal public spending to support Quebec's
agri-food industry reached $399 million, that is almost $400
million,
4170
compared to about $5.5 billion for the rest of Canada. In other
words, about 7 per cent of federal support is allocated to
Quebec's agri-food industry.
Let us take a look at the respective percentages represented by
support or assistance by federal and provincial governments in
the agricultural sector. Again in 1991-92, federal assistance in
Quebec represented 37.2 per cent of all subsidies granted,
whereas the support provided by the provincial government
represented 62.8 per cent. In the rest of Canada, it is the
opposite. The figures are reversed: federal assistance, 65.8 per
cent; provincial support, 34.2 per cent. I will end on that. These
figures speak for themselves and show that federal assistance
must be redistributed and, I will say it again, we are waiting for
the Minister of Agriculture to take action.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member opposite. If this
government implements programs which will surely help
Quebec farmers, will he vote against separation, yes or no?
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect, I really do not understand the hon.
member's intervention. If any measure tabled in this House by a
government, whether Liberal or not, is susceptible to improve
the plight of agriculture and farmers in Quebec and the rest of
Canada, we will be pleased to support it.
As for Quebec's future, the federal government's
interventions in the past are not likely to incite Quebecers to
give unconditional support to Canada.
[English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased this evening to have the opportunity to
add something to this important debate.
Annapolis Valley-Hants is home to a large and diverse
agricultural and agri-food sector. I am committed to working
closely with this sector and I am honoured to have the
opportunity to bring its views to this place.
In order to help me effectively gain local input on agricultural
issues I have set up an advisory committee made up of
individuals from the local farming and processing sector.
Meeting with this group has been of tremendous assistance to
me in not only identifying local concerns but also highlighting
workable solutions.
Most recently I received some very positive feedback from
this group regarding the position of the minister of agriculture
on our current dispute with the United States over wheat.
(1910 )
I would like to share with hon. members one particular
response I received just yesterday: ``Please continue to fight.
Americans are tough traders but we must learn that our strengths
and policies need to stay in place. So from my past business
experience, hang tough''.
That is precisely what we intend to do.
In contributing to this debate I would like to focus my
comments on how we are assisting family farms. I would like to
make it very clear that we must retain the family farm as a
business unit. In my riding and the constituencies across this
country, small and medium sized farms are the backbone of the
local and regional economies. Through our commitment to
enhance value added production, provide better access to capital
and financing, and work with all of the stakeholders to redesign
our supply management system, I believe that our policies are
on the right track.
Our platform for the election last fall emphasized jobs and
economic growth. The agri-food sector represents 8 per cent of
our GDP and 15 per cent of all the jobs in this country. It is key to
our success in achieving that growth and creating those jobs.
World markets are changing. Canadian consumers' tastes and
needs are changing. Technology is giving farmers and food
companies new ways to produce, market and manage to meet
consumer demands. This is the sector where government
support for innovation is vital.
Our platform, commitment to innovation and value added
production, is particularly important to our government's focus
on trade in agri-food. It is a high tech industry in which market
share can only be maintained by being at the cutting edge of new
technology.
Our government believes in innovation. As we stated in our
red book: ``For Canada comparative advantage now hinges not
just on our natural resources, but on our technological prowess,
our ability to be innovative''.
One of the keys to this depends on a commitment to research.
Better focused R and D is critical to our global competitiveness
and economic growth. It is important for us to develop low cost
processes and the new products we need to capture new markets.
Just yesterday the minister announced that the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-food is launching a $500,000 pilot project
for a new program called the agri-food R and D matching
investment initiative. The goal of this initiative is to encourage
further industry investment in research, especially where
increased market potential exists. This innovative way will
provide up to $25 million over the next four years.
4171
In my riding I am proud to say that there are many examples of
successful value added, community based initiatives. For
example, the processing of hogs, chickens and fruits and
vegetables can be found in communities throughout my riding.
Furthermore, a biotechnology firm located in my riding, the
Efamol Research Institute, is making great gains in the area of
value added non-food products. The Efamol Research Institute
is a world leader in the research of the medical benefits derived
from the oil of evening primrose plants.
I believe that as a government we must look to and work with
the private sector to ensure that these companies are on the
cutting edge of value added production.
Closely related to our focus on value added production is our
commitment to provide comprehensive support for farmers
through improved access to capital and financing. Time and
time again farmers in my riding have said that in the past they
have felt shut out by governments. Income support programs
have often been passive in nature and put together on a
piecemeal basis.
(1915 )
Statistics clearly show that most family farm operations
would not be financially viable unless there was off-farm
income coming into the household. However farmers in my
riding and across Canada have also said that they do not want to
rely on government handouts. Instead, they want the security of
stable markets and the knowledge that the government will
support them in their efforts to take advantage of new market
opportunities.
Given these realities, we are redirecting our focus from
providing merely a passive safety net to looking at
comprehensive long term programs. We must ensure that these
farms have access to the capital necessary to grow and to be
competitive over the long term.
In order to improve access to capital for farms, we will focus
on providing long term stability through established bodies such
as the Farm Credit Corporation. Initiatives that we are
committed to include are a long term mortgage program that
would transfer some of the risk of interest rate fluctuations from
the borrower to the Farm Credit Corporation, a vendor loan
guarantee aimed at improving the availability of reasonably
priced long term capital, and the agricultural equity
development program which would allow the FCC to lease land
acquired by foreclosures. This would allow the FCC to assist in
getting foreclosed farmers back on their feet.
It is clear that farmers do not want us to repeat the policies of
the past. They want to be masters of their own fate. They want
government to help them with the tools that they need to be
successful.
I would like to turn briefly to the critical issue of supply
management and orderly marketing. In the past, supply
management has worked to stabilize farmers' revenues while
ensuring the supply of top quality and healthy food products.
However many farmers have expressed concern over how the
GATT agreement will affect their ability to remain competitive.
While we were not able to secure article XI during the GATT
negotiations, we were able to ensure that a system of high tariffs
will be put in place as a replacement to import quotas. In
achieving this, we will be able to provide the necessary security
for Canada's small farms and processors to remain competitive
while they adjust to the new trade rules.
In the meantime, the GATT also opens new markets for these
same products. The minister has stated on many occasions that it
is his goal to see our agriculture exports almost double to $20
billion annually. In pursuing new international markets in such
an aggressive manner, the government can ensure that Canada's
rural communities will play an important role in generating
economic growth.
The Financial Post reported this morning that according to a
study by the Agri-Food Competitiveness Council, Canadian
producers have nothing to fear from worldwide trade. I believe
that the agri-food sector in my riding and across Canada can be
the best in the world. I am committed to working with them to
ensure that they have every opportunity to reach their potential.
With the GATT negotiations behind us, one of the biggest
challenges facing our system of supply management is in the
area of internal competition. More than ever there is a clear need
for national and regional co-operation. In order to address this
and other immediate challenges facing us, the parliamentary
secretary has been working with a small task force.
The mandate of this group is to determine how to make the
necessary changes to Canada's orderly marketing system by
making it flexible and viable over the long term. The task force
has to this point consulted widely with all of the stakeholders.
These groups must have a direct role to play in mapping out the
future of supply management and orderly marketing in Canada.
(1920 )
There is no question that we face many challenges. There are
no easy solutions, no quick fixes to the issues I have raised here
today. As a government we have shown that we are up to the
challenge before us: working with industry to set priorities,
encouraging industry investment in technological development,
investing in the skills of our people, and providing security and
stability for small and medium sized farms and producers. These
are the ways to keep the Canadian agri-food products
competitive.
4172
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, just a brief comment for the hon. member. I appreciate
very much the way he put on the record the concerns of his
constituency. It is the kind of debate that I wished we had had all
day. I know that he comes from an area where poultry is raised. I
wonder if he shares the concern, as I do, about the recent
disputes that we have had in the poultry sector of supply
management. I am very concerned about that.
I want to see that sector get together and resolve its internal
problems. I am of the opinion that the greatest danger to supply
management at the present time is not the GATT agreement that
we have just signed, but the danger of the implosion that
structures sometimes have once they get to a certain age. There
is a maturity in the system now. It works well. However there is
also the tendency for structures after a while to deteriorate and I
want to know if he shares that concern with me.
Mr. Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
I do share this concern. In my riding of Annapolis
Valley-Hants we produce 78 per cent of all the poultry in Nova
Scotia. What is happening with regard to the quota system, the
lack of working together by the provinces to live up to the rules
and regulations of our system is of major concern.
As we know, there is an overproduction in two of the
provinces and the overflow is coming to the east coast.
Consequently the price of chicken in our area is going down and
that is a real threat to the small business farms that are running
the poultry industry.
I share with the member the concern that we as a country are
not now inundated with external problems, we have internal
problems. The internal problems need to be worked out between
the provinces. We need to sit down. We have to remember that
we are a generous country that wants to survive from coast to
coast. The poultry industry needs to survive but it will only
survive if all of the provinces play by the rules and we find a
consensus to work out our difficulties.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure this evening for me to rise and pay
tribute to my hon. friend from Annapolis Valley-Hants for his
very informative discussion on agriculture.
Being a member of the standing committee on agriculture I
take pride in being able to talk about the concerns of agriculture,
specifically in Souris-Moose Mountain which is a very large
rural riding in southeast Saskatchewan.
One of the concerns we have is the movement of grain and the
situation it poses for all of us. With this question in mind, it is
necessary for us to take a look at the problems that have been
created. We may have tarnished Canada's reputation as a
reliable shipper and supplier of grains and oilseeds because of
our inability to ship on time.
There are some factors which severely challenge Canada's
ability. We must meet the demands though. Our western
agricultural community was built on exporting grains and
oilseeds to overseas markets. Canada has built and maintained
for over half a century an excellent reputation as a dependable
supplier. We have high quality grains and oilseeds and because
we have that reputation, we must work diligently to protect and
maintain it. That is why the current situation concerning grain
transportation needs to be addressed.
(1925)
Canada's inability is causing some concern in our Asian
markets, namely Japan and China. The government is not
content to let this situation continue. Over the past few weeks we
have seen at least 40 vessels tied up at the port of Vancouver.
There are demurrage charges in the amount of $10 million.
Where do those demurrage charges go back to? They go right
back to the farmer, who is the person who is suffering most and
yet must pay those costs. How about the cost of sales that are
lost? The Canadian Wheat Board estimates that we have lost
$280 million in sales because we do not deliver on time.
Our customers look elsewhere to satisfy their needs. I know
that Japanese canola customers have already looked to Australia
and Europe for new suppliers. When a market is lost in Canada
the farmers cannot afford it nor do they want to see it happen.
The government is very concerned that the grain movement
situation be placed as a high priority and that we work toward
solutions. The issue is not simple. A number of factors have led
to the shortfall in a number of rail cars. One is the movement of
grain to southern markets and a turnaround time of possibly 40
days. In most cases, it is at least two times the normal length of
shipping time in Canadian markets.
That rail car shortfall is due to several factors. The
Mississippi flood caused the normal use of U.S. cars to be
limited to us and we have had to turn to other means. The late
harvest last year caused problems for us in moving our grains to
the port of Thunder Bay and to the west coast.
Unexpected increases in the movement of canola also created
problems at Thunder Bay. The operation at country terminals
because of the extreme cold weather in January and February
caused additional problems. The work stoppage at the port of
Vancouver did not help at all. A 13-day shutdown because of
labour unrest caused the terminals back up.
4173
We are looking to solving these problems. How do we get
weekend loading? How do we ensure that we can have seven
days a week of service at those ports? However the key players
in the grain and marketing industry realize there is a problem. I
am confident that they are going to take a look at the turnaround
time of the cars.
Both railways have increased their budgets for maintenance.
Railways have also modified their train service and have
increased the switching budgets. CN has just added 765 boxcars
from Hudson Bay into the Thunder Bay shipping area.
Shippers have been allowed to bring in private cars. We have
introduced an emergency trucking program, a subsidy through
the Western Grains Transportation Act which will allow
movement to Thunder Bay and to Vancouver. Therefore we are
now looking to weekend loading and unloading, an efficiency in
the system that we have not had for some time.
Senior executive officers of railway grain transportation and
of government are going to look at the problem. They are going
to review the shortfalls for 1994-95. We have set up a human
resources Canada commission to study the labour issues in
western grain transportation. The report should be due in July.
Clearly much has been done but much remains to be done.
This problem cannot be solved by looking at one issue alone.
More than rail cars are the problem for us.
(1930 )
The Canadian grain marketing system must continue to run
efficiently in the face of the changing marketplace. Western
Canada is now producing a different mix of grains and oilseeds
and specialty crops. It is time we examined Canada's grain
marketing system to look where the grain is going and determine
whether the system is in place to make sure we get it there.
Canada is now competing in a world market that has changed
since last year. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is
certainly going to change our way of marketing. The agreement
means new marketing opportunities for Canada's grains and
oilseeds throughout the world. A strong, efficient grain
marketing system will continue to be the backbone of our
industry. It is vital to ensure that kind of system takes us into the
year 2000.
Concerning grain marketing, handling and transportation,
different groups and representatives from grain companies,
railways, and labour unions involved in grain handling will be
meeting in Winnipeg on May 16 to review the problem and
hopefully come to some resolution. We look forward to an
industry in which government along with the others in the
system bring us a proper grain handling system for our oilseeds
and our grains.
I want to turn for a moment in the final part of my speech to
review some matters in my riding.
In Weyburn an ethanol plant is proposed to come on stream.
Moosomin would like to see one come on stream. In Kipling,
pork producers are looking to introduce a new breed. In
Broadview we have a maple syrup program, a wood products
future and ethanol. Inland Terminal is certainly a major impact
on the Weyburn area. The PMU farms in southeast
Saskatchewan are growing, but they need protection. They need
some assurance that we will support them. PMU stands for
pregnant mare urine.
Our specialty crops continue to be enhanced. However, we are
facing a rural decline in southeast Saskatchewan. Added to that
is the fact that Saskatchewan along with Atlantic Canada has the
largest amount of debt in the agricultural sector which is a deep,
deep concern.
We want to ensure that we have a whole farm safety net
program to deal with the debts, to help the people who are
working the farms of southeast Saskatchewan move forward.
Saskatoon has one of the most outstanding research centres in
the biotechnical field in Canada and certainly in the world. It has
just introduced sunola which is a new sunflower oil. There are
100,000 acres under production. That particular crop is certainly
going to enhance the viability of farming in Saskatchewan.
In closing I deem it a privilege to speak on behalf of the
agricultural program that our government has put forward. It is
very forward looking. It is going to take us into the future.
On behalf of the rural community of southeast Saskatchewan
it has been a pleasure for me to rise in this House and speak in
this debate.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, I listened closely to the remarks of the hon. member for
Souris-Moose Mountain. I share with him responsibilities for
many farmers in the province of Saskatchewan. Many of them
are looking in this spring of hope to an opportunity to have a
much better year than they had previously, both financially and
cropwise.
The hon. member in his remarks commented on the problems
of transportation and moving the grain to ports. I am wondering
if the member is aware that the railways have fallen short of
their requirements in terms of shipping.
In fact, I understand in the second quarter of the current crop
year railways reached only 75 per cent of their targets on
shipments to the west coast and 82 per cent of their targets to
Thunder Bay. The Western Grain Transportation Act allows for
penalties to be applied to the railways should they fall short of
their commitments or targets.
4174
(1935 )
Would the member for Souris-Moose Mountain agree that
perhaps the federal government should examine imposing the
penalty clauses of the WGTA at this time when, as we realize,
they have never been applied in the past?
Mr. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
opposite for the question on transportation.
I can say to the hon. member being on the subcommittee on
agriculture and transportation and looking at that very important
question he raised, one of the features was that particular point.
When railways are not meeting expectations and their
delivery quotas there should be some redress. Some penalties
should be put in place to encourage them to work efficiently or
pay the costs.
One of the problems I had was that if it was going to be in the
form of a demurrage and the railways were going to charge it
back I kept asking the others who it was going to be charged back
to. If it was going to go back to the farmers then I would not
support it. Their position was, and I am sure we will see it come
forward as a recommendation, that where railways do not meet
and follow through with their production quotas there should be
a penalty in place.
I certainly understand what the hon. member is saying. I think
that will likely come forward as a recommendation from the
committee.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to advise the chair that I will be sharing my time
with the member for Fraser Valley East.
I am pleased to participate today on this long awaited debate
on agriculture. It is the first time in the four months of this
Parliament's sitting that we have had a government sponsored
debate on agriculture. It is good to see that our friends opposite
have cranked up their tractors and are heading out to the fields to
do some work.
Farmers across our country are busy with their spring work
and seeding. New seed is going into the ground. I believe that as
farmers drive up and down the fields in their tractors their radios
are tuned into the news to see if there are any new ideas and any
new initiatives coming forth from Ottawa this spring about
farming.
It is time for new ideas and new approaches to agriculture in
Canada. Old ideas, like old seed, will not produce the results we
need. The basic new idea we need in agriculture is that
government must get out of the way of farmers. Farmers do not
want government as their major partner in business. They
realize the way to solutions for our problems is to open up the
process and let farmers take control of their own destiny. Let
farmers determine and choose the solutions. Let them get
involved directly about how they want to produce, process,
insure, transport and sell their crops.
I want to focus my remarks today on new ideas about some
safety nets and also touch on the farm debt problem as it relates
to the Farm Credit Corporation. There is no question that
farming is a high risk business, perhaps more so than any other
industry. We face matters over which we have very little control.
There are basically three of them: trade distorting influences,
market cycles, and good old mother nature.
On this matter of dealing with mother nature there was some
discussion by farmers in my riding during the election campaign
last fall as to whether the weather was provincial or federal
responsibility. It was finally decided it must be federal because
it does cross provincial borders.
New ideas are needed as to how to make adjustments in light
of the GATT and the NAFTA so that we can take full advantage
of new market opportunities.
There have been some gripes about GRIP in my home
province of Saskatchewan, so much so we have given notice that
we are withdrawing from the program after the 1994 crop year.
Why is this? Because farmers right across our province think it
is a lousy, useless program. Some of their main concerns are that
it has declining support levels, the premiums are too high, there
is a lack of producer consultation in developing it and the
payment process is too long.
Saskatchewan has the largest number of producers in the
program of any province in Canada, some 42,000 when it started
in 1993 and an insured acreage of some 23 million acres. Our
involvement was almost twice that of any other province, but we
are pulling out. For the most highly involved province to do so
makes a big statement about the need for the program to be
scrapped after only three years of operation.
(1940)
It is a tremendously highly bureaucratic program. The
program works by building on conventional crop insurance by
offering producers a form of revenue insurance. Producers are
provided with a guaranteed target revenue. Indemnities are paid
throughout the crop year and are triggered when the value of an
eligible crop falls short of the target revenue. The premiums are
shared by federal and provincial governments as well as
producers.
In the event that the premium income and accumulated
reserves are insufficient to cover indemnity to payments to
producers, the federal and provincial governments share the
deficit financing. Deficit financing. I do not like to say those
two words. Deficits are financed 65 per cent by the federal
government and 35 per cent by the provincial government.
4175
Does that sound bureaucratic? I believe it does. Well it is, at
least according to most of the farmers I talked to, and the results
are predictable. As of March 31, 1993 there were outstanding
interest bearing advances of $64 million. The program is in the
red.
What are we proposing for this revenue insurance for
farmers? Reformers have always believed that GRIP should be
discontinued. We believe it inhibits farmers' abilities to
compete. It discourages good land stewardship and is market
distorting. It promotes producer dependence and is in violation
of international trade rules. The implementation of streamlined
comprehensive safety nets is a priority for ensuring necessary
stability in all sectors of agriculture. This Reform process must
be based on trust by providing for direct stakeholder
consultation.
I want to touch on some of the problems of farm debt as it
relates to the Farm Credit Corporation. The Farm Credit
Corporation mandate states that the purpose of the FCC is to
enhance rural Canada by providing specialized and personalized
financial services to farming operations and to those businesses
in rural Canada that are related to farming.
That is a very honourable mandate, but if one goes out into the
country and listens to farmers talk about the FCC. one realizes
this mandate is not being achieved. Farmers in my riding tell me
that when it comes to dealing with this government organization
it is much more difficult than dealing with the chartered banks or
credit unions. I have heard horror story after horror story of
unrelenting badgering by Farm Credit Corporation officials as
they give their brand of personal service to farmers.
For example, last week I had a call from a farmer in my riding
who had leased back his farm from the Farm Credit Corporation
after FCC had taken it away from him. The deadline to pay his
lease was May 2. He was in arrears by some $12,500. The Farm
Credit Corporation would have been completely justified in
taking back the land on May 2. On May 1 he called me and told
me he had some private backing available to pay one-third of his
arrears on May 2 and the balance by certified cheque on May 31.
This sounded completely reasonable to me and a solution to the
problem.
He asked me to act on his behalf with the Farm Credit
Corporation. After explaining the position to both the case
worker and the regional manager, I came away frustrated and
very angry. They both told me they were not interested in his
proposal and they were only interested in doing business with
someone who would pay. It is not that this farmer would not pay;
it is that he could not pay.
The bottom line here is that we will lose a 55-year old farmer
who has little or no chance of any other career in rural
Saskatchewan. Now the corporation has no chance of ever
recouping this farmer's back rent. He most likely will end up on
social assistance.
These two bureaucrats told me they had to be more fiscally
responsible to Farm Credit Corporation. That to me is not very
fiscally responsible. We had the chance to save a farmer, if only
for the short term, yet we chose to play God with another farm
family's life.
These are the kinds of stories I hear on a regular basis in my
province. At times I am embarrassed to be part of a government
that deals so heavy-handedly with people's lives. If it were
within my power a noise would have been heard all across this
country last week. That noise would have been the heads rolling
in the Farm Credit Corporation in Regina. My question is: Do we
as a government have any business in the banking business? I
think not.
(1945)
As I mentioned before farmers want to be able to control their
own destiny. All they ask for are fair rules and a level playing
field. If we look at government spending on agriculture in the
past we see that we have spent adequate dollars. A budget of
somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2.5 billion is not by any
means insignificant. What we need to do is spend smarter, not
necessarily more. The government must be prepared to show
leadership in developing farm programs by farmers for farmers.
In conclusion, there are not many things a farmer cannot fix if
he can get his hands on them. Let us get the farmers in on this
discussion this year and let the seeds of common sense that have
made our country great bring forth the harvest of an industry that
will be second to none in the entire world.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, I noted with interest the comments of my fellow
member from Saskatchewan. He highlighted, in particular at the
end of his speech, the common sense in making sure we have
farmers working together.
In light of that and knowing that the parliamentary secretary
had an opportunity to contact 180 different groups to take a look
at supply management and other features, I think that is a
positive step. I am glad he mentioned there is a direction we can
move in.
With regard to GRIP, he mentioned that GRIP should be
scrapped, should be done away with. Yet when we look at other
parts of Canada, other provinces, we find it working well. It is a
useful mechanism that will be continued.
Why is the problem in Saskatchewan so different from the rest
of Canada in relation to GRIP? Maybe he could identify the
problems that created it, other than just saying let us get rid of
the whole program when I know other provinces are saying no
4176
and that they think there are some benefits to the program. I
wonder if the hon. member could respond.
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to mention on the
subject of farmer consultation that I encourage the government
to become more involved in it. What we will see happening is
that farmers, the stakeholders who can take part in the decision,
will get behind whoever is in power at the particular time if they
have the opportunity to become real players in the discussion.
If the hon. member wants to talk about GRIP, if we look only
at the numbers we see that Saskatchewan makes up half or more
of the participants. That in itself says something to me. If we
talk to farmers in western Canada, and I speak mainly about
Saskatchewan because that is my area and that is where I do my
work, they tell us for the reasons I said that it does not work.
There is no farmer consultation. It is too heavily bureaucratic. It
takes up to 18 months to get final payments.
It is simply not the answer given the problems we see today. It
is too expensive for federal and provincial governments and the
producers. The negatives far outweigh the benefits of the
program. It simply was never a good program to start with. It
only took us two years in Saskatchewan to realize that. It just has
to go. There is no question about it.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question which I have divided into two short
parts.
The first part is on GRIP. In 1991 when the previous
government brought in GRIP my colleagues in the NDP in the
House and I were among a very few who spoke against GRIP and
predicted many of the problems that have beset the program ever
since.
We were criticized quite heavily throughout Saskatchewan
and elsewhere by farmers who did not support the NDP
generally. We were criticized because the farm economy was in
such bad shape that farmers were prepared to accept any
program that would provide them with some very quick relief.
Certainly we admit the first year of GRIP provided some
incredible relief for Saskatchewan and other farmers. We realize
many producers, in the atmosphere of needing money in
1990-91, were prepared to accept the program they knew was
not going to be acceptable in the long term.
(1950)
The member referred earlier to the Reform always being
against GRIP. Where were their members in 1991 in
Saskatchewan when the program was being promoted by the
Conservative Party to the support of many farmers in
Saskatchewan?
The second point I wanted to make with regard to the Farm
Credit Corporation-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When members have split
their time I know 10-minute interventions with 5-minute
question and comments are very short.
However I ask the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre to
reply to the first question.
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the GRIP question,
one of the other elements that has made it a negative or poor
program from our point of view has been that it has been open to
abuse by farmers. It encourages poor farming practices. That is
one thing that has been very negative about it.
I will not take any more time, except to say that in 1991 there
were no Reform members of Parliament in Saskatchewan. Had
there been we would certainly have been aligned with the NDP
on that particular point.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I am
addressing a subject that concerns 36,000 agricultural producers
in Canada. The topic is vital because each one has a vital stake in
a set of rules that govern their agricultural production. We call
these rules the supply management system.
Supply management has been kind to the producers of my own
constituency. We have a healthy industry in the Fraser Valley
that has contributed much to our community.
Agricultural activity continues to be the backbone of the
Chilliwack-Abbotsford area. I would be remiss if I did not
mention another agricultural mainstay of my riding, so I want to
speak for a moment on the federal agricultural research station
located in Agassiz, B.C., which for decades has served our dairy
community. Unfortunately its role in the future of the
agricultural industry has been threatened of late.
For a while we heard false rumours that the station was to be
closed. Then we heard that the station's dairy herd was moving
to the unlikely town of Oyster River on Vancouver Island, a
place far removed from the Fraser Valley and the mainstay of the
industry, where new facilities would have to be built and feed
transported at a tremendous cost. Not only that, the milk would
have to be transported off Vancouver Island back to the
mainland. It did not make a lot of sense.
We further heard that the University of British Columbia was
willing to move its experimental herd to Agassiz and build a
research facility there but that it would follow the station's dairy
herd to Oyster River if the station chose to relocate it there. We
brought the matter up with the minister and his parliamentary
secretary. I would like to thank them for placing the relocation
process on hold pending further investigation. I am confident
that once the facts are all out on the table the Agassiz dairy herd
should have a solid place in our research future.
4177
I shared these details so that my constituents might be clear
about the situation. I publicly urge the minister to make every
effort to resolve the impasse among the local producers, the
processors and the officials at the station or in Ottawa. I stand
ready to assist in bringing the parties together so that the dairy
community and the local community will continue to benefit
from the research herd remaining in Agassiz and benefit from
the university's significant contribution. That is our local
situation.
I also want to touch on the national supply management
problem that we cannot ignore. The problem is that our system
has been abruptly challenged by a larger set of trading rules.
These new rules operate on a global basis. They operate between
nations, not within nations. The new rules are the free trade
agreement, the NAFTA and the GATT. These agreements
threaten to swamp our national rules and thus affect the
livelihood of many thousands of producers.
The old rules are like a river that has cut a deep channel over
the years. With each passing year the river's course has become
deeper and more resistant to change. Once our supply
management system was instituted economic interests were
channelled in a specific direction and financial interests are now
deeply entrenched.
A new channel is being cut by the outside world and we have
little choice but to direct our economic river into the mainstream
of the world's economy. Our supply managed sectors are
realizing the need to explore new markets and to develop new
products for the global economy of the future. The streams that
fed our made in Canada agricultural policy have been rerouted.
Our supply managed sectors must change with the times.
(1955)
The major obstacle to change is the economic interests that I
mentioned earlier. The winners for the last 20 years, the
producers and the processors within the supply management
industry, may stand to lose some of their security when the rules
change.
The rules of the old game are written by an old name in
Canada. Pierre Trudeau promised a national supply management
system in 1970 and the Liberal Party has defended it ever since.
Even as recently as last year's election period Liberal candidates
were still holding on to the past insisting that article XI(2)(c)
regarding import quotas would be strengthened and clarified
under the GATT arrangement they promised to producers. The
flip-flop immediately after the election reinforced my belief
that the Liberals were not being frank with the agricultural
community.
Political gamesmanship does not go over very well with the
agricultural community. Saying one thing while doing another is
guaranteed to raise their ire and raise their concerns as it should.
It is a case of once bitten twice shy, and the supply managed
industry is checking for bite marks as we speak. This time it
needs to know the facts, not the wishful thinking, so it can start
planning its future.
For example, the task force on the future of supply
management calls on the system to become ``fully market
responsive''. Yet the whole weight of the report focuses on
preserving the system, a system that is not fundamentally
market responsive. There is a contradiction here. Which will it
be: status quo or market driven?
New interests are arising in Canada. They are the producers
who have been waiting many years to get into the system but
have been legally barred from doing so because they could not
afford to buy the right to produce. What is their status? There are
consumers as well, consumers who have paid higher prices for
food products for over 20 years to ensure a steady supply and to
ensure that producers within the system received an adequate
price that they have set for themselves.
There is also a new political party that gives voice to those
previously shut out of the system. The Reform Party of Canada
is the new political vehicle for the average consumer and the
average producer who wants to grow, sell and buy agricultural
goods without unnecessary government interference; those who
want to buy quality food at more competitive prices; and those
who want to produce it, not only for Canada but for the global
marketplace.
This is not to say that current producers are doing something
wrong. Far from it. We have an excellent, productive industry
producing the highest quality food in the world. However
Reformers insist that the world economy is forcing change upon
us. To resist that change is not possible. It will harm us in the
long term. We must not obstruct inevitable change, but we must
construct that change so that the transition from a managed to a
less managed system will continue to be orderly. We want to
avoid financial hardship for the supply managed sectors. We
must lay out a workable, innovative work plan for all the
stakeholders and then stick to it.
This problem also touches on national unity. As members may
be aware, agricultural production was increased during World
War II to serve the allies overseas. After the war the supply
management system froze the allocation of quota at historic
levels of production. Quebec, for instance, produced a lot of
milk during the war. Today it still produces almost half of all
industrialized milk in Canada. The right to do so is protected by
law.
Quebec is not about to give up its share of the markets in other
parts of Canada now, even though it is obviously inefficient to
ship butter and other milk products to B.C. instead of producing
it right in B.C. Allocating production through political decisions
4178
is another fundamental inefficiency. We will not survive in the
world economy unless we are able to increase our efficiency.
I have a special word of caution for my friends in the Bloc. At
least within the national system farmers in Quebec can bargain
to retain their production rights, but what if Quebec opts out of
Canada? Would Canadian producers gladly accept Quebec's
produce when producers all over the country are clamouring to
increase their production to serve their local populations?
Quebec's privilege within the system has been maintained at
least in part to preserve national unity and that incentive would
disappear if Quebec separated from Canada. Quebec would lose
the market share it currently enjoys within the Canadian system
and western producers would happily move quickly to fill that
market share.
(2000 )
Farmers all over Quebec would suddenly have to scramble to
sell their produce. They would not be able to sell all of the
excess in the United States. They would have to look at overseas
markets. The adjustment would be painful indeed. Agriculture
in Quebec may be permanently stunted as a result.
The industry can co-operate together on a national basis to
find an orderly way to convert to a less regulated market, a way
that would be fair to producers and benefit consumers all across
this great land. One thing the government can do is promote
more agricultural exports that would allow increases in
production over present quota allocations.
We commend the efforts of the Minister for International
Trade to increase exports and we urge the minister of agriculture
to follow his lead and work harder to develop these export
markets.
I have another example to illustrate that. The cruise ships that
dock in Vancouver recently wanted to buy 20,000 dozen eggs
from a B.C. processor-producer but finally gave up trying to get
the necessary permission from the marketing board to supply
them. The eggs were finally shipped from the United States and
we lost that market.
This kind of rigidity is no longer acceptable. We must take
advantage of the opportunities available to us in the
marketplace. Let us hope that Ontario's recent decision to boost
chicken production is a sign of a positive change in attitude.
Indeed, we must allow all agricultural sectors to be market
responsive.
Right now producers and processors collaborate to set their
own prices using a complex cost of production formula but the
market, not producers and processors, should set the prices for
these products. We can help by including all supply managed
sectors in the government's whole farm income stabilization
plan. This would be a safety net based on total farm income
applying to all farmers.
The managed sectors need to embrace this whole farm plan
even though it would expose producers to market prices which
might be lower than the supply managed prices they calculate
for themselves. If the supply managed sectors are allowed to opt
out of the whole farm alternative and continue on as at present, a
GATT panel may rule against them and once again Canada could
suffer trade penalties as a result. We could also suffer the
insecurity of once again throwing this whole supply managed
system into the wind.
Our producers cannot escape change. The old ways are no
longer the best ways. It is time for us to free up our internal
markets to include more producers and processors and benefit
Canadian consumers, to strike down interprovincial barriers to
trade, to capitalize on our nation's abundant agricultural
potential by increasing production for markets all over the
world.
As Reformers have said for years now, give Canadians the
tools of deregulation, give farmers the freedom to make
economic decisions without interference and they will do the job
of competing with the best in the world for price and quality.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with a lot of interest to the member's comments. I
cannot say that I agree with all of them.
I am a poultry producer and I work under supply management.
There are a few things I would like to clarify before I ask my
question. First, if you go to the supermarket and take a look at
the meat shelf, you will find that poultry is probably the most
inexpensive buy on the shelf.
As a poultry producer, I make x dollars during the year
because I have x number of chickens that I can grow. If I find
ways of bringing my overhead costs down, I up my profit
margins. That is what makes my industry so efficient.
It is a stable industry under supply management. A stable
industry has money to put into research and development. As I
said previously today, in the early 1950s it took 14 to 16 weeks
to raise a four pound bird. A male bird now can be raised to that
same weight in 37 days. That is research and development. That
is from a stable industry.
The member suggests we are going to do away with supply
management. We are not because we replaced import quotas
with tariffs that effectively protect the industry within Canada. I
would caution the member that as we look at lowering provincial
barriers across the country, this national board will replace that
same job.
(2005 )
We have to take a look at what happened in the United States.
In 1958 Tyson Foods vertically integrated. We are talking about
rural Canada. The strength of rural Canada is its farmers. Tyson
Foods vertically integrated. Eighty per cent of the chicken
production that was bordered along Canada went to the south
central states. I know because I bought up some of that surplus
equipment for my farming operation. It went dirt cheap. These
4179
guys could not survive because of overhead costs and the price
that they were getting for their poultry.
Within our industry we have health standards which the
United States does not even come close to. A declassed bird in
the United States is 60 per cent bruising and is sold off of the
shelf. You will not see that here in Canada. We have pride in the
products that we are putting forward.
Our farmers were protected under the GATT because the
levels were set high enough to protect the industry. We have an
efficient and stable industry under supply management which is
putting forward an inexpensive food product.
I guess I have to ask the hon. member: What more do you
want?
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you what we want. We
want consistency.
I was reading a pamphlet from the election period. It happens
to be one of mine. Perhaps that is why I was reading it. We said
all along during the negotiations for GATT that we would be
replacing article XI 2(c) with appropriate and equivalent
tariffication.
We were raked over the coals incessantly, consistently,
persistently by members like the one opposite who said that that
was an unworkable option, that it would not work, that we were
trying to destroy the industry.
Perhaps I could read just a brief bit here. It states: ``All of the
other political parties are supporting a contradictory trade
position. They are calling for the elimination of export subsidies
by other countries but they want to strength article XI 2(c) which
permits Canada to impose import quotas. Reformers are asking,
what will the other parties do if they are faced with signing a
GATT agreement, which includes tariffication of access
restrictions? What will they do?''
I fought incessant battles in my own riding because we said
we would prepare farmers for the 21st century. We said: ``Let's
not kid ourselves''. One of the stories I get now from my farmers
back home where I have a lot of supply management is: ``At
least you told the truth during the election and not only that at
least I can trust you to plan for the future''. They feel very let
down that they were promised something that was undeliverable
during the campaign by the Liberal Party. Now they are having
to try to readjust mid-course, midstream in that river I was
talking about. They are nervous now about what the next thing
might be.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise at the
beginning that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member
for Lambton-Middlesex.
I want to start today with an article that appeared in this
morning's Globe and Mail: ``Thomas Homer-Dixon notes that
the current crisis in Rwanda is in part being driven by severe
land and food scarcity''. He further wrote: ``Rwanda has eight
million people crammed into an area the size of Vermont. Its
population doubles every five years. Extreme nutrient depletion
affects the soil in half the country and agricultural production
per capita fell by almost 20 per cent between 1980 and 1990. The
land competition fuels the vicious ethnic animosity between
Hutus and Tutsis and the collapse of civil order has made the
country incapable of dealing with underlying scarcity and
population problems''.
This clearly underlines why agriculture, no matter how much
we talk of the new economy of the electronic revolution, is and
always will be of central importance. Without food we cannot
have peace. Without peace we cannot have food.
That is why we called our agricultural paper ``Food security
for Canadians and a fair return for Canadian farmers''. Food
security for Canadians and a fair return for farmers are the
cornerstones of this government's agricultural policy.
In order to achieve that, and I quote from the red book: ``The
government is committed to achieving the full potential of the
Canadian agri-food sector by developing new markets and
maintaining existing ones while capitalizing on economic
opportunities for value added regional development. Producers
across this country have told us many times that they do not want
their livelihoods to be dependent on government handouts. They
do not want any special treatment. What they want is the
opportunity to derive their income from the marketplace. One of
this government's top priorities in this regard is to ensure that all
Canadian producers-that is all Canadian producers-enjoy fair
and unrestricted access to those marketplaces at home, within
North America and abroad. This is why trade has been such an
important issue in agriculture since the day this government
took office last fall.
(2010)
This government strongly believes that Canada has the
products, the expertise and the technology to compete and win in
any market. But in order to do that, Canadians must not be
prevented from getting to the starting line.
To ensure that the federal government is working on a number
of fronts to secure greater market access for Canadian producers
and to do that since last October, the single most dominant issue
for this government and for Canada's agri-food sector has been
international trade.
4180
It began with the conclusion of the Uruguay round of
multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT after seven years
of negotiations. Under GATT member countries will reduce
agri-food export subsidies by 21 per cent by volume and 36 per
cent by value over a period of six years. As greater disciplines
are brought to bear on such price distorting programs as the U.S.
export enhancement program and the European union's common
agricultural policy, international prices for grains and oilseeds
should gradually improve over time.
It is true that we did not get everything we wanted in Geneva.
As we entered the negotiations late in the game it was not
possible to build enough support for a strengthened and clarified
article XI 2(c). We were, however, able to negotiate tariffs
which will enable supply management to continue to exist as an
effective Canadian approach to producing and marketing dairy,
egg and poultry products.
We have not stopped there, however. To assist this sector with
these adjustments a federal-provincial industry task force on
orderly marketing has been established. Its mandate is to consult
with all affected sectors of the industry, to develop co-operative
processes to deal with the new rules in advance of the GATT
implementation in 1995.
Under the task force five ad hoc review committees have been
established for the dairy, chicken, broiler hatching eggs, turkey
and egg industries. These committees will help draft a task force
report to be submitted to the national and provincial agriculture
ministers when they meet in Winnipeg in July.
As well, the U.S. is our largest trading partner. In 1991
Canada exported $11 billion worth of agricultural product to the
world, of which $4.7 billion was exported to the United States.
However, the federal government is also pursuing improved
market access with the United States. Under the free trade
agreement the last government promised guaranteed access, but
we all know what we got was guaranteed harassment. That is
why I support the minister's promise to push these negotiations
to the wall.
This government has made it clear to the Americans that there
will not be a deal unless it is a good deal for Canada. That means
a good deal for the grains, processing and supply managed
sectors. We will not trade off the interests of one for another.
Canada will continue the dialogue as long as necessary in
order to reach a satisfactory conclusion. It has been made very
clear to the United States that if it proceeds with recent threats
regarding unilateral actions Canada will have no choice but to
respond in kind. We are fully prepared to follow through in this
area.
I would like to now turn to marketing. This government is
committed to achieving the full potential of the Canadian
agri-food sector by developing new markets and maintaining
existing ones. To help the sector take advantage of new trade
opportunities the government has created a new branch of
Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, market and industry
services. This new branch has offices in all provinces and will
work with industry to increase its share of both domestic and
international markets. It is through increasing the sector's
ability to meet customer demands that we will be achieving our
goal of providing financial security for Canadian farm families
and jobs for the Canadian agri-food sector.
(2015)
In Essex County, my home county, we can grow any product
grown in the world. Farmers in my area in conjunction with the
Windsor-Essex Development Commission have taken their
own steps to prepare a marketing plan for the future. They
started by conducting a comprehensive survey to identify those
areas in which they can excel. Their goal is to identify markets
and to find areas where we can substitute imported product for
domestic product.
For example, one of the findings of the commission was
although in my region there are five wineries, 60 per cent of the
grape juice concentrate is imported from outside of the region
from areas such as Chile, Europe and California. Those varieties
of grapes could be grown in Essex County and we could
substitute local product for imported product.
The survey also found that there is a need to identify market
niches and corresponding products that local producers can add
value to before export. Both of these ideas tie in with two items
the minister spoke of this morning.
The minister of agriculture told the House that we must listen
carefully to what the market is saying and not just try to sell
what we produce now but produce what the market wants to buy.
To that end the federal government has 55 trade commissioners
and commercial officers working on agri-food trade
development in more than 150 foreign markets. This includes 18
agri-food specialists.
To further assist us at home an agri-food industry council will
be established later this year to advise on processes to improve
Canada's market strengths, promote economic growth and
create jobs.
The minister also spoke this morning of his role in rural
renewal. It is clear, as a survey in my area found, that it is not
good enough just to export raw product but we must export
further processed products where the value is added in Canada.
It is through such further processing that we can renew our rural
areas. This will create jobs in these areas by keeping more
dollars circulating within our communities as well as bring
greater amounts of money into Canada.
4181
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is also working in
co-operation with other federal departments and provinces to
establish a single window marketing service for Canadian
industry. A single window service will provide access to
programs such as the agri-food industry marketing strategy
program which helps agri-food associations develop and
implement marketing plans, or the new getting ready to go
global program which provides cost shared assistance to food
and beverage processors to develop new strategies and
initiatives.
In addition to easing restrictive barriers through trade
agreements and providing market service and information to
industry, the government is also constantly seeking out new
markets and working to maintain and improve existing markets.
This government is also looking to Asia for new markets and
opportunities.
A concrete example of this is the minister's recent two week
trade mission to the Asia Pacific. Accompanied by the Governor
General, the minister headed a delegation that included 15
Canadian farm leaders and agribusiness officials.
Canada has some of the most productive land in the world.
The article by Thomas Homer Dixon which I referred to earlier
warns that a world food crisis is pending. A recent report of the
International Food Policy Research Institute notes that grain
production per capita has been flat since 1980. Canada has a
responsibility to ensure that we protect our land so we can help
feed a hungry world. The best way to do that is to protect our
farmers. In doing so we will protect ourselves.
In conclusion, if one looks at the situation in the former
Yugoslavia and if one asks the people there what they wanted
more than anything, I believe they would ask for the two things
we have in great abundance in Canada, bread and peace. The
power expressed in the idea of bread and peace is fundamental.
It was a promise of bread and peace that allowed the Bolsheviks
to overtake Russia in 1917.
It is our abundance of bread and peace that underpinned our
economic prosperity in the past and we must never forget its
importance to our future.
Now we must move forward to implement an agricultural
policy that ensures our future prosperity.
(2020)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I would first
like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of National revenue on her speech. Allow me to make a
comment and perhaps ask a few questions that will be included
in my comment.
In her introduction, the hon. member explained to us that, in
order to achieve a certain level of peace in the world, it was
necessary for us to provide underdeveloped countries with
products such as agricultural products, agri-food products, et
cetera. Then she told us that we should assist our farmers in
developing and rationalizing their production precisely to
enable Canada to find new markets and develop them and to
ensure that our farmers receive adequate income.
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, first, where
does she see these new markets? Where could Canada direct this
agri-food sector? And I would also ask her the following
question: Has the party she represents re-examined its position
or done a post mortem on the way in which the recent
agreements were arrived at, agreements that were achieved with
difficulty in the case of the GATT and, of course, the free trade
agreement? Will we follow the same model to develop or
interest or negotiate with other countries with regard to
agri-food?
[English]
Ms. Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments.
Briefly I mentioned that in my riding we have five wineries.
We know we could produce grapes locally. We know that is a
market in my area that we need to expand on and should expand
on.
I also mentioned that the minister spent two weeks on a trade
mission in the Asia Pacific. That is an area that his department is
looking into for new opportunities.
I believe that every government learns from past experiences
in negotiating future agreements and this government has
learned from what has happened in GATT in the last seven years
and from the free trade agreement. In the next agreements we
negotiate we will take that experience with us.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to stand in the House today and respond to this
government's motion in support of Canadian agriculture. To the
extent that this is a wide ranging debate, I hope to touch on a
number of issues which are directly impacted by federal
agricultural policies.
The primary industry in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex is
agriculture. Stats show that nearly three-quarters of a billion
dollars worth of farm products are produced in Lambton and
Middlesex counties and more than half a billion dollars worth of
farm supplies and equipment are purchased.
All of us in this House recognize that the production, sale and
trade of agriculture produce is becoming more and more subject
to both the constraints and opportunities that exist within the
highly competitive nature of international trade.
Over the past couple of years more monumental changes have
taken place in the field of international agriculture trade,
necessitating some fairly radical adjustments to Canada's
domestic structures. To that extent I have to say that the farmers
of my riding who sell their products under Canada's supply
management system were extremely disappointed that Canada
was
4182
unable to secure a strengthening and clarification out of article
XI at the recent Uruguay round of GATT negotiations.
Canada's unique system of marketing boards, agencies and
commissions is arguably the most sophisticated system in the
world, ensuring producers a reasonable income and consumers
stable quantities of the highest quality food.
Two years ago Canada had a number of impressive allies in
her fight to strengthen and clarify article XI of the GATT.
However, due to relentless pressure and threats from the United
States, our allies fell by the wayside one by one. Unfortunately
by the time the deadline approached Canada stood completely
alone at the bargaining table. We were faced with a fundamental
decision: Do we leave and scuttle seven years of negotiation
involving the interests of 116 nations and our own, or do we
examine the factors associated with this most comprehensive
round of global trade talks in history and work to implement the
measures that would ensure the survival of our unique supply
management system?
(2025)
The Government of Canada chose the second option. I am
hopeful that Canada's farmers who operate under our current
supply management system comprised chiefly of poultry egg
and dairy sectors can successfully retain their system through a
well regulated conversion process from the original import
quota system to one that is to be characterized by initially high
levels of tariffication.
Despite recent threats and posturing by the United States, I am
hopeful that the Government of Canada will successfully
implement this initial set of tariffs of supply managed produce
beginning July 1, 1995. My constituents and I find it disturbing
to read in the media accounts outlining the possibility of
tradeoffs with the Americans in which some of the tariff levels
and supply managed commodities may be significantly lowered
in return for greater access of Canadian wheat to U.S. market.
While the Government of Canada is still negotiating with the
United States to sort out a number of longstanding bilateral
issues, I am gratified to have received assurances from the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that in the process of
these bilateral negotiations with our American friends there will
be no tradeoffs between agricultural sectors.
The farmers in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex tell me that
they do not want subsidies, they just want a decent price for their
product. As I see it, we need to develop a farm income
stabilization program that is regionally flexible, yet one that is
also GATT consistent, market neutral, financially sound,
affordable and effective.
One program to be looked at is GRIP. It is true that GRIP plays
differently in different provinces. For example, in my province
of Ontario it is seen as a very successful program. In others,
especially Saskatchewan, people have the opposite opinion.
Perhaps what is needed then is a set of more regionally sensitive
safety net programs that take into account the various
agricultural sectors and their producers.
The question of interest free cash advance payments comes to
mind. On February 14 of this year I made a statement to the
House calling upon the minister of agriculture to reinstate the
interest free provisions of the advanced payment for crops act
which was removed last June by the previous government.
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the same
request. While I respect the reality that interest free cash
advances have cost about $50 million to $75 million each year
and that these moneys would come out of the total budget of
$850 million for all income support and safety net programs, I
am convinced that it is a well spent investment, especially for
our farmers who experience cash flow problems at various times
each year. It almost goes without saying that proper stewardship
in the form of sustainable agriculture continues to grow in
importance.
Canadian agriculture has a proud environmental record and
can be attributed to an even greener environment through a
greater federal commitment to the development of ethanol as an
alternate fuel. As co-chair of the ethanol task force, I have been
working with my colleagues diligently over the past number of
months in trying to convince cabinet members to take that extra
step in providing assurances to the development and flourishing
of Canada's fledgling ethanol industry.
Frankly it is an idea whose time is long overdue and I intend to
keep advancing this notion at every opportunity. Ethanol as a
fuel has come under the microscope more often in the past five
years than any other transportation fuel from the standpoint of
energy efficiency, environmental and economic benefits,
sustainability, farm practices, cost benefit ratio, energy source
comparisons and the impact on grain supply.
Can the same be said for the big oil companies that fought
changes such as the removal of lead until the public demanded it
be removed? Speaking of the public, demand for ethanol is so
high in Canada that our small existing ethanol producing
facilities have been forced to import ethanol from the United
States in order to meet that growing demand. This is nothing
short of ludicrous. Canadians have the will, the know-how in the
market, both domestic and international, to support a major
expansion of our ethanol industry.
4183
(2030)
The ethanol industry is not looking for an 8.5 per litre federal
tax exemption for ethanol blended fuels. It already has its
exemption as do alternate fuels. What ethanol manufacturers are
seeking is a guarantee of the present commitment by the federal
government or a maintenance of the status quo on tax treatment
for the next 10 years.
Such a guarantee would ensure private sector investment for
potential ethanol manufacturers who would like to create jobs
and economic development to benefit the economy through the
construction of a $170 million world class ethanol production
complex utilizing 20 million bushels of Ontario corn.
The Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan governments have all
seen fit to help kickstart this renewable industry through long
term tax exemptions.
Members of the ethanol tax force and our many supporters
both here in the House and in the Canadian agricultural
community at large are only asking for similar consideration
federally. No subsidies, no loans, no grants, no loan guarantees
are requested. If the crude oil increases and/or corn prices
decline the ethanol industry is prepared to have a clawback
formula.
Ethanol has much to offer Canadians who are
environmentally conscious, thirsty for economic recovery and
concerned about the sustainability of our agriculture and energy
industries.
We do not need any more studies. What we do need is the
political will to make the right decision. We all know that
Canada produces enough grain to put 10 per cent ethanol in all
Canadian gasoline and still be one of the world's top four grain
exporters. Moreover, as evidenced by federal and provincial
government policy, evaluation of ethanol cannot be assessed
only in the context of cost versus gasoline. There are numerous
factors that must also be considered.
There is a very positive and undeniable economic benefit to
Canada when one thoroughly assesses all the impacts of
renewable fuel programs in important areas such as farm income
stabilization, rural development, direct Canadian jobs, exports
and improved balance of trade, more valuable animal feed
stocks, reduction in primary energy use, lower emissions of
greenhouse gas. All of these are positive factors which will be
the fruits of a courageous and visionary federal ethanol fuel
policy.
We have to act and we have to act now or Canada will be left
by the wayside. Renewable ethanol is already a large scale
business in the United States and it is getting larger as we speak.
Over 49 new plants are on the drawing board and 14 existing
plants have plans for expansion.
Here in Canada we simply cannot afford to dither any longer.
As I said, we simply do not need any more studies by well paid
bureaucrats. The beneficial results of the ethanol experiment
are already before our eyes south of the border.
Let us not waste any more time. The time for a real federal
commitment to ethanol and the positive impact it will have on
our environment, our agricultural communities and our
economy is now.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, may I extend my congratulations to the member who
just spoke on her tireless and courageous support of the ethanol
industry. I too support the ethanol industry not only in my own
constituency but right across Canada. I congratulate the member
for her work and I urge her to continue with what she has been
doing.
Second I also congratulate the member for her comments
regarding the interest free cash advance. I was in the House
earlier this session when the member raised the question with
the minister of agriculture and I am pleased that he is in the
House again tonight to hear the member's request for an
extension, in fact the reintroduction, of the interest free cash
advance.
The member who just spoke and the minister of agriculture
who comes from Saskatchewan will know that the interest free
cash advance is not just a benefit to the farmer but it is a benefit
to all of Canada.
Farmers under our current system, a marketing system that I
support, cannot sell grains whenever they feel like it. They are
subject to quotas. They are subject to elevators that are full.
They are subject to a system that is backlogged so that grain can
simply not be delivered when the cash is needed to pay for
clothing or tuition fees, food or other payments that the bank
requires in order to allow for a farm family to remain on the
land.
(2035)
The interest free cash advance is a small price for our nation
to pay for an accessible agricultural product and an income at
the farm gate when in fact the grain needs to be sold and the
system will not allow it to be sold.
I urge the member to continue to call on the minister of
agriculture to reintroduce the cash advance. I have a brief
question for her. She did ask the question of the minister before.
Can she give the House an indication whether the minister is
responding favourably to her request?
Mrs. Ur: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member
for his statement and his question.
Perhaps it is presumptuous of me to answer when the minister
is in the House. I have had favourable discussions with the
agriculture minister. I had discussions this morning with the
corn producers' representatives and I believe they were meeting
with the minister today.
4184
I have not been updated on that meeting, but I hope it was
favourable. The indications appear to be favourable but I am not
psychic. I hope it is.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with my colleague from Champlain.
It gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate on the
agricultural sector. However, I cannot agree with the motion
presented by the minister of agriculture. The wording of the
motion is nothing but self-congratulatory, with praise for a duty
that was poorly done.
I represent the constituency of Chicoutimi, and I can tell you
that there are roughly 1,700 agricultural producers in the region.
The dairy industry is the largest. Many of the farms are owned
by individuals. Family farms are still very much a part of our
region, but they have undergone numerous changes. With the
globalization of markets and its very tangible impact on
agriculture, it can be said that this sector is constantly subject to
change.
The agricultural sector is active. In February 1991, all players
in Quebec with a stake in regional development and the
agri-food sector met in Montreal for the États généraux du
monde rural, which established a series of benchmarks,
including giving the regions control over their future, respecting
and promoting local and regional values; having local and
regional partners work together, diversifying the regional
economic base, protecting and regenerating resources, and
restoring a balance in political powers from top to bottom.
At the Trois-Rivières summit, round tables achieved a
consensus on the major approaches to be taken to ensure the
development of the agri-food sector in Quebec. The
Trois-Rivières Summit generated a series of commitments. I
will mention a few: first of all, to focus on research and
replacing old technologies as part of a strategy to win new
markets; to promote and support human resources training; to
ensure the continued development and growth of agri-food
businesses; to readjust existing income security programs based
on production costs; to develop income security programs
compatible with the rules of international trade; to promote
financing for farm operations and the transfer of same without
incurring massive debt; and subsequently, to consider assistance
for conversion within the sector of operations that are not viable
and help farmers who leave the profession.
(2040)
The federation of the Union des producteurs agricoles du
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, in its activity report for 1992-93,
has also changed its strategy and talks about winning new
markets.
On page 7, the report says that this new theme in the
agricultural and agri-food sector will guide our planning for the
next decade. Some serious thought has been given to these
issues. There is a need to promote the autonomy of farm
operations and processing plants by supporting their efforts to
adjust to new market demands and win new markets, and also
increase their competitiveness by reducing production costs. All
this to break the cycle of dependency on government assistance.
However, a reasonable time frame is needed to provide for
harmonious transition. By signing the GATT agreements, the
Canadian government has upset farm programs and practices by
making the agri-food sector compete directly with foreign
countries.
This is not harmonious transition. We must consider farmers
as entrepreneurs and support regional entrepreneurship. They
should have access to ongoing professional training and to the
financing and technologies they need to make their operation a
profitable and competitive business.
Quebec is committed to promoting the development of a
competitive agricultural sector that is regionally based. The
agri-food industry must adjust to the demands of globalization.
It cannot, by itself, guarantee the development of rural areas and
maintain the social fabric, although it certainly can play a
significant role in regional development.
Nevertheless, non-viable companies will have to be
supported by the government until their activities are redirected
within the agri-food sector or in other sectors of the economy.
We have to make the industry aware of the importance of the
environment as a means of promoting agriculture.
Finally, the agri-food sector needs a reasonable time to adjust
to international competition. The federal government defended
only weakly the interests of Canada and Quebec farm producers.
During the last negotiation sessions of the Uruguay round of
GATT, and despite repeated assurances by the Liberal
government in December, federal negotiators were unable to
gather the support of enough countries to defend and keep article
XI which protected egg, poultry and milk production, mostly
centered in Quebec.
(2045)
Even though import quotas will be replaced by tariff barriers
which will gradually disappear over time, the abandonment of
article XI is disrupting Quebec agriculture. Clearly, the federal
government did not come back from Geneva, last December 15,
with the best of agreements. We would have wished for a larger
reduction in export subsidies and a better access to foreign
markets.
For Canada and Quebec farmers the biggest threat, at the
present time, is the outcome of the current trade negotiations
with the U.S.A. in the agricultural sector.
4185
The federal government is now pressured by American
negotiators over the issue of restricted sectors like eggs, poultry
and milk. Americans claim that pursuant to the agreement, tariff
barriers must be completely abolished between the two
countries by 1998.
Decision making processes must be decentralized.
Stakeholders in the Quebec farming industry did what they had
to do. They do not need for the federal government to impose
policies that would be contrary to the priorities and positions
they developed. They want to control the decision-making
levers in the fields that concern them.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the member from Chicoutimi in his
remarks and until the last few minutes I was carried along by his
enthusiasm for agriculture in the Chicoutimi area and with his
vision of agriculture.
I enjoyed when he was discussing agriculture, talking about
research, new technology and market developments and global
competition, these things which I think in the stereotype of
agriculture we do not hear enough about. Agriculture is a very
diverse, very sophisticated part of the economy and the social
structure of Canada. In listening to the debate today I think the
diversity of agriculture across the country comes out.
In my riding of Peterborough there are 1,100 farms, about half
of which are in beef. About a quarter are dairy farms. There are
large poultry farms and hog farms. We have a fine buffalo farm
which produces breeding stock of buffalo. We have sheep farms,
goat farms, we produce bees, we have market gardens and whole
variety of crops, soft fruits and things of that type.
I mentioned Peterborough in the same way the member
mentioned Chicoutimi, to show that in my riding the diversity of
agriculture is extraordinary.
One thing I think the government has to do is continually
inform the people of Canada, particularly the people urban
areas, of the true nature of agriculture as an industry in this
country and as a way of life in this country. It is a diverse,
progressive part of our society which, as the member for
Chicoutimi mentioned, includes the family farm. It includes 4H
and all of those things we associate with our rural communities.
The government has to help farmers reach out to the urban
areas and get rid of this stereotype of agriculture which exists
there and show them what a vital and interesting and diverse part
of our country it is. It also has to reach out and tell Canadians
that they receive cheap, high quality, healthy food from their
farm sector. We spend 10 per cent or less of our disposable
income on food and we get the very best food for that. I think the
government should articulate. There are some developed
country which spend almost 25 cents on the dollar they earn on
food. In developed countries we spend less than 10 cents thanks
to our farm communities.
(2050)
Also the government has to tell Canadians, particularly urban
Canadians, about the agri-food industry which the member for
Chicoutimi mentioned and the huge trade surplus we have in that
area.
Last, I urge the government to continue with its consultations
with farmers and the agri-food industry in making all its
decisions.
My question to the member for Chicoutimi is will he help
us-I heard his criticisms-give urban folk in Canada an
understanding of the true nature of the high quality of
agriculture we have in this country?
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, to start with, I would like to thank
my colleague for his long preamble, which, in spite of my
criticism of his government, seemed to support some of my
arguments. I would like to get back to his main point which was
farm diversification.
I am all for it, except that under the present system, the federal
government is funding diversification in western Canada at the
expense of Quebec. Which, to some degree, explains why
Quebec has been unable to diversify in that area. I could give
you many examples and statistics. But I will only talk about
lamb production. Quebec has been unable to emulate the west.
The sheep population increased by 9 per cent between 1988 and
1991 in Quebec, whereas it went up by 33 per cent in western
Canada. Why? Thanks to programs funded by the government at
the expense of Quebec.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, farmers
are prepared to meet the challenge of globalization, despite the
loss of protection with respect to the marketing of products on
which quotas apply and the mandatory elimination of certain
government subsidies as a result of the GATT agreement. Like
all good entrepreneurs, they want to know what kind of support
they can expect to receive from the government.
Producers recall the inertia of the federal government which
failed, during the signing of the GATT agreement last November
15, to obtain assurances that the numerous trade disputes pitting
Canada against its main trading partner, the United States,
would be resolved. Canada therefore finds itself in the position
of having to negotiate under pressure in an effort to resolve
numerous trade disputes in the agricultural sector. The
government has left itself in a tenuous position and must now
adopt a defensive posture in order to limit the damage.
The negotiations currently under way with our neighbour to
the south are going nowhere. The dispute, you may recall,
centres on our main products, that is ice cream, yogurt, Western
wheat and the new Canadian tariffs on poultry, milk and eggs.
The government must not cave in to pressure from the United
4186
States. It must stand its ground and think first about the future of
Quebecers and Canadians.
In addition, the government must reduce the inequities
between east and west. If past practices are any indication of
what lies ahead and if inequities increase, producers will come
to expect a double standard in the case of eastern and western
farmers. The competitive position of Quebec farmers is directly
affected by this practice.
In the past, producers disciplined themselves and worked
together to ensure that production levels were geared to the
needs of Canadian consumers.
(2055)
Quebec farmers fell for it. Take chicken production for
example. Each province would have to produce chickens to meet
the provincial demand. In 1990, taking advantage of its
geographic location and the impending abolition of quotas,
British Columbia decided to go it alone to get ahead of the other
provinces and increased its production capacity. Now Ontario
would be prepared to follow suit and saturate the market in
Quebec.
In parallel with this trade liberalization on the Canadian
market is the concentration of enterprises within the industry,
which unfortunately will take place at the expense of producers.
Certain processors also own hatcheries and flour mills, thereby
controlling the price of farming inputs as well as prices paid to
producers when poultry is sold. Producers are wondering how
long this little game will go on and what the government intends
to do in its role as partner in this changing environment?
This turmoil created uncertainty among Quebec producers
who have seen the share of the federal budget for agriculture
allocated to western Canada increase from 42 per cent to 64 per
cent since 1980, while Quebec's share dropped from 30 per cent
to 10 per cent during the same period. In spite of this inequity,
our producers are working enthusiastically and manage to keep
agriculture in Quebec profitable and this, even though their
indebtedness ratio is the highest in Canada.
The government should do whatever is necessary to stabilize
the farmers' economic environment. After all, the agricultural
industry accounts for 15 per cent of jobs and over 8 per cent of
the GDP in Canada.
The government should start by reducing the number of
assistance programs. Agriculture Canada is administering
approximately fourty, another 22 are co-managed with the
provinces and 286 more are administered by the provinces
alone.
In the area of agricultural finance, the federal government
intervenes through the Farm Credit Corporation and the Quebec
government through the Société du financement agricole. The
terms of reference of these two organizations are amazingly
similar, yet both are maintained. In terms of visibility in
Quebec, it is in the interest of the government to maintain an
organization of its own, but in terms of customer service, it will
prefer a single-window approach to agricultural financing. You
can be sure this would be the approach preferred by Quebec
producers.
Meanwhile, the Quebec government is contributing 20 times
more than the federal government to agricultural financing.
Furthermore, only 16.7 per cent of the Farm Credit Corporation
has gone to farms in Quebec, as compared to 35 per cent in
Western Canada.
In their agriculture policy statement, the Liberals promised to
create for farmers a long-term mortgage, with two thirds of the
interest sheltered from fluctuating rates, a guarantee plan for
farmers whereby the government would guarantee the loan
made by a farmer selling his farm, thus ensuring a stable
retirement for sellers and helping established farmers and
newcomers obtain capital at reasonable rates, and thirdly, a farm
leasing plan whereby farmers whose property had been seized or
who were starting out could rent land under long term leases
from the FCC, with the rent credited toward possible future
purchase.
But what has become of these good intentions? Is it only pious
wishes? We may well ask, the farmers are still waiting.
I am not calling for the abolition of standards but for an
adjustment to the new agri-food environment where companies
will have two choices: to compete on international markets or to
serve specific niches in local and regional markets. Our small
businesses must be allowed to develop and our entrepreneurs
must be given an opportunity to carry out their business ideas
and thus develop our regions, all this without threatening food
quality.
However, we find on our grocery shelves beef from Nicaragua
with no identification of origin on the package. As a result,
consumers cannot encourage our own producers and buy a better
quality product.
(2100)
Although the government says in its agricultural policy that it
intends to apply Canadian standards to imported food, it has no
control over sanitary conditions where the food is produced and
processed and over environmental standards on foreign farms.
Quebec has developed a seal of quality, ``Qualité Québec'',
that is placed on products to encourage people to buy local
products.
I therefore call for the strict application of present regulations
on the identification of the origin of agricultural products; this is
another measure that could maintain and even create jobs at no
great cost.
4187
Our farmers and processors must not only adjust to the
various standards but above all meet consumers' needs and
requirements. Again, through its policy statement on
agriculture, the government wants to promote and reinforce our
marketing strategies under GATT and any other trade agreement
in order to preserve a system beneficial to consumers and
producers alike.
Producers are still waiting for these great principles to be
applied and in the meantime most of them, especially in Quebec,
must deal with a crumbling quota system and the opening-up of
our markets to foreigners knocking on our door.
Along with the many changes occurring in the Canadian and
Quebec agricultural environment, the profile of consumers is
evolving. Families are smaller. People are looking for more
refined products with less fat and added value whose quality sets
them apart from the competition. All businesses are based on
consumption and Agriculture Canada seems to spend a great
deal of energy on applying standards and not enough on
advertising and marketing.
If the government is a partner of the agri-food sector players,
it must do its job by adjusting quickly to the new realities and
making its presence felt instead of keeping a very low profile as
it does now.
Producers must face another reality: the protection of natural
resources that has become necessary because resources are not
inexhaustible and because of their apparent degradation.
Producers are determined to promote and adopt sustainable
agricultural practices combining resource preservation with
farm performance.
It is up to all the stakeholders in the agricultural sector to take
the necessary measures to pursue sustainable development
while minimizing output losses for producers. The
government's role in the quest for a sustainable agriculture
should be to support the changes decided by producers, and not
impose such changes through regulations.
Although the Canada-Quebec subsidiary agreement on
sustainable agricultural development provides for the
implementation of several research and technical innovation
projects over the next four years, the results do not benefit those
who are primarily concerned. The government must ensure that
research conducted by the Department of Agriculture in Canada
is shown to producers and-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order! I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up. We now move to
questions and comments. The hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the words of the member and to
the member who spoke before him and, frankly, I have questions
to ask about where the information comes from-if it can even
be called information-that these members have shared with
the House.
The member who just spoke to us called for the Government
to deliver on the Agricultural Equity Development Program, as
set out in the red book. Mr. Speaker, I know that the member may
not be in the habit of reading his mail, but the program was
announced three weeks ago by the Farm Credit Corporation and
the Minister of Agriculture could confirm this immediately.
Second, I must ask the member opposite, because he told us,
regarding quotaed agriculture, If I understood his words
correctly, that Quebec should have a percentage of the poultry
market proportionate to its population. Is he telling us that he
wants Quebec to have less poultry production than it currently
has? If that is his position, it is not mine.
Finally, Quebec produces 48 per cent of industrial milk.
Is he telling us that he favours a reduction in the industrial
milk granted to Quebec? Because, once again, that is not my
position or that of my colleagues.
(2105)
[English]
This member will have to explain to us just what he means and
where he gets his information from, particularly on the equity
lease issue that he advocated, that already exists and that was
already announced by the government more than three weeks
ago.
[Translation]
Mr. Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
answer the honourable colleague seated across from me. At
present, leases are not in use.
I would like to go back to some statements I made. When I
defend the farmers of Quebec, I am also talking about small
farms. In the West and in Ontario, they are used to seeing large
producers. In my constituency, I want to defend the small farms.
At present, dual jobholding is common, with spouses forced
to look for work. We are moving toward globalization of
markets, and we know that the big farms are indeed ready for
global markets, even with the GATT agreement. However, we
also have to think about small farms, which are fighting to
survive. I personally believe that we are going to have to allow
products to be processed in our regions and to develop new local
and regional niches.
When I talked about standards, I did not mean that I have
anything against standards, but sooner or later, the government
will have to reach a decision on this issue. I am in favour of
having standards now, but not in favour of having them applied
immediately. Two or three years could be allowed before they
are implemented.
4188
[English]
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I will
be sharing my time with the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
The government recognizes that an economically healthy
farm sector depends on conservation and protection of our
natural resources. It is a simple fact. Without fertile soil and
clean water, Canada's farmers cannot continue to produce the
high quality nutritious food they are famous for.
Over the past few years all Canadians have come to recognize
the importance of protecting the environment. Many Canadians
have changed the way they go about their daily lives. They are
reusing, recycling and reducing, the famous three rs.
More and more of our industries are also changing the way
they go about business. They are trying to minimize their impact
on the environment. They are also increasingly recognizing the
need to protect the environment can represent business
opportunities that not only result in environmental benefits but
in jobs as well.
Canada's agri-food industry is no different. Things are
changing on the farm. Many urban Canadians may not realize it
but Canadian farmers are changing the way they do business. As
we all know, change is not easy but farmers are used to facing
challenges. For example, farmers across the nation are working
to preserve wetlands that are crucial to wildlife and the entire
ecosystem. In Prince Edward Island farmers are partners in the
P.E.I. wetlands stewardship program that helps them build
fences around wetland areas to protect them from cattle.
Farmers are increasingly moving to low till or zero till cropping
technologies to reduce soil loss and runoff into our lakes and
rivers. In my riding of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe
the Grey County Federation of Agriculture made mention of this
problem in a brief presented to me in March.
Because much of our landscape is blessed with many rivers it
is essential to protect them from contamination and from
erosion. A study in progress in Ontario is indicating that no till
farming has increased almost 50 per cent in the last three years.
Farm families have always been great recyclers and reusers. It
is often born of necessity. Therefore it is no surprise that
recycling empty pesticide containers is a major initiative found
in many Canadian farm communities. Agricultural pesticide use
is declining. Figures show Ontario farmers have reduced their
use by about 20 per cent over the last decade.
(2110)
In Quebec, farmers are taking part in a program to reduce their
pesticide use by half by the year 2000. Farm organizations are
increasingly taking a leadership role in promoting
environmentally sustainable agriculture. Prairie pools and the
co-operative formed by the Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta wheat pools are developing an environmental
assessment guide. It will be distributed across the prairies to
help farmers incorporate environmental planning into their farm
management practices.
The government is working and will continue to work in
partnership with farmers, farm organizations, industry
representatives and the provinces to ensure this trend continues.
It is in everyone's interest to see that Canada's agri-food
industry is second to none in the world when it comes to working
in harmony with nature. Building Canada's reputation as an
environmentally sustainable producer of food and crops can
only help us in seizing world-wide marketing opportunities.
Just last month the Canadian Agricultural Energy Use Data
Analysis Centre was opened in Saskatoon. The centre will
provide farmers, companies involved in agriculture and
governments with the information they need to improve the
efficiency of energy use in the agricultural sector. It is a
partnership effort involving the federal government, the
Saskatchewan government and the University of Saskatchewan.
Also last month the direct seeding program was announced.
This three-year $1.6 million program will help Saskatchewan
farmers to obtain the information they need to make the
technology transfer to direct seeding, that is seeding the new
crop directly into the stubble of the past crop.
What are the benefits of direct seeding? It reduces field work.
It saves farmers fuel costs. It reduces soil erosion. The crop
yields are equal to or better than traditional seeding methods.
There is another benefit that non-farming Canadians may
want to spend a few minutes thinking about. We have heard a lot
about greenhouse gases changing the global environment.
Canadians are worried about this. Let us consider that scientists
believe the undisturbed plant material left behind by direct
seeding methods can reduce greenhouse gas concentrations.
Agriculture can play an important role in protecting our
environment.
The direct seeding program is a result of the partnership of the
federal government, the provincial government, private
business and non-government organizations. This is the kind of
partnership for sustainable agriculture that we need to see
continue and will continue from this government.
I quote from a Saskatchewan Wheat Pool brochure on
sustainable agriculture: ``We are not where we should be or
could be, but we are a long way from where we used to be''. The
government, in consultation with stakeholders, is developing
long term approaches to sustainable agriculture that will get us
to where we should be, approaches that will integrate not only
our environmental goals but our economic and social goals. Our
rural areas and farming communities must be safe, healthy and
vital places. These long term approaches will guide us as we
develop a new national soil and water conservation program.
This involves reviewing our programs for their environmental
impacts and it involves continuing to help our agri-food
industry to acquire the environmentally sound technologies and
4189
practices it needs to meet our goals for a sustainable industry.
That is this government's agenda to get us where we should be.
(2115)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, the
presentation we have just heard is evidence of how dedicated my
colleague opposite is to the environment, co-operation,
recycling and the harmony of nature.
I am confident that these sentiments are shared by all
parliamentarians. It is critically important that all of these
factors be present if we are to have sustainable agriculture.
I would, nevertheless, like him to explain to us how
opportunities can be seized on world markets. That is the real
issue, because if we want to seize these opportunities, the
wealthier countries will have to stop subsidizing agriculture
indirectly.
Financial assistance, particularly if it also entails standards
specific to certain countries, impedes the movement of our
goods and prevents them from being exported.
I want to give you one example and then I would like to hear
your view on the subsidies that wealthy countries award to
agriculture and find out if there is any way to change this
situation.
In the Lac Saint-Jean area, we produce an aperitif made from
a fruit characteristic of our region, namely the blueberry. Vast
quantities of this product were exported to Japan because
Japanese consumers had created a great demand for it. Japan did
everything it could to block the sale of the product on its
markets. It proceeded to indirectly subsidize national
companies so that they could compete with our products.
I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on this
aspect of the question which, in my view, is a logical follow up
to what he was saying earlier.
[English]
Mr. Calder: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the
hon. member shares with me the responsibility that we have to
enhance our environment and turn it over to our children in
better condition than when we took it on. That is a commitment
that as a farmer I have always had.
As to the rest of it, I have lobbied for farm issues for years.
One of the problems that I had as a person representing supply
management within Canada was as I lobbied for my own sector I
knew I was doing it to the detriment of another part of
agriculture, one of the people who worked in the same business.
In other words, if I was effectively able to get a good deal for
supply management it could have been to the detriment of
grains and red meat and that always bothered me.
Under the new GATT agreement we are now underneath one
umbrella. Now we can lobby for the farm industry as a whole.
Also, the GATT agreement laid out world-wide foundations that
we never had before and now have.
When I campaigned in the October election I campaigned for
the retention of article XI(2)(c)(i) for supply management
because at that point that was what we understood to be the only
position that we had and therefore we went for it.
(2120 )
When we became the government we found afterwards that
the position of article XI(2)(c)(i) was not attainable because
there were 116 countries out of 117 voting against it. That was
not our fault. What we did was go to the places, the SM-5, the
supply managed groups to replace that aspect of it and said: ``All
right, what do we need? What do we need to protect that part of
agriculture?'' They told us. We negotiated it and got it. That part
of supply management is protected.
However, I want to go back to the foundation as the soil is
within agriculture. With the GATT signing we now have a
foundation that is world-wide that we can build from. If another
country like the United States challenges us on wheat we can
work from a base set of rules which we never had before. I think
we are miles ahead because of that.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak for a few minutes tonight to
express the grievances, wishes and desires of the people whom I
have the honour and the privilege to represent in this House.
[English]
Let me commence my remarks by complimenting the minister
of agriculture. Not only has he proposed this motion today
which is unprecedented but I have no recollection in the 14 years
I have had the honour of representing my constituents at the
federal and provincial levels of the government taking an
initiative like that, of having a debate on its own; not an
opposition motion but a government initiated debate of this
kind. I congratulate the minister.
I also want to indicate to the House and indeed to all
Canadians that the minister has been in the House as we have
had this debate all day. He has been here for about 12 hours
listening to the suggestions of hon. members from all sides of
the House. I know that members of his able staff are here taking
notes and informing themselves of the wishes of Canadians
through their respective members of Parliament with regard to
agriculture.
4190
[Translation]
There are about 68,000 farms in the province which I have the
honour to represent. My riding alone has 1,000 farmers. So it is
an important region for supply managed agriculture.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, there are also poultry
producers, egg producers and many others. I would like to share
some of my constituents' concerns and make some suggestions
to the government.
First, I would like to join with some of my colleagues who
today expressed an interest in ethanol.
[English]
I as well as other members use ethanol blends in my
automobile. At the present time I do that in an effort to
encourage agriculture in part because it is a good conservation
measure and of course because it makes my car work better. My
ethanol is a local brand called McEwans. You know it well, Mr.
Speaker. I think Mr. McEwan is a close personal friend of yours.
A number of McEwan gas bars in eastern Ontario sell this very
good product.
This ethanol blend, however, as all ethanol blends in eastern
Canada, mostly has in the portion of the blend which is ethanol a
product imported largely from the United States. There is
nothing wrong with that per se, except that in encouraging
agriculture by purchasing gasoline I would much prefer to
encourage agriculture in Canada and even better agriculture in
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
[Translation]
You no doubt know the group of producers in our region, the
St. Lawrence Ethanol Co-op, which also has an ethanol project
in our region. I even think that it is in the riding of the hon.
member for Leeds-Grenville, with many producers coming
from your riding, and the president is a resident of mine. A
whole group of corn growers in eastern Ontario is interested in
this project. I point out to the minister that these growers need
our encouragement and support.
(2125)
I would also like to make some suggestions about the Farm
Credit Corporation to the minister.
[English]
The Farm Credit Corporation of course lends funds to a
number of producers both in my riding and elsewhere and I
congratulate it for the work it does. I am not always pleased with
what FCC does but I do not share the view of the Reform Party
member who spoke earlier who suggested that there was no
room for the Farm Credit Corporation in financing agriculture at
all.
I do not share those views. I think the FCC has a significant
role to play and if it did not it certainly would not have the loan
portfolio that it does. In any case the Farm Credit Corporation is
a valuable instrument and we should encourage it.
I want to suggest to the minister that he consider doing what
another minister had done a number of years ago and that is to
review the present loan portfolio of the Farm Credit Corporation
in an effort to determine whether or not it would be possible to
lower the interest rates on some of the existing loans.
In approximately 1985 or 1986 the then agriculture minister
had made a decision to lower the interest rates on a number of
outstanding loans, I believe they were loans financed at 16 per
cent and above, to bring them to what had been the prevailing
rate for the preceding year which was in the order of 12 per cent.
That had a significant impact.
Of course farmers can do that now but they are subject to a
considerable penalty and that has reduced some of the potential
help that farmers could have received had they been able to
restructure those loans with the Farm Credit Corporation.
I want to bring to the attention of the minister this suggestion
of mine and I hope that he considers it.
[Translation]
I want to say a few words on GATT. The GATT agreement
signed last fall was not the Liberal government's first choice.
We did say what our first choice would have been. Mr. Speaker,
you know hockey well. You know that if 117 teams play under
the same rules, and if 116 of those teams decide to change the
rules, you will not be able to do anything about it. Indeed, if 116
out of 117 teams decide to change the rules, those rules are going
to be changed, no matter what.
Under these circumstances, we had to find what was best for
our country. I think we have done that. And the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is not the only one to think so. I
have here an article published in the December 20 issue of
Agricom, which is an agricultural publication from my riding. It
says: ``In spite of the loss of article XI, Canadian supply
management programs are safe''. I will only quote another short
excerpt: ``The new GATT agreement provides for the
maintenance of supply management programs through tariffs''.
[English]
Agri-com is not the only newspaper that said that. As a matter
of fact I have before me the May 10 editorial of the agricultural
publication Farm and Country, a very well known publication in
4191
my province of Ontario. The editorial is entitled ``Canada
survives GATT Chess Game'' and reads:
``The world's dairy producing countries which protected their
markets before will continue to do so. The U.S. section 22 is
gone. The EU's''-European unions-`` variable import levies
are gone. So is Canada's article XI. But domestic industries
around the world will still be protected''. The still critical Globe
and Mail should take note.
In other words, this writer is responding to criticism of that in
Toronto's Globe and Mail.
(2130 )
The point I am making is that agricultural publications are
telling us that our supply management has been protected, but it
is not over. I raised this in a question with one of my hon.
colleagues earlier. I give this note of caution to members of the
House and hopefully through them to all Canadians involved in
supply management. I have said this before. The supply
management system has achieved a certain maturity and when
an industry does, it sometimes becomes self-critical. That is not
bad in itself but when there is an excess of that there is a danger.
I am thinking generally of the chicken and poultry industry. I
have what I have referred to as the fear of implosion for lack of a
better word, and I am concerned about it. I hope producers in
supply managed commodities will ensure they do not become
their own worst enemies.
They could have been their own worst enemies last December
and some of them were. Some of them panicked. Many of us, the
parliamentary secretary, the minister and myself included, spent
hours and hours, days on the phone with farmers reassuring
them and telling them that if they sold their quota they could be
putting the whole system in a tailspin. Most of them were
careful and through the efforts of everyone the supply
management sector survived.
[Translation]
But the concerns persist, and I want to point that out.
Let me express some thoughts in the few minutes I have left. I
do not know how to solve the problem, but I ask the minister and
the parliamentary secretary to think about this. We live in a
society which does not give sufficient recognition to the
agricultural sector and that concerns me. This is true for all of
North America. Again, I do not know the solution, but I think it
is good to mention that point.
I have had the opportunity to go to Europe many times and I
noticed that Europeans in general value their agriculture a lot
more than we do here. Is it because more European consumers
go to the market to buy products directly from the farmer who is
a personal friend, whereas here in North America consumers
think that produce comes from the supermarket? Is it this lack of
interaction which is responsible for the lack of recognition? I do
not know. However, I urge the minister and his cabinet
colleagues to look at this important issue and try to make sure
that Canadians living in urban areas can better understand our
agricultural sector.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the House for giving me this
opportunity. Again I thank the minister and his parliamentary
secretary for the attention they have given to agriculture in
Canada.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, as I did earlier I want to congratulate the hon. member
as well for his support of the ethanol sector. I was very pleased
that he has chosen to utilize ethanol blended fuel in his vehicle.
I too have been using ethanol blended fuel in my vehicle for
the last two and a half years, but I have a greater difficulty in
securing ethanol fuels for my vehicle in northern Saskatchewan
than he would have in Ontario. I certainly encourage the
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to do whatever he
can within government to support the ethanol industry to ensure
it can survive and prosper not only in Ontario but throughout the
prairie provinces as well. I believe there are many other
Canadians who would benefit by using ethanol blended fuels in
their vehicles, as he and I already have.
On the same subject of sustaining the environment, I know the
member has some interest in the organic farming industry. Does
the member have any thoughts on the organic industry, given
that the organic growers require a greater amount of marketing
support from the federal government? That would be because
the organic industry is more expensive to maintain. Also there is
a problem with the official certification of an organic product. I
wonder if the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell could
offer some advice to the minister about what the federal
government could be doing to ensure that the organic industry is
able to prosper within our country.
(2135)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the
member for a very good question. He and I served on a number
of committees together during the years we have been here. He
might recall my raising this issue in the past with the previous
minister of agriculture.
In regard to the certification process and also in regard to
what a person can call organic, the difficulty we have is that the
identification of products as being organic seems to be a little bit
like the expression ``good'', good versus what. It becomes a
relative word particularly in the absence of more definitive rules
than we have had.
4192
For instance constituents have had problems importing
organic products. Their products would being stopped at the
border by inspectors who did not want to allow the products to
come in because they were applying tests that apply to
non-organic products and they did not match. I had to intervene
on a number of occasions during the previous Parliament with
the then minister. The goods were released and were allowed to
come into the country.
It created quite a problem at the time. There were many
consumers willing to buy the product but there was difficulty
with certification.
What we need is clearly marked differences for organic and
non-organic products, tests that have to be followed in order for
products to be identified that way. It should not be subjective. It
should be totally objective. As well as ensuring that when these
products are imported for part of the year, particularly products
such as tomatoes that we do not grow, that the people who
enforce the rules at the border are clearly aware of the
differences because they are clearly not the same. Even the
appearance of the product is not the same. Products may have a
more blemished and bruised look because they are organically
grown and because they are not sprayed with some of the things
that give the flawless appearance that products that do not have
the organic properties sometimes have.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
during the last six months the grain handling and transportation
system in the west has been in crisis. Tonight I want to take part
of my time to discuss the recommendations made by the
subcommittee on grain transportation which has reported to the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. I also wish
to address some of the long term solutions offered by the Reform
Party for grain transportation in the west.
The subcommittee on grain transportation has been
examining the current problems over the last few weeks and
even held public hearings with the major participants in the
grain handling and transportation sector.
The subcommittee reported to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and the Minister of Transport on Friday, May 6. In
the report the members of the subcommittee describe the current
situation as a crisis. They estimated that in this crop year alone
the grain car shortage in the west would cost producers at least
$35 million in demurrage charges for ships waiting at the west
coast ports. They also estimated that two million tonnes of grain
sales would be lost or at least deferred which could cost
producers between $100 million and $200 million.
The report prepared for the subcommittee on the St. Lawrence
seaway by the Library of Parliament also felt that there was an
even far more serious long term consequence if this
transportation crisis is not solved on an urgent basis. It was felt
Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of grain to the world
would be jeopardized.
The report said: ``If Canada cannot meet its delivery
commitments on time sales will be deferred, cancelled, and
customers will go elsewhere''.
(2140 )
The subcommittee determined that the current grain
transportation crisis was caused by a number of circumstances
including, first, a sharp increase in the movements of grain to
the U.S.A. resulting in a doubling of turnaround times for rail
cars from 20 days to 40 days; second, a tight lease market in the
U.S.A. for grain cars because of the flooding of the Mississippi
needed to replace barges; third, an increase in the movement of
non-board speciality grains which are handling intensive,
resulting in longer car cycles; fourth, a very severe winter which
slowed rail traffic; and, fifth, a 13-day strike at the west coast by
grain handlers.
The Reform Party supports the recommendations made by the
subcommittee on grain transportation and the subcommittee on
the St. Lawrence seaway. If I had the time, I would like to
outline all nine of the recommendations made to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food and to the Minister of Transport in
response to this crisis. However I think at this point in the debate
everyone in the House is fairly clear on the content of these
recommendations.
In addition to the subcommittee's report to the ministers,
Reformers have two other recommendations which we believe
will help address the crisis. First, farmers should be allowed
greater choices as to how their grain is shipped to market. In
times of backlogs and strikes alternative ports including U.S.
ports should be used to export Canadian grain.
The second recommendation we would like to put forth is that
there is an excessive amount of overregulation and the rail
transportation system is unable to respond effectively to market
demands. The rail car allocation system needs to be less
centralized and less regulated.
Personally I would like the ministers responsible to seriously
consider the port of Churchill. It could be used to help alleviate
the immediate crisis. I would like to also encourage the minister
to develop a long term strategy for grain transportation using all
ports: Vancouver, Thunder Bay, Churchill and the U.S.A.
On the longer term the Reform Party believes that permanent
reforms are necessary to ensure that politics are removed from
the transportation of grain. I emphasize the Reform Party
believes that agricultural commodities should move to markets
by any expeditious mode, by any route, and in any form or state
of processing. Such decisions should be based exclusively on
the principle of cost effectiveness and with the best interest of
the customer in mind.
To this end the Reform Party makes the following
recommendations. First, the Western Grain Transportation Act
should be repealed and all transportations subsidies should be
redirected to the Reform Party's proposed comprehensive
safety nets
4193
programs which will defend Canada's food producers against
matters over which they have little or no control.
Second, in order to create a genuinely competitive
transportation environment the Reform Party recommends the
deregulation of the rail transportation system, turning control of
the allocation of rail cars back to railways and the grain
companies and eventually privatization of all rail cars. This
would mean the end of the grain transportation agency and the
senior grain transportation committee.
There are about 21,000 grain hopper cars in the system today
and 18,500 are owned by the government. Reformers see no
reason for the grain companies and the railways not to own their
own rail cars. The free market should determine how many rail
cars are needed and when and where they are needed in the
system. The turnaround time for a rail car in the grain
transportation system is between 20 and 25 days, and this
turnaround time has not improved since 1908. By comparison,
the potash industry in my riding has a turnaround time of
between 7 and 8 days to the same ports. The potash industry
leases its own rail cars and the grain industry should do the
same.
(2145)
As our final recommendation, during periods of labour
disputes the Reform Party recommends the alternate use of
shipping points, including U.S. ports. Should that not prove
sufficient in maintaining shipment levels and customer
satisfaction then they should legislate the grain handlers as an
essential service.
A final point is in regard to the strategic use of the port of
Churchill. The Hudson Bay Route Association has its office in
Yorkton, Saskatchewan. For years this association has been
effectively promoting the use of the port of Churchill as an
alternate port for grain shipments. If the shipment of
agricultural products is based exclusively on the principle of
cost effectiveness and with the best interests of the customer in
mind as the Reform Party proposes, the port of Churchill will be
successful in attracting its fair share of the transportation
market.
For example, and this is important, if CN will provide the
boxcars this summer to an agricultural commodity broker he
will move at least one and possibly two shiploads, that is 80,000
tonnes of pulse crops, through the port of Churchill to Europe at
a saving of 60 cents per bushel. The Hudson Bay Route
Association also maintains that if elevators are plugged and the
grain bins are full then the boxcars designed for the Churchill
run should be moving grain to Churchill and customers could be
advised of the availability of grain at that port.
The Hudson Bay Route Association has also learned that the
Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, gives
away 750,000 tonnes of grain handling. It asks, if we are going
to give that grain away, why we cannot direct those ships to pick
up their grain at Churchill. It is a question that deserves an
answer.
Even the Minister of Human Resources Development publicly
supports greater utilization of the port of Churchill. The
ministers of agriculture in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba
publicly support greater use of the port of Churchill. The federal
and provincial politicians agree that now is the time to actively
promote the port of Churchill to grain customers throughout the
world.
In closing I would like to point out that I was raised on a farm.
I farmed myself for seven years just outside Yorkton. Farming is
part of me. Farming is in my blood. Farming is my culture and
my heritage. Farming is very special to me, so special that I do
not want the government running it. The government is too
involved in trying to solve the farmers' problems when farmers
are quite capable of solving their own problems; if only the
government would get out of the way.
I encourage members of the House to support the
subcommittee's recommendations to help get the grain moving
in the west. I also ask for support of the Reform Party's longer
term solutions to our grain transportation system.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
note that the Reform Party supports the recommendations of the
subcommittee on transportation and agriculture dealing with car
shortage.
That committee's recommendation shows the kind of
proactive approach the minister talked about in his resolution
this morning. I would encourage the member opposite to read
the transcripts of that hearing. It was not the excessive amount
of regulation that was the problem with respect to car shortage.
It was that the regulations were not enforced enough for the
GTA.
With regard to the example of 1,000 cars of canola meal, that
was a result of non-administrative product and it was the
problem. It is not just a matter of less regulation; it is a matter of
enforcing those regulations.
What would the member suggest the government should do
with respect to the railways not living up to their obligations
under the Western Grain Transportation Act in terms of
providing the rolling stock and capital investment with which to
move the product to market?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, the
recommendations of the committee with regard to that are
sufficient.
4194
(2150 )
In regard to something else, there is no incentive built into the
system now for many of these bureaucrats to really get at some
of the problems that underlie the whole grain handling system.
When one has over a dozen support programs and all the
bureaucracies saying that they are trying to help the farmer and
in effect working at cross purposes, it does not help. This is
where I get back to what the Reform Party is saying.
We are saying that you should take all of these 11 departments
of agriculture and get them to start working together. The best
way you could do that is with the Canadian Wheat Board. Give
farmers some control. Let them get involved. Right now it is run
from the top down. We find this totally unacceptable. We are a
populace party and we would like to see a lot more of the
grassroots farmers supported and represented in these agencies.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, I will not abuse your consideration. It will be a short
question.
The member talked about wanting greater choices in the
transportation opportunities for farmers. I am wondering if he is
aware of the producer payment panel report on the Crow benefit
that has just recently been produced and made public, a report
that basically indicates that a pay the producer option means less
money and fewer farmers on the land. Is that the program that he
supports?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure of everything that the member is speaking about but I think
we should put this money put back where farmers have control
over it. Put this Crow subsidy money into a fund that is
administered. We have proposed three of them. I am just going
to briefly explain what I mean by this.
We could take these over a dozen consolidated,
unco-ordinated support programs and put them into three major
programs and use the funds that are now presently in the Crow
subsidy and gradually eroding. We could put these into funds
that would protect producers from unfair trade subsidies that
other countries have, natural hazards and income fluctuations
beyond their control. They would be effective and farmers
would begin to be able to make some choices that would really
make farming a profitable enterprise once again.
I think that is the kind of thing we would like to see happen in
agriculture.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, how
appropriate tonight that the Reform Party should have the last
word.
Flying east to west the southern landscapes of Canada offer a
panoramic view of fields and farms stretching to the horizon in a
richly textured patchwork. This rich and productive farmland
injects a massive boost to Canada's general economic activity
and provides the most basic of all human needs, food.
Yet, agriculture remains a virtually invisible industry
scarcely noticed by the media when more fashionable news
captures the interests of consumers. Issues that do enter the
public arena are treated as the preserve of an emotional special
interest group or a sad but quaint relic of other times.
Agriculture in Canada in reality is a vital and integrated
industry, including primary production, processing, marketing
and delivery of a final product to the consumer. It remains a
fundamental part of the economy and society affecting in subtle
ways the development of our social policy in Canada and a
changing economic agenda.
Three decades ago Canadians spent 25 per cent of their budget
on food. Today we spend much less, 13 cents of every dollar and
we get better quality and more consistent supplies than virtually
any overseas country.
There is an established pattern of consumer demand that
suggests stability for the short term but emerging trends may
reshape food production in the long term. To anticipate changes
in demand we need to know what already exists, what could be
and what can be made to be. Managing what exists today was
yesterday's business. Our task is to plan and manage what
tomorrow may become.
Consider the following. In present day agriculture the interest
of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the
producer. The system seems to consider production and not
consumption as the object of all industry and commerce.
As a trading nation Canada must address the fact that the
global neighbourhood is a place of change. A neighbour of today
may not be there tomorrow. Where is the Bloc?
(2155 )
Globalization really boils down to a definition that means
jobs and money now go in search of skill and income levels
regardless of distance and borders. The production process takes
place over thousands of kilometres and is co-ordinated by
instant communication.
Now how will these global changes affect our current levels of
domestic production? What kind of planning process needs to be
in place to address the future needs of not only Canada but the
world? What kind of trading agreements will need to be
negotiated with countries such as China? Our current
government policies do not give serious consideration to these
issues. They regulate for today with little thought for tomorrow.
In the year 2000 earth's inhabitants are expected to be 6.4
billion and 10 billion by 2030. Before the world reaches
population stability food demands could be three times today's
level, but arable land is expected to increase by the year 2000
only to the extent of 4 per cent worldwide. So traditional
methods of improving crop yields will be hard pressed to make
up the difference between population and farm land growth.
4195
In Canada the government has had a unique pervasiveness and
integrated relationship with agriculture because of the highly
disbursed nature of farming and the limited size of the
individual enterprise. Because of the importance of a strong
agricultural sector to the overall competitiveness of the
economy, it is imperative that Canada develop an industry that
takes advantage of its specific natural and human resources.
Practically speaking, consumers eventually get what they
want. Just how quickly and efficiently that happens measures a
supplier's success. How readily Canada anticipates and
responds to emerging demands will become an important
yardstick determining her competitive advantage or lack
thereof. And so while the world waits, Canadian consumers also
present a very real and current challenge. They create demand
and they consume the product.
About 90 per cent of the people who are here now will be here
at the turn of the century, I am very happy to say. Canada like
many other countries is approaching zero population growth.
Beginning in about the year 2010 if no dramatic change in
fertility or immigration occur our population will start to
decline. This implies weak domestic opportunities for growth
and increasing competition at all levels.
As well, there are growing concerns for food safety which
places further pressure on government as well as distributors as
consumers become more aware of the food chain. It is an irony
of the food industry that it takes a lot of work to be natural.
Opportunities exist to attempt new communication
approaches to more effectively manage the public's worry about
food safety. There are implications for increased costs to the
consumer. Government too needs to accept responsibility for
developing regulations that assure producers remain
competitive within this food safety conscious environment.
Regulations have been mentioned prior to my presentation
tonight. They are an insidious form of hidden taxation and any
assessment of the tax environment in Canada should also
consider its regulatory climate. It is complex with many
departments unable to work independently of one another
because of the current structure. Can you imagine implementing
even the slightest regulatory change when regulatory
amendments have to go through 80 to 90 offices before they can
be gazetted. It is taxpayers' money that continues to support this
huge monolithic structure.
Government now has an opportunity to encourage initiative
and innovation to meet changing expectations, heightened
competition, industrial evolution and risk. Its responsibility
becomes one that must not limit innovation by overregulating.
As well the regulatory process has to be streamlined to allow for
timely and effective change to meet the needs of the
marketplace.
How do we become market responsive? We know the
characteristics of the consumers we wish to serve. We know the
emerging reality of increased competition in the marketplace
and of the new global trading environment regulated by GATT
rules and the NAFTA alliance.
NAFTA raises questions of basic rights and obligations
regarding issues related to sanitation and vital sanitary
measures for agriculture. Technical standards such as these are
based upon scientific principles and risk assessment.
We understand also that distortions to world markets and
prices for commodities have been the result of subtle but
invasive farm policies worldwide. And the cost of protection is
getting higher and higher.
Currently a number of sectors of the agriculture industry are
production driven under supply management regulations. This
continuation of such regulation does not bode well for the
consumer who seeks choice in an open market environment. It is
time to redefine supply management and to decide what
Canadians want in terms of farm policy.
To achieve this, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food should be asking how to achieve an orderly
marketing system in Canada, how to handle imports, how to
harmonize the current quotas given to producers in order to
shield consumers from short market disasters. The standing
committee has been hesitant to date to look into these matters.
Why?
We know that a farm policy is no substitute for realistic rural
policy. Guaranteed prices do not prevent bankruptcies, and
being self-sufficient does not ensure food security.
To those who remain in the House tonight and to those on the
agriculture committee, it is time to be courageous in leadership
and to demonstrate that development of new opportunities
demand a new approach, and then go and do it. It is no longer
enough to follow where the path is going.
It is time to go where there is no path and blaze our own trail.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 10 p.m., pursuant
to order made Friday, May 6, the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 10 p.m.)