Darrel Stinson

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48 has been described by many as a housekeeping bill, to combine the federal Department of Forestry with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.

In my opinion Bill C-48 is far more than that. Today I want to begin by praising Bill C-48 while also raising a few concerns. First, I wish to praise the government for continuing with this integration started by the former government, both from a standpoint of tax dollars saved and new understandings included in Bill C-48. From a recent departmental briefing I see that this amalgamation is expected to save something in the range of $41 million over a four-year period starting in 1994-95 primarily through streamlining at the corporate level, including such things as putting together financial services and human resources of what formerly were two cabinet level departments.

The jobs of the rank and file public service generally were spared the axe although the downsizing did remove a cabinet minister and three assistant deputy ministers.

The preservation of those other jobs is perhaps due to the fact that the Canadian Forest Services-and I would like to comment on the forest services here-is already one of the most decentralized of all in the federal government with some 90 per cent of the people not in Ottawa.

Another reason for praising this legislation is the new understanding presented by Bill C-48 of what principles and methods should be used to manage the nation's natural resources. For example under "interpretation", Bill C-48 defines sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

The bill's list of the minister's duties in clause 6, items (d), (e), and (f) are as follows:

The minister shall:

(d) have regard to the integrated management and sustainable development of Canada's natural resources;

(e) Seek to enhance the responsible development and use of Canada's natural resources and the competitiveness of Canada's natural resources products;

(f) participate in the enhancement and promotion of market access for Canada's natural resource products and technical surveys industries, both domestically and internationally;

Although day to day management of natural resources falls under provincial jurisdictions these directives in Bill C-48 should lay to rest many longstanding public concerns that the federal government might either encourage the so-called rape and destruction of our natural resources on the one hand or collapse before extremists advocating only recreational and tourist use of natural resources on the other hand.

The legislation makes clear that the minister must have regard for integrated management and sustainable development. That is good for everybody.

Another reason to praise Bill C-48 is that it will help counteract an unfortunate tendency by some people to speak of our natural resource industries as though they were so-called sunset industries, as though their time had somehow come and passed. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The role of science and technology in the Department of Natural Resources is widespread with the scientific establishments at numerous sites from Victoria to Resolute Bay to St. John's as part of a science and technology budget at Natural Resources Canada in the order of $432 million projected for 1994-95.

Among the minister's duties are that the minister shall, and I quote clause 6, sections (b), (c) and (i):

(b) assist in the development and promotion of Canadian scientific and technological capabilities;

(c) participate in the development and application of codes and standards for technical surveys and natural resources products and for the management and use of natural resources;

(i) gather, compile, analyse, co-ordinate and disseminate information respecting scientific, technological, economic, industrial, managerial, marketing and related activities and developments affecting Canada's natural resources.

Another indicator that our natural resource industries are continually elevating in addition to the specific growth in science and technology is the modernization of their insights, their principles and the managerial techniques as the world moves toward sustainable development, in part pushed by the new wave of green consumerism.

As a prime example of such integrated resource management the federal government has been a major participant in the Whitehorse mining initiative whose report presented September 13 included a set of more than 150 recommendations in light of 16 principles and 70 goals voiced by more than 140 individual participants in the process.

For all these reasons I applaud the government for uniting these departments into one through Bill C-48. However, I also want to voice some concerns.

Bill C-48 helps to spell out the federal role and relationship with provincial jurisdiction over forestry and mining. Despite much talk about the so-called new economy, the $40 billion forest industry remains number one in Canada, providing some 777,000 jobs or one in every 16 in 1993 with approximately 350 Canadian communities dependent on forestry for their financial existence. It also adds a $19 billion contribution to Canada's net balance of trade, by far the largest of any industry in Canada.

Although the mining industry has been hard hit in recent years, there are some 150 communities across Canada that depend on mining and mining related activities. This contributes 4 per cent of our GDP, 17 per cent of our exports and a net $11 billion surplus to our balance of payments as well as being the source of 60 per cent of rail freight and 55 per cent of port traffic. Directly and indirectly, mining provides some 300,000 jobs.

Clearly, forestry and mining are two of the most essential contributors to our national economic health. Therefore I would have preferred to see clause 7 of Bill C-48 say that the minister shall co-operate with the provinces and municipalities rather than may as it now does. These economic sectors are simply too important for us to tolerate government duplications or squabbles regarding jurisdiction. As a Reformer I am especially concerned that there should be as little overlap as possible between the levels of government and that no activity be undertaken by the federal level if the provincial level can handle it.

I also have questions on clause 35, subclauses 7 and 8, which detail other things the minister may do.

Subclause 7 says that the Minister of Natural Resources may make grants and contributions and, with the approval of the Governor in Council, provide other forms of financial assistance. I am told that Parliament can exert control here by simply refusing to appropriate money to the minister for such purposes. But once the funds are voted, the minister does not even need to consult with cabinet before making grants and contributions.

I believe Bill C-48 should have included some procedure to build into the granting process public accountability and transparency as well as requiring at the minimum consultation with cabinet.

Subclause 8 provides that:

(1) The Minister may co-ordinate logistics support and provide related assistance for the purposes of advancing scientific knowledge of the Arctic region and contributing to the exercise of Canada's sovereignty in that region and its adjacent waters.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister may

(a) make grants and contributions; and

(b) make recoverable expenditures on behalf of any other department, branch or agency of the Government of Canada or a province or any university, organization or person in respect of its share of the cost of any logistics support or related assistance.

I have the same concerns as mentioned above about the authority for grants but I would would like to ask some additional questions.

First, is this Bill C-48 the appropriate place to authorize a minister regarding contributing to the existence of Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic? If there is doubt regarding Canada's sovereignty in that region, it seems that a so-called housekeeping bill on natural resources is at best an inappropriate place to bolster such authority.

Second, in view of the tradition that natural resources north of 60 degrees latitude fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, why is the Minister of Natural Resources given this twin function of asserting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic and authorization to recover costs from groups performing exploration or research, maybe filming a movie or leading a tour group?

I look forward to hearing the government's explanations for what look to me to be shortcomings in a bill which otherwise deserves the praise and support of the House.

[Petitions, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition to Parliament duly certified by the clerk of petitions and signed by 87 residents of my constituency of Okanagan-Shuswap.

This petition raises the concerns shared by many Canadians of all religious faiths, namely that the government has been rumoured to be considering amendments to various pieces of human rights legislation regarding the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

This petition asks Parliament to take no such action.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, September 23rd, 1994]

Right on.

[Cherryville, British Columbia, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend I attended the 75th anniversary of Cherryville, a community of 1,200 people at the edge of the Monashee Mountains in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap.

It rained all day so you did not have to go into their dunk tank to get wet. They had me decked out in a roaring twenties red and white striped bathing suit and I got dunked several times. More than the dunking, what impressed me was the spirit of small town fun and friendliness. They made me feel at home.

In its 75-year history this former gold mining community has heard many a shout of joy in English as well as Chinese when prospectors of both races found gold nuggets as heavy as four ounces in their gold pans.

As often happens, some who came for gold stayed for the rich soil, beautiful scenery and abundant water, going into farming, ranching and logging.

I want to say a special congratulations today to Cherryville and all the little communities to which mining has given birth across this great country.

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-34, an act respecting self-government for the First Nations in Yukon Territory is a bill which I would very much like to support.

I would like to support it and I say this with absolutely no malice toward the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development because I personally look forward to the day when the Department of Indian Affairs no longer exists. When that day comes it will mean that people born on Indian reserves or people born of First Nation parents have assumed their full rights and responsibilities as adult citizens rather than living under the not always benevolent dictatorship of some distant white parent figure in the federal government.

I would also like to support Bill C-34 because I know that men and women around the world regard aboriginal peoples as a world treasure. Any modern nation which can bring its aboriginal peoples into full partnership in the modern world will be deserving the world's praise and gratitude.

I would like to support Bill C-34 if I could because it is only right and just that as the First Nations people demonstrate their readiness to take over their own affairs, that right should be handed over to them in a reasonable and efficient manner.

Finally if it were possible I would support Bill C-34 because the policy of the Reform Party of Canada passed by our many thousands of members at our regular assemblies supports: "Processes leading to the early and mutually satisfactory conclusion of outstanding land claims negotiations-enabling aboriginal individuals, communities and organizations to assume full responsibility for their well-being by involving them in the development, delivery and assessment of government policies affecting them".

Given my own commitment to those four reasons for supporting progress toward native self-government, it was with real disappointment and mounting frustration that I read the reasons why I cannot support Bill C-34.

The incredible twists and turns of this bill have created a strangely complex administrative trap set to ensnare well meaning officials of both the involved First Nations and the Yukon territorial government.

I have no wish to say anything bad about the motives of the people who put Bill C-34 together. No doubt they had the best intentions. Regardless of their good intentions, they have started Canada's long desired progress toward native self-government by making two fundamentally wrong assumptions.

I am deducing their assumptions by looking at what Bill C-34 provides. In its schedule III, parts I, II, III and IV, Bill C-34 provides these First Nations with jurisdiction over virtually every item relating to creation, preservation and defence of peace, order and good government that would be granted to a nation such as Canada.

For example, the First Nations will have jurisdiction over manpower training, which the province of Quebec has long been seeking but was not granted. Additionally Bill C-34 provides these First Nations with jurisdiction over the control or prohibition of the possession and use of firearms and other weapons and explosives.

Part III, number 21 gives this a power which has been reserved for the federal government and not even given to governments at the provincial levels. With the passing of Bill C-34, that right to make firearm laws will be handed over to these four First Nations.

As a third example, portions of Bill C-34 relating to administration of justice point out that some interim agreements must be concluded, but once such agreements expire these four so-called First Nations shall have the right to administer justice including imposing fines up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to six months.

In other words, Bill C-34 is taking very literally the term nations when legislating to these four groups of natives. Is this reasonable?

I am not a student of world geography, but I frankly cannot recall reading about any nation in the world which has a population of under 10,000 people. In Canada our towns, municipalities and regional districts have more than 10,000 people and those administrative levels of governments are often hard pressed today to pay for the kinds of things required from municipal level governments; for example, to pay for the salaries of building inspectors to be sure that new construction complies with standards for things like electrical wiring, soundness of building foundations and fire safety.

Bill C-34 regards each of these four so-called First Nations as being a nation with virtually all the rights and responsibilities of a modern developed country like Canada, whose population is 28 million.

Bill C-34 extends the special rights, privileges and duties of nationhood to these groups whose total population is approximately 7,300 native people, divided into 14 bands and scattered across some of the most sparsely populated land remaining on our planet.

Again I must ask my colleagues of the House: Is this reasonable? From my personal point of view it is so far from being reasonable that it seems tragic. I say that Bill C-34 is tragic because by expecting far too much Bill C-34 dooms one of Canada's first experiments in native self-government to failure, for on to the shoulders of these 7,300 natives will fall the responsibility to administer some 16,000 square miles of land equivalent to about 75 per cent of the province of Nova Scotia which the land claim agreements of Bill C-33, the companion piece of this legislation, will hand over in fee simple ownership.

In case some hon. members may doubt what I am alleging here, let us look at some of the other responsibilities which will fall on the small native population. On that piece of land, three-quarters of the size of Nova Scotia, they will be responsible for all use, management, administration, control and protection. That is part III, item 1.

They will be responsible for all allocations and dispositions of rights and interests in that land for the use, management, administration and protection of natural resources for all businesses, professional and trade licensing, for all construction, sanitation planning, zoning and land development, for controlling operation and use of vehicles, local services and facilities, for preventing pollution and protecting the environment.

In short, nobody needs feel concern over unemployment in this area of Yukon because virtually every adult will be getting a job from the new First Nations government.

At a time when the people of Canada are complaining about being overgoverned, Bill C-34 carries overgovernment to undreamed of extremes.

One incorrect assumption of the people who drew up Bill C-34 is that the term nation should be applied literally to these tiny isolated groups, reserving for the federal government only such limited functions as postal service, international agreements, military defence and the jurisdiction of the federal court.

The second bad assumption which the drafters of the legislation apparently made is that these native groups are fully ready for such an advanced stage of self-government. To return to the Reform Party policy on the subject, because it has the unusual merit of making plain common sense, unlike Bill C-34, the Reform Party supports: "The establishment of a new relationship with aboriginal peoples beginning with a constitutional convention of aboriginal representatives to consider their position on such matters as the nature of aboriginal rights, the relationship between aboriginal peoples and the various levels of government, and how to reduce the economic dependence of

aboriginal peoples on the federal government and the department of Indian affairs".

To the best of my knowledge none of this preliminary groundwork has been completed. I believe it is particularly important for native peoples to work out agreements with neighbouring municipal level governments with which they could share the cost burden of providing that more realistic level of self-government services.

I would like to draw to the House's attention the question of drawing up a constitution for these First Nations as probably the most essential missing pieces of Bill C-34.

Regarding creating a constitution, many people around the world have been impressed by the process used by the new South Africa in moving away from its old white race dominated system of government to a new country based, at last on the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote.

Once the political will was there, South Africa accomplished this transition fairly quickly by establishing, first of all, a temporary constitution to determine how the election should take place, some soft boundaries for the future nine provinces, and the rough framework whereby the newly elected federal officials, balanced by an equal number from each of the nine new provinces, will gather to draw up South Africa's long term constitution, subject to ratification by the people.

In order to establish these four Yukon First Nations, to the best of my knowledge and research, no such constitutional details have been spelled out.

What Bill C-34 does provide is some standards which must be included in the constitution of these First Nations, including what is required for citizenship and procedure for determining whether a person is a citizen; what shall be the governing bodies of the First Nation, including such things as membership, duties and procedures; a system for these governing bodies to be financially accountable to the citizens; a way to recognize and protect their rights and freedoms; a way to challenge the validity of laws and quash the laws seen as not valid; a way to amend the constitution.

Unfortunately a number of key questions are not discussed. For instance, who is to draw up these constitutions for each of the four First Nations involved? What time frame are they to follow? Do the native people get to vote on their own proposed new constitution? If so, how? Will our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms be followed in these new nations?

On all of these essential points, Bill C-34 is silent.

However the legislation does contain something which does not, in my opinion, properly belong in any bill which a responsible government asks members of this House to support. Bill C-34 asks Parliament, by passing this one piece of legislation, to give blanket approval, sight unseen, to self-government agreements for 10 additional Yukon bands, according to Clause 5(2): "Where a self-government agreement is concluded with a First Nation after this act comes into force, the governor in council may, by order, bring the agreement into effect and add the name of the First Nation to Schedule II".

I believe this particular clause is the height of irresponsible behaviour by the present government. In the way of things, another government altogether may be in place before the 10 other self-government agreements have been concluded.

Members of today's Parliament could be giving this blanket permission to a cabinet not even yet elected. I submit to my colleagues that this simply is not a conscientious way to fulfil our obligations to all the people of Canada. It is at best a slip-shod kind of behaviour which no conscientious people would exercise in the conduct of their own personal affairs, much less the affairs of this great nation.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest some positive alternatives to Bill C-34, which I regard as having such serious flaws that it cannot be remedied even by numerous amendments.

In the very desirable process of going along with our aboriginal peoples as they follow the road to self-government, I believe that we must simply start at the beginning of the road and not leap with little caution toward the road's end. The beginning of the road to aboriginal self-government is holding an aboriginal constitutional convention at which the native peoples spell out what conditions they want to live under and what responsibilities for government and administration they want and are ready and financially able to assume.

For example, I doubt that the people of Canada would question or deny the aboriginal right to administer First Nation affairs and operation and internal management of the First Nation, together with the management and administration of rights and benefits realized by the aboriginals' agreement with Canada.

I feel certain that the people of Canada would be pleased and proud to see natives assume full responsibilities for programs and services relating to their spiritual and cultural beliefs and practices as well as the preservation of their aboriginal language and culture. However, far too little thought and planning has been devoted to the ways by which our native peoples would end their financial dependence on the rest of Canada.

There is no joke about the golden rule, that he who has the gold makes the rules. In our society to be regarded as a responsible adult is to take full responsibility for one's self. In my book that does not mean negotiating such huge settlements of land, cash and resources that the most minimal common sense

about investment will allow the beneficiaries to pursue their own chosen lifestyle forever.

In the rest of Canada people with many types of handicaps pride themselves on being able to work to be as self-supporting and independent as possible. Frankly, to say that for some reason our native people are not equally able to become self-supporting and independent seems to me to be racism of the worst kind.

I look forward to the day when a responsible government will bring to Parliament the kind of legislation enabling aboriginal self-government that all members of this House will be pleased and proud to support. Unfortunately, Bill C-34 does not fit that description.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

No, no. We are trying to work with the government. Unfortunately there are certain members on the other side who refuse to listen.

When you are trying to further the output of companies it cannot be done through grants but you cannot cut them off instantly. It does not work that way. First the field has to be level. The member or his colleague mentioned it before in interprovincial trade barriers. We have more interprovincial trade barriers in our own country than we do for exports from other countries.

It has been years. You have had your chances before. Now you are starting to listen a little bit. Not very much, just a little bit. I can understand that over here. It is too bad that gets lost over on the other side.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

There we go again. If it is not to your liking, everybody has to be against Canada. We have tried to introduce bills and motions in full support of Canada but that side does not support them. They go off on their own rhetoric.

The Reform Party caucus has stated all along that you cannot just totally cut off everything.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member on the other side. Maybe the ears get plugged or maybe we are misinterpreted. The understanding of what is being said from this side is not quite there.

First, who says that because we are on opposite sides that one party or another cannot come up with a policy of which part can be supported by the other parties. Just the Liberals say that if it is not a Liberal policy nobody should support it.

I have sat here since the beginning of the session and all I have heard is how well you people on the other side want to get this country going. Yet you sit over there and refuse to accept any suggestions from any side on this. If it is not Liberal it does not wash, that is your way of thinking.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support parts of the Bloc's motion. After listening to the rhetoric that has gone on here today, I kind of get lost.

I enjoy the comments from the other side. I would like to refer specifically to two matters that have importance to western economic development: first, the federal government's prolonged inaction regarding dumping of apples grown in Washington state; second, the federal government's seemingly perpetual bungling of the handling of grain.

On Monday, May 9 more than 400 fruit growers gathered at the Canada-U.S. border crossing near the small community of Osoyoos in British Columbia to protest the government's lack of action regarding an extremely perishable agricultural commodity, apples, which are no longer being protected against unfair marketing practices by American growers due to contradictory actions by the federal government.

According to an article in the Osoyoos Times :

When the dumping of U.S. apples occurred in 1987 and 1989, apple growers in B.C. lost more than $10 million, according to the association. But Ottawa responded by placing apples under the Special Import Measures Act, a five-year plan protecting orchardists against dumping. However, in February of this year the Canadian Import Trade Tribunal chose not to renew the plan, leaving growers vulnerable to what they call unfair competition.

Imagine what would have happened to fishermen on the east coast when federal legislation providing special support to them called the northern cod adjustment recovery package expired on May 15 if the federal government had simply done nothing.

When the legislation expired, hundreds of fishing families, the main economic support of their communities, would have faced bankruptcy. Rather than let this happen, the government brought in the Atlantic groundfish strategy, or TAGS. While I cannot speak wholeheartedly in favour of TAGS, I do recognize that a responsible federal government cannot expect major sectors of the Canadian economy to go cold turkey from wide scale government support and government control to full fledged, free enterprise overnight.

Yet this is exactly what is happening to apple growers in British Columbia. Their industry was protected, and with not one effort to prepare growers for the sudden transition that protection was withdrawn.

The Reform Party is strongly in favour of free trade but we emphasize that it must be fair trade. In the long run we in the Reform caucus look forward to the time when Canadian agriculture can thrive in a free market economy but we recognize that this time has not yet come.

Okanagan fruit growers must not simply be thrown to the wolves or Canada may soon face the situation in which having apple tree in the backyard is merely a hobby and all commercial fruit must be imported. I believe that is totally unacceptable. The Reform caucus urges the government to recognize that there must be an orderly transition to tomorrow's world of free trade. In the interim, B.C. fruit growers face great economic hardships which will result in many of them going bankrupt.

I hear the hon. member on the other side basically suggesting that there should be no support given to the B.C. Okanagan fruit growers. According to David Hobson, president of the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association: "Farm families cannot sustain another year of dumping".

At the B.C. rally on May 9, B.C. provincial government representatives, including Okanagan-Boundary MLA Bill Barlee, former B.C. agriculture minister and now B.C. minister of small business, as well as Okanagan East MLA Judy Tyabji pointed out that fruit growers have become entangled in a conflicting maze of B.C. and federal policies.

More thoughtful government policies could moderate many economic consequences of the shift to a competitive world of free market. The lack of competitiveness from either B.C. fruit growers or west coast grain handlers is not due either to the farmers and workers involved nor to the conditions supplied by mother nature.

Canada has been recognized around the world for the high quality of our tree fruit, particularly our apples. Our growers and our agricultural researchers deserve much credit for their dedication and hard work. We are blessed with abundant water as well as soil and climate that provide some of the best growing conditions in the world both for grain on the prairies and for the tree fruit industry, especially in the Okanagan Valley which historically has provided approximately one-third of Canada's apples.

The future of Canada's horticultural industry should be bright. Instead we have growers who face a troubled and uncertain future due to the lack of wisdom in the way govern-

ment has dealt with the problems of our farms and orchards on one hand and the transportation of grain on the other hand.

In the past government took the easy route. If a problem emerged it would throw tax dollars at it. If west coast grain handlers went on strike or elevator operators locked the union out, the federal government would wait whatever it considered the appropriate amount of time to give lip service to free market forces. Then Parliament would be called on once again as we were this spring to legislate an end to the strike.

I voted in support of the back to work legislation with the specific suggestion that the House must develop a long term solution to problems of handling grain. According to the Edmonton Journal for May 17 the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food noted ``a wrinkle in the Western Grain Transportation Act'' which sometimes makes it cheaper to haul grain east to Thunder Bay before shipping it west to qualify for cheaper rates. That is the kind of unrealistic nonsense that can result from federal government intervention.

To compensate for time lost in this spring's grain handlers strike, complicated by a lack of hopper cars earlier this year because of grain shipment disruptions in the U.S.A. due to flooding in the Mississippi River valley, west coast grain terminals are now being operated on a seven-day per week basis at full overtime rates. Such seven-day per week operation has long been necessary to handle the increasing volumes of grain going through west coast ports. In response to requests for seven-day coverage the federal mediator to the previous west coast grain handlers strike allowed it on condition that the terminal operators pay full overtime rates for weekend work even if weekend hours were to form part of the regularly scheduled work week, according to the terminal operators.

In the world of free trade and strong international competition prairie grain pools cannot hope to remain competitive with emerging suppliers from other countries under those conditions. It is obvious that a long term resolution to such problems must be found.

The minister of agriculture indicated he was interested in such action with a meeting he scheduled two weeks ago with officials from the grain companies, west coast terminal operators and union and federal grain agencies. After the meeting the Alberta agriculture minister said the immediate concerns about the grain backlog left little time for discussing long term plans. He said: "We just managed to scratch the surface in a tentative way".

For the prairie communities and railroads and the 3,500 west coast grain handlers who were subject to special legislation in 1974, 1975, 1982, 1988, 1991, and again in 1994, these make-do meetings are simply not good enough.

Productivity of wheat, productivity per man hour of the grain handlers and the demand for wheat among the Pacific rim customers are growing. Both wheat and the production of apples are important regional aspects of the Canadian economy. For example, the fresh and processed fruit and vegetable industry has an annual production that exceeds $4 billion. The fresh fruit and vegetable sector alone accounts for $1.8 billion.

Regarding wheat, according to green matters, I quote: "The Far East and Oceania, home to 3.2 billion consumers, could account for 40 per cent of world wheat trade by the end of the century. Population and income growth, increased urbanization and the resulting dietary shift away from rice are expected to lead to greater use of wheat based products. Canada could secure as much as 30 per cent of this market".

The Canadian horticultural action plan published by agriculture Canada in 1993 recommended that agricultural policies be changed in several areas. Currently the federal government has piecemeal agricultural policies which see wide differences from province to province.

In conclusion, overall the Reform Party caucus is in favour of as little federal government intervention in our regions as possible. However, we recognize that in the transition from yesterday's heavily supported and controlled economy to tomorrow's world of free trade, orderly, thoughtful and reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that survival, particularly of Okanagan apple growers and prairie grain producers, are looked at in a different light. The federal government's intervention is often inefficient at best and harmful to regional development.