Jean-Paul Marchand

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk is an excellent chairman of the agriculture committee. He does an excellent job.

However today there are three points I would like briefly to correct or bring to his attention. Basically the discussion today is about the lack of leadership in government regarding agriculture. What he said would indicate even more the lack of leadership with respect to agriculture in government. For example, he mentioned rural development, which is of course extremely important, saying how the government minister indicated that it was his top priority but he did not put any money in it. What sort of top priority is that when you say it is really very important and you do not put any money in it?

Another example is trade. He mentioned that there are many initiatives with regard to trade. Of course, the minister has gone to China to sell wheat. However, in the negotiations that are going on with the United States right now there is a problem that was created by the Americans by their export enhancement program and other issues. Of course Canada profited from this situation. Of course Canada profited from free trade with the United States, but why suddenly is Canada giving in to American pressure and putting a cap on durum wheat to the United States? It is lack of leadership.

Another example, again in dealing with trade with the United States, which really is a big item, is instead of dealing sector by sector so that we get the maximum for our bucks for Canada we put it all in one lump package. This is what the minister of agriculture is trying to deal with the United States, instead of dealing sector by sector so that he would get the maximum for his bucks. Lack of leadership. The examples were given by the MP for Haldimand-Norfolk who is a very good president of the agriculture committee.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder if the hon. member who just spoke is really from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and not an extra-terrestrial being from the moon, because it is abundantly clear from his remarks that he does not understand what effect the GATT Agreement had. And he does not seem to believe the farmers, as if they had not figured out what happened with GATT.

For example, to say that quota values had increased following the signing of the agreement, or that the quota system will be in place for a very long time, that is ridiculous. Especially since farmers are aware that the quota system is under attack due to tariffs and they may not be confident in what has happened, as witnessed by the Ontario chicken producers. Why did they increase their production by 30 per cent if not as a clear indication of their lack of confidence in the system? They know how the market works.

You have to do more than tell farmers that all is well, that everything is perfect in Canada, to make things work. Farmers understand very well what is going on. It is the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who, sadly, does not understand.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks. Today's motion does not really deal with research and development in Canada, but with the department of agriculture's lack of spine, its lack of leadership, and the lack of direction in agriculture.

It is quite true that in the R and D sector, scientists across Canada are making all kinds of discoveries, and that is good. Developments regarding new varieties of wheat and seeds are desirable. As a matter of fact, we would like the government to find more funds to support R and D. As the hon. member mentioned, the opening of new markets depends first and foremost on R and D.

The government is lacking initiative even when it comes to R and D, the member admitted it himself; investments in that area have been frozen. If it really had the interests of farmers at heart, the government could at leat increase its funding of R and D for agriculture. I repeat, the motion does not deal with Canadian R and D, but with the government's lack of leadership and initiative. We could give you many examples of this lack of initiative such as the negotiations with the United States for which some Liberal members tell us that the government has taken a tough stand, when we know that in fact they are completely caving in.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as for milk production in Quebec, the question was raised-

-at least two times. Of course under the supply management system Quebec has been advantaged in terms of milk production. It is the only advantage in agriculture Quebec has had under the present system.

Because of the fact that the federal government has been inept in maintaining article XI, supply management is the thing of the past as the hon. member knows. The farmers in Quebec, organized as they are, better than any other agricultural organization in Canada, are positioned to make such that the milk production will be sold in other countries. We cannot work any more in the supply management sector, only because the federal government has not.

One other thing about inequity in terms of the expenses of the federal government is it is not as though people in Quebec are not generous people. We recognize the principle that when one province is poorer than the other we try to be generous. That is not the issue. The issue is disloyal competition.

This form of inequity which has been going on for decades in Canada has disadvantaged Quebec in a disloyal way. That is to say, in those areas where Quebec has had a marked advantage like in pork production, moneys were being used by the federal government to develop industries competitive to Quebec in other provinces.

That is not a question of simple inequity. It is disloyal competition. That has been one of the problems with the farmers in Quebec.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

As usual, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is uninformed. Therefore, I will put the question to the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this government is indeed lacking in leadership. That is very obvious because there has been lots of talk since this morning, and even some mistakes made by certain members, including the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture has just told us that the government is doing the best it can, in spite of the split among farmers. However, even when farmers agree completely with consumers, as is the case with bovine somatotropin, what does the government do? What action has the government taken in response to a unanimous recommendation from the Agriculture Committee with which some members of this House are quite familiar?

I would like to ask this question of the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture. What is the government doing? Does it plan to comply with the agriculture committee's recommendation that a one-year moratorium be imposed on the sale of this hormone, a move which is endorsed by all farm agencies in Canada and by all consumer organizations?

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell does not really know the agricultural sector, because when he says that no tariff was disputed, he forgets that negotiations are under way right now with the Americans, mostly concerning ice cream and yogurt. That is mainly what these negotiations are about. That is where we will really suffer. They want to reduce tariffs by 200 per cent in these two sectors. It is criminal.

They really do not know what they are talking about. Huge amounts are involved. It amounts to about 14 per cent of the whole industry. If they think they won in the GATT negotiations, why is the Ontario chicken market in a crisis? Why are farmers subject to quotas in a state of panic? They raised their production by 30 per cent. They are at war. They do not respect the Canadian council's recommendations regarding chicken production. Why? Because the federal government did not do its job in the GATT negotiations. Because it did not win. It was able to reach an agreement which seemed very generous for farmers, but when they examine the facts in various fields and sectors such as ice cream, yogurt or poultry, farmers soon realize that there is no real guarantee of good revenues, on the contrary.

For the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to maintain that we won at the GATT table and that there is no change considered concerning tariffs in some sectors subject to quotas, I must tell him that I do not agree.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the MP for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, he made a lot of good comments which I applaud.

For example, the problem with newspapers, information in the media in terms of agriculture, is big. It is probably one of the elements we so quickly ignore or forget. There are not enough specialized newspaper people dealing with the issue of agriculture. Maybe it is because agriculture is not as sexy an issue. In spite of the fact there is a lot of sex in agriculture, it is not sexy enough to really draw a lot of attention.

The people from the west should at least be reassured by the fact that there are a lot of newspapers and newspaper reporters covering agriculture in the west, in Quebec and in the east. The fact is they have decreased considerably over the past few years.

In the case of farm debt in Quebec, it is quite high and quite serious. In terms of revenues as well, the percentage of farmers who have to have revenue outside of the farm is quite high.

As a last comment about the bureaucrats in Agriculture Canada, my goodness there are too many who are not farmers. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is not a farmer. The deputy minister and a lot of the other deputy ministers are not farmers. One suggestion I would make to at least resolve the problem of bureaucrats in Agriculture Canada would be to make sure that over 50 per cent if not 75 per cent of the people who work in Agriculture Canada are farmers.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with what the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette said.

I agree with the criticisms he made regarding agriculture and those he addressed to the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance underlined the fact that Agriculture Canada is in the process of consulting with farmers. Again, it is a delay tactic. The farmers know what they want but this government does not deliver.

In the GATT negotiation for example, the farmers wanted to maintain article XI but the government did not deliver. When it comes to grain transportation, again it is a crying problem in the west. There are incredible delays but the government does not deliver.

There may be ways to improve delivery of grain via the St. Lawrence seaway, but that is not being taken advantage of. The minister of agriculture has gone to Korea and China to sell more grain but my goodness, if we cannot get the grain out of Canada now when we have surpluses and markets across the globe that we are losing because of our inefficient system, why go to China to sell more grain?

We have a great deal of programs to improve in Canada. The member for Lisgar-Marquette certainly does have reason to criticize this government in its lack of initiative in setting up better programs to serve farmers in this country.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I agree perfectly with what was said previously. We enjoy having the Minister of Finance talk about agriculture. He is a very good speaker but primarily it is a lot of talk. That is very much in line with the minister of agriculture, a lot of talk.

Take GATT for example. Canada lost out on GATT. In fact, we are in this position because the federal government was not strong enough in those negotiations. Take the export of wheat now. Why accept a limit to the export of wheat to the United States? This is what is being negotiated. If Canada really respected itself it would not accept any limit. We would be dealing according to free trade with the United States.

As far as the minister of agriculture's trips to China and so on, of course that is a good trip for him. Hopefully it will be good for Canada. All of these measures are really like motherhood; that is to say it falls within the norms of what we expect from Agriculture Canada and the federal government. However, we expect a little more, not just the bare minimum. We expect more and better ideas in terms of agriculture.