Debates of Jan. 24th, 1994

Speech From The Throne

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order. I would ask the hon. member to address his questions and comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Ahuntsic has the floor.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I totally agree with my colleague, Madam Speaker, but I will not elaborate further on that so the hon. member for York Centre has enough time to make his intervention.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to make a couple of observations and then ask a question of the hon. member.

The 35th Parliament is only a week old today and I think a lot of us on this side of the House are getting a bit tired of the Bloc members harping on sovereignty. Bloc members should be mindful of the fact that they have been elected to the opposition and that the task they fulfil is an important one. They should be here representing all provinces, not just the province of Quebec.

The hon. gentleman was complaining about certain aspects of the infrastructure program. He is suggesting that we in the federal government should just send bags of money to Quebec City: no accountability, no questions asked, no thought given as to how the money is going to be spent in the province of Quebec.

Surely those members should get serious. If we are going to be responsible to all Canadians, if the federal government is going to be responsible to federal taxpayers, it should take its full responsibility with respect to expenditures of federal money under the infrastructure program, whether the money is spent in the province of Quebec, the province of P.E.I., the province of Manitoba or anywhere else in the country.

Is this member really serious when he suggests the federal government should abrogate its responsibilities and not show any concern whatsoever on how money is spent in the province of Quebec?

If this member is really preaching sovereignty-and that is what I hear-perhaps he would like to tell us whether he might like to forgo the federal share altogether. We are going to see hundreds of millions of dollars poured into the province of Quebec under this program. Would he like to forgo this money and let Quebec go on its own?

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I thank the hon. member for his speech. He made it clear that the notion of accountability was central to the problem. Every time the federal government gets involved, this government, which initially was intended to co-ordinate and equalize, steps directly into provincial areas of jurisdiction.

When looking at the agreement with Ontario released this morning, I find it as vague as the others in this regard. It states that the federal-provincial management committee, made up of two members from the federal side and two members from the provincial side, will set up unspecified subcommittees, and that it will be responsible for establishing subcommittees as required in order to manage the agreement; for delegating to these subcommittees every power required to carry out their mandate and for setting every procedure applicable to these meetings and to all the subcommittees, in particular the rules of conduct of meetings and of decision-making.

Once more, accountability will be an excuse for interfering. Municipalities will be faced with expenditures that will alter their three-year plans and as a result the problem will not be

addressed because this program is supposed to deal with basic infrastructure problems.

Initially, that was the program proposed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Today, Ontario is even accepting school boards as local administrations. This means school boards as well as municipalities will be eligible.

The first project in the program, the convention centre in Quebec City, is not a renovation project or basic infrastructure or even locally-based infrastructure. How much will there be left of the $6 billion for the FCM's project? There will not be enough left. They said $20 billion was needed. In 1985, it was $12 billion, and now this has been revised upward to $20 billion.

Where is the critical mass of this program? In its agreement, the government never gives carte blanche for any kind of project, and I am sure the President of the Treasury Board is going to be very happy because for the first time in perhaps 20 years, he will not be just a budget cutter. He will also be able to dole out subsidies, but these agreements contain no restrictions on what the federal government can do. Just read the agreements. If you look at them from the provincial point of view, you will see they contain everything the federal government needs to get involved in all stages of the project.

The hon. member also mentioned the Bloc's position as the Official Opposition. Yes, we are. I spent most of my speech talking about the infrastructure project because I take that position very seriously.

We will get back to this if necessary, but as far as I am concerned, when Quebec's interests are at stake, and I mentioned the mandate we sought and received from the people of Quebec, when our interests do not coincide with those of other Canadian provinces which may prefer to let the federal government interfere with certain jurisdictions, we will consider Quebec's right to object to this kind of interference and will always defend the interests of Quebec.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, on this first occasion that I have had to speak in the House I want to begin by thanking the constituents who put me here.

I have been elected twice provincially. This was my first time running federally but never in an election campaign have I been questioned as closely and as carefully as I was in this one. The people in my riding wanted to know what I stood for, what I was going to do if I got here, and what I am doing every day I am here.

It is passing strange to me that it was such an unusual move to put a party's platform in a book. It is stranger still that people are surprised when the government acts on the promises it makes.

I also thank my wife, Karen, and my daughter, Sarah. The hardest thing I have to do as a member here is be away from them. It is something we are all going to have to adjust to. They make a big sacrifice. All members make that sacrifice and I do not think people realize that.

I thank the 1,400 volunteers who worked thousands of hours over the last 18 months so that I could get elected. They did not ask for anything in doing that. All they wanted and all they want today is a government that reflects their values. They are still coming around to my office. They are still looking for ways in which they can volunteer their time and energy to share in the process of governing. I am honoured by their participation.

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate you and the Speaker and all members who were elected to serve this House, and through you I want to thank all of the staff that serve this House. As a rookie member here I have been remarkably well treated everywhere I have gone. I really appreciate the support of all of those who do not get recognized in the work that this House does.

I also want, through you Madam Speaker, to thank the many thousands of people who work for the federal government. There was a time not too long ago when the previous Prime Minister stood in front of a scrum and said that all he had to offer the civil servants of Canada were pink slips and running shoes. I thought then that that was a shameful experience.

How do you expect people to carry out the programs if that is the way you treat them? No company on earth would survive if it treated its employees the way the previous government treated the public service of this country. I caution some of the members opposite because I hear some of that same language coming through, as though somehow the people who carry out the work of this House are the enemy. We need to reflect on that.

I also want to thank Dorothy Dobbie and Mark Hughes. Dorothy was the member for Winnipeg South in this House prior to me and Mark was the Reform Party candidate who ran against me. We debated 20 times during the course of the election and we managed to keep every debate on the issues and never once resorted to personalities. I really want to thank them for that.

I come from the province of Manitoba. We talk a lot in this House about the upheaval that has happened in Quebec, the election of the Bloc Quebecois, or the upheaval that took place in Alberta and British Columbia with the massive election of the Reform Party. Well, an upheaval took place in Manitoba. We elected 12 Liberals. In fact we elected 21 Liberals in the prairies. Back when I was working for the Liberal Party in the seventies there was only one Liberal in all of western Canada. But it is no surprise that we did not elect a single Conservative in the prairie region.

I want to share a couple of facts with the House. They are facts that I hope members from the prairie region will reflect on and work with me on helping to right this. Do members know that if they look at the share of national wealth that is held in the prairie region, in the three prairie provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, that if we just held the same percentage of national wealth that we held in 1984 there would be $26 billion more economic activity in those three provinces today? That is a staggering figure. That is more than the entire gross domestic product of the province of Manitoba. That is a fact.

In truth, a big chunk of that is the decline in oil revenues. But in my province of Manitoba, a small province, less than 4 per cent of the total population of the country, no oil revenues, we are $1.6 billion poorer and 42,000 jobs poorer today than we were in 1984-85. I believe that is because we had a federal government that had no understanding of the regional character of this country, no understanding of how to use government as an instrument in the regions of this country.

The people in my province are not blaming anybody. They do not even blame Ontario.

[An hon. member]

They could.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

They could. They are approaching this new government, they are approaching the year 2000 with great optimism, and they are working very hard to meet the challenges that they are confronted with.

I spoke the other day in the House about a young business in my area. Four young graduates from the University of Manitoba-that is Manitoba, in the city of Winnipeg-had built a super computer. Not a good computer, a super computer, a 10-gigaflop massive computer. Not only have they built it from scratch in the city of Winnipeg, but they have successfully sold it to Korea, Japan, China, Brazil, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

There is a tremendous amount of energy and optimism and work going on in the province of Manitoba. But when I talk to people there, as I do every night from my office here, when talking about the problem with Canada, unlike the Leader of the Opposition who says the problem with Canada is Quebec, they tell me that Quebec is one of the great strengths of Canada. They tell me that it is the Canada we have built, the Canada that embraces diversity, the Canada that stands up for minorities, the Canada that has created a code of human rights, the Canada that embraces multiculturalism. It is that very diversity that gives them the strength to go out into the world and compete.

Out of these debates I take a couple of things that stick in my mind. There are two little statements that come to mind. One was told by the current Speaker who was recounting his first days in the House many years ago when he was taken aside by the Hon. Paul Martin Senior, the father of the current finance minister who told him: "Young man, whether you are here for 5 years or 20, remember that you are just passing through". I think about that statement and I think about a comment that the leader of my party, the Prime Minister, made in his speech when he spoke about about Canada as being a great work in progress.

Think about the work that we do here: pass some laws, amend some laws and rescind some laws. To tax or not to tax. We spend or we do not spend or we modify spending. Those are the tangible things we do. Those are the buttons we push or the levers we push.

However, there is an intangible thing we do in this Chamber and that is provide leadership to the rest of the country. I hear the talk about greater decorum and a more positive attitude. But when I read carefully through the speeches that I see coming out of the third party, I see very much the same kind of criticism I heard when I sat in the provincial legislature. They did not look at the throne speech and ask: "What is there and how should we discuss the things that are being committed to". They saw what was not there. They did not see the glass half full, they saw it half empty.

I hope that over the months and years to come we will have the kind of debate that is talked about. I hope we will have a competition in this House for good ideas. I hope we will challenge each other to see who has the best idea to solve a problem.

Would it not be wonderful if when our constituents watched television they went away saying: "Gosh, I learned something. I have been enlightened". I do not think that is the way they walk away from it now. It is going to take all of us to do that.

I hope that in the time I am passing through this Chamber that I can contribute in some small way to this great work which is Canada.

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry I am not at my desk, could I ask my question from here?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The Standing Orders require that you be in your seat to ask a question.

I already recognized a member, but after him, if you wish, you could have the floor. The hon. member for Charlevoix.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating you, personally and on behalf of my constituents from the riding of Charlevoix, the riding of the former Prime Minister, Mr. Brian Mulroney, for your appointment to the chair.

Like my colleague from Ahuntsic, who spoke about infrastructures, I would like to say that in a riding like Charlevoix, where unemployment is high, and where the income level is low, the mil rate is nevertheless quite high. If I understand correctly what was announced by the President of Treasury Board regarding infrastructures, a grant of $527 million would be paid to Quebec. For Quebec, $527 million and $700 million for Ontario. Granted, we elected a very small number of Liberals in Quebec while Ontario sent quite a few Liberal members to the House,

but I hope we will not be penalized because of the October 25 election.

Several municipalities in Quebec cannot afford to pay a third of the costs. Will the government include, in the agreements with Quebec, rules or specific clauses in order to help small municipalities, maybe through the labour market, maybe by allowing them to pay on a half-time basis since, in some cases, spill-overs from the tourist industry bring additional revenues to municipalities, but only six months a year. For the smaller municipalities, it could also mean-one third, one third-if they want to take advantage of the program, it could force them to borrow the necessary money. Already they cannot support their poverty rate. Will the government think of additional revenues that could help small municipalities? Will each municipality be the local project manager, will they be able to encourage the local economy and local workers?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to begin to respond to the specific question about some municipalities in the member's riding because I am not the minister responsible for the infrastructure program.

I would like to point out a couple of things to him. The previous member for his party who spoke on this issue made a comment that this sort of tripartite arrangement, federal-municipal-provincial, was unheard of. Certainly that is not the case in my province.

This kind of arrangement where the three levels of government come together to jointly share responsibility for major public works is quite common. Municipalities, Indian reserves and others are all participating in it.

On the allocation of funds, the one thing that is different about this government from the previous government is that these decisions are made on an open rational basis. In this case, it was a mixing of population and unemployment. There was a criteria set and not: How many Liberals did you elect?

This is unlike the previous government. I think we are further ahead for that kind of decision-making.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Time has terminated for questions and comments.

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand in the House today as the member for Essex-Windsor.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the residents of Essex-Windsor for giving me the privilege to represent them in the House of Commons. Indeed, it is a privilege to have this opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment and to congratulate the Speaker on his election. You have your work cut out for you to reform this House and I pledge my full support to those efforts.

One of the primary reasons that I decided to run for public office was that I was concerned and I believe that Canada's tax system needs to be reformed. That is not just our tax policy but our collection system as well.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, I have been given the opportunity to be closely involved in such reforms. I want to thank the Prime Minister for that opportunity and for appointing me. I intend to make the most of it.

During the election, we all know that we promised to replace the GST. The throne speech repeats this commitment, the same commitment I made to the residents of Essex-Windsor. This tax which was introduced by the previous government has been disastrous for Canadian businesses. It has fuelled an underground economy that threatens to destroy Canada's social fabric. Some critics have expressed concern that the throne speech fails to identify the GST replacement. But for the throne speech to identify the replacement would be a betrayal of the Canadian public.

The Prime Minister told Canadians over and over during the election that in the first session of this new Parliament he would mandate an all-party finance committee to consult Canadians and provincial governments on all options to the GST. That is exactly what the Prime Minister has done.

I would encourage all residents of Essex-Windsor who want their views on tax reform to be made available to the committee to send their letters, their briefs, their charts directly to myself and I will make sure they are presented to the standing committee.

I mentioned that one of my primary reasons for running and entering politics was to tackle tax reform. I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to acknowledge and pay tribute to the people who, through example, showed me the value of public life. I speak of my parents.

My father, Eugene Whelan, as many members know, spent a considerable part of his life in this House. Indeed, some of the members in the present House served with him. I want you to know that my father was not alone in his endeavour. My mother was always at his side. They were truly a team. Both were raised

on a farm yet both are quite different. My father is second generation Canadian born. My mother was born in Yugoslavia and came to Canada when she was nine years old. However, both were raised during lean times and both understood the greatness of this country and what can happen when we put hard work forward.

As a child, I saw day in and day out the commitment my parents had to Essex-Windsor and to Canada. I was raised with a sense that we had a duty and an obligation as citizens to serve this great country and to keep it great. It is that responsibility that brings me to the House today. It is a responsibility that I intend to keep.

However that responsibility cannot be kept by any member in this House unless we put our House in order. On December 1, 1992 when I sought the nomination in my riding I made a commitment, a commitment to work to restore integrity to our political system. I am pleased to see from the throne speech that this party and this government is not backing away from that commitment. I want to impress on the House and my constituents that this is not the easy thing to do but it is the right thing to do.

My riding of Essex-Windsor, in many ways, is a microcosm of Canada. It is a reflection of the country as a whole. Like Canada, the riding of Essex-Windsor is ethnically diverse. We have over 70 different cultures peacefully co-existing in my riding. Pluralism and multiculturalism, the fact that we can be different and yet all be Canadians, are fundamental characteristics both of Essex-Windsor and of Canada itself.

I too recognize the importance of bilingualism and of protecting linguistic rights in Canada. I hope to become bilingual to better serve my constituents.

Like Canada, Essex-Windsor has a diverse economy based on a mixture of heavy industry, light industry, small and medium sized businesses and farming. For example, my riding hosts the largest mould making industry in the world. As well, we have three large automotive companies in Windsor, Chrysler, Ford and General Motors.

Let me remind you, Madam Speaker, the auto industry in Canada owes its very existence to past Liberal policies under Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, ministers Paul Martin Senior, Walter Gordon, Mitchell Sharp and then backbenchers like the hon. member for Windsor West and my father, Eugene Whelan. Without the auto pact that industry would be nearly dead. Now the auto industry is one of the economic generators of Canada. It is alive and well because of Liberal foresight.

However, like the rest of Canada, Essex-Windsor is still recovering from the current recession. Economic suffering has social consequences and in Essex-Windsor we have a lot of work to do.

The throne speech commits the government to concrete measures to deal with problems and restore Canada. These are measures that will affect, help and assist Essex-Windsor. To stimulate the economy, the government will immediately introduce the infrastructure program based on recent federal, provincial and municipal agreements.

I have been in contact with all the municipalities in the riding of Essex-Windsor and they are all looking forward to joining in and participating in this program. As well, to assist in long-term job creation the government has committed to work with this country's financial institutions to improve access to capital, to allow small businesses to expand and prosper.

I cannot help but note that during the election campaign this plan was criticized as being unworkable. Yet last Thursday night I read in the Ottawa Citizen : ``Another flurry of small business lending initiatives is under way as Canada's big banks try to stay on the right side of the new federal government''. That was accomplished without a single piece of legislation or a single decree.

We finally have a government that understands the future of this country. As we all know, the future of tomorrow is based on the youth of today. Therefore one of the most important initiatives in the throne speech is the youth service corps, a service corps that will begin to put young Canadians back to work. It addresses youth unemployment. As well, we are looking at a national apprenticeship program.

For 125 years Canadians have worked together to build a strong, united nation. In spite of the economic difficulties we face, we are what the rest of the world wants to become: peaceful and prosperous, diverse yet tolerant, educated, strong and free. If one looks at the situation in the former Yugoslavia and if one was to ask the people there what they wanted more than anything, I believe they would ask for the two things that we have in great abundance in Canada: bread and peace. The power expressed in the idea of bread and peace is fundamental. It was the promise of bread and peace that allowed the Bolsheviks to take over Russia in 1917. It is our abundance of bread and peace that underpinned our economic prosperity in the past. We must never forget its important to our future.

Madam Speaker, I want you to know that my riding contains some of the most productive agricultural land in Canada. As Canadians we must protect and strengthen our agricultural base. A country that cannot feed itself is soon not a country and is at the mercy of every other nation.

There are many difficulties facing agriculture. One is the new GATT agreement, that while successful in many areas was of mixed success in terms of agriculture. Like the producers of this country I would have preferred a strengthened article XI. I know the importance of supply management. If we allow our dairy and poultry production to be destroyed or damaged, the entire agricultural industry will be negatively affected and the quality of our food will suffer. Over the next 18 months I will work to

ensure that supply management is adequately supported under comprehensive tariffication.

The Liberal Party has always been at the forefront of social change in Canada and always will be. The throne speech lays the ground work for continuing that vision. The Prime Minister himself will chair the national forum on health to foster with the provinces a renewal of Canada's health system. The government will also undertake, with the consultation of individual Canadians and the provinces, a major reform of the social security system. This will be completed during the next two years. I again encourage the citizens of Essex-Windsor to participate.

Further the throne speech commits the government to fiscal discipline necessary for sustained economic growth and deficit reduction. As the member for Madawaska-Victoria stated in her eloquent reply to the throne speech on Tuesday: "A lean government does not have to be a mean government". The Canadian dream that built Canada on principles of sharing, fairness and compassion has all been forgotten over the last 10 years. We as Canadians must remind ourselves of the greatness of the Canadian experiment and return our energies to endeavours which reflect our collective values and our desire to work together.

The throne speech that we are debating today is the blueprint for Canadians to work together to build Canada's future success.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on her appointment as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Revenue.

I am somewhat surprised by the fact that she has failed to mention that the Liberal Party has just increased the tax burden of small wage earners, when for years, they have been criticizing the party in power for imposing taxes on the poor. Shortly after they were elected, we realized that they were increasing the tax burden of the unemployed, and particularly of small businesses.

I do hope that as assistant to the revenue minister, the hon. member will remove this unfair burden on small wage earners due to the increase in unemployment insurance premiums. The government squeezes a further $800 million out of workers and, the next day, announces that it is going to give municipalities $995 million for their infrastructure. What is the government doing? It is reducing the purchasing power of the people, that is what it is doing. Consequently, it is slowing down economic growth while putting an equivalent amount into the infrastructure program.

The government toots its own horn, bragging about this great program which is going to create jobs, stimulate the economy, while it increases the burden of workers by about the same amount by raising unemployment insurance premiums.

Madam Speaker, I have this question for the member: where is the government going with that process I would call dishonest?

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex—Windsor, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe some of the comments the hon. member made should be directed more readily at the leader of his own party when he was minister and the things that he did in the past government.

We have to pick up the pieces and start over, and that is what this government is doing. We are going to have an all-party finance committee to deal with the question of the GST and other questions. That is where fairness will start. It will start with this government.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

At any rate, Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to congratulate my hon. colleague on her recent election and I should mention that she is the youngest member of our party, at least on this side of the House. I would also like to point out that I am proud to sit next to a woman who reflects the renewal our government is undergoing, a government which is striving for profound renewal by putting in the foreground, so to speak, the wishes of the young generation which is shaping this country for the next century.

Of course, Madam Speaker, the opposition is not too happy to hear about young people like us being the future of this country. Not that I absolutely want to quote Sir Wilfrid Laurier who so aptly said a century ago that "the next century will belong to Canada", but the speeches and the presence of my colleague in front of the opposition prompt me to say this: Canada is in very good hands and thank you for a great speech.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me extend my congratulations to you on your appointment to the chair and to the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold on his election as Speaker of the House. I sincerely believe that both of you will be just and wise in conducting the business of the House. I also congratulate all members of the House on their election victories.

I am very pleased to take this opportunity to thank the people of Vegreville constituency for their strong show of support on October 25 and for their communication with me since then. I understand well that I represent all constituents and each must have equal access to my ears, my effort and my voice.

The greatest strengths of this area are resourceful and highly motivated people and an abundance of natural resources including oil, natural gas and rich agricultural land. Through living and working with the people of this area I have learned there are common threads that bind them. They are kind, generous and forgiving to a point. They are hard working, treat people fairly and expect to be treated fairly. They like to face problems head on and are frustrated that their governments refuse to do the same. They are a way ahead of government in recognizing the problems and the solutions to the problems the country faces.

These people have told me what they expect of this government. They want democratic and parliamentary reforms which will make me and the Government of Canada more accountable to them. They want reform of the justice system to restore the balance between the rights of victims and society as a whole and the rights and rehabilitation of criminals.

They want government to spend less, much less. My constituents have sent me here to ask these questions of each spending proposal. Is it necessary? How much will it cost? Can it be done for less? The Canadian public and members of the House have heard and will continue to hear Reform MPs ask: Can we spend less?

As I listened to the throne speech I was disappointed that agriculture was not mentioned. However my concerns were somewhat alleviated by the hon. Minister of Agriculture in his response to the throne speech. I was pleased with some of the objectives the minister outlined and will be thrilled, as will my constituents, if my interpretation of what he said and what he actually meant are the same.

I will list briefly what I see as the major problems in agriculture today and outline some of the Reform solutions. My colleague from Fraser Valley East will discuss the supply managed sector.

The problems then are subsidies both domestic and foreign which encourage overproduction and lead to unfair competition, a lack of co-ordination of programs further distorting market signals and causing inappropriate production, and programs which threaten access to markets. For example, the national tripartite stabilization program for beef and hogs has caused export problems to the United States. Then there are problem which encourage environmental damage. An example is the gross revenue insurance plan which encourages crop production on marginal and easily degradable land.

The Crow benefit costs taxpayers approximately $700 million a year and leads to the exports of value added in industries and jobs. The future of grain farming may very well depend on keeping those value added industries in Canada.

Next would be marketing agencies which prohibit competition. For example, the Canadian Wheat Board controls all sales of wheat, barley exports and domestic milling wheat sales. I am not suggesting that we eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board but rather that we reform it.

Another problem is very poor anti-combines and fair competition legislation and even poorer enforcement. Finally are interprovincial trade barriers.

All these problems and others must be dealt with in a co-ordinated way. Are farmers ready to accept the necessary change? I believe they are. Farmers are astute business people who do not want to depend on subsidies which prolong the problem. They want to depend on less subsidies and more on the marketplace. Although the new GATT agreement may open the gate it will not solve the problem. It is up to Parliament, in consultation with farmers, to make the necessary changes.

I will outline briefly the vision of the Reform Party for agricultural reform: more specifically reform of safety net programs, the transportation system, research, education and training, government regulations, and the Canadian Wheat Board.

Concerning safety net programs, our plan is to consolidate the mess of over a dozen unco-ordinated programs into three programs to protect farmers from natural hazards, unfair foreign trade practices and other income fluctuations which are beyond their control.

First, there is the creation of a trade distortion adjustment program to compensate farmers for unfair trade practices in other countries.

Second, an income stabilization program will help protect farmers against price fluctuations and cycles which occur in an open market environment. This program will ensure a minimum of interference in the marketplace by using the whole farm approach. That means all commodities would be eligible and all commodities produced on a particular farm would be included in the plan.

Third, an improved crop insurance program would help protect farmers against natural hazards but not encourage overproduction.

This package of three safety net programs will be better for farmers and less expensive for taxpayers.

Concerning transportation reform, agricultural products should move to markets by any route, any mode of transportation and in any state of processing that farmers and their customers agree on. Transportation subsidies should be eliminated and the money put into the safety net program. The

railway system should be deregulated and options such as privatizing CN Rail rolling stock to enhance competition in the system should be considered. Grain handlers should be deemed an essential service during labour disputes if alternate routes which are cost effective cannot be found.

A policy environment which encourages private sector participation in research, education and job training must be developed. Research funds should be better targeted to meet the goals set out by farmers and agribusiness.

In the area of government regulation we must ensure that imported products meet the same safety and environmental standards as those produced in Canada. We must strengthen and rigorously enforce anti-dumping laws and dispute settlement mechanisms. We must protect against unfair business practices by strengthening and enforcing anti-combine legislation and by creating stronger licensing and arbitration regulations.

Finally, a priority of this Parliament must be reforming the Canadian Wheat Board. Allowing a continental barley market, though certainly a move in the right direction, is only tinkering with a system that needs major reform. Let us make the following improvements. Make the Canadian Wheat Board accountable to the people who pay the bills and they are western Canadian grain farmers. Allow the wheat board to handle any crop it wants but permit farmers and grain companies the right to compete with the board. Continue loan guarantees as long as other countries do and give farmers the right to choose between a pool price and a daily cash price.

These changes will provide a win-win situation for farmers, taxpayers and for us in this House. We have strong support, as in no Parliament before, to make these positive and substantial changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. The farmers of this country are way ahead of us politicians in being ready for and demanding these changes. Let us catch up. Let us lead. Thank you.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciated what the hon. member of the Reform Party said about agriculture, because agriculture is very important in the West as well as in the East.

I would like to find out from the hon. member if he knows about the negotiations on durum wheat now under way between Canada and the United States.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that I am aware of the negotiations. I can only go by what is reported by the government but I understand negotiations are going well and that the probability is not very high that we will have interference in shipping our durum wheat to the United States.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to register my objection to the recommendations made by the hon. member with respect to the privatization of CN rolling stock and with respect to the further deregulation of the transportation industry, particularly rail and, I might add, with respect to eliminating the Crow benefit. The member did not make it clear whether he wants to eliminate it altogether or whether he wants to pay it to the producers.

In either event, all three of the things that the member spoke of would have the effect of further weakening the role of rail transportation in not only the transportation of wheat but the transportation of goods, period.

As the member for Winnipeg Transcona, I would like to say that I object to that. The throne speech called for green infrastructure. There is nothing greener in terms of infrastructure than railways. What we need is policies in this country to encourage the use of railways, not discourage the use of railways.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The time has lapsed.

It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 50(5), to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question required to dispose of the amendment.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.