Debates of Oct. 19th, 1994

The Environment

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Please drop by my office.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

I will be there in less than an hour. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge at the commencement of my remarks that when I first started into this process I rose in the House and I said: "If the minister is serious and if we have the opportunity to go through the whole process, I am looking forward to her and her department coming forward and saying yes, this is the collective wisdom of the committee and we are prepared to act on it". I said that if she did that I would congratulate her, so today I congratulate her.

I realize as a Reformer that I have to be careful, but I would like to make special note of the chair of the committee, the hon. member for Davenport. I believe he and I share a mutual respect for each other, for the fact that we have hard opinions, strong opinions and different opinions. In spite of that he did a masterful job of bringing together all of the opinions that were available through this arduous process. He is absolutely to be commended for his work.

In addition, taking some of the responsibility for this, the member for Comox-Alberni and myself absolutely held out, dug in our heels and would not be moved. I am now very pleased to see that the minister has announced that we will fund these initiatives within existing resources. I take some small amount of credit for that on behalf of the Reform Party. There were people on the committee who had a differing point of view to that.

I would like to read from the minister's prepared comments: "The government will include a definition of sustainable development in the Auditor General Act and ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account in all Auditor General reports to Parliament". She will know that extreme environmentalists would see the term sustainable development as being an oxymoron, in other words the two things do not necessarily fit together. The responsible industrialist, the entrepreneur, does not see it that way. I must tell this House that neither does the Reform Party.

The Reform Party sees sustainable development as being an absolutely achievable goal. However, one of the difficulties is what does sustainable development mean. That is a very difficult question. I have some small bit of concern because the minister in her comments today in the unprepared part of her speech said that there will be an onus on the companies to prove their process is safe.

One of the concerns that I have is that I do not know what that means either. In other words, are we going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg by becoming so wrapped up in saying we cannot do anything that we will not be able to have any responsible development of the resources that we have in Canada? It is a concern.

I would like to read into my speech from the Reform Party blue sheet. We have gone from mauve to purple to red to green to grey. The Reform Party has always stayed with blue.

The Reform Party supports ensuring that all Canadians and their descendants dwell in a clean and healthy environment. The party supports sustainable development because-

This is the most important part.

-without economic development and the income generated therefrom, the environment will not be protected or enjoyed.

That is where the hon. member for Davenport and myself differ. From his perspective I believe I would be fair in characterising his point of view to say that we must protect the environment before we get into economic development. I suggest if we take a look at what is happening in the third world where the countries do not have proper economic activity, where they do not have the resources to protect the environment, we end up with absolutely atrocious situations in the third world in terms of pollution. They do not have the resources to protect the environment.

I say again that the Reform Party states that without economic development and the income generated therefrom, the environment will not be protected or enjoyed.

This has been a consistent position of the Reform Party contrary to what has been said. I am sure that the minister would never have said anything disparaging about the Reform Party, but maybe there are some people in the Liberal Party who have said some things that perhaps have not been totally accurate in characterising where the Reform Party is coming from. I would like to read in exactly where we are coming from on the issue of sustainable development. This by the way has been in our blue book since 1991.

The Reform Party supports the view that environmental considerations must carry equal weight with economic, social and technical considerations in the development of a project.

The Reform Party supports the integration of environmental and economic objectives in management philosophy, structure, procedures, planning and all decision-making matters involving economic and environmental issues in which the federal government has constitutional jurisdiction.

The Reform Party supports the initiation of a public education program of environmentally conscious purchasing. The federal government and private sector should cause their purchasing departments to be environmentally conscious in all their purchasing.

The Reform Party supports the federal government in taking leadership in developing a new discipline integrating economics and the environment.

This has been the position of the Reform Party. I cannot possibly imagine that the responsible members of the Reform Party would ever move from those very sustainable and responsible positions.

However, there is a battle for the hearts and minds of people over the issue of responsible resource management and development and probably no place more strongly than in the province of British Columbia.

This battle for the hearts and minds of citizens is waged by people who seem to get on to the extreme. We have to realize that, just as in society, people, human beings, have a finite life. For example, in British Columbia the flashpoint is trees. Trees have a finite life.

What has to be decided is what we are going to do with the fibre. Are we going to let it fall to the ground in decay? Are we going to harvest it? Are we going to be handling it responsibly? There is this battle for the hearts and minds of people.

I will tell a quick story. I was at a meeting attended by people from all over Canada in my constituency a few weeks ago. A prairie farmer came up to me. He was very proud of the fact that he was going out of his way to save all the forests in British Columbia. He was one of the largest contributors to one of the more extreme environmental groups that have single-handedly shut down logging operations, put loggers out of work, and created all sorts of havoc in situations where the companies within the last five years have turned around and managed their affairs and the affairs of the forests very responsibly. I suggested to him that maybe I should start to contribute to a fund that would advocate returning all the prairies to grasslands. How would he feel about that? Of course he became very incensed about it.

One issue in the entire area of the environment is to get good, quality information out. I congratulate the minister and the committee chairman for their effort to this point. I look forward to the Reform Party supporting the initiative.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 40th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of committees.

If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in this report later today.

Canada Health Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-284, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (conditions for contributions).

Mr. Speaker, the act to amend the Canada Health Act, conditions for contributions, is intended to ensure that the health care insurance plan of a province provides for the obligation for hospitals to disclose to emergency response employees, who provide emergency medical or rescue services to a patient, the name and nature of an infectious or contagious disease that the patient might have transmitted to them.

This is something that the International Association of Firefighters has been requesting for a long time. It is similar to a bill which was first introduced in the last Parliament by Joy Langdon, the former NDP labour critic. However the bill includes a clause dealing with confidentiality which is an improvement over the previous bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-285, an act to eliminate financial support for nuclear reactor design and construction in Canada or abroad and to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act in consequence thereof.

Mr. Speaker, actually the tabling of the bill is quite timely when we consider that the subsidies to Atomic Energy of Canada amount to almost $200 million a year at a time when we are very concerned about deficit reduction.

Essentially the bill prevents the federal government from giving any financial assistance or technical support to nuclear reactor projects except those for making isotopes for medical use, acknowledging that there is an appropriate use in terms of a nuclear industry particularly when it comes to treating the illnesses of people.

It is essentially a moratorium on any further construction of these types of projects.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think there would be unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the 40th report, interesting as it may be.

I move that the 40th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the House will know that violence in our society is a great concern among Canadians. Violence in the media is of particular concern perhaps principally to parents who are raising children.

The petitioners ask government to ensure that the CRTC monitor very closely violence in the media. They feel there is a relationship between that which they see and hear and that which happens in society. They believe that violence is not necessary in order to entertain. They also underline that violence and violent acts are counterproductive to that which they try to do in raising their families.

They point out, however, that there have been some changes and that they are appreciative of the initiatives the CRTC has taken.

[Jim Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of my riding asking the government to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code which would sentence people convicted of murder to life imprisonment with chance of parole after 25 years but review after 15 years. They are objecting to it and think that section of the Criminal Code should be repealed so that it would not be allowed.

It is always kind of sad when somebody in the community starts a petition, collects hundreds of names, and then when the petition arrives it does not meet the requirements; it is lacking in form. I am always sad when that happens.

I have two such petitions here which I know I cannot present in the usual way at the table or get any record for them. However they are both objecting to suggested gun control that is being discussed in Canada. They think we should have criminal control.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition to the House that asks Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

I submit that with my full concurrence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from constituents who call on Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality. The petition includes amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation. That is the way the petition reads.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the solemn responsibility to present a petition to the House.

Last May 6, I stood in the House to table a petition in memory of Carrie Lynn Pinard signed by over 54,000 Canadians. Today I add 972 names.

The petitioners pray for more severe penalties for those convicted of violent offences; the release of names of those young offenders convicted of murder, sex crimes and other violent assaults; and the automatic transfer to adult court for those young offenders charged with sex crimes and murder.

I am pleased that since May 6 the government proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act and that the Pinard and Racine families have been heard.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions. The first has 247 signatures.

The petitioners pray that Parliament ensures that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously, and that Parliament make no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

The signatories are mostly from the city of Nepean but also from the city of Kanata.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has 90 signatures, again of residents of Nepean.

They ask that Parliament review and revise our laws concerning young offenders by empowering the courts to prosecute and punish the young law breakers who are terrorizing our society, by releasing their names and lowering the age limit to allow prosecution to meet the severity of the crime.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 42 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2).

Department Of Agriculture Act

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

moved that Bill C-49, an act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act and to amend or repeal certain other acts, be read the third time.

I am glad to address the House as Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans and to move the third reading of Bill C-49 entitled: An Act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act and to amend or repeal certain other Acts.

Three weeks ago, at the start of this debate, the minister was telling the House that this bill was a reflection of the kinds of changes the Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry has undergone in recent years and can anticipate in future years. The proposed changes are not spectacular, but they are important for the two following reasons. First, they take into account the fact

that agriculture as a commercial activity is evolving and is now much more that mere growing of plants. Second they represent sound public management.

The agri-food element now added to the mandate of the department is important, because it reflects the interactions we must have with all our clients, from producing farmers to urban consumers. To prosper, the processing sector must rely on flourishing farms and, conversely, farmers need a healthy processing sector for their goods. We are mutually dependent for our daily bread.

Allow me to illustrate with a few examples. In 1993, $10.5 billion worth of farm inputs such as seeds, machinery and fertilizers were transformed into farm production valued at $21.5 billion. In turn that farm production was further transformed into processed foods and beverage products worth $46 billion.

In 1993 Canada exported $13.3 billion in agri-food products. That contributed to a surplus of some $3 billion to Canada's balance of trade.

The recognition of these connections will be important as we plan for the future.

These amendments will contribute to better public management for the following reasons. The bill defines more clearly the department's responsibilities in research. The present legislation indirectly refers to research by mentioning experimental farm stations. The bill broadens this definition to include research in agriculture and its products specifically with respect to experimental farm stations. This is a wise clarification at a time when Canadian industry must compete on international markets dealing with food and non-food products, that is to say products resulting from research.

More amendments. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will have the authority to designate inspectors for the purpose of the Food and Drugs Act, a responsibility which is presently his under several other acts. Contrary to what the opposition has been implying, this amendment does not add to the inspection functions of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Rather, it is an amendment necessary to allow the minister to carry out responsibilities under the Food and Drugs Act he inherited from the former Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

These amendments represent a sound management practice since they repeal three pieces of legislation which had become useless.

Finally, under this new bill, the department will publish only one yearly summary of its expenses and programs in a single document, namely Part III of the Main Estimates, instead of doing it in several annual reports. This will save a lot of time and money.

With the world trading environment opening up with new ways of doing business emerging, it is an opportune time to review the mandate of one of the country's oldest departments.

Over the next few months the minister will be working with producers and industry to hammer out a shared, comprehensive vision about where we want agriculture and agri-food to be in the year 2000, 2005 and 2010 and how we plan to get there.

The government is preparing to make some fundamental decisions about many longstanding and difficult issues in agriculture and agri-food. These decisions for the future will be part of a comprehensive plan for a modern, progressive industry.

The minister has spent a good deal of his time during the past month or so talking about the need for a long term vision. The minister's view is clear. Industry should be growing. Industry should be competitive. Industry should be market oriented and, of course, it should be profitable.

It should respond to the changing food and non-food needs of domestic and international customers. It should be less dependent on government support. It should contribute to the well-being of all Canadians and it should contribute to the quality of life in rural communities. Overall it should achieve farm financial security, environmental sustainability and a safe, high quality food supply.

As a New Brunswicker I am of course very interested in the vibrant farming community and agri-food industry. My province may be small, but it has developed a very competitive food sector. McCain Foods Ltd., Cavendish Farms, Ganong, Moosehead, Baxter Foods and Dairytown Products are all New Brunswick firms that have found success beyond provincial borders. In my own riding of Beauséjour, although concentrated in the fishery, food processing is a major activity and farming is as well.

I see in agriculture an agri-food industry that is leading the way in achieving growth, jobs and security, the three overriding themes of this government in the Atlantic region and across Canada. To achieve this, it is vitally important that everyone involved in this industry, from suppliers to producers to handlers and processors to consumers and governments, recognize that most of our issues cannot be dealt with in isolation.

This bill, which groups agriculture and agri-food together under one roof, highlights how important it is nowadays for sectors, provinces and even continents to consult one another.

We are all interconnected and interdependent. We must be aware of the possible impact of our aspirations and actions on the other links in the complex chain of stakeholders in the agricultural and agri-food sector. We need one another and we must adopt a concrete and firm team-work approach to solve our internal problems and compete against the rest of the world.

The GATT and NAFTA agreements have resulted in freer trade and easier access to world markets. Every government on the planet is helping its exporters to make inroads abroad. We too must follow suit. During our first year in power, we have taken steps towards this end.

Soon we will create a Canadian agri-food products marketing board which will be made up of people from the industry representing every sector of the agri-food business. This board will act as a forum to improve co-operation among industry players and to help them to be more competitive.

The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in co-operation with the departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, will create an international agri-food marketing branch. Through this single window, the industry will have access to federal foreign market development programs. We have already put in place a network of agri-food trade specialists in key locations like Seoul, Singapore, T'aipei, Mexico and Dusseldorf, and this network is growing.

We are getting ready to take advantage of increasingly sophisticated national and international information highways. Our offices world-wide will be linked to the Info-Agro-Export network. This is an interactive, automated system providing personalized information on world markets. Canadian food industries invest a relatively small percentage of their sales in research and development, as compared to their US counterparts. They could do better in this area.

A few months ago, the research branch undertook a pilot-project called Agri-Food Research and Development Cofinancing Project. In this project, the department and the industry will work together to carry out research and development, each contributing half the funds. Since the industry will be setting its own priorities, the relevancy of the research and development activities will be guaranteed. In addition, technology transfer will be facilitated because, with the industry sharing in the financing of the research activities, its support will be guaranteed in advance. We hope that this project, to which a budget of $2 million was allocated this year, will be a first step towards a substantial increase in agri-food research in Canada.

This is only the beginning. The challenges we face are formidable. As I said earlier, in 1993 Canadian agri-food exports of $13.3 billion contributed a surplus of almost $3 billion to Canada's balance of trade, almost a full one-third of Canada's total merchandise trade balance.

However, it is worth noting that while there is a positive balance for primary products, there is a negative balance for processed products.

Strong export growth has been registered in early 1994 with projections for the year moving beyond the $14 billion mark. Canada's overall share of the world agri-food market has declined since the early sixties. Our growth in agri-food exports is lagging behind the rest of the world. It will be a major push to meet the $20 billion export target by the year 2000 set last year by federal and provincial agriculture ministers.

We are on track toward that target in 1994 with exports projected to reach $14 billion. What can we do in co-operation with industry to keep on track?

These are some of the issues we need to address: From 1992 to 1993 our agri-food export surplus declined. In fact, countries which used to buy Canadian commodities and products are now net exporters. We have higher processing costs and less private sector research than some of our competitors. Government income support payments exceed net farm income and are much higher than our investments in marketing or market development.

There is little growth in our exports of these higher value products to countries other than the U.S, in particular, to Asian markets where demand is growing rapidly. We must therefore continue to address international access issues without forgetting there are unnecessary trade barriers here at home.

Of course food safety has been and must continue to be a priority in and for Canada. Our reputation for safety and quality is vital to our domestic consumers and it is a critical advantage in the international marketplace. At the same time we need to ensure that it is an efficient system.

The minister fully intends to continue playing an active role in promoting Canadian agri-food products abroad. Next month, the Prime Minister will head a trade mission to Asia, a region that the Governor General and the minister visited last spring. Next week, he will go to the international food fair in Paris, where he will participate in the presentation of international prizes to five Canadian companies that showed excellence in creating or marketing innovative food products. The Paris fair is the largest trade fair for food products in the world.

The Canadian agri-food sector already enjoys some significant advantages such as internationally famous product competitiveness, high health and safety standards, and environmentally friendly agricultural practices.

If we focus our activities on the markets, if we use our limited financial resources wisely, and if we keep in mind that the various elements of the agricultural and agri-food sector are interrelated, we will be able to preserve and even increase the level of success enjoyed by the whole sector.

By proposing these amendments today, we recognize that, even in a changing world, the Canadian agricultural and agri-food sector can continue to play an important role at the international level.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 which we are debating on third reading this afternoon would amend the Department of Agriculture Act.

Mainly, this bill adds the term "agri-food" to the department's name. Like the minister, his secretary of state said in his speech on second reading of this bill that it is important to change the title of the act.

This emphasizes that Agriculture Canada's field of activity is not limited to helping farmers. Indeed, their economic future is closely tied to processing, distribution, marketing and of course research and development at all levels of these various products. It is essential to deal with the whole cycle of farm products.

As agriculture critic for the Official Opposition, I can tell you that we in the Bloc Quebecois will not oppose this bill.

Nevertheless, as my colleague from Jonquière said on second reading of this bill, changing the department's name will in no way solve other thorny problems, including overlap with the provinces. What farmers, like pork producers in Quebec, want is not a change in the name of the Department of Agriculture. They do not want a change of deputy minister. What our pork producers in Quebec want is a government that works for them.

For example, regarding pork exports in particular, what has the minister done to clear up the mystery surrounding the reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs? Nothing. What did the federal agriculture minister do to reassure the nine countries importing pork, namely Russia, Argentina, Venezuela, Australia, Uruguay, Panama, Korea, Denmark and South Africa? Nothing. What did he do to reassure Quebec's maple syrup producers? Nothing.

Quebec's maple syrup producers do not care whether the department is called the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. What they want is that department to help them sell their product at a fair, reasonable and, above all, stable price. Last Sunday, I met a producer who told me that he had sold maple syrup, in bulk, for $1.62 a pound. Some people and friends told him that this price was too low and that he should wait until the end of the fall to sell the syrup produced in the spring.

So, that person waited until last month and instead of getting $1.62 he only got $1.47, which is 15 cents less. That price does not even cover production costs. These costs keep increasing year after year, while the selling price of maple syrup is almost constantly getting lower. In fact, one can now buy maple syrup for much less than in 1980. This gives you an idea why Quebec producers do not care about the name of the agriculture department. What they want is results.

What did the federal Department of Agriculture do to stabilize prices? Nothing. What budget did it allocate for research and development in the maple syrup industry? None. The result is accumulated surpluses in Quebec, where 90 per cent of all the maple syrup in the world is produced. I come from the region of Plessisville, the national capital of maple syrup; I know what I am talking about and I can tell you that we produce the best maple syrup in the world.

We have surpluses and if the government would only take the trouble to release funds for research, we could surely find some new attractive outlets. Just the other day, the former Liberal Minister of Agriculture, Eugene Whelan-I can give you his name since he is not here-said: "In the agriculture industry, $1 invested in research later yields $7." I told Mr. Whelan: "I am no businessman but I can count. If you can guarantee me a seven-fold return over seven, eight or ten years, I am willing to sell everything I own and to invest the money in your research and development company. I am ready to do it if I am to get a seven-fold return."

What has the Canadian Department of Agriculture done to ensure income security for Quebec farmers in supply-driven sectors such as milk, eggs and chicken? Not much. What has this famous department done to find more new outlets for dairy products, eggs and chicken? Not much. Surely, changing the name of the department will not make it any more efficient. We need to change our ways. We have to be willing to change our ways. The department is not doing anything. And the Bloc Quebecois will keep nagging at it until it decides to act, because the farming community is fed up with this stagnation.

What has Agriculture Canada done or what will it do in the short or medium term to support young farmers, to ease the transfer of family farms from one generation to the next? Nothing.

My neighbour bought a hog farm not far from us. He went to the Farm Credit Corporation, the federal agency, to negotiate his loan the day after New Year's Day and was able to sign the contract the day after Canada Day. It took exactly six months for him to get the necessary financing. I should tell you that he nearly lost the opportunity to buy this farm. And, in buying it, he created a job for himself, for his brother and for another person.

For Quebec's farmers, the Department of Agriculture seems rather sluggish and unwilling to help. So much so that last week, during our recess, whether my government colleagues like it or not, I toured my riding where nearly 20 per cent of my constituents depend directly or indirectly on agriculture for their livelihood and I submitted them to a test. I just love tests. I asked them: "Do you know who Quebec's new Minister of Agriculture is?" Eight out of ten said that it was Marcel Landry, a member from the Gaspé Peninsula, and some of them were even able to name his riding, Bonaventure. Then I asked them: "Could you tell me who the Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa is?" I could not find anyone, Mr. Speaker, who was able to tell me the name of the Minister of Agriculture sitting right in front of me. Nobody could. Perhaps it is because he went too often to Quebec or spoke to Quebec producers in their own language, listened to their concerns, their needs, the solutions they had to propose, I do not know, but the fact is that they do not even know his name. Let us hope that he is better known in his own riding than he is in Quebec within the farming community of my riding.

What did the government do to promote gobal marketplace access for ours producers? I listened carefully a few moments ago to the Secretary of State who said he was going to favour this, to develop that, to open our borders. Our farmers are fed up with talk. They want action.

This afternoon, someone pointed out that next week would mark the first anniversary of the Liberals' coming to office, on October 25. Let me tell you that the Liberals are slapping themselves on the back for winning such a clear majority, 98 seats out of 99 in Ontario, almost a perfect record. One hundred per cent in the Maritimes. There is one lady there who was elected-

[An hon. member]

Fifty per cent of the Tory caucus!

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Indeed, 50 per cent of the Tory caucus. But even there, one out of approximately twenty, and 98 out of 99 in Ontario. Fine. But in Quebec, the results were not so fantastic. Except for the English-speaking ridings and the Outaouais, they were elected in two predominantly French-speaking ridings, apart from the riding of Saint-Maurice which elected the Prime Minister, have elected Liberals. Of course, no expense was spared in Saint-Maurice. And let us not forget that in Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, they won by a very narrow margin. These things must be pointed out.

Nevertheless, I would like to put another question to the Liberal government: What has the Department of Agriculture done to reduce acid rain? As you know, acid rain affects the soil. Year after year, we check the pH balance and we find that the acidity level is too high. When flowers and strawberries grow in crop fields, that is bad news. Children like that, they can pick them. But farmers know very well it means that the pH level is too high and must be lowered, and that costs a lot of money. Lime is getting more and more expensive. The riding of Frontenac is getting acid rain and as we know, this riding and the Eastern Townships are where acid rain conditions are the worst in eastern Canada. This is not because there are industries in Frontenac because we have almost none, except for asbestos mines and a few small and medium-sized firms. The acid rain is not caused by industries in Montreal. A good part of it comes from Ontario but for the most part it comes from the American Midwest.

What have my Liberal friends done to compensate farmers and help them eliminate the acid rain that seeps through the soil? Every year farmers must buy lime to lower the pH level in order to have decent crops. Year after year, farmers see their production costs rise and their gross income decrease.

What has the Minister of Agriculture done and what does he intend to do for farmers with respect to the global warming problems? It is all very well to say that, over the last 50 years, the temperature has risen by 3.2 degrees centigrade. Some people are smiling at the thought of lower heating costs. But the problem is not so simple. Far from it.

The Department of the Environment is not alone in having a role to play. The Department of Agriculture is also in for trouble. What has it done? Nothing. What has the Minister of Agriculture done to reach a reasonable and acceptable agreement between his department and the Department of the Environment? Nothing.

To illustrate, one of my constituents called me last week. He was desperate. Let be tell you briefly what happened to him. Three or four years ago, a fire destroyed his farm, leaving only the foundations. People in my region are very supportive, you know, so we pulled together, we all contributed money according to our means and we organized a bee, as we often do in the Beauce area, and we rebuilt the barn following all the standards set by the Department of the Environment. We had obtained permits to build on the same spot.

A river runs very close to the barn, perhaps 700 or 800 meters away, 1,000 meters at the most. In May, the farmer applied for a permit to the Department of the Environment to build a liquid manure tank. Believe it or not, last week, he was still waiting for his permit to dig a manure pit. Why? "You are too close to the river". After being granted a permit to build a $450,000 barn four years ago, why is he being told today that a permit cannot be delivered because he is too close to the river and why do they make him wait for a permit to dig a manure pit?

You see, too often, it seems as though, in some departments, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. Merely changing a name will not help to improve foolish situations like this one.

What has the Department of Agriculture done to improve rural services? I was about to say: "Nothing." But another department has chosen to close down some post offices, arguing: "They are not profitable".