Debates of April 28th, 1994

Privilege

[Some hon. members]

And the newspapers.

[The Speaker]

Order.

I will take this matter under advisement and get back to the House with-

[Some hon. members]

Good.

[The Speaker]

Order.

I will check Hansard and get back to the House with my ruling tomorrow.

The hon. member for Roberval on a question of privilege.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege and a point of order.

If I may, I will start with the point of order since it is directly related to what has just been said.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have your opinion, which is part of your mandate, because my colleague raised the question of privilege in reference to comments made by a government minister. I admit that he may not have been speaking about something which falls within his area of responsibility but that is not my problem. I can question as I see fit, and my colleagues can also question any comment made by a member of the government because they are supposed to act responsibly. If they do not, that is a different problem.

I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on this, and take the time to do the necessary research, so we can know whether the Opposition is allowed to question in accordance with Standing Orders any member of the government who has made a public statement, even if this statement is not directly related to his or her department.

I would like to have your opinion on this at your convenience and, if I may, I will now move on to my question of privilege.

[The Speaker]

I will make enquiries. I will get back to the House and give you my opinion.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the breach of privilege committed in this House has to do with the industry minister's comments, which I find totally unparliamentary, unworthy of this House and unacceptable. In his comments, the minister tried or seemed to criticize my attitude or the way I phrased the question or the way in which he perceived me.

I find it totally unacceptable that, within the framework of the parliamentary game, a government minister's only way of defending himself against the verbal jousting and the questions asked in this House is to try to humiliate, discredit and or be rude to a member of this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you that, as the Opposition House leader, I think that the Minister of Industry has violated these privileges and I demand that he withdraw his comments without further ado. That is what I demand.

[The Speaker]

As you know, I do not remember everything that has been said today but, for my colleagues, I will certainly go over what was said in context. I will take the request of the hon. member for Roberval into consideration and get back to the House with my decision.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a short response.

There are many traditions in this House. You, Mr. Speaker, are the master of the rules of this House and you rule. I do not think this is a point of privilege but perhaps a point of order that is being made.

Surely we deprive this House of a great deal if it becomes inappropriate for a member of Parliament to recall a famous quotation from the Bard himself in response to a situation that arises.

[The Speaker]

I will take under advisement the interventions of members of both sides. I am not sure we have a point of privilege but I will treat it as either a point of privilege or point of information.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the minister, we do not want to make it into a cultural issue. This is about the privileges of the hon. member for Roberval. On the subject of culture, I could quote Confucius who said something along the line of culture is like jam; the less you have, the more you spread it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. At this rate we are going to start singing songs.

I want to take a point of order from the member for North Island-Powell River with a correction.

Points Of Order

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday under Standing Order 31, Statements by Members, I talked about a new federal building of 120,000 square feet. I would like to correct the record. The correct number is 40,000 square feet. In my metric conversion I cubed rather than squared.

[The Speaker]

Your point of order will be corrected in Hansard .

The question on business of the House. The hon. House leader. First we need to have a question and then we are going to have an answer.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before you recognized me to I could put that question, I indicated to you that I would have a previous question. It is a simple inquiry about the question of privilege I have raised.

I just wanted to ask you-and it is perfectly in order-if, after ascertaining what words were spoken by the Minister of Industry, you found that the minister had indeed exceeded his rights as a parliamentarian and made unspeakable remarks, I just wanted to know if you will then ask that he withdraw his remarks, as I have requested?

[The Speaker]

As I said earlier, I will review the matter because I do not remember the exact words.

If unparliamentary language was used, I will then make a decision based on this review.

Business Of The House

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, the government house leader, what the business of the House will be for the days to come.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in giving the weekly business statement I want to assure all colleagues and you that I will not say a word about the subject of culture.

Tomorrow the House will resume consideration of second reading of Bill C-22 regarding Pearson airport. If that is completed we will continue with second reading of Bill C-16 respecting the Sahtu agreement.

If on Friday we have completed second reading of Bill C-22 and C-16, only then on Monday will we consider second reading stages of Bill C-23 regarding the Migratory Birds Act, Bill C-24 respecting the Wildlife Act and Bill C-12 regarding the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Tuesday, May 3 and Thursday, May 5 shall be opposition days. On Wednesday the House will resume debates that have already been commenced. I want to consult with my colleagues opposite about this business at our regular weekly meeting of House leaders next week.

This concludes my statement.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon to speak against the motion by the hon. member for Québec-Est.

Part of that motion talks about the government's lack of action in the agricultural sector. I find this an insult to our agricultural sector. I do not believe that farmers have the intention of coming here with their hands out looking for favours from our government.

I would like to talk about my riding, the riding of Durham, which is a large agricultural sector. It includes Uxbridge, Scugog township, Bowmanville and Orono. These places are well known for their agricultural background and indeed not only in the riding but throughout Canada. They show their cattle at the local royal agricultural fair and compete with some farmers from Quebec.

In my riding agriculture is the second largest industry, second only to General Motors.

My years of living with these people and acting as an adviser to them and farming myself has taught me of their great independence and integrity. They do not depend on government to run their local every day operations. Today I am sure that many are out on the land cultivating and preparing for their spring crops.

What is the role of government and how does it interact with our farming community? What has the government actually done to foster this development?

I would like to talk about three basic areas. One is trade. As some will know, we have just recently culminated our trade negotiations in GATT in which we have had a change in our system from the supply management system to a tariffication system. We spent a great many days and hours in this House debating these negotiations. Indeed, our agriculture department has been involved on an hourly basis dealing with this.

This even continues after the culmination of GATT as we try to get side agreements with the Americans dealing with some of our problems with durum wheat and so forth. In fact, the government has been committed to representing the interests of farmers. I can assure members that the farmers in my riding that I have talked to are indeed happy and proud that our government has stood up for their interests. They realize they did not get everything they wanted from the GATT negotiations.

Having said that, I go back to my original premise. They are proud and independent people. They look at the GATT negotiations and the new trade opportunities as great challenges for Canadian farmers. They look at things like NAFTA and new markets created both in the United States and now in Mexico.

Only last week a number of farmers attended at my office. Their promotion was not that they were upset with the actions of the government, indeed not. They wanted to attend a trade negotiation in South America. They wanted to find out more about bean farmers in South America. I am happy to say that I transferred those comments to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who is considering this.

Another of these farmers had realized the great opportunities presented by the North American market and developed a food processing plant. Many of the farmers in the area got together to support this. This production facility which basically fast freezes vegetables ships 100 per cent of its output into the American market. These are great opportunities that our farmers are realizing.

I would like to speak of another area to do with research and development and our government's commitment to Canadian farmers in the areas of research and development. Our ability to innovate depends on a commitment to research. Agri-food research has produced some exceptional economic gains for Canada.

Perhaps the best example is the development of canola. From humble origins as rapeseed grown during the Second World War to produce a marine lubricant, canola has become one of our most important export crops worth almost a billion dollars.

The Cinderella story of canola is well known but it is still worth noting that researchers at Agri-Food Canada used selective breeding to reduce or eliminate undesirable aspects of the oil and produced a high quality oil substitute for human consumption.

There are many other good examples of innovative thinking in agri-research. For instance the research centre in Lennoxville, Quebec has adapted a technology that helps detect a generic mutation in pork that reduces quality. This technology will help pork producers sell their products into lucrative markets but also very selective markets in Asia.

I should interject at this point to note that as we stand here the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is in southeast Asia promoting new markets for Canadian agricultural producers. I am proud to say that I have taken some of those initiatives to heart in my own riding and suggested to some of our dairy producers who export cattle around the world that they should also be focusing on southeast Asia.

Furthermore, I would like to mention that CIDA has an agricultural dairy operation testing in southern China at this very moment. We hope that some of the benefits that will flow

out of that are increased cattle production and shipment to China.

Carrying on with research and development, the Saskatoon Research Centre has developed a new type of sunflower called sunola that is heat and drought resistant. This crop can be grown further north than regular sunflowers and produces a healthier oil. Contract production began in Saskatchewan in 1993 on about 100,000 acres.

The department is also a major player in the development and application of biotechnologies like natural pest controls for the improvement of agriculture and agri-food products.

In these times of fiscal restraint expanding our budget for agri-food R and D is just not possible. But the minister has made a firm commitment to maintain current research funding levels by absorbing administrative costs in other parts of his department.

At the same time the department is ensuring that research priorities are driven by market opportunities. Better focused R and D is critical to global competitiveness and economic growth. It is now increasingly important for us to develop low cost processes and the new products we need to capture new markets. The future holds great opportunities and potential gains for biotechnology and from value added non-food products such as ethanol.

Canada is not alone in this field. Our agri-food sector has a lot of competitors. While Canada has a strong record on public investment and R and D our competitors invest more overall, that is public and private sector research and development, than we do.

The main challenges the government faces are to keep R and D funding at least at current levels to ensure that research priorities are driven by market opportunities, to stimulate industry investment, to look into ways of increasing the accessibility of venture capital for new products and development, to ensure that the right technologies get to the right people as quickly as possible.

R and D unlike other expenditures cannot be turned off like a tap. It requires careful planning. Because of inadequate support for research in the past, Canada has already missed the advantages of leadership in some areas. They will change policies that act as disincentives to the private sector in investment in agri-food technologies.

I would like to go on to a further section and that is to deal with our taxation policies. In Canada we have a very favourable tax policy toward farmers. It is called cash basis accounting. It means that you can buy cattle and so forth and write them off for tax purposes. This has existed in Canada and indeed Quebec for many years. It allows our farmers to build up big inventories of cattle and livestock without paying any income tax. This program of course is being continued by our government.

I look also toward the last budget. There was much talk about losing the $500,000 exemption for farmers. I am proud to say that our finance minister has listened very well to the needs and concerns of farmers and kept this in place.

I note also that we are debating through the finance committee, of which I am a member, the GST. One of our major concerns is to reduce and to avoid taxing farmers and try to make that tax simpler for farmers so that they do not have to get involved with the accounting and so forth for it.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, almost everything the government has done has been for the best interest in advancing the best interests of farmers.

I would like to go back to where I started and that is that this motion is inconsistent and makes farmers feel they have to be dependent on government for everything. This is just not the case and it is unworthy of Canadian farmers.

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

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.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. I am as sure as we breathe here today that Agriculture Canada is undertaking research and development. The hon. member is probably correct in the sense that we cannot

increase funding and many aspects of our government have been curtailed. That is just the way it is.

I can assure the member that research and development continues as we breathe today. Indeed I find it very hard to accept this concept of lack of initiative. As we stand here the minister of agriculture is in southeast Asia promoting new markets for agriculture in Canada. It seems unbelievable that the member would think this way.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague across the way who just gave us this very excellent discourse is an accountant by profession. Obviously he knows how to count things well and proper.

I wonder how he can reconcile for me the Bloc Quebecois policy whereby on the one hand it is saying today that we must reduce the number of specialists in agriculture and hire-as the member for Quebec-Est said this morning-more farmers to be in the agriculture department. A couple of hours later it was saying hire more scientists in agriculture, which is the opposite of the previous argument.

I wonder if he can also tell us what he thinks as an accountant of a party that asks us to decrease overall budgetary expenditures and at the same time today is telling us that we are not spending enough.

Can he reconcile that kind of accounting for us, because I am having some difficulty. Perhaps the professional judgment of my colleague across can help us understand this Bloc Quebecois modern math.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Of course I do not know if the math in Quebec is different from that in the rest of Canada. It appears that perhaps it is.

I do not know how it balances things from one hand to the other. It seems that it lives in a different world than we do. It must be a great place to be, it must be a tremendous fairy land in some ways where you can have your cake and eat it too constantly. I find that very hard to believe. I think we have to have a more honest approach to these problems. I am sure farmers in all of Canada want a more honest approach.