Debates of April 28th, 1994

Supply

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, coming from B.C. the subject of grain is not a big issue in our area. However, I want to make a couple of comments to the member about some of his statements regarding his concern about the lack of grain or the decrease in grain passing through the St. Lawrence seaway.

Clearly the member realizes that there has been a huge market change in the demand for grain in the world. Europe, for example, has gone from a net importer to a net exporter of grain. This is a predominant factor in grain shipments throughout the east coast ports.

I sit in the House every day and listen to the members from the Bloc crying about how hard done by the province of Quebec is and how things are so tough and they are being penalized so much. The member should realize that for so many years the pendulum swung the other way toward the province of Quebec.

We talk about the supply management system. Today in the domestic market the province of Quebec enjoys a huge protectionist advantage for shipping things like cheese and milk products and some of the other items in the domestic market.

In our province, for example, because of the supply management system we are restricted to pretty much a local area for selling our product. The member is once more bringing up the hard done by Quebec issue and I think that his facts are not exactly correct.

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebec certainly is not winning by any means in this. For example, with milk definitely we have a certain advantage in Quebec over the west, that is for sure. Now obviously with the change in the GATT, Quebec is going to have to realign itself and develop new markets.

In terms of grain transportation it is obvious that there are millions of tonnes of grain going via Vancouver. It is not because I do not want it to go via Vancouver but it is rather illogical to transport grain to Vancouver ports in order to get to Europe when the line is more directly toward the St. Lawrence seaway. There is a very clear tendency there that seems to want to favour it. I do not know why.

This is in line with the whole subsidy program. Why, for example, are there many tonnes of grain that are subsidized going to Thunder Bay and then back down the line to get to the United States? Grain transportation is subsidized in such a way-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I know this issue, as I mentioned earlier, is of great importance and I am sure that members throughout the day will want to raise these issues.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, the minister, the hon. Ralph Goodale, and the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Lyle Vanclief, it is with pleasure that I open the debate on the opposition motion relating to a vital sector of the Canadian economy, that is to say agriculture and the agri-food industry.

I would like to start by commenting briefly the wording of this motion that I find absolutely ridiculous. I must tell you that I was stunned-I could not believe my eyes-when I read this motion. Just think, our colleagues opposite are asking that this House denounce the government's lack of action in the agricultural sector. The government's lack of action, nothing less.

Ironically enough, while we are fed such cliches, while we are criticized for our alleged inaction, my colleague, the minister of agriculture, happens to be abroad on a mission to promote agricultural trade.

In fact, that is why I am replacing the hon. minister here today. As we speak the minister of agriculture is leading a trade mission in the Asia-Pacific region. This region is an economic zone undergoing phenomenal growth, one that looks like a promising export market for our agri-food products and know how.

The minister is accompanied by a delegation of 15 leaders of the Canadian agri-food industry representing most areas in that industry. After stopping off in Japan and Korea, they are now in China and from there are headed for Hong Kong.

As recently as last Monday, the minister of agriculture left Korea with a signed contract to sell wheat to Korea as well as interesting prospects for the sale of pork meat and animal feed. If that is called lack of action, there is something wrong with the definition of the word. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that not only the Bloc Quebecois critic for agriculture but also my hon. colleague the critic for finance, a prominent agricultural economist, will approve of the objectivity and capacity to promote agriculture in the Canadian economy.

How can one dare talk about government lack of action when this government has been praised by the industry for reacting both quickly and firmly to the American decision to renegotiate customs duties on wheat under article XXVIII of GATT? Our government made it clear that we do not want a trade war with the United States. We would rather negotiate. But we will go to war if we have to. As the hon. minister indicated, no deal will be made with the Americans unless this deal benefits the Canadian agri-food industry as a whole as far as grain products, processing and supply managed commodities are concerned. Canada will not give in on one point to get more on another. We refuse to play one group or region off against another.

Inertia my eye. This government takes great pride in the exceptional work that our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been doing since taking office in November. I would congratulate my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, for his intervention five minutes ago when he talked about the positive things that we as a government and as a country are bringing to this, one of the most important sectors of our economy.

In the last five months the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has travelled widely in an effort to meet all of the pertinent players around the world, in Canada and in Quebec. He has met with industry associations and stakeholders. He has met with provincial and municipal governments as well as American, Mexican and now Asia-Pacific agriculture and trade officials.

These meetings were held in a spirit of co-operation and consultation which has been the hallmark of this government's approach to making Canada's agri-food industry one of the strongest in the world.

The Canadian agri-food industry is a major employer. It is a major exporter. It accounts for 8 per cent of Canada's GDP and 15 per cent of our jobs, three-quarters of which are found beyond the farm gate. In fact, it represents work for more than 1.5 million Canadians on the farm, in processing plants and in the food distribution chain. It also provides Canadians with safe, nutritious food at reasonable prices. Agri-food exports are a

significant source of income for Canada. In 1992 exports were worth $13.7 billion.

Our platform, the famous red book, says that our sector has unique opportunities for growth and places great emphasis on security for Canadian farm families. It recognizes that Canadian farmers want that security to be built on the development of solid domestic and international markets, on staying at the forefront of innovation, on stewardship of our natural resources and in the confidence consumers have in the safety and the quality of our food.

I would like to take some time to review the work that we have done to live up to our commitments, to follow up perhaps on the intervention of the parliamentary secretary some minutes ago.

I would like to begin by reaffirming as a government our commitment to research and to innovation. This is an area where our government feels that the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food can work closely with other government departments to build a framework that will make it easy for firms in the agriculture sector to bring products successfully to the marketplace.

Successful agriculture is a knowledge industry. Studies have shown that the return on investment in some key areas of agri-food research can exceed 50 per cent. This is one area where Ralph Goodale is very keen to see government continue to emphasize-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I hesitate to interrupt the Minister of Finance. I just want to remind us all to refer to each other by our titles or positions, such as the minister of agriculture or minister of this, unless of course that member is no longer in this Chamber, which is always regrettable. For all those of us here in this 35th Parliament I know it is a tradition that we will want to maintain.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am suitably admonished. It is just that I am so enthusiastic about the work the minister of agriculture does that I sometimes get carried away.

In any event, this is one area, that is to say agri-food research, in which the government is very keen to see us place even more emphasis. Therefore, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will give a very high priority to innovative research and to collaboration with private research partners.

In our agenda for creating opportunity we have endorsed the idea of providing matching funds for research proposed jointly by the public and the private sectors. My colleague is looking at a variety of options, collaboration with the private sector and the public sector, including a plan to work with industry for additional co-operative investment funding.

As for trade, which the critic discussed, from the day we took office it has been our top priority. The focus of our government's platform has been economic renewal, growth and jobs. A number of the initiatives so far have been aimed at encouraging small business, stimulating innovation in research and development, providing stability for the future and in particular, restoring confidence and stability in the agri-food sector.

In pursuing these goals we have set out two priorities: concluding the trade deals and getting absolutely the most out of new trade opportunities. That again is what the parliamentary secretary referred to. Let us not only look at the problems but let us look at change as something that will provide a very dynamic agricultural sector with the opportunity to develop new products and create new opportunities.

We hit the ground running by negotiating a successful GATT agreement that will bring fairness and predictability to international trade which Canada is so dependent on.

On January 1 we saw the introduction of the North American free trade agreement which will provide an even greater opportunity for our industry in North America. A more secure trading environment will over time provide better stability for our farm families and for our agri-food entrepreneurs. Our challenge now is to take the utmost advantage of the opportunities presented by these agreements.

We already have a commitment from industry to work toward the goal of exporting $20 billion in agri-food products by the year 2000. That is a considerable leap from the $13.7 billion we are now realizing. I am confident, as are the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the government, that we can do it if we all work together. I would ask the opposition to join us in that great effort.

The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food is reordering its priorities to increase support for export initiatives. We have placed agri-food specialists in selected embassies abroad to provide better service for our exporters. The first ones are in place in Mexico, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The response we have had to their work has been very good.

To further consolidate our trade efforts in Mexico, we will soon open a Canada business centre in Mexico City to promote our exports and to offer trade related services to our new NAFTA partners.

Canadian farmers are very supportive of this focus on trade. They want to earn their incomes from the marketplace, not from the high subsidy levels that have prevailed over the past few. years. They repeatedly tell us that they do not want subsidies, that they just want a decent price from the market.

The producers continue to need some protection from the vagaries of the market and from external disasters. Our platform promised to review all existing support programs to develop farm income stabilization programs based on the concept of the whole farm, a user friendly safety net based on income from the whole farm.

We see farm income security as a consequence of the marketplace more than as a result of government support programs.

Development of the new whole farm income support program has been a key part of our plan to create security for farm families. We launched in Winnipeg at the beginning of February a consultative process on refurbishing Canadian farm safety net programs which will draw on the expertise of farm leaders from across the country, as well as federal and provincial government officials.

What emerged from that Winnipeg meeting was a strong consensus to make a whole farm program available to all commodities. There was also agreement that some sort of additional support or companion programs would be needed to deal with specific regional or commodity problems as they arise. This will be part of our overall approach to safety nets.

We have already taken a few big steps toward safety net reform. The first was establishing a national safety nets committee made up of government and industry representatives.

The membership of the committee was established to ensure that the agri-food industry had input in the policy and program activities that will lead to the establishment of a renewed safety net regime. The membership is charged with ensuring that the input of all interested producers is brought to the table for consideration. They are to ensure that the deliberations and the conclusions of the committee are disseminated around the country.

We need to develop a program that is GATT consistent, market neutral, financially sound, affordable and effective. We need to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent in the most efficient way: to improve the industry's ability to adapt and to compete while not distorting trade. We would like to be ready to begin its implementation in 1995.

While not strictly a safety net issue, the question of interest free cash advances must be considered when we are thinking about safety nets, because there is only one source of funds for agricultural programs. As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food recently told several farm groups, our government is quite prepared to move on our campaign promise to improve these programs but first he wants to get the opinions of all major farm groups.

It is important to note that the budget of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food for all income support and safety net programs is currently about $850 million. Historically interest free cash advances have cost us $50 million to $75 million. If $75 million is used for cash advances it means that much less is available for other things. If we hear a consensus from producers that it is the best way to spend that money, our government will proceed.

The finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois may tell his colleague, the agriculture critic, that he does not think money should be spent on agriculture. However we are going to do it because we believe in Canadian agriculture.

We are asking farm groups to look at the basket of programs we have in place, the new initiatives that may come out of the safety net discussions, and the amount of money available to support these programs, to tell us what is the best way to spend our limited resources, our scarce resources. I know the financial critic for the Bloc will support me in this effort.

Is the commitment to fully interest free cash advances the best use of these funds? Are there ways to make cash advance programs more effective at lower costs? That is the debate we must have in the House.

Another element of security for farm families consists of the programs in place to help farmers manage. There are a number of them. Some are being questioned; others are aimed at helping farmers adapt to changes in farm financial situations which the critic raised in his remarks.

In some cases the provinces have programs similar to our own. We need to assess these programs. We need to ask ourselves what types of programs might be considered companion programs and how they are best going to meet the needs of the future. How can we eliminate duplication among different levels of government? How can we provide straightforward service to farmers? We will be looking at all federal programs in this context.

Tied into the issue of security for farm families and agricultural communities as a whole is the question of rural development. A healthy rural sector is an important part of ensuring a prosperous agriculture industry and vice versa.

The Prime Minister has asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to promote and facilitate rural renewal using the resources of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. As a result the minister announced that a rural renewal secretariat was being established within his department to provide leadership and co-ordination.

This secretariat is working with other departments, with provincial governments, industry, communities, organizations and grassroots stakeholders to address the challenges facing rural Canada.

The key to this effort is partnership, the co-ordination of the business of government, the vigilance and the political will to ensure that rural people and rural issues get the careful attention they need around the cabinet table and in the conduct of government.

As for supply management, the new GATT agreement will certainly require adjustments on our part, but we must nonetheless recognize that substantial gains were made. We have ensured that tariffs will be reasonably high, applied for a reasonable length of time and combined to clear access rules so as to allow product sectors to get by.

In co-operation with the provinces and the industry, we are developing a supply management system which will be both sustainable and responsive to the new market conditions. A federal-provincial-industrial working group will be holding consultations and developing a strategy to get the most out of the new trading context.

Many agri-food enterprises are small or medium sized businesses. A key part of our platform is directed at helping to unleash the job creation potential in small and medium sized businesses. We will provide one stop shopping for business. We will provide the market development support necessary to succeed in today's global markets. We will continue to cut red tape and unnecessary regulation.

Change is now the order of the day. This Parliament must also work in co-operation toward ensuring the prosperity of our agri-food industry.

Our government has not been twiddling its thumbs, whatever the opposition says. I call upon its common sense and spirit of co-operation to bring about positive change within the industry. All Canadians will benefit from this.

I believe the farmers and business people of Canada recognize the contribution the agri-food sector brings to the Canadian economy. We all look forward to making the most of what I know will be a better future for all Canadians.

In conclusion, that is why we on this side of the House welcome this debate. This House is a dramatically changed House from the previous one. On our side, as was evident in the intervention of my colleague, there is tremendous interest and expertise in agricultural matters. There is a very strong rural influence running through the Liberal caucus.

As I look across the House, the Reform Party brings with it a great deal of knowledge and understanding of western agriculture. The agriculture critic for the Bloc Quebecois is an acknowledged expert in the area, as indeed is its finance critic an eminent and renowned economist in that sector.

There is an opportunity in the House to marry the tremendous knowledge, desire and enthusiasm for Canadian agriculture existing in the government with the sincerity of the opposition parties. It is for that reason we are delighted to participate in the debate today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I take note of the interest of members who want to participate in questions and comments with the Minister of Finance. I will attempt to recognize as many as possible in the 10-minute period available to us.

I encourage members to keep their questions brief and the minister to respond in the same fashion so that I may accommodate as many members as possible.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity to address the Minister of Finance. I had no idea that he could speak so eloquently about farming.

Speaking for the minister of agriculture, the Minister of Finance stated earlier that I supported a reduction in farm subsidies. Given the enormous upheavals that the agricultural sector in Quebec and in Canada is currently experiencing, I would never have said such a thing quite the contrary.

The government should continue to support the agricultural sector and perhaps even increase that level of support, not only to the primary sector but to the processing sector as well so as to improve the industry's current performance and prepare it to face the challenge of global competition.

When we speak of the government's lack of action, here is what we are talking about. Since 1986 and as far back as 1982, when I was working for the federal Department of Agriculture, there has been a great deal of discussion, at the federal level at least, with the provinces and farmers.

Since 1986 discussions have involved the Conservatives primarily. The current Minister of Finance says that he deplores the fact that no decision is ever taken. Why is that? Because the very same thing is happening today. Senior officials want to implement agricultural policies across the board and coast to coast. I have often questioned the minister of agriculture about income security programs and the negotiations currently taking place between his officials and market growers. His answer has been to leave everything in the capable hands of his officials whose job it is to deal with these matters.

My question, therefore, is to the minister of agriculture. When will real policies be drafted to give Canadian farmers the ability to meet the challenge of global markets and when will the government show some backbone in the face of constant trade dispute threats from the Americans, as is presently the case with respect to tariffs on Canadian durum wheat?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly the first to admit that I am not personally known as an expert on agriculture, except that I should tell my hon. colleague that I am a farmer.

I have a farm where I raise beef in the riding of Brome-Missisquoi; it is one of the most beautiful parts of Quebec and I invite him to come and visit my farm and really see what it is to work the land.

I also invite the agriculture critic of the Bloc Quebecois. I can talk to him as to a Quebec farmer and I can certainly tell him that, for me, as a Quebec farmer, not only the provincial government is important, the federal government is important too.

They ask when we will confront the Americans. It has been done. I was in Washington two days ago. I met the Treasury Secretary there, I raised the issue of the debate that we are having here and I can assure the House that we will hold our ground in these discussions with the Americans and we will win because we are right.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Minister of Finance speak to the issue of agriculture. I appreciate his presence here because a lot of the decisions affecting agriculture have a dollar attached to them.

His speech was rather a motherhood one. I am sure that if you glance through Hansard you would see similar speeches made by agriculture ministers and finance ministers since time immemorial both at the federal and provincial levels.

There was really nothing of substance that I can take back to my rural riding and tell my constituents that I heard this from the government and it would give them hope or at least help them to prepare for the decisions they have to make to manage their farming enterprises.

A crucial question we would like to have clarification on from the Minister of Finance is-I am not talking in broad motherhood terms-when federal financial support for agriculture is justifiable.

Reform has very clearly stated the basis on which we feel support is justifiable. I can mention eight areas. What about countering international trade wars? What about transportation issues? What about natural hazards? What about regional disparities in agricultural sectors? What about variations or instability in the marketplace returns from agriculture produce? What about sustainability of rural Canada? What about research and development? What about environmental and conservation measures?

Specifically, does the government support funding for agriculture in these definite areas because I am not sure there are enough dollars to cover all of them. We need to know the priorities of the government. Because the minister went to great lengths to say that the federal agriculture minister was so wonderful I am sure they have had considerable consultation and have an action plan in place.

I would like to know what the priorities of the federal government are with regard to consolidating federal programs. The minister said it is an issue they may pursue. We want to know what programs are going to be consolidated in the agriculture sector. What can we expect from the government?

We also wonder if it would pledge to cut down administration but retain funding in real dollars for actual agricultural programs, except perhaps if savings could be accrued through reduction or de-escalation in the trade war.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that I dealt quite extensively in my remarks with exactly the points that were raised by the opposition critic.

Our position on the trade war is very clear in terms of our absolute preparedness to go to the wall to protect the Canadian farmer. Indeed the agriculture minister has made that very clear. We are right and we are going to win and let there be no doubt about that.

I dealt with research and development extensively in my remarks. We believe that if you look at the development, the evolution of Canadian agriculture over the years, it is in fact because we have invested heavily in research and development, have developed new hybrid forms of grain, as an example, in the area from which the member comes that we have been so successful in world markets.

We have stated very clearly that the agri-food industry is an essential part of the growing Canadian economy. It is one that is worthy of support in world markets.

The minister is now on a tour of the Asian markets which are crucial to the future of Canadian agriculture.

We have also said that the department of agriculture, as indeed other government departments, will be cutting back on the heavy cost of administration that we have inherited in order to have more money to put into programs to support Canadian farmers.

That is part and parcel of the philosophy of the government in terms of agriculture, in terms of defence, in terms of industry. We believe that the huge government apparatus ought to be scaled back so that scarce resources can be put on the front line where the battles are being waged.

Yes, I did talk very enthusiastically about the minister of agriculture, about the work he is in the process of doing. It is an essential pillar of the economic philosophy of the government, that Canadian agriculture not simply survive but that it grow. That is because as the parliamentary secretary said, we see in Canadian agriculture not only problems as do the opposition, but tremendous, tremendous opportunity.

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

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

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

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

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said in my remarks, as did the parliamentary secretary, that in the program set out by the minister of agriculture, we have been very specific as to the actions we intend to take.

Yes, there are areas where we have said we are going to consult because we think it is an essential part of the democratic process that we go out and that we talk. Surely the members of the Reform Party would agree that you go out and talk to Canadians, talk to those who are involved.

I cannot believe the Bloc Quebecois members do not share the same view that what government must do is consult with the stakeholder before coming down with the final program. We have nailed our colours to the mast. We have said what we are going to do.

The final remark I would make in response to the critic's remarks is with regard to what he said about GATT. I watched the evolution of that negotiation. When this government came into power we were dealt a very late hand. A previous government had not faced up to the tremendous demands that were out there; a previous government had not owned up to the Canadian people about what it had said, and a previous government had misplayed its hand very badly in Geneva. Nonetheless, having been dealt that hand, we were able to snatch tremendous victory from the jaws of defeat because of the negotiating skills of the government.

The net result of GATT which could have turned out so badly for Canadian agriculture is that in fact it has turned out to be a tremendous victory. It has turned out to be a tremendous victory because as a government we knew exactly what we wanted. Our negotiators went over to Europe, sat down at the the table and did not leave the table until they got it. I am sure that in the private moments of his home the opposition critic knows that.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the whip of the Reform Party I would like to advise the House that pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) our speakers on this motion will be dividing their time with your concurrence.

I am really enthused about the hon. minister's speech this morning. I would like to direct a few remarks to him before I go into the details I want to present to the Liberal government.

I started farming because of farm programs like FCC and MACC. I was guaranteed a low interest rate for 25 years which I really appreciated. It was the only way I could acquire land and continue to farm and later retire as a farmer.

Why did the Liberal government in the 1970s change the farm credit regulations to do away with those programs and allow the banks to take over the financing for young farmers? Also during that period, why did the Liberal government allow interest rates to go to 24 per cent and force thousands and thousands of farmers off their land?

I am so glad to hear the hon. minister is prepared to do some fence mending on those issues. I hope he gets the fences built a lot stronger in the west because they are getting very thin. If something is not done for the farmers there could be a charge by the big western farmers right down here into Ottawa to demand some changes. However, I appreciate his comments and I hope he will take them into account.

I am not going to be quite as critical of the government on the issues of farm problems as my friend in the Bloc was. However I would like to address some of the problems we farmers are facing. I hope the hon. members in the government will take them to heart, look at them and give us some help with them.

My speech is mostly going to be directed toward transportation. I would like to point out some of the problems we are having today. We feel the car shortage on the railway system is not due to something that has happened overnight.

I would like to point out to the government that in a letter dated November 15, 1993 the Thunder Bay Harbour Commission Port Authority warned the Minister of Transport at that time that the rail car shortage problem had been some time in the making and was due in part to the policy of dispersing the rail car fleet into trades and routings outside its original purpose.

In an October submission to the National Transportation Agency, one of Canada's railroads confirmed there was in existence as early as May 1993 an extreme car shortage affecting its ability to supply cars. To be sure the terrible situation we find ourselves in today was not without warning.

What did the railroads do? They chose to chase business in the United States without first making sure they had enough cars to handle the Canadian grain requirements. That makes money for the railways but it certainly left the western agriculture community high and dry.

Under the Western Grain Transportation Act brought in by the previous Liberal government the railways are supposed to be subject to sanctions if they do not meet targets for unloading grain at Canadian ports.

However, this recourse proved useless when the senior grain transportation committee decided not to pursue those sanctions. I wonder why. Who sits on that senior grain transportation committee and whose best interests do they have at stake? Apparently it is not farmers.

I look at the people on that agency: They represent elevator companies, terminal operators, the railways, everybody but farmers. An article in the Western Producer states that elevators shipped the wrong grain to the port of Vancouver just recently. Why? They have all the stats and all the figures on trade at their fingertips. They know what they need. Is the system so inefficient that they cannot even load the proper grain?

Mr. Minister, I hope you look into that because it seems ludicrous. It almost seems as if there is a conspiracy to shut the system down.

William Stinson, chairman and chief executive of Canadian Pacific Ltd. received a $448,000 bonus for losing less money than the previous year. CP is trying to negotiate with two unions right now and is asking for cuts and labour deterrents so they will not go on strike, but this gentleman is given an extra half a million dollars for losing $2 billion. How does he expect to get a settlement with his unions?

It is imperative that the government start to look at these issues and address them. One of these days we are going to have a civil war if this is the system we are going to allow to go on. A million and a half dollars for management and 50 cents an hour for the workers. Is that fair, Mr. Minister?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I was just wondering. For one moment I thought maybe I had been forgotten.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Well, you know-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

One moment, please. We can only speak one at a time. While I am standing I would suggest that the member take a moment to sit down. I know people feel very strongly about all issues and this one is no different from any other we debate on the floor of this House. But I must encourage the member and I must ask the member to direct his comments through the Chair.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. Seeing the minister was so impressed with the farm issues, it got to my heart. I hope to simmer down a bit.

The railways are required by law to move these grains according to the Western Grain Transportation Act. Why do we not see them doing it? It amazes me when I see stats that the turnaround on a hopper car today is actually a little longer than was required in 1923. Is this today's modern system that is supposed to help farmers survive?

With the negotiations having gone on for over a year, this government failed to pass legislation to order the west coast strikers back to work. We lost 12 days. Not only that, I was told that during the Easter holidays there was again a four day shutdown. There are 40 ships sitting in Vancouver drawing demurrage charges on grain that cannot be shipped. When is this government going to take action on this?

That has dealt a tremendous blow to the farm sector in western Canada. Shipping $100 a tonne feed wheat to the U.S. which takes twice as long as putting a car to Vancouver with $500 a tonne canola just does not seem to make sense. When are we going to get the right type of direction from some of our farm organizations or our government to solve these problems? Farmers need that cash to put in another crop. Farm programs cannot look after all these requirements. We have to ship that grain. We have to get our money out of that grain. I appreciate that the hon. minister is listening and I hope that something can be done about it.

The other serious issue coming out of this whole system of not delivering grain is the lost sales. Japan today is encouraging Australian farmers to plant more canola because the Canadian system cannot deliver the product after it is grown. How long can our economy continue to exist in western Canada if we do

not start supporting the farmer who produces more efficiently every year and then is not allowed to sell to get the funds out of it?

It amazes me sometimes what modernization, with all the computer technology and the efficiencies we have built into our systems, has done to us. I will give one little example of an experience I had. This is not with grain transportation.

Being a farmer I like to save as much money as I can because I know I will need it. Just before I came back to Ottawa two months ago, I got a telephone bill for $27.65. I wrote the cheque for the due date on the bill. I said to my wife: "Would you please drop it off at the telephone office so it is there directly and I can save myself the 45 cents".

Lo and behold, a month later I got a returned cheque with a notice on it saying "insufficient funds", charging me a $15 service charge for a $27 telephone bill. It is a provincial utility. I went to see the banker, furious as can be. I have never had less than $2,000 in that bank account.

Somebody had punched the wrong figure and it showed there were insufficient funds. To hide their mistake, they wrote out a little slip which said: "Due to insufficient funds". It took me a month and probably $30 worth of telephone calls to find out where the problem was. Is this progress?

I said to my wife: "I know what I am going to do with the next telephone bill. I am going to put a stamp on it, mail it in Morden because it will take the postal service at least six months to figure out it is supposed to be delivered to Morden. It will travel all across Canada. They will cut off my telephone before I get back. Then at least I will have peace and quiet this summer with Stats Canada phoning me every month wanting to know how much grain I have left in my bins". There is a way of getting around this system, but how long can we continue to do it?

I apologize for the problems I caused you, Mr. Speaker. Forgive me. I hope the hon. minister does listen to this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a report that was given to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food the other day to back up some of my figures, just kind of arguing the point with the hon. member about going through Thunder Bay.

When we had the PSAC witnesses on grain transportation, they pointed out to us that in a two week period of officially weighing grain which is done for Agriculture Canada, it was detected that 341 rail cars would have gone through the system with the wrong car numbers, putting the wrong grain to the wrong customer. One hundred and sixty-nine had the wrong initials on them, bringing the total to 510 cars in two weeks that they had to correct.

In the same period, there were 26 mixes between different railways, 45 mixes that were prevented by weighers and assistants. Grain was left in receiving hoppers 10 times, 12 spills, overweight as much as 25 tonnes on a boxcar or on a hopper car or underweight in some cases.

The total was 1,173 cars that were under the wrong procedure in two weeks out of a total shipment of 13,000 cars. Almost 10 per cent of the cars that were directed to Thunder Bay had been marked incorrectly by elevator companies. How can you have a system deliver our grain under those circumstances?

This is why I say we have a disaster. We have a calamity in the transportation system. If this government does not correct some of those problems we will never be able to survive on the farms by becoming more efficient and producing more. It is senseless.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I open with the question that I hear most in my riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. Farmers ask me why they have not heard anything about agriculture from Ottawa through the newspapers or on television. I have to be honest and tell them we are not talking about agriculture in Ottawa. Sometimes it is very

difficult for me, being a farmer, to admit that we are not talking or spending very much time on agriculture. That is the question I hear most often in my riding.

I want to talk about two subjects today, safety nets and the farm debt problem.

First, in many cases over the past years we have seen safety nets that have been ill conceived, open to abuse, and poorly planned. I do not believe there is a farmer in this country who wants federal or provincial government agriculture subsidies. All farmers want is a reasonable chance to make some sort of decent living in this country. I do not care which part of Canada they come from.

We have been in the situation over the past number of years where we have been looking at world trade problems, weather related problems and various other problems. That has shifted the focus in many areas so governments have been trying to give financial aid to farmers in poorly planned ways.

We have had safety net programs for many years. We have had GRIP, crop insurance, FSAM, the grain stabilization program, and any number of ad hoc programs, as many as we all care to remember.

We have spent billions of taxpayers' dollars on agriculture subsidies, and yet I still see farmers in Saskatchewan, and I know this is true right across this country, who are losing their farms. I ask myself how we justify spending billions upon billions of dollars and whether there is any effect or any good reason to pour dollars into farm subsidies when there is no reasonable chance of hope for success.

In most cases the programs we have seen are open to abuse. They encourage very poor farming practices. They lack continuity. As I mentioned before, we have jumped in and out of all sorts of different farm programs on almost a yearly basis.

That is generally the problem I see with those kinds of programs. In all cases they are bureaucratic programs, developed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. They have done very little talking to farmers, listening and hearing what farmers are saying across this country. That is something we need to change. That is the area we need to move to.

As I have said many, many times, farmers are the people who know what programs will work and what programs will not work. They know what is the best way to market their grain. In many cases they know the best way to transport their grain.

I am not being particularly critical of this government. It has been governments of all stripes in the past. We have seen it from all governments.

I generally like the idea of the whole farm concept of some sort of farm insurance. The concept is realistic. The question I have is, what process will be used to develop this program? Will it be bureaucrats again, as we have seen so many times in the past, or will it be consultation with farmers? If it is consultation with farmers in the grassroots area, I am all for that.

I just returned from a meeting of the standing committee on agriculture this morning and we had a group of people in from the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. They did a provincial summary in Saskatchewan last year listing some of the problems they see with the GRIP and the NISA program.

I will quote the report: "Declining support levels, premiums are too high, not bankable, lack of producer consultation, payment processes too long".

When they talk about NISA they say it is too complicated, the forms are too lengthy, it is poorly administered. They do not trust government with their money; it does not cover all agriculture income and is not suitable for young farmers.

Those are some of the comments the farmers in Saskatchewan are making to groups in Saskatchewan, the problems they have with farm safety net programs.

The second area I want to spend a couple of minutes on is the farm debt problem. In Saskatchewan we have over $5 billion in farm debt. That is Saskatchewan only. In the rural municipality of Craik which is very close to mine, over 50 per cent of the farmers have gone through the farm debt review process. In other words, they have been in serious financial difficulty.

The largest municipal taxpayer in Saskatchewan is the Farm Credit Corporation and the second highest taxpayers are the chartered banks. That gives an indication, a bit of background to the kinds of problems and how serious the debt problem is in this country.

A few years ago we were all witness and subject to many different farm rallies, most of which were held in western Canada, because of the farm debt crisis. We have not seen many of those in the past year or 18 months.

People will say that perhaps the farm debt crisis is over, perhaps it is no longer a problem. We see that cattle prices have gone up. We see that prices for special grains have gone up. Perhaps the crisis is over. I do not believe that.

I believe that the debt crisis is still there and it is still as big as it was before. I think the difference now is that farmers in this country have come to realize if they are going to solve the problems of debt, the problems of marketing and so on and so forth, they will have to do it themselves.

Farmers have to take the initiative to help solve their problems. They are no longer looking for government support the

way they did five or perhaps ten years ago. They realize the way to solutions is to open up the process and let them handle their own problems.

I believe farmers have decided they will take matters into their own hands. That is why we see things such as the huge influx of new crops in our country, specialty crops, crops that we would not have believed we would grow five or ten years ago. We are now growing them. We see a great increase in the cattle industry. We see value added industry. In my own riding we have a good number of various value added industries that are going to be successful because they are farmer owned, they are farmer controlled and they do not depend on government subsidy.

We see a huge increase in off farm jobs, off farm income. A recent survey in Saskatchewan said that as high as 50 per cent of the farmers in Saskatchewan have off farm income. I often humorously say as a farmer that my wife teaches school to support my farming habit. It is a fact of life out there. It is just the way it is. I think that is good. People are starting to realize they have to take matters into their own hands.

I want to spend just a minute talking about the Farm Credit Corporation. It has a new lend-lease program, initiated this year. The comments I have received from my riding, the initial comments, are that it is a good program. Some of the negative comments might be that the term of six years is probably too short and should be increased to 10 years.

The other comment I get about the Farm Credit Corporation which I want to finish with is that it has been very difficult, very bureaucratic to deal with in its history. Many farmers in my area have turned back their land or voluntarily transferred it back to the Farm Credit Corporation over the past few years and it has been very difficult negotiating, coming to terms.

In conclusion, I would like to say that farmers are now preparing for their spring seeding. Right across this country they are busy. They are on their tractors. They are listening to the radio. I think more than anything else they would like to hear on their radios as they are working this spring that there are some specifics, that somebody will stand up and say this is the program, these are the details. That is what they want to hear.

I believe that agri-policy must be developed by farmers for farmers. There is no other way in this country that we can solve some of the problems we face in our industry other than by full consultations with farmers.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, I take note of the comments the hon. member and his colleague made in the last few minutes.

I would like to assure the previous speaker that as far as the whole farm and the safety net program are concerned we do have a 17 person national committee. By far the majority of people on that are farmers from across Canada. I do not think anyone can say that in the development of the whole farm program in Canada the farmers do not have a voice. We are consulting. I do not know how we could consult any more on those types of things.

In response to the speaker just before him, I would like to announce to the House we know in government that we do have a lot of problems at the present time with grain handling in western Canada.

A number of us have spoken to the minister in China this morning. The minister has asked me to announce that tomorrow he will be inviting a number of key people from the grain industry to meet with him immediately, as quickly as the date can be arranged upon his return from China, to talk about all those issues, all those problems and all of those challenges in the grain handling situation in western Canada.

I hope the opposition will be pleased with that and will have input for us as members on that matter.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously well aware of the national committee on the safety net programs. I do applaud the government. I do believe there are some very fine people on that committee.

However, by the same token and having said that, I also believe we have to take it one step further. We have to have full consultation with every farmer in this country. That has been the problem in the past. We have had a select group. They have been good people but they cannot always get the feeling of what each individual grassroots farmer wants. We have to have the process and take it right to the end. That is the way we will find success in the program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to very briefly state that I think the hon. member has a valid point in the fact that in many cases farmers in Quebec certainly do not understand the western Canadian agriculture and vice versa. I do not think there is any question about that.

The media does play a very important role in our industry. We certainly have enough media in our part of the world but, as I mentioned before, sometimes it is misunderstood between regions.