Debates of April 28th, 1994

Government Response To Petitions

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

National Day Of Mourning

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, on this national day of mourning, I offer my deepest sympathy to Canadian workers.

We all remember friends, relatives or colleagues who died, were injured or handicapped for life as a result of work accidents.

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to say that from year to year workplace safety and health have been improving and that prevention measures have been implemented with a high level of success. Unfortunately this is not so.

In 1992 for example, more than 700 workers lost their lives as a result of work accidents. Although the fatality rate generally has declined over the past decade all the parties involved, the workers, employers, unions and regulatory bodies, clearly have to improve and take more seriously the question of workplace safety so they begin to make a difference to all those who have lost friends, relatives and family members to workplace accidents.

Investing in safety and health is investing in people and in prosperity and also avoidance of unnecessary tragedies. I am very hopeful that step by step we can continue to enhance regulations at the federal and provincial levels to increase compliance and to improve our performance in protecting Canadian workers.

To that effect, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety located in Hamilton provides a very important service of information, support and resources in protecting employees and giving important knowledge to employers about workplace safety.

I recently visited the centre, and took that opportunity to announce that my government was giving the centre $100,000 to help it maintain its toll free emergency phone service.

This very important service ensures that there is one central place where individuals, employees and employers can phone in to get up to date information. It would be my hope in the future to continue to enhance and augment the role of the centre. I believe it is one of the most important institutions in workplace safety in the country.

I would also like to point out to members that occupational health and safety is a broad international concern. When signing the NAFTA labour agreement the three countries, Mexico, United States and our own agreed that this would be the priority issue. We have established as a result of that meeting a series of major conferences on workplace safety, the first beginning in Canada this summer.

We can now use the labour agreement under NAFTA as a venue and a means by which we can both improve knowledge and even aid those other countries by sharing information, by sharing knowledge and looking at measures in key industries like the oil and gas industry, engineering and others so that we can begin to provide in a co-operative fashion mutual activities.

I am sure that all members join me in remembering those who have paid the ultimate price in the workplace. I trust that they will encourage their constituents to be more vigilant about occupational health and safety. We can drastically reduce the pain and suffering caused by accidents to the victims, their families and friends if we all are more caring, more vigilant and more concerned.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Labour Congress bulletin on health and safety in the work place, one thousand workers die annually as a result of accidents in the work place, and another million are injured, while thousands more die of diseases caused by toxic substances used in the work place or as a result of various other problems in their job environment.

The Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition, wishes to join in this national and international day of mourning in honour of those men and women who died on the job or as a result of an accident or a disease contracted in the work place.

Speaking on behalf the Official Opposition, I must point out that although the actual number of accidents has declined, the situation is far from ideal. In fact, many job related diseases have not yet been recognized as such and are therefore not included in these figures.

It is also true that the work place is changing, and as we have seen in the past, each new generation of technologies brings with it new diseases and accidents. The same is true today. Unfortunately, unlike other periods before the second world war, the labour movement is not on the rise and is experiencing difficulties in certain areas and even receding in certain cases. That is why governments have an even greater obligation not only to improve legislation but also its implementation.

Because of the pressures of globalization, there is an increasing tendency to fragment the work place and have jobs done by companies whose labour practices are irresponsible. This means that we as parliamentarians must remain alert. Only political will and social commitment will be able to stop these terrible and unacceptable effects of the job environment. We are concerned about the problems of the unemployed, but we cannot ignore those who, because of current pressures in the work place, must work under conditions that may lead to loss of life or loss of physical or mental well-being.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, politicians are well known for sitting behind mounds of paper and bureaucracy dispensing advice to others. Seldom do they step outside their hallowed halls to feel the pain and also the joy of aching muscles and blisters from a physical day of hard work.

In my view it would be far more appropriate today if we had a framer, a mason, a steeplejack, a buggy operator, a labourer or a roustabout to offer a tribute in these halls.

I personally recall a powerful young mechanic severely injured by a propane blast that took his sight in one searing instant, leaving him disfigured and blind, his years of training made useless, his life's experiences suddenly only memories, his world a shambles.

Cliff and his wife never complain. In fact they are happy to have one another's love and support. Occupational health and safety are important. To Cliff and all his injured colleagues I dedicate this national day of mourning. To those less fortunate I offer a simple prayer.

Committees Of The House

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. According to the committee, discussions on the debt and the deficits should not happen only during prebudget consultations but should be an ongoing process. The committee suggests that all members of Parliament use, among other things, the indicators proposed in this report to explain more readily to their constituents Canada's financial and economic situation.

The report tabled today reflects the basic consensus of the committee and the dissenting opinion of the members for Joliette and Chicoutimi concerning the addition to the report of a series of prospective economic indicators.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee is asking the government to table a comprehensive response to the report.

Corrections And Conditional Release Act

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

moved for leave to introduce bill C-242, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (improvement to public safety).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to reintroduce into this House this bill which amends the Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The bill will close a significant loophole in sentencing laws. It will lower the age of application of the Young Offenders Act. It will outlaw so-called crack houses and other locations involved in the trafficking of drugs. It will provide for stiffer bail procedures. It will deny statutory release to repeat serious offenders and will allow for the benefit of victims judicially ordered blood tests for those accused of sexual assaults and rape.

I want to acknowledge the support and collaboration of other colleagues in this and the previous Parliament and the assistance of various victims groups throughout the country which participated and collaborated in the construction of this bill.

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

Department Of Labour Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-243, an Act to amend the Department of Labour Act (eligibility for assistance for long-service employees).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mercier for seconding the motion for introduction of this bill which seeks to amend the Program for Older Workers Adjustment.

The private member's bill I have the pleasure to introduce today in this House seeks to correct a terrible inequity toward Montreal workers and all workers from a community having more that 500,000 inhabitants. A laid off Montreal worker is eligible to the Program for Older Workers Adjustment only if the company laid off more than 100 workers in a single group.

But it so happens that, in Montreal, the industrial make-up is such that the vast majority of companies employ 20 to 30 workers. As a consequence, 83 per cent of all applications under the OWA program in Montreal have been rejected. This bill seeks to change that situation. I hope it will be favourably received by government members.

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

Starred Questions

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 24.

Question No. 24-

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Does the government intend to submit a brief to the International Court of Justice in response to their request for briefs concerning the legality of the use by a state of nuclear weapons in armed conflict? If so, what position will the government take on this issue, if not, why not?

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the answer be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

The government is considering this issue and will announce its decision in due course.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

Supply

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

moved:

That this House denounce the government's lack of action in the agricultural sector, which is currently facing the most significant changes in thirty years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for seconding this motion. I am pleased to rise in this House for this motion:

That this House denounce the government's lack of action in the agricultural sector, which is currently facing the most significant changes in thirty years.

I also ask all members of all parties present here to do the same in condemning the government's inaction on agriculture. A self-respecting society is one that recognizes the importance of its agriculture. A country must first of all ensure that its citizens have good food, hence the importance of stimulating this crucial sector of our economy. Subject to the whims of nature and buffeted by political decisions made here and elsewhere, agriculture requires heavy investment, diversified technical expertise and constant support from the government.

We cannot overemphasize that. Agriculture is a very important industry in Canada. Agri-food accounts for nearly 8 per cent of the gross domestic product and almost 2 million jobs, 15 per cent of all employment in Canada. It produces some $64 billion of goods a year. Food processing industries alone gener-

ate $38 billion, which is more than the automobile industry in Canada, which generates about $30 billion.

In fact, every dollar of agricultural production generates nearly $3 in economic benefits.

Agriculture is, therefore, extremely important to Canada and to Quebec. It plays a major role in our economy, serves as the basis of our society and is an important component of our national identity.

The 38,000 farms and 1,200 processing plants which make up the agri-food industry inject roughly $3 billion into the economy in the form of inputs, services and salaries. The industry generates approximately 400,000 jobs, or 11 per cent of the overall total, and accounts for $11 billion in shipments in the manufacturing sector in Quebec.

This is nearly three times the shipments of the pulp and paper sector. In fact, the agricultural and agri-food sector in Quebec is much larger than the province's pulp and paper industry or even the automobile industry.

Is it not time for our politicians and governments to pay more serious attention to agriculture and to stop neglecting this sector which provides a source of jobs and economic wealth?

What could account for this laxness and lack of action on the part of the government? Because there is no question that farmers are currently facing serious problems. With the upheavals resulting from the GATT and the NAFTA, the agricultural sector has undergone over the past few years some of the biggest changes in 30 years.

No one denies that the GATT and the NAFTA have changed the rules of the game in agriculture and it is hard to argue that in the case of these agreements, the federal government was truly successful in defending the interests of Canadian farmers.

The Canadian government lost out on GATT. First, because it failed to maintain support for article XI and was unable to cobble together a coalition of countries to defend its position and ensure that article XI would be maintained. Not only did the federal government fail to defend article XI of the GATT, which provides for a highly equitable system for farmers and consumers, it failed as well to gain a reasonable period of time for farmers affected by article XI to adapt to changes in these sectors.

The agri-food industry needs a reasonable period of time to make the transition to a competitive world. However, the government failed to win the industry enough time to make a smooth transition to the new system.

By signing the GATT Agreement, the federal government is subjecting the farmers of Quebec and Canada to time frames and terms of change imposed from the outside, by their very competitors.

In fact, the government's lack of action in the agricultural sector has been obvious since the GATT Agreement was signed, and in its trade negotiations with the United States in particular.

Not only did the federal government lose the battle for article XI at GATT and give the farmers very little time to adjust, but when it signed the GATT agreements on December 15 last, it did not make sure our many trade disputes with our main trading partner, the US, were settled.

Canada has since had to negotiate under pressure the settlement of a large number of trade disputes in the agricultural sector. Naturally, the United States has managed to drag Canada into global negotiations of all issues pertaining to agriculture instead of negotiating issues on the merits of each case.

In so doing, Canada had once again put itself in a position of incredible weakness. The federal government's strategy is one of damage control, a mainly defensive strategy. Our negotiators keep complaining that the US is acting in bad faith.

Canada's position of inaction and passivity is also exemplified by the fact it has accepted to negotiate a cap on Canadian durum wheat exports to the United States.

Given that Canada is doing nothing wrong under NAFTA, why allow to be penalized with respect to durum wheat exports when we know that the problems are on the American side?

There is a very long list of cases resulting from agreements signed at GATT and from NAFTA in various agricultural areas across the country which show how weak and soft this government's administration of agriculture is. But we will have the opportunity to discuss this in greater detail later on.

Canadian agriculture is faced with a serious problem, and the government has not done anything to deal with it: that is the considerable decline in the number of Canadian farms.

In Canada in the last 20 years the number of farms has fallen by nearly 25 per cent or almost one-fourth. We lost close to 100,000 farms. This means that 170,000 men and women who used to farm no longer earn a living as farmers. Even among those who still farm, almost 40 per cent, and in some sectors over 50 per cent, need a regular job elsewhere to survive as farmers.

In other words, in Canada not only is the farming population diminishing but it cannot even earn a decent living from farming alone. Rural people need our support; rural communities are in decline but everything we say on this subject seems to fall on deaf ears. So far the government has not come up with any proposal to improve rural communities and the fate of family farms.

Our farmers are among the most sophisticated in the world in several areas. Despite farmers' meagre income and reduced numbers, average productivity has grown by 2.4 per cent a year since 1981, which puts them in first place in Canada, far ahead

of the manufacturing sector with a growth rate of only 1 per cent. The excellent performance of farmers must be pointed out.

Canada comes first in the world for its capacity to feed its citizens at the lowest cost. How would you like to live in London, England, and spend 24 per cent of your salary on food in Tokyo and spend 33 per cent or a third of your income to feed your family, when Canadian consumers only spend 13 per cent of their income on premium quality and surprisingly varied food products? In spite of its problems and the lack of government support, the agricultural sector does its job well.

We are losing our farmers at an alarming rate. Our countryside is emptying and unemployment is going up. In addition, farmers are getting older: 42 per cent of them are over 55 and they are hard to replace because farming requires an enormous investment. Return on investment is low and working conditions are hard and totally different from those experienced by other workers in this country.

Who among us would be willing to start a business, invest half a million and, in return, have to work 80 hours a week, as is sometimes the case, without any vacation and for a salary which only represents 80 per cent of the average income of the rest of Canadians? The problem is not that there are no young people willing to take over, it is that the current policy is conducive to the dismantling of family farms.

Right now a person who wants to transfer his farm to his child must make great sacrifices. That person must be prepared to accept a substantial reduction of the value of his farm, often on the order of 50 per cent. In other words, it is the person who worked hard for over 40 years, reinvesting all his earnings in the farm to improve it and make it more efficient and profitable, and who always deprived himself of all those little treats which ordinary citizens take for granted-vacations, free evenings, sleeping in, etc.-who must, when the time to retire comes, sacrifice his pension fund to allow his offspring to take over the family operation. Farmers should not have to subsidize the new generation taking over. If we want an abundant and steady supply of food items, the government must take its responsibilities and initiate a farm transfer program. When will the government do that?

The loss of a farm is a tragic event which accelerates the deterioration of rural zones. We must put a stop to this terrible pattern. We must do something to keep rural populations from constantly decreasing. A healthy rural community is essential to the well-being of our society. Losing a farm often means losing a concession, a road, a post office, or a store. It can also lead to the deterioration of our rural communities and massive loss in investments, knowledge, money, training, expertise, research and subsidies. Our rural communities are full of dynamic and intelligent people who deserve better than what the government is proposing. The time has come for our distinguished colleagues opposite to introduce a rural policy that includes farm transfers.

Besides worrying about who will take over from them, farmers are concerned about their farm income which, as was mentioned earlier, does not get them very far. How many of us would be ready to spend our evenings, our weekends and our holidays holding down a second job, because our boss does not pay us a decent salary? In 1992-93, government subsidies accounted for 42 per cent of the total net income of farmers. This represents a significant decrease, since direct federal subsidies dropped by $113 million in 1993. Things are getting better, slowly but surely. However, these figures clearly indicate that the government contribution is crucial to the survival of our agricultural industry. Farmers need some support from the government.

The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food has a budget of some $3 billion, which represents less than 2 per cent of the federal government budget. This is not a huge amount of money when you consider the importance of this sector. Unfortunately, the money is not always well spent. Take for instance, agricultural research. In 1992-93, $300 million of taxpayers money were spent in this area, which provides 3,000 jobs. At first glance, this seems like a good investment. However, the money may not have been spent efficiently.

The Auditor General said: "The Department does not have in place a system to monitor the use of the technologies it has developed and transferred, with the exception of tracking the usage of new seed varieties. Without an effective monitoring system, it is not possible to determine how successful the Department has been in improving the adoption of technology by Canadian producers and processors". Since 1986, the department has known that until a responsibility framework has been defined and implemented by means of fiscal systems and performance evaluation mechanisms, it will be unable to highlight effectively the connection between resources and anticipated results on the one hand, and expenditures and actual results on the other hand.

Wasted money, ineffective research, much could be said on the gathering of market information and the gathering and compilation of statistical reports. It is incredible how Agriculture Canada fails to meet farmers' needs. Information does not always include conclusions, forecasts and data on market opportunities, and I quote from the Auditor General: "Dissemination of market information/intelligence is too slow and fails to meet the industry's needs for timeliness".

Although rather small, Agriculture Canada's budget is not managed effectively. The system has several deficiencies and it is about time we do something about it. In 1994, there will be a thorough review of the department's programs as a result of the signing of the GATT and NAFTA agreements.

In the past, these programs were not well controlled. Again I quote the Auditor General: "Some key aspects of the agreements, such as objectives, responsibilities, cost sharing and accountability, are not clearly defined".

So much money and effort has been spent to provide a service that does not meet the producers' needs. There is waste also in the duplication of programs, be it farm credit, food inspection, income support, market development or marketing. These duplications entail costs for the taxpayers, for such things as staff, services or office space. The respective tasks of the federal government and the provinces in trade exploration are poorly defined. As for the information gathered by various departments, when it is passed on to farmers, it is often too late for them to take advantage of it.

There has been progress, of course, but there is still much duplication between the federal and provincial levels, not only in programs but also in data, as we can see in this blatant example. According to Agriculture Canada data on hog exports, the figure for 1992 was 72,000 for Eastern Canada; but according to Statistics Canada, the figure for the same year and the same region was 125,000, that is twice as much. This is at the very least very bad data compiling, and it is very embarrassing to see such nonsense.

The Chair is indicating that I have one minute left, but a minute is not enough. It is unacceptable, all the more so since I was getting to the core of the subject.

Beyond these many difficulties for farmers, the waste and the many administrative duplications, there is something even worse in the agricultural sector. There is a very serious inequity problem in Canada between the west and Quebec, an inequity that shows up in many ways and that has been going on for a long time. There are numerous instances: milk, research, rural diversification, transportation and GATT. For example-and to sum up quickly since I do not have time to extrapolate-since 1980, the federal assistance share of the prairie provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, has grown from 42 per cent to 64 per cent of the federal budget, whereas financial assistance for Quebec has decreased from 30 per cent to 10 per cent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Since the hon. member for Québec-Est is the first member to participate today in this debate on a matter of great importance to the whole country, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to allow the member to conclude his remarks so we can start off debate on the right foot.

Would there be unanimous consent, seeing that the member for Québec-Est is the lead speaker on this opposition day in this very important debate on the subject of agriculture?

I hope the member does not need more than two or three minutes to conclude his remarks.

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

I need five minutes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Five minutes.

The member is asking for unanimous consent to extend his intervention by five minutes. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

I thank all hon. members for their kindness.

I wanted to deal with the inequity of the situation in agriculture because it lies at the heart of the problem, at least from the Quebec viewpoint. There are numerous examples of inequities between Quebec and western Canada.

Grain transportation is a case in point. Grain traffic on the St. Lawrence seaway is constantly being eroded and diverted to west coast ports. Since 1984, the volume of grain moved through the seaway has been halved, dropping from million 12 to 6 million tonnes.

In 1993 the volume of goods shipped through the seaway was 32 million tonnes, a 50 per cent reduction compared with 15 years ago. Glen Stewart, the chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, says the Western Grain Transportation Act encourages producers to ship their grain through Pacific coast ports. That stands to reason since we have more buyers in the far east, but why is it that millions of tonnes of grain shipped to Africa and Europe also move through West coast ports and Panama?

The dice are loaded because westbound grain shipments are subsidized all the way to the Pacific coast whereas subsidies for eastbound grain stop at the lakehead, which is still thousands of kilometres from the Atlantic ocean. Would it not be normal that such subsidies apply a mari usque ad mare, from coast to coast?

Why should western Canada get better treatment than eastern Canada? Right from the beginning, Canadian agricultural policies were developed mainly to meet the needs of western grain producers and worked against the interests of farmers in Quebec. To make up for the deficiencies of their policies and the unfairness of federal transfers to Quebec, we Quebecers have had to develop our own programs adapted to Quebec's realities.

It goes without saying that this situation is very costly for Quebec's taxpayers. The taxes paid by Quebecers for agriculture have mostly benefited western farmers. As I already said, the prairies' share of federal funds rose to 64 percent from 42 per cent, while Quebec's share diminished from 30 per cent to 10 per cent.

Of course the federal government spent money to help the west diversify. In the last five years, hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to diversify western agriculture, while the federal government never contributed anything to the diversification of Quebec's agriculture.

There are a vast number of cases in which we can very clearly see that the federal governement is less and less interested in Quebec's agriculture. Maybe this is good for Quebec's producers because they are very well organized. In fact, I believe they will benefit in a big way from sovereignty.

This may be good but let us take the example of UHT milk made in Quebec, a high quality product which held 40 per cent of the market for this kind of product in Puerto Rico, where the Americans tried to block Quebec exports of UHT milk and succeeded. We are not selling any more UHT milk in Puerto Rico. In this case, the federal governement did nothing to protect this $40 million production. However, at the same time in the beer dispute between Ontario and the USA the federal government intervened very rapidly.

I mentioned diversification of agriculture, but there is another example, the railways. In the west we maintain close to 25,000 kilometres of railway lines for the sake of national unity, while we are abandoning thousands of kilometres of lines in the east, particularly in Quebec.

Here is another example. New Brunswick potato growers know that their production is subsidized. Transportation for their potatoes is subsidized at 50 per cent.

No other producers are subsidized at 50 p. 100 for the transportation of their potatoes, so New Brunswick producers can sell their potatoes in Quebec cheaper than Quebec producers.

The same goes for Prince Edward Island, and there are more examples like that one. It is as if the government wants to crush Quebec. Once again poor negotiation strategies at the GATT talks have contributed to scaring Canadian producers. We have the feeling that the federal government does not want to protect farmers, but rather create a very serious instability in quota production. And here we have that crisis in the Ontario chicken market where production is being considerably increased, jeopardizing all quota production in Quebec.

I will conclude with these very brief words. I am convinced that Quebec's farmers will be the first to benefit from Quebec's sovereignty, because when Quebec recovers the money that it is paying to the west to subsidize agriculture, that money will go directly to the regions and toward social and economic infrastructures, schools, education and services. That money will reinforce Quebec's regions, promote agriculture and even enlist Quebec into a democratization process, which is what we wish for everybody.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I did appreciate the hon. member's comments because I come from a rural-urban riding mix as well and have a great support for the agriculture sector, in particular dairy agriculture.

I remind the hon. member of two points that this government has done. In the SEED program, which is summer employment for students, a program that has just recently been introduced, approximately one-quarter of my student applicants have applied for jobs in the farm sector. I would challenge the hon. member that the farm sector is still a vibrant sector in this country, that our young people are returning to the farms and that a nation that cannot feed itself is not a strong nation. I believe Canada is going in the right direction.

The second point I would remind the hon. member of is that with our budget in February of this year we retained the $500,000 capital gains exemption for small business and farms. Therefore farms could be passed on to the second generation or provide a strength of security for the farm family in the older days of their lives.

We have not done everything that we may, but we are going in the direction to preserve the family farm and to maintain a source of strong, excellent and healthy food supply for this country.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the extra time you gave me. I would now like to answer my colleague's question.

Obviously Agriculture Canada has not done everything wrong, I would not go as far as that. There are some things it has done right. Certainly the $500,000 capital gains due to the Minister of Finance is good, there is no doubt about it, and also the encouragement for young people to return during the summer months to work on the farm.

All sorts of things that Agriculture Canada does are worth underlining, there is no doubt about it, but overall no, this government is not going in the right direction for agriculture and it shows. There are a great number of issues that could be brought up.

The loss of the number of family farms is an example. The government is not doing anything to counteract this development. I suspect that Agriculture Canada encourages inefficient producing farms or family farms and is in agreement with the American attitude in respect to agriculture. That is to say it encourages well integrated systems, large farms which will make it such that farmers will no longer be farmers. They will become employees in large farms. Maybe they will make a better salary, who knows, but personally I do not think that is the right direction in respect of the family farm.

I think the government could use more structural moneys to help redress this. One could go on and on about just this one issue. We could encourage large agricultural businesses situated in Saskatoon or Quebec City, but what about the rural areas? How do you encourage a population to occupy its rural area if you do not encourage the family farm?

Agriculture is fundamental for that. The agricultural population is not different from us. It needs all sorts of services such as schools, education, hospitals and so forth.

In losing the farmers in the rural areas and losing all the other services, these rural areas are abandoned and that is a big price to pay for a country like Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments to the member opposite who has been chatting with us this morning for a little while.

The last part of the motion refers to the agri-industry which is currently facing the most significant changes in the last 30 years. I would agree with that but I would like to have him recognize, which I think if he were very straight with the House he would, that these changes are also opportunities.

Yes, there are challenges there. At no time in the history of Canadian agriculture has the agri-food industry starting with the primary producer, the farmer, going right up through the whole chain, had the opportunities before it as the industry has at the present time.

The opportunity is there to meet the challenges that are there. It is like everything in life. Those challenges are not always simple and easy, taking a snap of the finger to get them, but those opportunities are there.

I would suggest to the member that he recognize that this government has only been in power for the last six months. He should look at what this government has done with regard to trade initiatives, protecting the family farm, our success in getting the tariff levels in place at the GATT talks, and I could go on. Work is being done on the pesticide review and with regard to the whole farm safety net program.

I remind the member that we have done a lot in the first six months. He had better sit back and wait because we are not done yet.

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been an awful lot of talk and a lot of studies. Even the parliamentary secretary for agriculture is involved in one of these studies. However, there has been very little action.

The little action the government has taken has been backward in some respects, forced upon it by the earlier government, for example in the case of GATT. We are dealing with the consequences from GATT. I am not sure or convinced that this agreement was advantageous for farmers in Canada.

I think we broke in, we broke down, we did not negotiate fully or effectively. Now we are caught in a situation in which we are having to give away an agricultural system, the supply management system, which was an excellent system, the world's best system. We are forced to give it away.

The agricultural community which was directly under the supply management program now is forced to readapt very quickly, in six years, for example. This is not an advantage to those farmers. Farming is not like producing dingy bells or post cards. You do not change agriculture from one day to the next. You need long term planning and structural investment. You have to know where you are going and this government does not seem to know where it is going.