Debates of April 28th, 1994

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

My colleague and neighbouring member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre referred to safety net programs and the ongoing problem. I am hearing in my riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster that in spite of all this consultation there is not the foggiest idea of what program will be replacing GRIP which is currently being discontinued.

I wonder if the member has had the same problem in his riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. There is no question. Given the fact that Saskatchewan will be opting out of GRIP after this year, we are in a very short time span. By next spring, one year from now, it is imperative to people in my province that we develop something that will work. Certainly that is a major concern.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak today on the agricultural sector and to debate the motion of my colleague, the Official Opposition critic on agriculture.

I had the opportunity and the honour to work for a long time for the farmers of Quebec and I can tell you that, since 1986 in particular, the significant changes occurring throughout the world, the GATT negotiations, North American free trade, et cetera, have occupied a lot of their thoughts and forced them to act in co-operation to deal with these changes.

They know where they want to go and what they, their partners and governments should aim for. All that is left to do is make the federal government move toward the clearly expressed goals they set for themselves.

In February 1991, when the Farmers Union started a reflection process called the rural summit conference-incidently, I want to pay tribute to Jacques Proulx, who until very recently was president of the Farmers Union. He acted as a great leader in involving not only agri-food partners but also rural partners in this wonderful rural summit conference. Today I pay tribute to this great leader, Jacques Proulx, former president of the Farmers Union.

What resulted from this? A strong desire on the part of farmers and all rural stakeholders to take control of their own destiny.

They talked about co-operation between local and regional partners, about protecting and renewing rural resources, and especially about redistributing political powers from the top down.

What does this mean? It means a modern day approach to managing agricultural and rural development policies. It means decentralization, a word the people opposite do not know and have never recognized, for better efficiency.

This exercise continued at the Trois-Rivières summit in 1991 where stakeholders in the Quebec agri-food sector met to decide on a number of policies and commitments.

The decisions included, among other initiatives, more research, as well as the transfer of new technologies, as part of a strategy to conquer markets, because we have really developed a liking for conquering new markets and making gains in the context of globalization.

The various players in the agri-food industry also made very firm commitments. Again, under the leadership of Mr. Jacques Proulx, the former UPA president, commitments were made to establish a more efficient link between research, technology transfers and production, as well as better co-ordination of research activities conducted by governments and private sector universities.

Some very serious commitments were made. I am not talking about meaningless speeches such as the one made earlier by the Minister of Finance on behalf of the minister of agriculture. I mean real commitments.

For example, it was decided to approve, upgrade and support human resources training.

A commitment was made to ensure the continuity, development and growth of agri-food industries through the identification of particularly promising sectors, not only at the domestic level, but also internationally.

Several commitments were made and, in particular, it was decided to work hard at readjusting income security programs in the agricultural sector so that they comply not only with NAFTA, but also with GATT.

A commitment was made by all those involved in Quebec's agri-food industry, including farmers, processors, distributors and even exporters, to promote financing and self-reliance of agricultural operations by ensuring the most efficient and inexpensive transfer of farms to the new generation. Indeed, we must not forget that to be productive a farming operation must have a very high capital available as well as very modern equipment. In short, farmers often have to borrow huge amounts of money to be productive and more and more competitive on the national and international markets. To promote and improve programs aimed at encouraging young people to take up farming is another commitment made at the Trois-Rivières summit, which was an historical Summit according to all the key players involved in the Quebec agri-food industry at that time.

From all the considerations, commitments and principles the partners in the Quebec agri-food industry came up with, I developed four avenues that the stakeholders should use and the governments should support.

First, we should promote the autonomy of farming enterprises and processing plants by supporting their efforts and not by taking their places. We should make sure the government, for example, support their efforts to help them adapt to the new market requirements. When we talk about markets, we are talking about the taste of the consumers who are becoming more and more sophisticated and are asking for overprocessed products, what we call high quality, flawless products.

The idea is also to promote the autonomy and performance of enterprises trying to access new international markets. That is the new creed. We cannot simply talk about globalization and let the stakeholders down by saying the free market will take care of things. We must organize and co-ordinate our efforts. The expansion of our farming industry must be based on better co-operation between all those involved in the agri-food sector.

Second, we should consider farmers to be entrepreneurs and support regional entrepreneurship. In order to face the new realities of the 1980s and 1990s like globalization farmers had to get into management in a big way. I say this because I have met quite a few farmers in my time, starting in 1982 when I was with Agriculture Canada and especially between 1986 and 1991 when I was employed by the Union des producteurs agricoles. Agriculture is a high risk sector. It is a sector in which it is very difficult to perform well. Any farmer who wants to make a decent living faces a number of factors that are beyond his control, including often unpredictable weather conditions.

Operating in a high risk sector while also coping with globalization and increased competition from outside Quebec or Canada requires exceptional management skills. I want to pay tribute to our 47,000 farm producers in Quebec for what they do every day, because it is not easy to work for about 14, 15 or 16 hours a day to support a family, and I think we should respect these great artisans of modern farming.

These great artisans also need ongoing professional training because, when we talk about globalization, internationalization and increased competition, these skilled managers must be capable of keeping up with the increased competition, especially since after the signing of the GATT agreements there will be less and less protection at the border in the years to come. In other words, there will be more and more competition from food imports from the United States, Mexico and Latin America generally, from Europe and even from new countries like Ukraine, which at one time was, and may well again become, the world's bread basket. Not Canada but Ukraine is, or at least was, the world's bread basket until 1990, when the bureaucracy did its work, as bureaucracies will do-and we are seeing today in the federal government-and took over and made Ukraine lose its position as the world's bread basket.

There is a third option we should explore if we want consistent programs to deal with today's challenges, and that is decentralization.

As I said earlier, there is unanimous support for decentralization in Quebec. When we talk about bringing government closer to the grassroots, this also applies to agriculture. There is a consensus in Quebec that has grown since in 1989 at the annual convention of the Union des producteurs agricoles a resolution was passed by 99.3 per cent of delegates from all over Quebec and from every sector of the agricultural industry that the federal government should cease its involvement in the agricultural sector in Quebec. They said also that we should repatriate all of the levers and budgets, but only after these budgets are redressed and made more equitable.

As my colleague said earlier, the fairness of federal interventions in the area of agriculture is certainly not going to choke the federal government, for it certainly has not during the last 15 years. Federal interventions have always been unfair to Quebec.

Therefore, decentralization and repatriation of powers and public funds in support of the farmers' efforts is a third possibility we must look upon favourably since these elements are not sufficient, given the new realities to which we have to adjust.

The fourth avenue is support for the transition toward sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agriculture will protect and help regenerate the resources used in the production of agricultural goods while at the same time satisfying the advocates of economic performance. Not only is sustainability vital, it is also serves to promote agriculture, as does food quality or safety.

Agriculture in Quebec, as in the rest of Canada for that matter, will be competitive only if we can offer products that are not only as good as those of our trading partners but even better. We must increase support for the trend toward sustainable development that Quebec farmers adopted a couple of years ago; it is not easy for them to go from conventional farming or breeding techniques to increasingly environment friendly methods, but it pays. When it comes to adapting to a new world order, I would say that it is a promotion tool without equal which could rapidly be recognized as such by our trading partners.

I will give, as a recent example of this, the growth hormone called bovine somatotropin, which produces a 15 to 30 per cent increase in milk production, depending on the study. My colleague will correct me if I am wrong but according to the public hearings held by the committee on agriculture, we will get a moratorium, and already American processors have been telling us that if we do not use the bovine somatotropin in the coming year we could benefit from it since it is being used by American producers. Take lactose products for newborns, for example; the use of a growth hormone such as somatotropin can be detrimental to the image of companies such as Global and other firms involved in the manufacture of that kind of product.

Therefore, the payback could be great for Quebec and Canadian dairy farmers, for instance, if their products were more "natural" and retained a healthier image.

All the commitments from the agri-food stakeholders in Quebec and across Canada and their boundless dynamism and energy are confronted with the government's lack of action and its laissez faire attitude, as mentioned in the opposition motion.

I listened to the Minister of Finance say a few minutes ago that the government had received everything it wanted from the GATT negotiations. Really, there is no better example of the government's lack of action to help support the growth and development of the agriculture sector in Quebec and Canada than this one. We did not get anything in these negotiations. As soon as the GATT agreement was signed, we were told that Canada had won on all fronts, but it was all a show. The truth is Canada lost section XI(2)(c)(i) of the GATT.

I repeat, we do not blame the government for losing article XI(2)(c)(i). What we are blaming it for is trying to dupe the farmers of Quebec and Canada by telling them that we have won on all fronts. Over the last six years farmers have become experts in trade negotiations, they are experts on GATT.

Do not insult their intelligence by telling them that we won everything. Please let us show some respect for the farmers of Quebec and Canada. They are willing to adapt; they do it constantly and they have demonstrated their resilience. They will adapt to this new situation, but enough of these triumphant speeches on GATT and agriculture. Canadian negotiators under the direction of the new Liberal government won absolutely nothing.

The same is true for export subsidies for our colleagues, the grain farmers of western Canada. The main objective of the Uruguay round, which started in 1986, was precisely to eliminate export subsidies, the source of many problems in the grain sector since 1978. Instead, we are talking of a 36 per cent reduction in subsidies over the next few years. These subsidies should have been eliminated altogether.

There is another example of this government's lack of action, again in the grain sector. Look at the way the government behaves when faced with threats of American action against durum wheat. Western grain producers, the first producers of the best quality durum wheat in the world, are threatened daily and unfairly with trade retaliation by the Americans. They are not more subsidized than their American counterparts. Policies like the Crow's Nest Pass Agreement relating to western grain transportation are being criticized, while the Americans have the same subsidies for grain transportation on the Mississippi.

Why does this government not defend itself by saying no way, there is a limit? You are telling us that our durum wheat is subsidized, you want to threaten us with export quotas on the U.S. market while you are subsidizing your grain producers perhaps even more than Canadian grain producers. I say perhaps because only a study would demonstrate it.

That too is another example of the inertia of this government toward agriculture in Quebec and Canada.

We can also talk now about bilateral negotiations between Canada and the United States. Admittedly, I am concerned with the new tariffication coming out of the GATT negotiations, one that is supposed to apply to milk and farming industries. The Americans are claiming since the beginning, since December 15 of last year, this new tariffication which will replace import controls under article XI must be subject to the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which provides for the elimination of tariffs over the next 10 years. Even with a tariff protection of 343 per cent for butter, contrary to what the Minister of Finance was saying, we have gained nothing yet. We

are still negotiating and the Americans are very tough in these negotiations. Canadian negotiators, led by the present government, have been behaving like pee-wees since the beginning of the trade negotiations.

I see that my time is running out, but I think that I can give a few more examples of inertia.

I look at what is happening in the chicken industry, in the poultry industry in general. The bickering between Quebec and Ontario is destabilizing the industry as a whole and is jeopardizing the normal development of that industry, as well as the implementation of measures allowing it to face world competition. I see the lack of leadership in that issue.

The minister of agriculture should show a little more leadership, deal with the matter and act as a conciliator instead of not giving a darn about it and letting people fight.

Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable and you can understand much better what is meant by government inaction in the agricultural sector.

It is the same thing with all the discussions going on about the new income security programs in the agricultural sector.

I asked the minister of agriculture a number of times, as I pointed out to the Minister of Finance this morning, to show responsibility and to instruct his officials who are negotiating the new income security programs, especially in the horticultural sector, to proceed with the negotiations so that a new income security program can be put in place for market farmers in Quebec and Ontario who agree with that and to stop buying everything senior officials say.

Unfortunately, those people will not show any leadership. They go along with anything senior officials say during negotiations and discussions.

I find that in the present circumstances it is very dangerous to have leaders like that, political leaders who do not take their responsibilities and who show no accountability whatsoever, given the enormous challenges facing the agricultural sector in Quebec and in Canada.

In closing, I wish that in the forthcoming months farmers in Quebec and in Canada will be better served by their federal government because they deserve to be supported for the tremendous efforts they have been making for the past years to meet the challenges of globalization, in particular.

As for Quebec producers, we are proposing to them, through sovereignty, to take up the great challenge they talked about during the discussions held over the past years, that is to give Quebec an agricultural sector that would be strong, environmentally friendly but above all that would provide a living for farmers, men and women, in Quebec and in Canada as well.

We are giving all those farmers, especially those living in Quebec, a chance to take part in the agri-food program of their own country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Québec-Est will straighten his colleague out when he gets a chance to talk to him a bit and explain a few facts.

The hon. member for Québec-Est surely knows that the United States of America did not challenge a single tariff established by Canada.

It had until April 15 to do so. I have the list in front of me, page after page of tariffs.

Therefore, this is the final list for agricultural tariffs and not one was challenged by the United States. Did the hon. member opposite know that? According to the comments he made previously, I would say he did not.

Second, the hon. member talked about durum wheat. Does he know that Canada won four times over that issue? If you will allow an expression used in hockey, and we talked about hockey last evening in this House, it is four to nothing. We have won four to nothing.

The United States took us to the GATT and we have won four times to date. If we were successful four times in a row, one need not be a lawyer from Baie-Comeau to understand that we will win a fifth time. The Canadian government is protecting Canadian farmers, it is doing all it can for them. Therefore, to describe the situation in such a way and to refer to sovereignty as a means to end the debate is something else. Members opposite may mix sovereignty with ice cream or with wheat, or even the three together when it suits them, but the truth is a bit different.

We are talking about the loss of article XI of the GATT. I have before me an article published in a francophone paper of my riding and I call upon the hon. member to give an answer to all this.

If what he is saying is true, how does he explain, for instance, that according to some agricultural journals, and I will quote only the title since time is running out: "Despite the loss of article XI of the Gatt, Canadian supply management programs are safe"? I could read one quote after another from agricultural journals stating that our quotas are safe. How does he explain that quotas are protected in the opinion of the agricultural community but not in the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois? Could it be that the Bloc members do not support quotas?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the last question because as usual the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has gone too far. He said that in spite of the loss of article XI, supply management sectors would survive, and so forth. I never said they would not. I said: stop deceiving Quebec

producers by saying that you won on all fronts. Producers are now adjusting, and I can assure you that these are very talented and ingenious people. They will adjust. They will get through this rough spot, but I don't think you will in the next election.

We say stop deceiving the producers who know everything there is to know about GATT articles. They know perfectly well that article XI has been replaced by a tariff that will be reduced gradually. It will not be easy to adjust, but they will. Nobody said supply management was dead in the dairy sector and the agricultural industry. You only hear what you want to hear.

I also think we should stop underestimating the intelligence of farm producers regarding another issue raised by the hon. member opposite. In referring to tariffs, we said that today, negotiations were taking place between the United States and Canada, and if the hon. member denies the existence of these negotiations, he is contradicting what was said by his minister of agriculture, his Minister for International Trade, his Minister of Finance and his own Prime Minister.

On December 15, a Canadian task force was appointed by the Prime Minister when the GATT agreement was signed. On the American side, an American task force was appointed by President Clinton to examine the implications of the GATT agreement and the corresponding section of the North American free trade agreement. How do we manage both?

The first thing the Americans said was that NAFTA took precedence over the GATT agreement as far as tariffs were concerned. In other words, the new tariff designed to protect the agriculture and dairy sectors should come under NAFTA, which provides that in ten years' time, tariffs will be phased out. If he does not have the facts, I think he should stop talking nonsense.

Incidentally, last week I was reading a report from the Prairie Pool and the Western Producer which said the Canadian government should stand firm on the durum wheat issue. These are not my words but those of western producers and editorial writers. If the hon. member thinks we only read about what happens in Quebec, he is wrong. We take our responsibilities as the Official Opposition very seriously, and to us it is clear Canada is not doing its job to protect western grain producers in the case of durum wheat exports to the United States. That is the subject of today's debate. I realize the truth may not be palatable, but above all, I wish the hon. member would stop talking nonsense. When one does not know the facts, one refrains from commenting.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell does not really know the agricultural sector, because when he says that no tariff was disputed, he forgets that negotiations are under way right now with the Americans, mostly concerning ice cream and yogurt. That is mainly what these negotiations are about. That is where we will really suffer. They want to reduce tariffs by 200 per cent in these two sectors. It is criminal.

They really do not know what they are talking about. Huge amounts are involved. It amounts to about 14 per cent of the whole industry. If they think they won in the GATT negotiations, why is the Ontario chicken market in a crisis? Why are farmers subject to quotas in a state of panic? They raised their production by 30 per cent. They are at war. They do not respect the Canadian council's recommendations regarding chicken production. Why? Because the federal government did not do its job in the GATT negotiations. Because it did not win. It was able to reach an agreement which seemed very generous for farmers, but when they examine the facts in various fields and sectors such as ice cream, yogurt or poultry, farmers soon realize that there is no real guarantee of good revenues, on the contrary.

For the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to maintain that we won at the GATT table and that there is no change considered concerning tariffs in some sectors subject to quotas, I must tell him that I do not agree.

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

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that negotiations were ongoing on yogurt and ice cream, as my colleague mentioned a few minutes ago. It is a very important sector for Quebec since it absorbs around 48 or 49 per cent of industrial milk, that is to say milk used to make yogurt and ice cream.

On a national level, it is more like 15 per cent. Forty per cent of the total Canadian yogurt production comes from Quebec, that is why this sector is vital for the future of the dairy industry in Quebec. I forgot to mention these negotiations, but I am quite sure that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell did not even know about them.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate today. The pleasure will be to try to educate, either in my comments or in answer to the questions afterward, members across the way who obviously do not know the facts about what is going on in agriculture today.

I have read the motion and have commented earlier today. I say to members opposite that in one way I agree with what they are saying in their motion. The agri-food industry is going through some of the most significant changes in 30 years. However, as I said before, those changes are positive. They are challenges. They are offering things to the industry that were never offered to that extent before.

It is not inertia; it is just the contrary. A tremendous amount of activity is going on. As we go through life there are challenges. We have to prepare ourselves to meet challenges head on, to manage those challenges that come before us. This is a time of opportunity; this is a time of vision.

The government should be commended. I respect and agree with some members opposite who have spoken today about some of the good things the government has been doing in their view. We have only been here for six months. We had to take the hand that was dealt us, as the finance minister said earlier this morning, in the agri-food industry as well as in many other sectors and try to make the best of it.

We are well into the process of taking stock of what is going on. We are consulting constantly with the players, all the stakeholders. I remind members of the House and anyone who might be watching today about the size of the agri-food sector in Canada. There are 225,000 farms in Canada, plus or minus, depending on the definition of a farm. There are about 425,000 or 430,000 people working on farms.

I remind the House of the title of the department. It is the Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The agri-food system in Canada employs over 1.5 million Canadians or about 15 per cent of the Canadian working population.

When we look at its value, the $10.5 billion in input costs of primary producers or farmers each year to start the system evolve into about $13.5 billion in exports of either bulk or processed agri-food products. In addition Canadians spend at the purchasing or retail level. This does not include the cost of a restaurant meal but the cost of the food that the restaurant operator will buy. That $10.5 billion of input that primary producers make each year multiplies to over a $70 billion agri-food industry in Canada. In terms sometimes used in agriculture, that is no small potatoes. That is a big industry.

I have been involved in the agri-food industry all of my life. At no time have I seen a coming together of the players in the agri-food industry like we in this government have been able to make happen in the short time we have been here.

We are bringing this with a tremendous amount of co-operation, and a tremendous amount of reflection around the situations that are there today. They are coming around the table. They are sitting down together to talk about how we in the industry, everybody, all the stakeholders, can collectively do what needs to be done so that we are all successful as we go down the road.

I wanted to make those comments. As well, I want to congratulate those in the agri-food sector for the way they are meeting these challenges. As has been outlined by some other speakers today, it is not easy. It is not easy in any sector in today's economy.

It is not easy in the agri-food sector as well, whether one is out there today seeding, whether one is out there with one's livestock or whether one is further along as a further processor or wholesaler or retailer or whatever.

It is not easy but they are meeting those challenges. That is because that industry is made up of people who are very capable, highly educated, very well trained in the use and management of technology and use and management in general, in marketing, et cetera.

I praise them and congratulate them. We look forward in the ministry and in this government to continuing to work with those people to meet those challenges. I want to also remind everyone today we in government realize that we are an exporting nation. Agriculture for every dollar, that is farm gate dollar we talk about, about 46 to 50 cents of that in the end is derived from export.

It is important that as a government we have taken the initiatives we have concerning the trade opportunities out there for us. We know this government was involved in the GATT deal in the last seven weeks of what turned out to be a seven year round of negotiations which was supposed to be completed in four.

We also found that maybe the previous government had not been forthright with the industry in telling it about 24 months before we got there as a straightforward and straight shooting government that many of the supporters for supply management had long left the table. The previous government had not explained that as forthrightly as it could have to Canadians and to the industry.

We had a choice. We made the responsible choice. We could have walked away from the table and let the rest of the world shape the destiny of the Canadian dairy, egg and poultry industry, but that was not the responsible way to go. We took the choice of sitting down and making the best deal we possibly could.

We made a deal. Yes, it is tariffication. There is no deal, whether it is a GATT deal or whether it is a contract to do something else, with which everybody walks away from the table happier. Yes, we would like to have had an article XI that was there and firm, but I issue this challenge to everyone: If we had got that strengthened and clarified article XI, whatever that might have been, I would also think we would have to be honest enough to say that it too probably would have been challenged down the road.

As we go about in the world today, we know the advantages of freer trade in the world. We have been successful in putting in tremendous amounts of protection for the dairy, egg and poultry industry that still and by the year 2001 will have tariff levels at 85 per cent of where they are at the present time.

That is only a reduction of 2.5 per cent per year for the six years after the GATT deal is implemented, be that January 1, 1995 or July 1, 1995. That decision has not yet been made.

Nowhere did we work as diligently than on that trade issue. Without question we got the best deal we possibly could for Canadian producers because as I said before fundamentally we are a trading nation. On those negotiations and even now on the negotiations on some bilateral issues with the United States we have put forward our position very vigorously.

In the bilaterals with the United States that include wheat and a few other products there will be-and we promise this to the Canadian producers and to Canada totally-no deal unless it is a good deal for Canada. That means a good deal for the grain sector, a good deal for the processing sectors and for the supply managed sectors.

We will not trade off one sector against another as some people think we should. We say we will not because we should not. There is no reason. We are negotiating and talking about different issues at the table, but we are not talking about them interconnecting with each other.

We have been steadfast and strong on our position. This is emphasized by the fact that these bilaterals have been going on now for many months. There have been three face to face meetings and many meetings with officials in conversations over the telephone by the ministers, the minister with the secretary of state for agriculture in the United States, and we have stood firm and we will continue to stand firm on those.

With the trade agreements that we have, especially with the GATT agreement, we now have a set of trade rules that all countries will have to abide by. We have the World Trade Organization that we can go back to, any country can go back to if it thinks it is being mistreated or mishandled or accused of something by another country. One must never be so naive as to think that challenges will not continue to arise.

When we think someone is not treating Canada properly we will use the measures available to us to challenge that and to question that. We also have to recognize that the reverse may very well be true.

As the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell just outlined, in the durum wheat issue with the United States the score is four to zero. As we speak today the International Trade Commission in the United States is having another hearing on that and we are confident it will be five to zero when this is over.

What we are doing here in Canada is playing fair. We are following the rules. We have been playing fair. We continue to play fair and we will continue to win as we play with those fair trade rules.

We recognize as well that we just cannot focus. It is very important because if the primary producer is not economically viable its chain is not going to pull. If the processor is not economically viable, if the further processor, the wholesaler and the retailer are not economically viable, we recognize that the chain will not pull. We know full well that in all those different stakeholder areas in the sector the efficient producer, the efficient operator, must be economically viable for the sector to be successful.

In light of that, if I could refer to the supply managed sector, the opposition today is saying there is inertia, inaction. That is far from the case. The minister of agriculture has given me the opportunity to lead a task force in that industry. Some of the opposition members are saying today that the stakeholders are not involved which is far from the case.

In the supply managed sectors we have put in place five commodity committees made up of primary producers, processors, grocery products manufacturers, further processors, all of the stakeholders. We first put together the list of the issues and the process is in place to deal with them. Now those people who work in that industry every day, not bureaucrats, are sitting down together and deciding how we can best take advantage of the opportunities that are now before us under the new rules of GATT and under the new trade rules we have.

I do not know what more could be asked than to have that type of participation.

We have made great strides as well in meeting the challenge the ministers have put forward, provincial and federal. As far as knocking down interprovincial trade barriers, we know that is a tremendous challenge. It is just like everything else. Too often people agree with it in principle and then when it comes time to do something the walls start going up. We have to knock those walls down.

We have to meet the challenge and we are forging ahead in many different areas to meet the challenges as far as $20 billion of export trade by the year 2000. The industry collectively with federal and provincial governments says we can do that and is welcoming the challenge.

As far as the inertia some people talk about, obviously they do not know and should become more aware of what is going on in this government. They need to do a little more reading. They need to follow a little closer.

I have talked about supply management. I have talked about the bilateral discussions with the United States. I announced a few minutes ago in the House, and I will comment on it again, that some of us have been talking with the minister in China this morning. We fully realize, could I say, the confusion and the problems and the challenges in the western grain movement at the present time.

The minister will be officially announcing tomorrow that he will be bringing together as soon as he possible can on his return from Asia a small group of key players in the western grain sector. They will put their heads together around the table and see what they can do to fix those problems out there and will then go on from there to look at all of the issues out there in the western grain industry, the Canadian grain industry. It is not just a western problem. It has come to a head in the western area right now, but it is a problem right across the country which we recognize.

We have made some changes already according to our platform. We have announced some changes in the Farm Credit Corporation. We have probably made more strides with pesticide regulation and the registration process in the last 60 days than the previous government did between the time it tabled that study in December 1990 until fortunately it was replaced here in Ottawa with the present government.

As well, we have placed some extra people in trade office positions around the world, namely in Mexico, Japan and Taiwan, and they are giving us good results. We have established a new branch in the department called the market and industry branch to work with producers, producers groups, processors and the industry as we go about the world with the new opportunities and challenges to market further processed products.

We have been fairly successful, but not as successful as we might like to have been in Canada in the past by selling bulk products. The way we have to go now to create the jobs and to take advantage of value added is to value add and further process those here.

The minister, as we know, is spending a number of days in Korea, Hong Kong and China not only talking about grain but about beef, dairy and pork, reaffirming the connections and the strategic alliances we have there. We know, and this is straight from the World Bank, that it is saying between now and the year 2000, 50 per cent of the increase in world trade, including agricultural trade, will take place in that part of the world.

That is not very long, between 1995 and the year 2000, 50 per cent of the increase. That is because 50 per cent of the increase in the wealth in the world is going to take place in that area and we need to be there. We are working with everybody in the industry in order to collectively take advantage of that.

One of the goals and the platforms this government ran on last fall which we will fulfil is the agri-food industry. We want to ensure financial security. We want to ensure food safety for Canadians. We want to reassure Canadians that we will maintain and improve the sustainability of the resources that mean so much to all of us. We will do that by having adaptation and development programs and consultation processes with everybody in the industry. We will promote that growth through market responsiveness and value added initiatives. I am proud to say that we will do that while at the same time maintaining fiscal responsibility.

I am going to close with one comment that I always like to close with and remind people of. Yes, we have a lot of important sectors in the Canadian economy. Maybe it is because I was born and brought up on a farm and maybe it is because after my family my first love is the agri-food industry, but I want to remind everybody in Canada and remind this House-and we, the minister and the department are fully aware of that-as goes agriculture so goes the economy of any country.

We are going to make sure, with the co-operation of everybody, that agriculture goes well and therefore the economy of this country will go well as a result of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief to the hon. parliamentary secretary. You mentioned the breaking down of interprovincial trade-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I just want to remind members to direct their questions through the Chair.

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

I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Could the hon. member specifically and briefly give me a couple of examples of interprovincial trade barriers that the government is working on that would begin to allow western producers to have access to the Ontario and Quebec markets? Are there one or two specific trade barriers he is working on at the present time that would allow that?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, because a number of these are in the negotiation area and because, as I said, it seems to be a delicate area that everybody agrees with in principle, when the ministers get together they talk about different things.

The last time the federal and provincial ministers met together they gave the officials very firm instructions. I had the opportunity to be at that meeting. There were very firm instructions to get together again and to continue their meetings with each other to find some of those initial ones where we can start to show that type of activity can work.

There has been some work done and some successes as far as honey and some different things in the last few years. However there are more major ones that I know we need to look at, unfortunately not only in agriculture. We have too many trade barriers between provinces. It seems that the will is there now and the recognition is there more than ever. I guess like anything else, the first thing you have to do to conquer something is to recognize that you have a problem. I think there is more recognition now than there ever has been and that is a big first step.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the government member that, in final analysis, the energy that exists in the agricultural sector must come from its leadership.

However, it is well known that the problems do not come from farmers, they come from the inability of the government to defend them. It could not protect article XI and similarly, protectionism is disappearing. The only argument I was given at the Bélanger-Campeau Commission by the person who is now Minister of Foreign Affairs was the Canadian system will protect milk production in Quebec, but if you leave Canada you will lose this protection.

This argument is no longer appropriate, because we now are in a much larger market. Does the hon. member not agree that in the North American economy, in the Canadian economy, eastern and western agricultures have interests so different that trying to defend them simultaneously brings about important problems and situations almost impossible to reconcile? I will give an example. In lamb production there were rules to control disease. In my riding a sheep farmer had a problem because of a disease in his flock.

Previously, stricken animals were slaughtered and that was the end of the problem. Now, under pressure from the Americans, we have changed our procedure. We do not slaughter the animals anymore, because they have such large herds out West that the Americans insisted we change our procedure. In Quebec where the herds are small, we must abide by nation-wide guidelines which are not realistic for small flocks of pure bred sheep.

We thus place in opposition eastern and western farmers even though in this case it was not just to please western farmers, it was under pressure from the Americans, and this is a problem for Quebec.

I took this example to show that in the future the interests of Quebec farmers and those of Canadian farmers will be difficult to reconcile. Our interests are different and in the past we have often been on the losing end. I think that in the near future Quebec farmers are going to make a choice that will allow them to work out more concrete solutions in the larger economic market we now have.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the specific example of lamb producers the hon. member is referring to, I am not familiar with that. I would be interested if he would explain and chat with me about that. My guess is there is more to what is being said. I am not accusing the member of not giving the whole story.

I can give the example of what we in Agriculture Canada did for our industries when we found the-and I cannot get my tongue around the big full name-the mad cow disease. When one cow died in Alberta last year because of that we sought out and destroyed all of the animals from coast to coast in this country that we thought ever had a chance of coming in contact with it. We did that in order to protect the beef industry, and I am sure we will take similar actions as far as the lamb industry is concerned. I would be interested to follow that up.

As far as the protectionism in article XI, I just do not buy that. There are concerns. I ask the member to consider this: If the dairy industry and dairy producers are so concerned about their future, I would ask him why they are paying more as far as purchasing quota to have the opportunity for the right to produce. I simply cannot understand if somebody is convinced in their mind, as they are, that the industry is going some place in a hand cart why so many people want to be in the cart.

It is very interesting. When we talk to producers, the dairy farmers of Canada, we find it did not go exactly the way everybody wanted it to go. We look at the level of protection, the very slow rate.

What we have in the supply managed sector for the next six or seven years is the opportunity to prepare to meet the challenges of the market, the challenges of that very, very slow rate of reduction. I remind members opposite that even in the year 2001 the tariff rate protection for all of those will still be very close to, if not over, 200 per cent.

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

Mr. Speaker, this government is indeed lacking in leadership. That is very obvious because there has been lots of talk since this morning, and even some mistakes made by certain members, including the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture has just told us that the government is doing the best it can, in spite of the split among farmers. However, even when farmers agree completely with consumers, as is the case with bovine somatotropin, what does the government do? What action has the government taken in response to a unanimous recommendation from the Agriculture Committee with which some members of this House are quite familiar?

I would like to ask this question of the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture. What is the government doing? Does it plan to comply with the agriculture committee's recommendation that a one-year moratorium be imposed on the sale of this hormone, a move which is endorsed by all farm agencies in Canada and by all consumer organizations?

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

Yes.

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

As usual, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is uninformed. Therefore, I will put the question to the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the member opposite to have a one to one debate on agriculture sometime with the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I would suggest that he be very well prepared before he enters into that debate.

As far as the government's response to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food regarding the bovine growth hormone or BST or whatever term you want to use-we know the product he is talking about-the member knows full well because he is a member of that committee and was there I understand when the recommendations were put forward.

The government has 150 days to respond to those recommendations. I know that the government, the officials, the minister and I are already discussing those recommendations. The member can be assured this government will respond well within the 150 days in a very responsible way to the recommendations made to the government by the standing committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry has the floor. I would ask him to help out the Chair by indicating whether he will share his time or take the full 20 minutes.

[Laurent Lavigne, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was just about to tell you. We will share our time pursuant to Standing Order 43(2).

I would like to move on to the motion before us today, a motion on agriculture.

The term "lack of action" was mentioned with regard to the government opposite; I totally agree with the notion of "lack of action" and I would like to add another term: inequity.

I think that in the last several years Quebec farmers have been treated inequitably by the Canadian government; that is unacceptable, in my opinion.

I dug out a few figures to support my arguments and to have the word "inequity" included in today's non-confidence motion because, when we look at government spending on agriculture, it is clear that for the federal government agriculture is limited to western Canada.

I will start by giving you an example. In 1980, Quebec was the beneficiary of $300 million in federal agricultural expenditures, compared with $1 billion in western Canada.

In 1987 Quebec received $410 million, compared with over $4 billion in Western Canada. I think adding the word "inequity" to today's motion would be neither superfluous nor inappropriate.

Another thing I discovered is that Quebec's share of federal spending went from 16.4 per cent in 1980 to only 7.7 per cent in 1987, which amounts to half of Quebec's share of farming revenues in Canada or 15.6 per cent.

On the other hand, western Canada's share of federal agricultural expenditures went from 55 per cent in 1980 to 76 per cent in 1987.

Between 1980 and 1987, Quebec's share fell while Western Canada's increased. It went from 55 per cent in 1980 to 76 per cent in 1987.

Once again, I emphasize the terms "unfairness" and "inequities", all these expenditures to which Quebecers contributed a big share through their taxes of various kinds; they know very well that the federal government gets a lot from them.

We calculate that about 25 per cent of the taxes collected by the federal government comes from Quebec, which means that this money which Quebecers send to the federal government is redistributed unfairly to our detriment, especially in agriculture.

From 1980 to 1987, federal spending on agriculture increased one sixth as fast in Quebec as in the rest of Canada.

During that period federal spending rose by 192 per cent. I am glad that federal spending on agriculture rose by 192 per cent between 1980 and 1987. The federal government thought it was important to increase its spending to help agriculture. I come back to my word "unfairness", and we will see how this 192 per cent increase in federal spending on agriculture was distributed.

Spending increased 37 per cent in Quebec, compared with 340 per cent in Alberta, 292 per cent in Manitoba and 285 per cent in Saskatchewan. Again I come back to the word "unfairness". Such glaring differences are outrageous. An increase of 37 per cent in Quebec when Alberta got 340 per cent, Manitoba 292 per cent and Saskatchewan 285 per cent is unacceptable. I repeat that a lot of this money, at least 25 per cent, comes from Quebecers.

In 1990, the federal government spent almost half, 50 per cent, of its whole agriculture budget on research. I do not know if it is by chance, but most of the agriculture research budget was invested in grain production. We know that more grain has been produced in Quebec in recent years, but nevertheless it only accounts for 6 per cent of all our agricultural production in Quebec. We were shortchanged in the distribution of the research budget of the department of agriculture, considering that the department invested half its budget in research on grain and grain is only 6 per cent of Quebec's agricultural production.

When the time came to do research in three other sectors where Quebec is much more active, namely the dairy, poultry and pork industries, it only contributed 24 per cent. Yet, these industries account for 59 per cent of Quebec's production. Again, you can see the inequity. Ten per cent of the research budget is allocated to the dairy industry, while the production of this sector represents one third of the total. Quebec was also penalized regarding research and development in agriculture, since more than 50 per cent of that budget was spent in western Canada.

Federal government policies unfairly benefit western producers and adversely affect Quebec producers' competitiveness, particularly regarding grain and livestock production, as I just mentioned.

These unfair federal policies force Quebec to make greater financial efforts to support the agricultural industry. Let me explain how, because the province does not get its fair share from the federal government, the Quebec department of agriculture must rely on provincial taxes. In 1987, the Quebec department of agriculture, fisheries and food had to allocate $569 million to the agricultural sector, whereas the federal government was only contributing $410 million. In other words, the Quebec government spends more on its agricultural sector than the federal government.

The injustice lies in the fact that Quebecers have contributed a lot more to support agriculture in other provinces than in their own province. In 1987, Quebecers contributed $1.3 billion to agriculture in the other provinces. We paid for 25 per cent of all federal expenditures in agriculture, which totalled at that time $5.3 billion, twice the Quebec budget for agriculture. In other words, we use Quebec taxpayers' money to spend $569 million on our own agricultural industry and to send $1.3 billion to Ottawa to support other Canadian provinces. That also is unfair. I really want to stress that point. I want to show how utterly unfair Canadian policies were to Quebec policies.

There is a double standard in the federal agricultural policy, and I want to give you some examples. Between 1983 and 1987, federal subsidies reached an average of $32 a tonne for Western grain, compared to $12.34 a tonne for Quebec grain. Why $34 in the west and only $12 in Quebec? What was that all about? We pay taxes like evernyone else. Why do we not get our fair share?

Pursuant to the act, the Canadian Wheat Board must, at the time of delivery, pay to western grain producers an initial payment set and guaranteed by the federal government. If sales revenues do not cover the payments made, the federal government makes up for the deficit. This system resulted in the following: between 1985 and 1988, the federal government spent $344 million to cover the difference between the sales price asked by the Canadian Wheat Board and the payments made to the producers. We ended up with a $344 million deficit which the federal government covered with our taxes. The worst of it all is that Quebec grain producers are not eligible for that program. We pay for the rest of the producers, but we are not entitled to these benefits.

In 1991 and 1992, under the western grain stabilization program, western grain producers were guaranteed a net income equivalent to their average income over the five previous years. The federal government paid for three quarters of the contributions for this program, and the producers paid the rest. Western provincial governments did not take part in this program. When came the time to implement the program in Quebec, the federal government asked the province to pay for a third of it. Why did the western provinces not participate in it? Was it strictly between the producers and the federal government? When the time came for Quebec to take advantage of this program, Ottawa told the province that it had to pay for a third of it.

Western grain transportation support is a real scandal. Since 1983, the federal government has been paying an indexed $658 million every year. In 1991-1992, it paid railroad companies 1.1 billion to transport western grain, whereas Quebec producers were once again not eligible for that program. We pay taxes and with our taxes, the government promotes farm production in the west at the expense of eastern producers. It is in that sense that I would like to add the words "lack of fairness" to the words "lack of action" in our motion. If I had more time, I could give you more examples, but my allotted time is running out.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am sorry, but the member's allotted time has expired.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at some of the comments from the member on the other side. He is certainly playing with numbers.

One of the principles in the country is that in times of need we share in helping each other out of our difficulties. In terms of the payments to the west, I remind the member that there was an international grain price war. We had an obligation as a country to support western Canada and that is what we did. By the same token, when there were low prices in the hog industry and in the

beef industry, which is more located in Quebec, the country supported those industries.

The member opposite should understand that one of the programs Quebec benefits from probably more than any other province is the supply management system. Quebec has benefited greatly. Its dairy production is somewhere around 46 per cent to 48 per cent of the total dairy production in the country as a result of our great Canadian supply management program.

I have a question for the member. If his party were successful in moving toward separation, which I do not believe it will be, what would that do to dairy producers in the province of Quebec in terms of the loss of the great Canadian supply management system we operate under?

[Laurent Lavigne, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could have given you other examples, but I think that the presentation I made just a moment ago clearly showed that the level of Quebec's participation in agricultural tax revenue, taxation money sent to the federal government and reinvested in Canadian agriculture is I repeat, unfair; we realized that numerous programs were unfair.

In reply to my colleague's question, I would say that if Quebec were to separate and become sovereign, we could keep all that money, that is approximately $28 billion in various taxes sent to Ottawa each year, and redistribute it through our different agricultural programs without being subjected to federal inequity and discrimination. We would then offer our own farmers many very profitable programs. I think, in that case, we could be much more aggressive on the international markets and carve our own niche for milk, poultry, eggs, grains or anything else we would chose to produce in Quebec.

I think there would be no problem whatsoever. On the contrary, sovereignty would solve a problem.

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak the motion denouncing the government's lack of action and its inequity, as the hon. member said.

The government does not seem to have a specific policy for agriculture, especially considering the post-GATT situation. However, in line with the Quebec development model, several years ago the agricultural industry in Quebec started to organize and conduct round table discussions involving all players in the industry.

The États généraux du monde rural held in February 1991 in Montreal was attended by all Quebecers involved in regional development and the agri-food industry. This exercise produced a series of guidelines for future action. Here are some examples: letting the agricultural community take charge of its own future; respecting and promoting regional and local values; focussing on local and regional concertation and co-operation; diversifying the regional economic base; protecting and regenerating resources; and achieving a better balance in political decision-making from the bottom up.

As part of this process of consultation and co-operation, Quebecers in the agricultural industry organized and looked for ways to pool their resources. Round table discussions were organized on a sectorial basis, including the dairy industry, the pork industry, and so forth. At the summit in Trois-Rivières in June 1992, these discussions produced a consensus on what should be done to promote the development of the agri-food industry in Quebec.

The Trois-Rivières summit, an unprecedent exercise for Quebec, produced a series of commitments which included the following: to increase research and technology transfers as part of a strategy for acquiring new markets; to recognize, promote and support the need for human resources training; to guarantee the continued existence, development and growth of agri-food businesses; to revamp existing income security programs based on production costs by emphasizing risk sharing, productivity of farm operations, sustainable development and an awareness of market signals; to develop income security programs compatible with the rules of international trade; to promote the financing and transfer of farm operations in such a way as to prevent massive debt; to consider assistance for non-viable operations that could be reoriented within the industry and help farmers who retire from the industry.

After this consultation process, what the industry needs now is the right vehicle to make the new strategy for agri-food development in Quebec operational.

People in the Quebec farm community know what they want. They do not need the federal government to come in and impose policies which do not coincide with the priorities and the paths they have set for themselves. These people want to be able to make the decisions in the areas which concern them.

What we are talking about here is a massive decentralization from top to bottom. Is this something the federal government can offer? Is the government willing to give Quebecers the means to make their projects come true?

The agri-food sector needs a reasonable period of time to reach international competitiveness. Unfortunately, the federal government did not do a very good job of defending Canada's interests and Quebec farmers during the Uruguay round of negotiations under the GATT. It was totally unable to preserve article XI which afforded some protection to egg, poultry and milk producers, concentrated mostly in Quebec. Despite repeated promises by the Liberal government, last December, federal negotiators were not able to rally enough countries to defend and preserve article XI.

Although the present import quotas will be replaced by high tariffs which will gradually diminish over time, the disappearance of article XI will seriously shake the Quebec farming community.

By accepting to sign the GATT agreement, the federal government submits farmers, in Canada and Quebec, to a rate and mode of change imposed from outside by our competitors. The agri-food industry must change very rapidly in order to be able to face the new international competition.

The GATT agreement reduces by 36 per cent the amount used to subsidize exports of farm products. This is a step in the right direction, although it is rather modest. Each year, Canadian and Quebec taxpayers will have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars merely to compete on international markets with heavily subsidized grain exports from the United States and the European Union.

While grain exports remain heavily subsidized, the GATT accords have forced the government to review its overall domestic farm support policies.

Clearly, the agreement negotiated in Geneva on December 15 last was not the best possible deal that the federal government could have obtained for Canadian and Quebec farmers. The biggest threat to the interests of Canadian and Quebec farmers is the outcome of Canada-U.S. trade negotiations in the agricultural sector.

The federal government is being taken for a rough ride by U.S. negotiators over the question of tariffs on products subject to quotas-eggs, poultry and milk-products concentrated primarily in Quebec and Ontario, and over the question of durum wheat, yogurt and ice cream exports to the United States.

Government spending in agriculture does not promote structuring. The government should be evaluating the cost-effectiveness of its actions. Agriculture Canada is now involved in the analysis, organization and dissemination of information on agri-food markets. However, the Auditor General notes that the information collected does not necessarily correspond to user needs. The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food should strive to develop a closer relationship with its clientele in order to avoid wasting public funds.

The government must further define its action areas to ensure that there is no overlap onto provincial initiatives. In Quebec, industry and government have been working together for several years on implementing various market strategies. Since developing new markets seems to have become a federal government priority, it is essential that Ottawa bear in mind the priorities set by Quebec.

The federal government should contribute financially to the efforts of stakeholders in the Quebec agri-food industry, particularly research and development efforts, to ensure that new market challenges are met.

The idea is not just to spend the taxpayers' money, but to invest it so as to promote industrial restructuring while maintaining the family farm system which is pivotal to Quebec's farm economy.

Producers and processors are working together to develop new markets and adapt their products to consumers' tastes. In the agri-food business, competition is fierce and the industry must react quickly to diversify production, all the while making sure it has access to the best suited technology. This means keeping in step with the rapidly changing technologies used by foreign competition.

The government must do more than make funds available for research and development. It must ensure close co-operation between its departments, the private sector and the research community. We hope the government will take positive steps to make sure the money spent meets the priorities imposed by market developments. Also, when it intervenes, it should be fair and give the same importance, relatively speaking, to each areas of the agricultural industry.

One of the best solutions for Quebec farm producers, it seems, would be the decentralization of the decisions making process and related budgets. In a word, it is another good reason for a sovereign Quebec.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note in the member's speech that he recognizes the benefits of the supply management system that has been designed in the Canadian context.

I again come back to a question I asked his colleague previously. The principle that the program of supply management operates under is basically managing supply to meet effective domestic demand. Given the fact that Quebec has 46 per cent to 48 per cent of the Canadian production, how is the member going to explain to his producers under his proposed separation that they will be able to have in place this system that he so admires?

The member mentioned the trade discussions we are having with the United States. I think we have to recognize that the ministers are taking a tough stance in the interests of all Canadians. I certainly say to the hon. member opposite we on this side would welcome a statement of support from his party in terms of that tough stance our Canadian ministers are taking in those negotiations in all of Canada's interests.