Debates of April 4th, 1995

Supply

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I cannot accept the fact that the government wants to dismantle this system, since it will jeopardize national security in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, and leave us vulnerable to the actions of speculators on international markets.

How many generations of men and women worked to clear the land? Thanks to their efforts, that land is now fertile and it provides us with an abundance of products of all kinds. But the Liberals want to sacrifice that.

Is it because Quebec controls 48 per cent of the industrial milk market that the Liberal government wants to stop providing the basics to dairy producers? Or is it simply that the Liberals in Ottawa are continuing their crusade against dairy producers, through the implementation of detrimental agricultural policies, defined-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Dear colleagues, I ask for your co-operation. I understand that, at times, the debate gets somewhat heated.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

It is painful for the Liberal Party whip to hear the truth. Yet, he represents an agricultural riding from Ontario. He should understand the issues to which I am referring and which exist in his predominantly French speaking riding.

Since 1958, the dairy industry has always been protected and supported under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which was passed by a Conservative government. In 1986, Ottawa approved a long-term dairy policy and authorized payments, to dairy producers, of $6.03 per hectolitre of industrial milk having 3.6 kilograms of fats. That policy was implemented under the Conservatives.

In 1991, the Conservative government abolished the Agricultural Stabilization Act and replaced it with the Farm Income

Protection Act. That ended federal support to the dairy industry, since this industry was excluded from the new agreement.

In its November 1992 budget speech, the Conservative government announced its intention to reduce by 10 per cent the level of subsidies to the dairy industry, and to apply similar reductions to all subsidies and payments to the agricultural sector.

Starting with the August 1, 1993 dairy year, and following that decision, the federal government therefore reduced payments to dairy producers from $6.03 down to $5.43 per hectolitre. This is tragic.

So, this Liberal government simply had to confirm the agricultural policy of the Conservatives to gain authority to set the subsidy at $5.43 per hectolitre, starting with the April 1994 to March 1995 fiscal year. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

The Conservatives used to run things and now the Liberals are in office, but things have not changed at all. I am really amazed when I read the government's objective in Part II of the Main Estimates 1995-96, under Agriculture and Agri-Food, Canadian Dairy Commission, on page 2-8, and I quote: "To provide efficient producers of milk and cream with the opportunity of obtaining a fair return for their labour and investment and to provide consumers with a continuous and adequate supply of dairy products of high quality". Is this what a 15 per cent cut in revenue a year will achieve? No.

How inconsistent can the government get? It is as if milk producers are not efficient and are obtaining too high a return for their labour and investment. Go work on a farm for a week and you will see how tough it is, how long the days are in an industry where working hours are not tallied up. Worse still, with this statement, the government is trying to reassure us that the supply of dairy products will not be affected and that consumers will even be able to benefit from this decrease in consumer price. And there you have it. A little something for everyone. What arrogance.

I have a final point to make today.

Why is the federal government, the Liberal government, on the one hand, providing a package of transition measures to the tune of $1.6 billion for owners of prairie farm land in Western Canada because it is terminating the freight-rate subsidies, but on the other hand, is implementing no such transition measures for Quebec farmers? Why have Western producers been given an advantage over their Quebec counterparts?

Why does the federal government always apply a double standard when it has to protect the interests of English-speaking Canadians. Is that not just another sign that Canada is in fact made up of two countries? Is that not a sign that there are two countries in Canada, one in eastern Canada and one in western Canada? The issue is not related to racism, but to the fact that we have always had two different policies, since agriculture is not the same in these two different regions. When we look at things, we realize that Quebec has always been put at a disadvantage.

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

Mr. Speaker, the speech made by the member for Shefford on the impact of the dairy subsidy reduction on farmers was most interesting, but I would like some clarifications. According to my calculations, is it not possible that the elimination or the reduction of this subsidy might result in an increase of up to 30 cents in the price of a pound of butter? Again, it is the working poor who would be hardest hit by such an increase.

For someone who earns $50,000 a year, a 30 cent increase in the price of butter is no big deal, but for a single parent who earns $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000 a year, having to pay 30 cents more for each pound of butter makes a big difference. Is this not what might happen so that, in the end, it is the consumer who will have to pay the price, which means that low-income Canadians will be more directly affected than others?

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I can only tell members of this House that dairy producers will obviously feel insecure. Other agricultural producers also have their own problems, but I wanted to talk specifically about dairy producers today since we have agreed that we should discuss all sectors of the agricultural industry. In this sector, there will be a 15 per cent decrease in revenues, which means, of course, that prices might or certainly will increase.

I would also like to tell you that farmers, including dairy and other producers, often have to keep investing and taking risks after working for so many years, hoping for better things to come. Before the farmers came the pioneers who cleared the land on which our country is built, and we always had two agricultural policies in Canada because we always had two completely different systems.

As I was saying earlier, Canada and Quebec have two different systems. Once we recognize that fact, it will be much easier to negotiate. I think that Quebec has always been disadvantaged compared to western Canada, and we have the figures to prove it. I am not saying that western producers do not have any problems. Of course they have very serious problems, but so do dairy and other producers in Quebec and they cannot be left at a disadvantage.

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

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43(2), I would like to indicate to you that Liberal members will be sharing their allotted time for the rest of the day. Sir Winston Churchill once made in the British House of Commons the following remarks which the Chair did not find unparliamentary: "The opposite of the truth has never been expressed more accurately". That is exactly what I think of the remarks made by the hon. member I just heard.

That Bloc Quebecois member just told us, as you could hear, that there will be a 30 per cent reduction in dairy farmers's income over two years. Mr. Speaker, you heard yourself those nonsensical remarks made by a member of the House. I do not know who wrote the hon. member's speech, but that person should be fired immediately for writing such things. Yes, phone him and fast.

I will now tell all Canadians in my riding, in Quebec and throughout Canada what the facts really are: the milk subsidy is now $5.43 per hectolitre, and it will reduced to $3.80, starting August 1, 1996. This means there will be an 80 cent reduction a year per hectolitre on an income of $54. Could members opposite explain to me how they can suggest that an 80 cent reduction on an income of $54 represents a 30 per cent cut? What kind of number crunchers do they have to come up with such figures?

The hon. member says it is in the budget. Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should check the budget if he believes the figures just given by the hon. member for Shefford. Besides, the 80 cent reduction applies only to industrial milk and not fluid milk.

Assuming a 50-50 split on a farm of industrial and fluid milk, we are talking about an overall reduction of 40 cents a hectolitre on $54. The people across are alleging that it is a 30 per cent reduction in revenue. Forty cents on $54 is less than 1 per cent. That is the way the truth is being described by some hon. members across.

No, Mr. Speaker, what we have heard today from the Bloc Quebecois is quite frankly inflammatory and an attempt to scare Canadians. Listen to what the hon. member for Frontenac says in his motion: "That this House denounce the government for reducing the general budget of the Department of Agriculture by 19 per cent and milk subsidies by 30 per cent and for converting-". Now listen to this: if this is true, it means that the reverse is also true of what was said by the hon. member for Shefford, because that is not what he said. I continue to quote the motion: "-and for converting grain transportation subsidies into direct subsidies to western farmers-". And now listen to this: "-thereby enabling the latter to diversify and enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over farmers in Eastern Canada."

I just heard members insisting that farmers from other parts of Canada enjoyed an unfair competitive advantage over those in Eastern Canada.

Now this is divisive politics. The comments we heard from a member a few moments ago are dangerous because they are an invitation to Canadians, on false premises, to hate each other. That is the kind of propaganda we are getting from some of the members opposite, and I do not buy that.

I do not believe that western Canadian farmers have been treated more fairly than farmers from another part of the country. All governments in Canada, be they the Liberal government now, the previous Conservative one or others, may have made mistakes but they have not tried to pit one group of Canadians against the other, the way it is alleged by some members of this House of Commons today. To make that kind of representation on the floor of the House of Commons is nothing short of shameful. It is shameful.

Let us get to the bottom of the issue. Members across the way are talking about the reduction of 80 cents per hectolitre. It is there and I will not deny it. It affects my constituents probably more than the constituents of any other MP in Canada. I have more dairy farmers in my riding than does anyone else in the House. However, the fact still remains that the reduction of 80 cents per hectolitre in subsidy cannot be compared with the total elimination of the Western Grain Transportation Act and the one-time subsidy they will get in the transition.

If Bloc members claim that western farmers are treated better and even enjoy an unfair advantage, according to the motion before the House today, why do they not demand instead that farmers and dairy producers be paid three years' worth of subsidies immediately, as compensation for the elimination of milk subsidies? I have yet to see one member of the Bloc request the equivalent of what was offered to western farmers.

Why have they not asked for it, Mr. Speaker? Because dairy producers are better off keeping the remaining 70 per cent of dairy subsidies, as opposed to what was offered western producers.

That is why we did not suggest it and that is why they did not ask for it. In fact, I would not favour this option either. I would rather keep the remaining 70 per cent.

I am not proud of these cuts, Mr. Speaker. No one is glad to lose money. However, we know that sacrifices had to be made to ensure the long-term viability of the agricultural sector and of the whole Canadian economy. Our government made budget cuts, but I do not think it acted unfairly. I am sure it did not want to give anyone an unfair competitive advantage. I would urge the member of the Bloc Quebecois to withdraw the allegation he

made in referring to farmers elsewhere in Canada. It is not at all helpful to debate, and he should be ashamed of making this allegation, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have here an article from Le Droit the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is described as ``a lion transformed into a mouse''.

If farmers had been attacked, or struck, or knocked about when he was a member of the Opposition, the Liberal Party whip would have made the exact same speech as the one he just gave, but in reverse. Here it says that the member from the other side is inflexible in the area of agriculture, he refuses any measure affecting the farmers who make up a good portion of his constituency, including Réjean Pommainville.

I have here a paper, Farm and Country , which is the equivalent of our La terre de chez nous in Quebec. It says this measure will cost farmers $56 per head of cattle. You heard me right, $56 per head of cattle. Farmers in his riding have 60 head of cattle each on average, and Réjean Pommainville has 75. Multiply these figures by 56 and you will reduce the deficit that the Liberals, among others, have generated year after year since 1970.

I have here notes from the press conference held last week by the president of the UPA, the Quebec Union des producteurs agricoles.

He spoke about the subsidy for industrial milk. I suggest my colleague, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, phone the UPA and get information on this. I will gladly give him the number if need be, like he did two weeks ago on Sunday when he gave us a phone number where the information given was exactly the opposite.

The UPA's notes say this: $5.43 by hectolitre, a 30 per cent cut over two years; I am honest, I say it. This does not represent 80 cents or even 90 cents. I would invite him to do the calculation: $5.43 multiplied by 0.3 represent a $1.51 reduction by hectolitre.

So, if a farmer has a quota of 2,500 hectolitres, it means a contribution of $3,775 to the reduction of the deficit that the member himself helped to create and, on top of that, he is cutting the transport subsidy for feed, which is estimated at $10 per ton. If this farmer buys 71 tons to feed his cows that will produce 2,500 hectolitres, he will have to contribute $710 more.

So, for the farmers in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the average contribution is $4,485. The lion, the member of the rat pack who got to be well known while in the opposition has become a mouse. He should go and meet the people from the UPA, he should visit the live animals auction houses to see the big disappointment that the Liberal budget has created throughout Quebec and throughout rural Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the member opposite for quoting the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. In fact, his quote from Farm and Country is of a statement by the member for Prince Edward-Hastings. However, he forgot half the sentence. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings did say: ``It is true, 80 cents a hectolitre multiplied by 70 hectolitres comes out to $56 a cow''. This is true. That is supposing that all of the milk of the producer in question is industrial milk. As the average is usually 50-50, the figures of the hon. member opposite are twice as high as they should be.

I would like in addition, if I may, to talk about the matter of the Coopérative Avicole de St-Isidore. We spoke of the co-operative and of what the Coopérative Avicole de St-Isidore had said. I quote from a letter dated March 27, 1995 to Mr. Don Boudria, written on the Coopérative Avicole de St-Isidore letterhead. I will read the rest and will be pleased to table this in the House: "Due to the rail strike, we no longer benefit from the price guaranteed by the railways. We are forced to buy at market prices, which are 20 per cent higher, thus increasing our production costs. I hope you will be able to remedy the situation. Yours truly, Alain Léger."

This is dated March 27, 1995, that is, last Monday. I therefore say to the hon. member opposite that I have proof in hand that the price of soya was up 20 per cent. If he feels he has evidence to the contrary, he should table it. But of course he has none.

No one celebrates when subsidies are upset, and one sector or another in our society loses revenues. Granted, no one is celebrating, but the cuts were made fairly and equitably by an honest government wishing to do the best possible for Canadians, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere.

The only thing I find lacking in the speeches by the hon. members opposite is the fact that they did not check with head office. I realize they are just a branch in Ottawa, but cuts were made in Quebec to subsidies and services to the agricultural sector, particularly in research. The hon. members opposite have unfortunately forgotten this.

[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.

I would like to make a few comments at the outset to continue where my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell left off.

I had the opportunity and the privilege yesterday to spend most of the day in the riding of Beauharnois-Salaberry, where I met with 125 or 130 dairy farmers for a couple of hours after lunch. During that time I spoke to them about what we had done in the budget as far as agriculture is concerned. We talked about the WGTA and the effects of that. I spoke about the changes to the federal support for the industrial milk program. One gentle-

man stood up and said: "Yes, we know all about the budget. We don't have a problem with the budget. We would like to have you discuss with us the challenge the United States is putting forward as far as supply management in Canada is concerned." There were no objections at all to what he said.

That is significant and indicative that the dairy farmers have accepted it. They recognize that we are in a time of tremendous change, tremendous opportunity and tremendous and unprecedented challenges. The key words are that we are in a time of unprecedented opportunity.

I had the opportunity yesterday to visit three family dairy farms in the Ormstown area. They are excellent dairy farms, tremendous dairy farms. They were not milking what I would consider to be a lot of cows. They were getting excellent returns, excellent production, and they were very well-managed farms.

I assured them this government understands and recognizes the importance of those types of farming operations, the importance of supply management, and that we are here to support them.

I will put in context some of the figures the members opposite have been throwing out-yes, throwing out. I can see the member for Frontenac smiling right now. He is probably going to try to quote some more from the newspaper he just quoted from. He is smiling all the more; I know he is. He just cannot wait until I get my 10 minutes in so he can get his 5 in. I would ask him to quote completely.

I was simply stating the facts, that if 100 per cent of the milk from the average cow in Canada today was used in the industrial milk market, the 81 cents per hectolitre would mean $56 per cow. I said in that article, and I believe I was quoted in that article as saying, that yes, we recognize that is not a small amount of money, but we have to put it in perspective. Any decrease in anybody's income is significant. There is no question about that.

However, I want to put it in perspective. For the average producer in the province of Quebec, the decrease in their income because of this change in the support to the industrial milk will be $1,341 based on the production of industrial milk in the 1993-94 dairy year. I am not making light of the fact that this is $1,341. It certainly is considerably different from an addition; it is less.

As I said to the producers I chatted with yesterday, do not underestimate or undersell what they in their industry have done in the last number of years, including the manner in which they have used the genetic gene pool in Canada to increase production and the manner in which they have used management practices to increase production in this country. If we look at what our dairy industry has done in the last 12 to 15 years, they have increased their production by incredible amounts.

I was in a barn yesterday near Ormstown, Quebec. I saw a cow there and she was the best cow in the barn, I admit. If my memory serves me correctly, that cow, in her last 365 days of production, produced 30,000 pounds of milk. When my father sold our dairy herd, a commercial working herd, in the mid-1960s, I do not think my father had a cow that produced over 8,000 or 9,000 pounds.

At that meeting of dairy farmers yesterday-I put this to them-how many people would have thought 15 years ago that we would see cows in Canada, the very top ones, producing 30,000 pounds of milk? The efficiency, and what the industry has done, is absolutely phenomenal. I am proud to say they are not finished yet. Yes, this is a challenge to the dairy industry, but I have every confidence that it is one they can meet and beat.

Leading up to the budget we all said, in all parts of the House, including the opposition in question period, that the budget, in all aspects, must be fair, it must be equitable and it must be effective. When we look at what we have done in agriculture, it meets all those tests.

In question period and in the late show period I have addressed to the member for Frontenac the concern about the WGTA and how it affects the west versus eastern Canada, in particular the province of Quebec. I want to state it again. Let us make it clear that the $1.6 billion ex gratia payment that is being made to the western Canadian grain growers is a one-time payment. It is over. They get no further support on transportation as of August 1 of this year.

The support to the industrial milk portion of the Quebec production as of August 1 this year is still at 85 per cent of where it was before versus zero to the grain export in western Canada. The payment in western Canada is roughly equivalent to ratcheting that payment down at the rate of about 10 per cent per year over the next 10 years.

I have been asked by the minister to lead the consultation that must take place over the next few months as far as what we collectively, the government, the industry and all stakeholders in the industry, do with the support to the industrial milk program as time goes on. As we know, the budget stated very clearly a 15 per cent reduction this year, a 15 per cent reduction next year, but it does not address the size of the amount or if there is money left after that.

The first meeting happened this morning in my office with the chairman of the National Dairy Council. Meetings are being arranged with the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Grocery Products Manufacturers, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, UPA, OFA and the different provincial marketing boards so that we can continue having consultations with all of

them to find out how they want to treat the remainder of that as we go forward.

The total support in the last year was about $228 million. That will be reduced 15 per cent this year. It is going to be about $193 million. I point out that out of that $228 million, $106,106,000 went to the province of Quebec. That is because they have 47 per cent of the industrial milk production.

The question is put forward: with the 1981 census being reduced this year, can that be recovered from the marketplace? I addressed that as well in the article, from which the member may quote me. That discussion is there.

The minister has been very clear. He does not wish to make a statement on that at this time. There are ongoing discussions about the cost-of-production formula. In a responsible way, all participants in the dairy industry have taken a look at the recovery of their costs from the marketplace for the farmers for their milk. They did that in a responsible way before. In doing so, they considered what an increase in the price of raw milk to the processors would mean to the processors and what the processors might have to do with the cost of the product they produce for the Canadian consumer.

I want to point out as well that the dairy industry-I believe that is what the opposition is probably hinting at here today-as well as the supply-managed sector, but in particular the dairy industry, is not subject, because of the protection we were able to keep, to the tariffication in GATT, the high levels of tariff, which is deserving. Those producers certainly deserve a return on their investment, on their risk and on their management. The efficient producers deserve a fair return. It is there for them. It is what the level of tariff protection provides for them.

I must also remind members that their production is not subject to the vagaries and challenges as much. Ninety per cent of their production is domestic, it is not on the export market. However the grain producers in western Canada are totally at the whim of world markets. Our supply managed producers are not subjected to that.

They have a tremendous amount of built-in support. It is not something that one can put a dollar value on by getting out a bunch of charts, sheets and graphs and adding up a bunch of figures. It is there. We are proud to have it there. We are going to fight to the last straw the challenge of the United States.

Every indication we have is that GATT overrides NAFTA as far as what we have done in the past. The Prime Minister has told the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the president of the UPA to their faces-the minister and I were present at that meeting-that what we have done as Canadians is right. We are going to fight for it. That is the way we are going to go.

We also have to recognize, and the dairy industry does, that even though reforms have been made, still more reforms will have to be made. The way I have referred to it for a number of years is that they have done it in the past and can continue to do so The dairy industry has shown it can roll with the punches. It has been successful in its genetics management, marketing, and so on. I could go on. The producers are an important link in that chain. The processors are an important link. There is some export. The consumers are an important link.

It is important that every efficient link in that chain has a fair return on investment and the risk involved in the industry. We will fight to maintain that. We look forward to the co-operation of the Bloc Quebecois in doing so not only for the farmers in Quebec but for the farmers in all of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to cordially congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture for his contribution to the debate today the purpose of which is to expose the unjustness of the particular treatment that the government will unfairly give to the west.

I found it particularly entertaining, since he knows the farming sector so well, when he talked about cows producing astronomical quantities of milk. I am proud to announce that in 1990, the champion milk producer, a Holstein cow, lived in my riding, in the parish of Plessisville.

I would also like to say that the parliamentary secretary certainly must frequent different dairy producers than I do. I have with me a photocopy of an editorial by Claude Rivard which was published in the newspaper Le producteur de lait québécois . Mr. Rivard is no small fry. He is the president for Quebec and vice-president of Dairy Farmers of Canada. Obviously, the title of his editorial is ``The federal government's heavy hand''.

I would now like to contradict what the parliamentary secretary said regarding research and development in the farming sector. Mr. Martin's axe has not just nicked dairy and transportation subsidies. The government has announced that it intends to completely withdraw from all dairy control programs within three years. How can we produce world champion cows with no control in the sector? Research and development are the cornerstones of dairy production.

Had it not been for previous governments investing public funds in genetics and milk recording, we would still be like some Latin American and South or North African countries. Within three years, the federal government will have withdrawn from the industry and be quite proud of itself.

In 1990, the top dairy cow in Canada was in the parish of Plessisville. Yet, in 1995, the government cuts funding. It announces plans to cut it completely within three years.

The hon. parliamentary secretary raised another interesting point in his remarks. He said, and this is true, that, in Ontario, milk production is about 50 per cent for industrial use and 50 per cent for drinking. In Quebec, this is not the case, of course.

Does he not realize that years of relentless work have gone into milk pricing? We are in the process of narrowing the gap and, 16 or 17 months from now, on August 1, 1996, we should have achieved uniformity in milk pricing.

However, by cutting $1.51 per hectolitre off the price of industrial milk, he just increased the price differential between the two again. Of course, milk producers are digging into the temporary equivalent stabilization fund but there is hardly any money left in this fund. I know what is going to happen. The government will boast, saying: "We did not raise taxes; we did not have the heart to do that". It cuts its tax transfers to the provinces, forcing the provinces to cut their transfers to the municipalities and, in turn, the municipalities will be forced to increase our property taxes.

What will milk producers do come August 1? They will go to the Canadian Dairy Commission and ask that the price of their industrial milk be raised. Then, milk processors will raise the price of butter, cheese, yogurt and ice cream by 25, 30, 35 cents a pound. And the government will say: "But we are not increasing taxes". What it takes away from one group, this group has to make others pay for.

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

Hypocrisy.

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

Hypocrisy, indeed, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member for Frontenac had paid more attention because I did not say anything about research and development and he rose and said that I had. As far as his comments on genetic evaluation and milk recording are concerned, he should be informed, if he is not already, that the dairy farmers of Canada have been quite willing to sit down with the government to talk about getting involved in the management of genetic evaluation and the milk recording program. They recognize as producers they will benefit from that. The government is working very closely with them on the transition in order for them to be able to do that.

No part of the argument he made explains why he cannot still have the top dairy cow in Canada in his riding, other than the fact that he wants to hold on to his seat because probably someone in the Prince Edward-Hastings riding may very well take that record away from them. There are some very good dairy producers in Prince Edward-Hastings.

I thank and commend the province of Quebec for the role it is playing in the ongoing discussions to work toward a one-pool price system for milk in Canada. Most of the provinces recognize that is the direction in which we are going to have to go and should go in order for us to meet easier the challenges coming from outside the borders of the country.

In conclusion, I would point out to members opposite, as the minister did, that with respect to their reference to the balance between what was done in the WGTA versus the dairy industry, the WGTA reform package is not in any way inconsistent with the position set out by the Quebec coalition on the WGTA in a letter to the minister of December 1994. They are here barking up one tree while their representatives have told the minister in the past that they agree with the manner in which it was handled.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that from now on my colleagues and I will be splitting our time.

It is always a pleasure to speak on agriculture, especially when the motion is introduced by the Bloc. I always enjoy the attitude its members take toward agriculture. They know how important it is. I appreciate that even if we do not always agree on certain issues. They know fundamentally that agriculture is the basis of Quebec as it is in western Canada. The Liberals will get educated. Some day they will listen. They are starting to listen already.

On the farm we always say that the pasture always looks greener on the other side of the fence. That is probably true in Quebec as well as in western Canada. Maybe it is time for Quebecers to take a rest from the milking industry, buy some farmland in western Canada and start grain farming. It would be a real pleasure to have them there working side by side. Then they would really appreciate some of the problems that the grain farmers have had in the last few years.

Their non-votable opposition motion says that grain farmers will be enabled to diversify. That is a little harsh or maybe not quite correct. Grain farmers will be forced to diversify. Not very many grain farmers today would love to jump into the dairy

industry or the beef industry and take some jobs and production away from people who are in that farming industry.

I have spoken with a number of dairy farmers in Manitoba during the last couple of weeks. They sometimes look very jealously toward Quebec and say: "Why can we not have some of that quota? They only have one-quarter of the population and have 48 per cent of the milk quota".

I have said to them: "Why do we not solve this whole problem of separation? Why do some of you people not go and buy up some of those dairy farms in Quebec and start farming?" If we could get some of the Quebec dairy farmers into western Canada, maybe the separation issue could be solved. Maybe we could understand each other a little better.

I would much rather have some of the Quebec people come into western Canada and buy some of the grain farms than the Europeans. I make this invitation to them.

The other thing I would like to address today is some of the unfairness that they are talking about. It is not due to the agriculture practices of the farmers. It is due to some of the previous governments' overspending and over taxation. That is causing us some of the problems.

I see some of the hon. members on the other side shaking their heads. They must agree with that. If we can agree on some of these problems, maybe we can find some of the solutions.

[An hon. member]

The last government was no good.

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

I agree fully with the hon. member but there was a Liberal government before that one that I would say was no good. This is a difference of opinion probably.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

I am with you.

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

I am always encouraged when I hear hon. members turning up the tempo a bit. Newborn babies have to scream a lot to exercise their lungs so that they become healthy and viable later. I always feel very glad that I can be of assistance to some of these members.

[An hon. member]

Watch that-

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

We are getting to them. Just give us another six months and who knows?

I was just going to address some of the unnecessary things that are happening in the farm community, which are hurting us. I would like to read part of a statement made by a witness who was before the Standing Committee on Transportation. He said: "Unnecessary costs should not be recovered from users. Industry has funded, through seaway tolls, close to $35 million in costs that reflect labour inefficiencies, including surplus personnel and termination benefits, double taxation brought about by large corporation taxes and costs associated with tunnels and bridges in the Beauharnois Canal."

I was never aware that grain farmers in western Canada were paying for some of the maintenance costs of some of the bridges across the St. Lawrence Seaway. I find it very hard to swallow that and say it is fair. It is there and it has to be addressed. What politicians and industry are going to do about it I do not know, but it has to be addressed if we want to keep shipping our products through the seaway.

I have another bit of information I would like to read as an example. In the fall of 1990, the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, after negotiations with the pilot association with which it has contracts, agreed to increases totalling 32.12 per cent and 29.6 per cent over three years. That is at least a 10 per cent increase per year.

On the farm during those three years we have seen prices of our products decrease probably by 30 per cent. It is a real hardship for us to absorb some of these costs.

Some of these pilots earn on average from $115,000 to $156,000 a year for about a nine-month year. Nobody in the farming industry has some type of labour contract or wages that come close to that. This is why I am saying that some of the transportation subsidies that have been directed toward transportation are not going to the farmers. They are going to some of the inefficiencies and the high-priced labour as compared to agriculture.

I was really astounded and kind of encouraged the other day when I saw one of the Bloc members ask the question about the unfairness of the 8.9 per cent that was collected by the pilotage authorities from shippers. They received a very bad answer from the minister, as far as I was concerned, because these costs are actually borne by the shippers and later passed on to the producers or the manufacturers who use the shipping lines.

The NTA recommended that there should be a zero increase. The NTA is supposed to regulate these costs. What did this Liberal government do? It overruled it and gave them another 8.9 per cent after the 30 per cent in the last three years. These are costs that we as grain farmers have to observe; not just in shipping our products, but we also have to pay part of the costs of all the steel and all the iron ore that is shipped in to produce equipment.

Those are some of the things that are unfair as far as farmers and shippers are concerned.

I have tried to warn the seaway authorities and especially some of the people on the other side that if things do not change, if they are not turned around, and we receive a fairer equity in transportation costs, the seaway will not see much of the grain in future years that is produced in Manitoba and west.

I would just like to read a little statement from the Winnipeg Free Press dated February 19. This is the agricultural writer and he states: ``Hello, Mississippi River. Goodbye, Thunder Bay.'' This is not a farmer saying this.

The famous American waterway may become the new route for shipping Manitoba grain when Ottawa tackles the grain transportation subsidy policy later this year.

Canadian Wheat Board studies already show that if the influence of Canadian grain transportation subsidies is removed, it's cheaper to ship grain down the Mississippi than through the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Selkirk farmer Rask Klagenberg says farmers will insist on access to the American river.

The House can see that this is not just what farmers are saying; this is something other people are reporting on, and it is a matter of fact. We have to address it.

One thing that really amazes me is why farm organizations have not pointed these issues out so we can address them before we get into such a predicament. I just happened to get a report from Manitoba Pool Elevators or Prairie Pools Inc. This is what they say in their brief: "In 1993 the property taxes paid by terminal elevator owners at the port of Vancouver were on an average five to six times higher than for similar sized terminals in the U.S. port of Seattle". That seems very high already and it seems disastrous as far as grain farmers are concerned.

Now listen to what they say about Thunder Bay: "Property taxes paid by terminal owners at Thunder Bay were more than 25 times higher than property taxes paid for similar sized terminals at the U.S. port of Duluth". How can we be competitive with those types of exorbitant taxes and over-pricing?

They go on further in their report to say: "Canada's two railways pay more than $640 million annually in fuel, sales and property taxes, while the U.S. rail system receives tax incentives to maintain rail services".

Those are some of problems we in the grain industry are fighting with. I hope we can resolve them and that we can keep the jobs in Canada before they are exported to the U.S., which we have seen with a lot of other industries.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Reform member just pointed out, there are two solitudes in Canada. Farmers in his part of the country feel that they are treated unfairly, and so do farmers in Quebec, particularly dairy producers. It is my duty to remind this House of some very eloquent figures regarding federal spending in the agricultural sector.

I randomly selected two years. In 1980, the federal government spent 55 per cent of its budget for agriculture in western Canada, compared to 16.4 per cent in Quebec-I mention the decimal because it is significant, considering that the total percentage is a mere 16 per cent. In 1993, the federal spent 60 per cent in western Canada, compared to 12.4 per cent in Quebec. So, we have 55 and 60 per cent for western provinces, compared to 16.4 and 12.4 per cent for Quebec.

Yet, Quebec generates 17 per cent of Canada's revenues in the agricultural sector. As you know, Quebecers account for 24 per cent of Canada's population. Let us look at a specific agricultural industry, such as potato growing. In terms of cultivated acreage, from 1981 to 1991, there was a 30 per cent increase in the West, compared to a 2 per cent decrease in Quebec. In the case of cattle, the production rose by 4 per cent in the West, while dropping by 13 per cent in the East.

As for hogs, there was a 39 per cent increase in the West and a 16-per-cent reduction in Quebec. Finally, the sheep population increased by 33 per cent in the West, compared to 8 per cent in Quebec. It is the same for every industry. This is what we mean when we say that this western diversification is done with our taxes.

Quebecers will actually pay to face unfair competition. This is what we are denouncing today. And I can tell Reform and Liberal members that every time Quebecers will be treated unfairly, the Bloc will raise its voice loud and clear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those remarks, and they are probably very accurate.

I am very concerned that we do not have an environmental catastrophe in Quebec. Because of all the tears that I have seen being shed in Quebec lately, their fresh drinking water might turn into salt water. What are we going to do then? I would hate to see that.

I agree with some of these comments. I would also like to point out that when we look at the total budget of agriculture, which is around 2 per cent, or perhaps even less, of the whole budget, agriculture at least brings back 8 per cent of the gross national product. We provide 15 per cent of the jobs in agriculture. It is a very important sector that we have probably been neglecting, whether it is Quebec or western Canada. I would sure appreciate the Bloc's help rather than criticism in trying to rectify this.

I still maintain that a country is only as strong as its agriculture. The sooner we learn to stand on our feet to take the problems and solve them together, and not through divisiveness, we will have a better country to live in, whether it is Quebec or western Canada. That is what I would really like to stress.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member who just spoke.

I have just come from a luncheon here on Parliament Hill in support of the National 4-H Citizenship Seminar, where 4-H members have an opportunity to learn about parliamentary activities. They are young agricultural enthusiasts who can communicate very well to parliamentarians about the need to support agriculture.

Can the member, representing an agricultural area of our country, tell us about his support for Canadian 4-H and how important that program is to all Canadians?