Debates of April 4th, 1995

Supply

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Shame on the Liberals.

[An hon. member]

Shame.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Shame on the Liberals. There is going to be a $1.6 billion buyout. This buyout is equivalent to what the subsidy has been paying over each three-year period, or would have been paying over the next three years. After that, nothing. But the dairy farmers will still be in there for 70 per cent of their subsidy. If this is inequitable to Quebec then please help me here. What would they regard as equity?

There is another little cute trick in the budget, which I have not heard the Bloc mention. That is the Feed Freight Assistance Act for feed grains to the eastern part of Quebec as well as the Maritimes. We are talking about Quebec here. That is going to be phased out over a 10-year period.

It now appears, from the rumours I have been hearing, that this is not even going to begin for another year. There is going to be a one-year moratorium on phasing out the FFAA. All this means is that we will continue in the west shipping our feed grains to Quebec to be turned into beef and milk products, whereas if we did not have this subsidy to work against us, we could do it at home more economically and export the finished product. However, that is not the way Canada works. We are still locked into the old colonial system where the two central Canadian provinces get the milk, the grass is eaten in western Canada, and we all know what happens in the Maritimes.

This motion speaks about diversification and the fact that because we are going to get this buyout on the Crow rate it is going to be a great encouragement for us to diversify. In my riding farmers have been diversifying for the last few years, not because of the availability or lack of availability of subsidies, but in response to market forces. They are growing crops they never grew before.

When I drove around my riding last summer I saw canola, lentils and even sunflowers-big acreages of them. These are not native to my part of Saskatchewan, but we are swinging over

to them in order to profit from the market that is out there and to get away from our low-priced product, which is wheat.

In conclusion, I want to digress a bit from agriculture and talk again about the question of who gets what out of Confederation. I am sure that hon. members of the Bloc are aware of a recent study that indicated that over the last ten years Quebec has had a net benefit of payments in, over-taxation out of $168 billion. During that same period the province of Ontario has come up short by $45 billion. Do not let us ever forget that my neighbouring province of Alberta, during the days of the national energy policy, had to forgo $90 billion in revenue in order to support the economies of the two central Canadian provinces. I find it more than passing strange that those of us who want to hold our country together, who care about this country, are the ones who have been paying the bills, and the people who want to tear it asunder are the ones who have been benefiting the most economically from Confederation. They are saying, in effect: "We want to be free; we want to go it alone, but please, keep giving us money".

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

Madam Speaker, the distinguished colleague who spoke just before me, a member of the Reform Party from the west, criticized the members of the Bloc Quebecois for defending our country, Quebec. I would like to give him a short history lesson.

In 1837, the Government of Quebec was dissolved from London. Three years later, in 1840, Lower and Upper Canada were united-an easy matter because there was no longer a government in Quebec. The problem, however, was that Quebec was thrifty and did not want to go into debt like the government has since 1970, surely and consistently. Quebec was only 85,000 pounds in debt, while Ontario was 1.2 million pounds in debt.

As there was only one government to decide-the government of Ontario-it was decided that the two debts should be combined into a single one. This is how Quebec has been treated for years. Today, they have the gall to blame us for criticizing injustices. I will not take it. I will not.

Producers in the three western provinces are being offered $1.6 billion, interest and tax free, in compensation for the disappearance of the WGTO. They do not even have to declare it for tax purposes. In Quebec, each milk producer is going to be penalized some $5,000 on average and will be receiving absolutely no compensation. Nothing.

The worst part of all of this is that western producers will use the compensation to diversify their production and will move into Quebec markets to compete against us with the help of tax dollars we gave the government. Take hogs, for example. I am talking about the period from 1981 to 1991. After 1991, things tend to intensify and will get worse after 1996. There is no supply management in hog production. Are you aware that, in ten years, western hog production grew by 39 per cent, over 39 per cent? In the same time period, in Quebec, production dropped by 16 per cent. How about that?

In terms of surface used, hothouse production in the west has grown by 67 per cent, while the increase in Quebec is barely 46 per cent, despite the fact that the markets are in Ontario and Quebec. I promise you that, each time we have the opportunity, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will rise in this House to criticize both Liberal and Reform Party members for failing to have a global vision of this country; for never setting foot in Quebec, for the most part; and for claiming that Quebec is still griping and asking for more. We have paid more than our share in this country.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, I liked that little history lesson at the beginning. Unfortunately I do not see what relevance it has to what we are debating today, current economic conditions in Canada.

Since the hon. member has only left me one moment, I will have to direct myself to one of his statistics. He talks about an increase in the hog production, I believe he said 39 per cent in the west and a decrease of 16 per cent in Quebec. With the feed freight assistance, if the farmers of Quebec cannot compete with the west, he is bad mouthing his own province. He is speaking ill of Quebec. I would not think of doing that.

We are progressive. We are working hard to diversify. We are not asking for handouts and as far as the $1.6 billion, all the hon. member has done is reiterate his previous arguments. He did not raise anything new. He said the same thing over-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Resuming debate.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington.

So far, it seems that Bloc members are choosing the issues in which they would like to intervene. They chose to remain silent in the Montreal and Vancouver port disputes but today's debate is another example of the partisan way in which the Bloc Quebecois chooses the causes it wants to defend.

I would like to explain a few things about the dairy subsidy announced in the last budget.

First, it should be pointed out that this government is formally committed to maintaining an orderly marketing system for dairy

products, eggs and poultry. These products are a very important part of the Canadian agri-food industry.

In the final round of GATT negotiations, we showed how serious we were by securing customs tariffs high enough to keep our supply management system almost unchanged. Some tariffs are as high as 200 per cent or 300 per cent for various dairy products.

These tariffs will drop by only 15 per cent over a six-year period. It is the smallest reduction required on such tariffs. In addition, international agreements call for limited access for imports while giving us comparable access elsewhere for our dairy products.

Consequently, all experts agree that this sector will enjoy a high level of protection for several years. As you will recall, when the GATT bill was before this House, we were accused of failing to protect article XI. That is how things were done.

It is good news, since the dairy sector is now experiencing a surge in activities. In 1993-94, Canadian industrial milk production rose by 3.2 per cent compared to the previous year, while a 4.5 per cent increase is forecast for this year. Quebec dairy farmers, who receive almost 50 per cent of national quotas, are taking advantage of the situation.

As for cutting the subsidies paid to industrial milk producers by 30 per cent over two years, it is necessary to do so to improve our public finances.

As elected representatives, we have certain inescapable responsibilities and reducing the deficit in real terms is one of them. We can no longer allow the deficit to keep adding to the national debt. We must strive towards fiscal balance. All Canadians agree on that.

Therefore, the government must cut its spending at every level and in many sectors, including the agri-food sector.

In the dairy industry, producers are currently paid $5.43 per hectolitre in direct subsidy for industrial milk. An hectolitre is equal to 100 litres. So, in simple terms, this is a subsidy of about five cents a litre. Moreover, it does not apply to fluid milk, the milk that we drink everyday, for which producers are paid a higher price.

This means that only a portion of the dairy producers' income is affected. In that case, I think this decision is perfectly justified when, as we know and I repeat, the government has to cut its spending. It has no other choice but to take stringent yet sensible budget measures.

After all, the subsidy is not completely gone, far from it. Seventy per cent of it, or $160 million, will continue to go to milk production. In the coming months, the Canadian Dairy Commission and officials from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food will hold consultations with the industry to set prices for the crop year beginning on August 1.

Later this year, the government will discuss with the industry how the subsidy can be best used. The most efficient use possible should be made of these funds, i.e. to support long term growth in the industry.

Producers and processors alike are committed to adjusting to the new global context. The Canadian dairy industry creates many jobs and generates billions of dollars in revenues. It is important that this industry be able to prosper and meet new challenges in the future.

The industry always sold a percentage of its production, particularly surplus milk powder and sought after cheeses, on the global market.

Just recently, on a trade mission to Latin America, the Minister of Agriculture and representatives of the sector interested Brazilians in importing Canadian parmesan and mozzarella. This confirms that there are new markets for our excellent products.

At the last meeting of the national milk supply management committee, six of the nine provincial marketing boards decided to set up a special marketing quota in order to develop the export market. This new approach could see the light of day by the summer, and might eventually encompass all the provinces.

As we can see, the sector is changing to suit its needs. The government intends to help the move to a new generation of orderly milk marketing, as is already the case in the poultry and eggs sector.

Furthermore, the budget announced new ways of helping the agri-food sector as a whole, including the dairy sector. Moreover, the government is proposing a series of adjustment measures so that the industry can seize the new opportunities opening up on the world market and to compensate for the reduction in government funds.

The government is prepared to provide the financial tools, as evidenced in the doubling, a few weeks ago, of the funds available under co-operative credit legislation. It will also provide more market information to businesses wanting to expand their foreign sales.

As you can see, the government is helping the dairy sector, as its financial situation permits, in the same way it is helping other agri-food sectors.

The cuts announced are real but not dramatic to the point of harming the growth of the dairy sector. On the contrary, we want it to continue to develop within a context of orderly marketing.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. I know he is as concerned about the future of agriculture in Quebec as I am about the future of agriculture in all of Canada.

The hon. member made comments about the current tariff of 351 per cent on some products put in place on supply managed products. He also referred to the 50 per cent market for fluid milk Quebec farmers now enjoy. I have been having trouble with the logic of the Bloc's argument about how, when Quebec separates, it will continue to have 50 per cent of the Canadian fluid milk market at 351 per cent tariff. It does not seem to add up to me.

What steps is his government taking to help supply managed farmers in Quebec make the adjustment for the time when we have complete free trade in agriculture? That time is coming very quickly. In the beef industry we have free trade with the United States now. We actually have gone to some special import permits beyond the minimum access so it is happening quicker in the beef industry than even was scheduled under GATT.

The United States has served notice that it wants to discuss supply managed industries in Canada. Therefore there will be increased pressure to move to complete free trade.

It seems to me the Liberal government would have to be taking some concrete steps to help those farmers make that adjustment. If we are saying it cannot be done, if we will to maintain these 351 per cent tariffs, after a six year reduction in GATT it seems to me that tariff will still be 300 per cent, which is not realistic.

I ask the hon. member what he is considering doing to help these supply managed farmers make the adjustment necessary to continue to have a viable industry after free trade is accomplished.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

It is reassuring, Madam Speaker, that members other than Bloc Quebecois members have realized the importance of the rural agricultural industry in Quebec, especially dairy farming. It seems there is only one party in this House that does not realize the benefits Quebec enjoys through the protection and actions of gestion de l'offre. Dairy producers in Quebec especially enjoy tremendous advantage.

I find it very puzzling at times when I discuss this with rural members in my riding. Maybe it is not uncommon that the main leaders in the federation that supposedly defend the interests of farmers have separatist tendencies. Maybe the Bloc do not choose to advocate the benefits farmers enjoy because of the adherence to the federation that we love to call Canada. However, in Quebec they would prefer to have their own country.

I am baffled. Whenever a letter is written to a newspaper, very quickly someone from the UPA for example will refute the arguments and we get into a battle.

There is no guarantee that the protection farmers enjoy today would be continued in a separate Quebec. No member of the Bloc Quebecois can stand and honestly say that in this House. The protection is by staying in Canada.

If we look at their so-called draft bill, Bloc Quebecois members are very quick to state that we are offering only the status quo, but they exclude article 1 of their draft bill which states categorically that Quebec will be an independent country. Then in articles 2 to 16 they say they would like the same monetary unit, the same immigration, the same passport, the same economic union. That is the status quo. They have all of that already within Canada and now they want to destroy it to get it back. There is no guarantee they will get protection under GATT, the G-7, or any other agreement.

To answer the question, the tariffs that were negotiated in the last round of the GATT see a decreasing protection through tariffication of roughly 15 per cent per year. That will give the industry enough time to adapt. By the same token, the government has doubled the loan provisions from $1.5 billion to $3 billion to help farmers obtain access to needed capital. The tariffication process will allow them the needed three or four years.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

It is 15 per cent over six years.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

No, no. It is reducing 15 per cent. The transition period they are requesting to my knowledge does not exceed more than three or four years. They have plenty of time to adapt.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the hon. member for Frontenac. I will focus my remarks on inspection and research.

It is well known that in our recent budget the guiding principle was to share the burden of deficit reduction. Every sector and every region has had to make a contribution and this has been done fairly. The people of Guelph-Wellington support the government in its deficit reduction efforts. My constituents want reduced government spending and an end to government deficits.

Within the context of fiscal restraint we planned our budget to support our vision for Canada's agricultural and agri-food industry. It is one built on economic growth and security, on sustainable agriculture and a safe food supply.

Guelph-Wellington represents every aspect of the food chain. We have excellent farmers who work the land and provide food and dairy products. Better Beef Limited employs over 400 of our neighbours. Woolwich Dairy Incorporated of Ariss produces award winning goat's milk cheeses. The United Co-operatives of Ontario manufacture livestock feeds. These companies not only provide employment but they also contribute to our agricultural industry. My riding houses the University of Guelph, an important research facility.

Finally, we are all consumers who value a safe and high quality food supply and control of animal and plant diseases that have a human health or economic impact. My constituents want as our first priority to ensure that food safety will not be compromised.

At the same time, recognizing the need to reduce the deficit, the people of Guelph-Wellington know that costs to the taxpayer must be reduced. Industry must be helped to find ways to keep input costs down so it can offer the best quality product at the best price.

For these reasons Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has been working closely in the past year with other federal departments and provincial ministries of agriculture and health to develop national standards. We are aiming to establish a nationwide Canadian food inspection system. This will reduce overlap between jurisdictions and will result in a more streamlined and efficient regulatory system. My constituents have asked all governments to work together to reduce overlap and to control spending, something even the Bloc Quebecois can applaud, I would hope.

In addition, we will level the playing field between domestic and imported industries by enhancing inspection of imported products. We will also move to a system of monetary penalties in support of enforcement and compliance.

These are examples of the fairness that has been demanded by the people of Guelph-Wellington and others across this land. This fiscal year in co-operation with the meat industry we will be implementing program efficiencies in the area of meat hygiene.

These initiatives are expected to save $10 million. Surely all members of this House applaud that initiative. In 1997-98 we will be achieving further savings through initiatives such as privatizing quality assurance and residue testing and implementing hazard analysis and critical control point programs.

We also plan to transfer routine laboratory testing to the private sector. Industry benefits from the food inspection and regulatory system earning high prices for higher quality. We believe industry should pay its fair share of inspection costs.

We are currently negotiating with the private sector to make our inspection and quarantine programs more efficient and more effective and at the same time to meet budget reduction targets. This will be achieved over the next three years through a combination of cost reduction, cost avoidance and cost sharing initiatives.

There will however be no adverse effects on food safety. Let me underline that food safety is this government's top priority and continues to be. The government's goal here is to reduce the cost to taxpayers who live in communities like Guelph-Wellington by recovering an additional $46 million of the cost of inspection services by 1997-98.

To keep at the leading edge of technological changes, we must continue to conduct research. As I mentioned earlier, the University of Guelph conducts research in the areas of animal production. For example, it has developed a vaccine that reduces the stress animals suffer during shipping, a saving of millions of dollars to producers.

The university also studies new breeding methods for crops. Its program of agri-food assistance reviews all areas of farming production by bringing together all players, for example environmentalists, to study both the positive and the negative aspects of farming. That is important, the positive and negative aspects.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will continue to be the prime federal source for agricultural research and development in Canada. Research and development accounts for a large portion of departmental expenditures. It will remain a major element of government support to the agri-food sector. We are committed to research and technology transfer efforts which protect the safety and security of our food supply and the sustainability of our resource base.

Value added products, new cost saving technology, non-food products from agricultural commodities and innovative approaches such as biotechnology are all the result of a vibrant and creative research infrastructure. We are committed to maintaining this. However, given the enormity of the task of coming to terms with the federal deficit, all areas must contribute their share.

Departmental research and development activities will consequently absorb part of the reduction of departmental expenditures outlined in the 1995 budget. Savings of $50 million will be achieved by 1997-98 primarily through streamlining the research infrastructure and reductions in areas where results are more portable, or the location is not important. Of that, an additional $3 million will be saved from the capital expenditure budget.

We will be moving toward a network of strong, viable, focused centres of excellence. Seven smaller research facilities will be closed: three in western Canada, two in Ontario, and two in Quebec. The remaining centres will be strategically positioned to better reflect industry strengths and competitive advantages in the regions where they are located, thus creating a critical mass of the most useful expertise. Some of our work is being transferred to and enhanced in the province of Quebec which surely must be appreciated and encouraged by our friends in the official opposition.

In addition to streamlining our research infrastructure, we are also reallocating resources to fund a matching investment initiative. This fund will support industry led joint research projects. Government will match industry contributions dollar for dollar, up to $35 million. A strong response by industry

could result in an investment of $70 million by the end of this century. This will help offset the reductions and ensure that money is spent where industry can best use it.

I would like to conclude by re-emphasizing that we are committed to maintaining food safety as the priority of the inspection system while reducing overlap and duplication; levelling the playing field for Canadian producers by ensuring better border controls; and sharing the cost of services which provide a private benefit to industry. We also remain committed to ensuring a safe critical mass of research and technology transfer dedicated to the safety of our food supply and the sustainability of our agricultural resource base.

As I represent the people of Guelph-Wellington, all important contributors to our food chain, I express our support for these initiatives. I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for ensuring that while funding is reduced, our guiding principles will never be compromised.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington is lucky, because she can count on the university bearing the same name as her riding. The federal government and several para-public organizations contribute considerable research budgets to the university in her riding.

Members will agree however that not all ridings can boast such fine universities as the University of Guelph unfortunately. It has put a lot of emphasis on research. I picked a year at random from my notes on federal government spending, and came up with the research spending of the Department of Agriculture in 1990. I will give you a few figures and I invite you to reflect on them.

The federal government spent almost half of its farming research budget in the grain sector, some $111 million. Of course, friends out west are not complaining. One hundred and eleven million dollars, close to one half. But the grain sector only produces six per cent of Canada's farming outputs. In the same year, 24 per cent of the federal government's agricultural research budget went to the dairy, poultry and hog sectors.

And it so happens that hog, poultry and dairy producers are concentrated in Quebec and, of course, in Ontario.

I, myself, am a farmer and a member of the UPA. I know many other farmers. I spent all of last Saturday going up and down the concessions visiting farmers and it is funny but I did not meet a single one who applauded the Liberal government's budget, especially regarding farming issues. Not one.

Last Monday, I was at the Lafaille auction in Coaticook. Over one hundred farmers were there. I asked some questions. They were obviously proud to see that one of their own made it to Ottawa to defend their interests. None of them were happy. Not one.

So in Ontario, out of 99-sorry, 98 Liberal ridings, one slipped out of their grasp and went to a Reform friend-the general protest reminds me of what happened in Quebec in the 1970s, when the only person even remotely capable of playing the role of the opposition was Roch LaSalle.

The UPA and the Association des producteurs laitiers have literally come out swinging against this budget. Now I will discuss an article written by Claude Rivard and will ask the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington to comment on it. In a newspaper article on dairy producers in Quebec, published in March 1995, Mr. Rivard talks about the federal government's intention to withdraw altogether from programs in the areas of dairy control and genetic testing. That is some major research. Her government is backing out and she is happy with the research done. My foot.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Frontenac began by talking about how lucky I am as the member for Guelph-Wellington. He is quite right, I am. However, we are all lucky to live in this wonderful country. I would like to put that on the record.

The member for Frontenac wanted to talk about research and development. The federal government will be maintaining excellent research infrastructure in Quebec which will have four of the national centres of excellence; Lennoxville, Saint-Hyacinthe, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Saint-Croix. We will transfer 53 research positions from the national capital region to these centres, enabling our scientists to concentrate on research areas of high priority to Quebec producers and processors as well as to producers across eastern Canada and the whole country.

We are all lucky to live in Canada and to enjoy the support of the federal government, including Quebec.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but her time has expired. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Matapédia-Matane.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Frontenac, for putting forward this opposition motion on agriculture. This is an extremely important day for all farmers in Quebec and across Canada.

I see that there are not many members across the way. They may not come from another planet, but I do not know where they come from.

People have been hit very hard by the budget. My colleague from Frontenac said earlier that none of the farmers he has spoken to was happy with the budget.

They claim that the budget is acceptable, that it is a good budget. I do not understand where these members come from.

[An hon. member]

From Ontario.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

It is impossible to pay too much attention to agriculture, and especially to young farmers. A nation that is not self-sufficient in agriculture must be considered part of the third world. A country that does not give top priority to agriculture does not understand anything.

When game became scarce, mankind turned to farming to survive. Nothing has since replaced the food taken from the land. However, in order to grow this food, farmers must work hard, invest money and take risks. Farmers do face great risks, as they have done for generations. They are willing to assume terrible risks.

These people have attained sovereignty on their land. They own their land. They sow their fields with whatever grains they please. They breed whatever animals they please. Their work does not bind them to a fixed schedule, but one thing is sure, they have put in an incredible number of hours. They are ready for a country of their own.

According to a poll commissioned by the UPA, the results of which were released on November 22, 1990, at the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, 73 per cent of farmers were in favour of sovereignty-association, 73 per cent.

On September 2, in the middle of the election campaign in Quebec, the president of the UPA, Laurent Pellerin, argued in the presence of Premier Daniel Johnson that there is not much more to fear from sovereignty than from the current situation, what we have gone through over poultry and continue to got through every day in our trade relations. That is what the president of the UPA said.

Indeed, farm producers have met great challenges over the years, moving from traditional to industrial farming, facing international competition, computerizing their businesses, learning new production techniques and keeping up with all the new advanced technologies. They are ready to take up the new and great challenge of becoming the kings in their own castles, masters of their own houses, in other words, sovereign.

To those who claim that, in a sovereign Quebec, agriculture would be profoundly disrupted, our producers reply that the future of Quebec's industry is conditioned much more by market development than by the advent of a sovereign Quebec.

Those who think farm producers from the rest of Canada are unlikely to go for maintaining supply management are wrong. We all know that, to maintain the revenues of all dairy producers, each province must preserve the supply management system.

We doubt that it would be in the interests of the rest of Canada, particularly Ontario and the Maritimes, to eliminate the supply management system, which is still the only adequate income security system for farmers. Should that system be eliminated, markets would open up and, to be sure, the rest of Canada would be the biggest loser.

Allow me to digress for a moment. It is difficult in Quebec, particularly in my region, to talk about agriculture without referring to forestry. Most of our farmers have some woodland on their farm. In many cases, if used properly, that woodland can provide a supplementary income which can sometimes be relatively substantial.

Again, the federal government will hurt these farmers. The Eastern Quebec Development Plan, which was to be renewed for three years, was only extended for one year.

This will result in a shortfall of more than $13 million over a two-year period. The federal-provincial agreement, which will end in 1996, is also in bad shape. As you know, these federal-provincial agreements have been in place for 25 years and their continued existence is now uncertain, unfortunately. Foresters and farmers are very concerned.

Investing in agriculture is an obligation, while investing in forestry is a necessity. It is a plus, an investment. It is not a donation. The ministers of agriculture and natural resources are yielding to the finance minister who, in turn, yields to the multinationals. The problem is: who governs the country? It is the multinationals. Occasionally, the Minister of Finance will give his opinion, but it is just an opinion. Earlier, some members opposite accused us of being partisan; sure, because we represent our people. We are quite willing to be accused of partisanship because we truly look after the interests of those whom we represent.

What will happen is disturbing, if not downright frightening.

We have a moral obligation to feed ourselves, as well as others, because the Gaspé Peninsula is a vast territory. If we were given the tools to invest in our agricultural land base, we could feed thousands, perhaps millions of people. All we need is a bit of help. As I said earlier, people in our regions are used to

taking risks and putting up with an unpredictable climate, various diseases and fluctuating interest rates. They are survivors. They can once again meet the challenge with pride and dignity.

People need more than bread: they need more than figures and financial statements. Quebec farmers know that what people need above all are dignity and pride. Should we deprive ourselves of the life enjoyed by free nations, which deserve to be free, merely because we are a minority in North America? Based on what logic or what decree should the Quebec nation deprive itself of what is vital to other nations? Farmers know our history well. They know that there was a winner and a loser.

I will conclude by saying to my fellow farmers: you should not have any complexes: your past performances are a guarantee of future success. Your land is yours. All you have to do is give yourself a country. That country is called Quebec.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs, on a point of order.

Firearms Act

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wish to indicate that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of sections (1) or (2) of Standing Order 78 in respect of proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I therefore give notice that I will propose a motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend talked about the future as being frightening. I would certainly agree with him. The future is extremely frightening for Quebec farmers if they listen to the misinformation which I heard coming from the other side relative to what would happen if Quebec separates.

He is absolutely right in saying that supply management has been the only viable income system for farmers. He should admit up front that this viable income system will be put in jeopardy should Quebec move toward separation. That supply management system is one of the benefits Quebec farmers have gained from being a part of Canadian federation.

While I am on my feet, I might as well ask a question about my concern with the resolution put forward by hon. members opposite. They are leaving the impression that converting the grain transportation subsidies into direct subsidies to western farmers is an advantage at the expense of Quebec. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a government, we have admitted that changing the WGTA, which has been the cornerstone of agricultural policy in western Canada, is extremely hurtful to western farmers. The fact of the matter is that farmers in Quebec got off relatively lightly with the budget as compared to those in the west.

How does the member opposite explain to farmers in Quebec that they are not going to lose the supply management system should they move to separation? Is he not willing to admit that Canada has been extremely good to farmers in Quebec over the last century and in fact the budget has really been relatively light in targeting Quebec farmers?

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked a question, but I think the answer is pretty obvious, because as you know, when we need something, we go to whoever has what we want. At one point, Russia was ordering wheat from us. We were capitalists and they were communists. They did not care about borders. They came to buy our wheat because it was good wheat and the price was right.

When people say Canada had been very good for Quebec, my answer is this: our farmers are telling us this has got to stop. These are not my words but theirs. I speak on their behalf, since when we are elected, it is our duty is to speak on behalf of our constituents. I talked to farmers and they told me to say what I just said. This is no joke, this is dead serious. I speak for the farmers in my riding, and they say it is practically impossible to live with this kind of system.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, as soon as the Bloc Quebecois caucus decided that the next motion on the Order Paper for our opposition day, would be a motion on agriculture denouncing the Liberal government's budget, I told the hon. member for Frontenac that I was very anxious to speak in this debate.

First of all, I want to commend my colleague from Frontenac for the clarity of his presentation and also for the fact that his interventions on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois were very much to the point.

I want to congratulate him on behalf of all farmers in Quebec who are proud of the work done by the hon. member for Frontenac.

It is rather difficult to remain calm when speaking in this kind of debate. Especially when we hear from members on the government benches, although the same could be said of some Reform Party members, what I would qualify, without wishing to use unparliamentary terms, as outrageous statements from Liberal members and several members of the Reform Party.

I am referring more specifically, before I get to the gist of my speech, to what was said by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who in this very House accused all Bloc members of lying or saying the opposite of the truth, which apparently is parliamentary, and then, with the Minister of Agriculture, accused us of causing emotions to run high across this beautiful country of ours.

The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is extremely good at saying just about anything without being too particular about how he says it. Everyone will recall, and this will go down in history as one of the achievements of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, his speech in the House during the debate on back-to-work legislation to settle the railway dispute. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell rose in the House to speak out loud and clear about what one of his constituents had told him which was, according to him, that shipping costs for soya beans had gone up 20 per cent because of this dispute. And he gave us his constituent's telephone number so that we could call him right away. Well, it transpired that the only element of truth in what was said by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was this telephone number. That was the only fact. The rest was a tissue of falsehoods. This was checked immediately by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm who called our Liberal colleague's constituent on the telephone.

This morning, or was it this afternoon, I also heard the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette of the Reform Party say that Quebec benefited as a result of federal intervention, especially in the dairy sector. I would like to take a few minutes to clear up a few things.

As everybody in this House knows, I represent the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead where there is a large number of farmers, especially dairy farmers. Dairy farming is a very important industry, economically speaking. The economic spin-offs of dairy farming in my riding amount to tens of millions of dollars. As one can see, milk production is a very significant activity in Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.

We are told that, should Quebec become sovereign, the rest of Canada will refuse to buy milk from Quebec. This is the kind of blackmailing we are being subjected to, and of course, there is no intent, on the part of our colleagues who make this suggestion, to have feelings run high.

Very calmly, they are not trying to scare anyone; on the contrary, they just want to reassure us by saying that once Quebec is sovereign, there will be no more dealing with Quebec. This is what is being said in this House.

This seems to me to be utter nonsense. One must look at the facts. The facts are that trade between Quebec and Canada amounts to more than $80 billion. For a large part, this trade is in agricultural products. In this area, Quebec shows an average deficit of more than $800 million.

That is to say that Quebec buys from the rest of Canada more than it sells. So, if someone should be doing some blackmailing in the context of a sovereign Quebec, it certainly should not be the rest of Canada. This means that English Canada would decide, in cold blood, to stop buying milk from Quebec producers, while knowing that Quebec could buy its beef, grain and other foodstuff from other sources.

I am saying this again very seriously mostly for the benefit of farmers, the men and women who own farms worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes even more than one million dollars. Agriculture in Quebec is no small potatoes. It is a thriving industry. A very significant industry.

I am saying this for the benefit of these men and women, Quebec's sovereignty cannot have the impact Liberal and Reform members would like us to believe. With Canada showing an $800 million deficit-and it is important to keep this figure in mind-in agriculture each and every year, Quebec is in a strong bargaining position when the time comes to negotiate with the rest of Canada.

The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi stated in this House that the Quebec government was cutting funding to agricultural research and development. He asked us very seriously-probably confusing one level of government with the other because he is newly elected at the federal level-to take the matter up with the Government of Quebec so that the situation can be remedied.

I just want to point out to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and all the hon. members of this House that the best solution to Quebec's budget problems is for Quebec to become sovereign. Quebec's share of the federal agriculture department's budget of more than $2 billion should be $500 million-that is how much should be spent in Quebec-but the figures prove otherwise. Instead of 25 per cent, we are actually getting 12 per cent; for research and development, it is more like 10 per cent.

I will conclude by saying that the best solution to Quebec's agricultural development problem is to achieve sovereignty.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.