Debates of March 21st, 1996

Financial Administration Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

We are debating a motion put forward by a colleague. If the member wishes to resume debate on that issue please go ahead. He still has two minutes.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, you are subtracting the time from me that another member used when he rose on a point of order to debate me on the side, which I think was maybe out of order.

The bill proposes to give the auditor general's work a little more legitimacy, a little more of a businesslike approach. It is like any kind of business where a consultant is hired to show where it is strong or weak, to show where it can improve. That is basically what the auditor is trying to do. The auditor is trying to improve the operation of government. I believe that when a report is given on three or four departments a couple of times during the year that those departments should respond. I think it is a big improvement which I heartily endorse.

Once again I feel bad because the government does not want to listen, does not want to learn.

Winston Churchill said that some people like to learn but they do not like to be taught. When this government was in opposition it felt like it knew everything. Now that those members are opposite,

it is obvious they do not have a plan. They do not even have the people. The Prime Minister is firing people right, left and centre.

Here we are trying to make a suggestion. I wish the government had an open mind. I wish it would give this motion due diligence and see if this is not in the best interests of Canadians. We are not talking about the best interests of Liberals or Reformers. We are talking about the best interests of Canadians, Canada, and how we can make the system work a lot better and more efficiently.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

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

Madam Speaker, all is not well in the agricultural sector. Despite higher than expected grain prices and the usual spring optimism that all of us prairie folk experience at this time of year, there are many things that concern us. I cannot begin in the short time available tonight to describe everything that is of concern but I have to raise the issues relating to international trade, particularly the activities of the United States government in the marketplace.

I originally rose on March 14 with comments about the U.S. farm bill and grazing fees for cattle. At that time I expressed concern to the minister that not enough was being done to represent the interests of Canadian producers.

Here in Canada we are virtually disarming ourselves in this international agricultural trade war. We have abandoned our long time financial commitment for the transportation of grain to port. We are in the process of deregulating the transportation sector and we have undermined the stability of the supply managed sector. In each case we as a nation have left our farmers and the communities they support with less support than the farmers in the countries with whom we compete in the world marketplace.

Despite our rush to eliminate agricultural subsidies or commitments to the orderly marketing of our products, the United States does not think we have gone far enough. The Americans continue to pressure us, to reduce the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board just as they continue to pressure us to remove more quickly the remaining tariffs that exist for our supply managed products. The Americans do not have a leg to stand on. Their facts do not add up. They are wrong, but that does not stop the Americans from complaining and seeking remedies to their perceived problems.

Canadian farmers ask: Where is the Canadian government? Where is the minister of agriculture? Where are our complaints against the American government which continues to play financial games in the world agricultural marketplace, which again penalizes Canadian producers? Where is the Canadian argument designed to protect Canadian interests?

For example, on March 14 I pointed out that the collapse of the U.S. farm bill means that the Americans have to revert to an old farm bill, which provides massive subsidy levels for corn and price guarantees for wheat. Corn can be subsidized to $7. Wheat can be guaranteed to $9. What Canadian farmer, even at the higher world prices we are receiving today, would not want to see their government guarantee the price of their wheat at $9?

These are the people we are competing against in the international marketplace and our producers cannot do it on their own. It is unfair and the Canadian government has an obligation to stand up and strongly oppose situations like these.

The other example I gave on March 14 was the indirect beef subsidy. The U.S. government owns a lot of grazing land. It leases that land to cattle producers in return for a certain lease payment. The U.S. government just reduced the lease payment on that grazing land by 20 per cent. Is that not another agricultural subsidy we should be addressing?

On supply management, the U.S. has instigated yet another challenge that has made Canadian poultry, dairy and egg producers very nervous, all this despite the fact that the Canadian case before the NAFTA panel is clear, strong and correct.

Canada is doing more to eliminate or reduce agricultural subsidies than any of our trading partners or competitors. In most cases Canada is doing more and doing it more quickly than is required by NAFTA or GATT agreements.

In conclusion, we are spending all of our time defending ourselves against petty political U.S. accusations. Perhaps it is time we made some accusations of our own and forced the U.S. to account for some of its unfriendly activities.

Will the minister of agriculture assure Canadian producers and the communities they support that he will not only defend Canadian interests but will also challenge the U.S. violations of our negotiated trade agreements?

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, the U.S. is in the process of writing a new farm bill to guide its agricultural policy for the seven year period to the year 2002. Although this bill is later than normal, a compromise version of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives bill is expected to be agreed upon and forwarded to the U.S. President for signature in the next few weeks.

References by the hon. member to U.S. support prices based on 1949 legislation reflect a possibility that is extremely unlikely to materialize.

Both the U.S. House and Senate bills that were passed in February would enact the freedom to farm concept. This concept would eliminate target prices for major crops as well as deficiency payments, land set aside requirements and planting restrictions previously required for farmers to participate in income support programs. In exchange, a seven year production flexibility contract for eligible crops will provide annual fixed and declining payments to farmers irrespective of the level of world prices or actual production.

Under such legislation, U.S. government involvement in agriculture would decline and U.S. farmers would respond to market forces more than they have in the last 50 years. Moreover, export subsidy provisions would not exceed the U.S. commitment allowable under the World Trade Organization.

We are monitoring developments and will be very vigilant in ensuring that the U.S. lives up to all of its commitments under international agreements, including the aggregate level of support it can provide to its agricultural sector.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to standing Order 24 (1).

(The House adjourned at 7.08 p.m.)