Debates of Nov. 16th, 1999

Supply

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak to the motion today as it includes both agriculture and fisheries, two of the main industries in my province of Prince Edward Island. I have probably spent as much time on the fisheries committee as I have on the agricultural committee, so I have been asked today to address the part of the motion dealing with the amount of agricultural subsidies and subsidization that is going on in the world today.

We know about the root causes of the financial problems facing some of our farmers today, namely adverse weather and worldwide low prices for some commodities. These low prices are primarily a result of oversupply which has led to reduced demand in key markets such as Asia and Latin America. The oversupply has come about not just because of unfair trade practices but also because of some incredibly good harvests worldwide over the past few years which have put a great deal of high quality product on the market. Those inventories are still quite high.

This situation has been aggravated by the persistent use of trade distorting support by some of our major training partners, especially the United States and the European Community. Farmers are not encouraged to grow crops in response to the realities of the marketplace in those countries and our farmers, as well as producers in other countries, are feeling the effects.

The motion before us suggests that the government has not been doing anything to address the serious issue of subsidies being provided to our competitors in the agricultural sector. I have to take issue with that for the government and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in particular, have put much of their energy and resources over the past two years into developing a strong initial negotiating position to take to the world trade talks that are about to begin in Seattle. Those talks are absolutely crucial to our ability to bring about a fair and level playing field in which our producers can compete.

There is absolutely no doubt that Canadian producers are some of the most efficient, productive and innovative in the world. They have the business savvy to compete with the best and they can compete and win when the trading environment is fair. If we can rid the agricultural world of trade distorting subsidies, particularly export subsidies, Canadian farmers would be able to produce and invest with greater confidence.

While the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been working to address the economic and weather related problems of Canadian farmers, he has also devoted a great deal of time and energy to working with our trading partners, with the objective of bringing some order and stability into the world marketplace. He has taken every opportunity to remind his counterparts from major trading nations, particularly the European Community and the United States, that their actions can only prolong the serious problems faced by farmers.

It is not clear that the subsidies being provided by our competitors such as the United States are even helping those farmers all that much in the short term. There seem to be just as many concerns expressed by American producers about low prices and low incomes as we are hearing in Canada. As a matter of fact a witness this morning in the agriculture standing committee verified those facts.

The need to get rid of trade distorting subsidies is a critically important message for our trading partners to hear as we head into the WTO negotiations which start in Seattle in a couple of weeks. It is the message that we have been delivering every chance we get. I know the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food raised it, for example, when he hosted ministers from Japan, Australia, the European Union and the United States at a meeting in Montreal in September.

Going into the WTO talks Canada has been a world leader in setting out its goals for what needs to be accomplished in agriculture. That position includes the complete elimination of export subsidies, a substantial reduction of trade and production distorting domestic support including an overall limit and domestic support of all types, and real and substantial market access improvements for all agriculture and food products. As well we are defending Canada's right to maintain domestic orderly marketing systems such as the Canadian Wheat Board and supply and management for dairy and poultry products.

This position was arrived at after two years of extensive consultations with a broad cross-section of representatives from the agricultural and food industries and the provinces. This position reflects the trade interests of the Canadian agriculture and food sector as a whole across all commodities and all regions. It is a solid, unified initial position which I am confident will help to garner a better deal at the international trade table. By the way, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga West.

With this position Canada will play a strong and active role in influencing the direction and eventual outcome of the WTO negotiations. In fact we already have.

Shortly after announcing the Canadian position the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food met with the 15 agricultural exporting countries which make up the Cairns group. This group also included countries like Australia, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina. Coming out of that meeting the minister indicated that Cairns members had agreed to a common WTO negotiating front, namely, freer, fairer and more market oriented trade conditions.

In addition, both APEC and the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and Canada is a member of both those groups, have come out with resolutions calling for the elimination of export subsidies. This is what Canada and its allies will be pushing for when the negotiations get started in Seattle.

It is in Seattle that Canada will be cranking up the heat even more to convince all our trading partners of the need to let farmers make their decisions based on market signals rather than on government support levels. In this way we have been laying the groundwork for meaningful negotiations, negotiations that start smoothly and allow our negotiators to work with clear direction and steadfast commitment to the needs of our producers and that achieve good results.

I do not deny that we are getting into a long process. The WTO talks will not deliver changes overnight, but they are crucial to building a strong and competitive Canadian agricultural sector. The government is committed to reforming trade in the agricultural sector. It is something we have been building toward over the past several years and our efforts will only intensify from here on in.

As the WTO negotiations proceed the federal government will continue the partnership approach that led to the development of a unified national negotiation position by ensuring that industry and the provinces are consulted closely throughout the process. We are in this together, the federal government, the provincial governments and industry, in seeking solutions to the income problems of farmers over the long term.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the hon. parliamentary secretary. I have to agree the best resolution would be an open marketplace, a level playing field and no subsidies. I also have to tell the parliamentary secretary to wake up and smell the coffee.

He said that the minister had been talking at great lengths to other trading partners about getting rid of subsidies. The opposite is happening. In the European Union subsidies are being paid at an accelerated rate. In the United States there has been an announcement every week of another farm aid package, more moneys going into the farm economy.

The parliamentary secretary talked about how our position at the WTO will be accepted and will be achieved. That is five years at the very least of negotiations with the WTO.

What do we do in the meantime? Do we simply allow the farm crisis to continue? Do we allow the world market to be changed constantly by subsidies being paid by the European Union and the Americans? Is it simply that farmers in Canada should go by the wayside while we wait and let the minister talk about trade changes in the WTO?

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Madam Speaker, as the member well knows, Canada has and is putting in place various mechanisms whereby our farmers will be subsidized through the NISA program, through crop insurance, through companion programs, and recently through AIDA dollars. Overall $1.78 billion is being put into the program over the next two years.

The member for Brandon—Souris is a member of the agricultural standing committee. This morning's witnesses said that NISA is an example of a program which is envied by our neighbours to the south.

The Americans are looking to our program as the path for the future. They are looking to us to show the way to properly subsidize and properly assist our farmers when there is a precipitous drop in commodity prices. They are following our example. Their farmers are no better off with their ad hoc programs. In fact, a lot of them are a lot worse off with their ad hoc programs than we are with the negotiated cost share programs that are in place today.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have carefully listened to the words of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and to his responses to questions.

In his speech he said that commodity prices are low because there has been over-production, and that the farmers are not growing crops that reflect the realities of the marketplace.

The government is not following the realities of the marketplace either with its subsidies. What are we to do when American or European competitors receive $2.50 to Canadian farmers' $1.00?

What are we to do when total agricultural support policies are $140 per capita in Canada, as compared to $360 in the United States and $381 in Europe?

That too is reality. I also wonder, if there is an overproduction of agricultural products, what options besides diversification might be proposed to farmers to help them operate according to supply and demand.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows well what we are doing. She also is a member of the agriculture standing committee. She knows that we have the crop insurance program. She knows that we have the NISA program, which is working very well. There are still $122 million that could be triggered just in the province of Saskatchewan alone. That money is there waiting for this particular situation, a downturn in the incomes of the farmers.

She knows that the government together with farm groups, farm leaders and the provinces developed the agriculture disaster program. The same players and partners in agriculture will be putting in place a long term disaster program which will click in when situations like the one we are experiencing today come into effect.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate. I find the motion interesting. I am sure there must have been a lot of discussion in the Tory party caucus in trying to write this resolution. Sprinkled throughout it there are references to the fishing industry. It talks about Canada's food industry, but it primarily focuses on agriculture, as would be seen in some of the responses.

However, because of the very few number of seats the Tories have in the maritimes, I am sure there was a battle suggesting that they had better not just talk about agriculture and focus on western Canada. I believe yesterday the results in Saskatchewan would show that the Conservative Party is hardly on what any one might call a comeback. I believe it came in fourth. The Liberals did well in three other ridings, one in Ontario and two in Quebec, so we know that the people are generally satisfied with the programs.

I would like to discuss from the point of view of the fisheries a bit of the nonsense about the failure to provide leadership and the failure of the Conservative Party to seize this opportunity to actually say something important about what has happened to our fishing industry.

I recommend to all members a book they should read called Lament for an Ocean .

Far be it for me to quote too much from a book written by a journalist, one who is not necessarily supportive of Liberals or the government, and the name Mike Harris comes to mind. He is not the premier of Ontario but rather the journalist who wrote the book. I must give him credit because when one reads the book and the research that was done one can see a pattern that was developed. Frankly, it was developed under the leadership of Conservative governments and a minister. It is unfortunate to have to criticize someone who is not in this place any more to defend himself, but I am sure he is quite capable of defending himself, as we have seen, and that minister was John Crosbie.

The programs in place in the maritimes were such that they totally had blinkers on and allowed foreign freezer vessels to come in, rape the ocean, particularly off the coast of Newfoundland, and destroy the fishery. Why not take this opportunity with this small gathering of Conservatives from the maritimes to ask the government to do something that would actually help restore the cod fisheries? I do not see any mention of that. The motion mentions solutions for Canada's fishery, but it focuses fundamentally on agriculture.

On the agricultural side of it, we know that there have been what I would have to carefully call some flip-flops by some hon. members. The sponsor of the motion, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, actually said in Hansard “The U.S. government provided $8.7 billion” in farm aid. He went on to ask “When will the minister use his influence to put forward similar resources?” Just seven days later, he was quoted as saying that he had never asked for more money to be added to the pot. I guess we misunderstood that. That was in reference to the money in the AIDA program.

We all know that the government has responded by increasing the funding for AIDA. It is never enough to satisfy members opposite but it is a response. The minister of agriculture, in a responsible way, has topped up that program. Notwithstanding the complaints I have heard about the bureaucracy and red tape, that money is flowing into the hands of Canadian farmers.

Because this is about food in the country, let me go back to the fishery. Our new minister has just announced a $600,000 program to fund new aquaculture programs. That is not a lot of money but it is recognition of the importance of aquaculture, particularly given the damage caused to our natural fisheries throughout the east coast. There is a commitment there. I would like to see more of it.

My colleague, the hon. member for Sudbury, has a program where they want to raise Arctic char in an abandoned mine pit. Apparently all the science and research shows that the Arctic char that comes out of this technology is absolutely spectacular. A small investment at the local community level is needed to make that kind of thing work. Why would members opposite not call for the government to invest in something like that? It seems to me that is a productive thing, something that we could look at and something that should be supported.

I am also surprised that the member opposite did not take the opportunity to address something that I think is one of the great sins of our time, the reduction in the quotas and at one time the banning of the seal hunt. It is really bizarre if we look at why the cod is down. As my hon. friend from the east coast, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, would say “seals eat fish”. It is amazing.

Why not look at the fact that there was a recent report to the committee on the situation with the seals? Let me just read about how seals are predators. The report states:

One of the most controversial aspects of the debate on seals is whether predation by harp seals is impeding the recovery of cod stocks.

Imagine anyone asking that question. If we want to create more food and more fish in the country, why do we not look at the fact that there are over five million seals in the population? I believe that figure is three or four years old. The population is probably over six or seven million. They are destroying not only a fishery and a species but a way of life.

The committee went on to state:

None of the witnesses who appeared before the committee claimed that seals were the cause of the collapse of cod stocks, which they clearly attributed to both foreign and domestic overfishing.

The committee puts on blinders and says that even though it has restricted the catch by foreign fishing companies, by freezer trawlers, and even though it has taken the steps to correct the mistakes of former Tory governments in that area, it continues to refuse to believe that the seals are in fact predators that are destroying the cod fishery.

The committee goes on to state:

However, it was noted by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council in their April 1999 report “that the single cod stock in the Northwest Atlantic considered recovered, namely, the southern Newfoundland/St-Pierre Bank stock, is the only stock that does not have a large number of seals occurring within its stock range”.

That is pretty clear evidence to me. It basically states that the cod in that part of the world has recovered in terms of its population and size—and the size of the cod is a key factor—because they are not facing the predators in terms of the seals.

I have some other statistics. Do we want to find a way to support Canada's food industry, Canada's fishery? This says that grey seals are consuming between 5,400 and 22,000 tonnes annually of eastern Scotian shelf cod; harp seals may be consuming as much as 140,000 tonnes annually of northern cod; seals in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence may have consumed as much as 68,000 tonnes of cod in 1996 alone; and, seals in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence may be consuming over 10,000 tonnes annually of cod. That is a lot of fish.

Why is it that we somehow feel the need to protect the seals to the tune where they are literally crawling across highways in Newfoundland, for goodness sake, coming right out of the water?

In 1997, the NAFO science community reported clearly that the seals consumed 108,000 tonnes of juvenile northern cod, those less than 40 centimetres, which represents 300 million fish. If we want to do something to help the fishery we should support the report of this council which says that the seal hunt should be increased by 50%? That may be drastic, but in reality that is a step that will allow the cod to recover, that will allow the fishery on the east coast to recover and that will allow the families in that part of the world to get back on the water to make a living so that they generate food for the rest of Canada.

I would have thought that would be the kind of policy that the Conservative Party would be interested in seeing so it could resolve the mess that it caused in its time in office.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to hear the ineffectual backbencher from Mississauga get up and obviously have all of the answers. Actually, I thank him for speaking so eloquently.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Which am I, ineffective or eloquent?

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

No, no. The member spoke eloquently about his ineffectiveness. However, he delivered a message that spoke to the deficiencies of his own government. He railed on about the policy that should be put into place to help rejuvenate the cod fishery and he looks to us to set that policy.

Where is the ineffective backbencher when he is needed to speak to the minister of fisheries who in fact should be putting in those policies? That is what this resolution speaks to, the mismanagement and the inability of the government to put in those policies to help not only rejuvenate and save the fishery but also to rejuvenate and save agriculture. I thank him for speaking on our behalf. I would like to ask him where his minister and his government are in implementing those very policies.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that someone has to speak on behalf of the Conservative members. They seem to be incapable of doing it. This is their opposition day. As a result—if the member would just take a Valium for a moment—all I am suggesting is that they should have taken an opportunity to put some constructive ideas on the table. They did not do that.

What they want to do is try to pretend that they are friends of the western farming community when they know they are not their friends, and the results of last night's byelection proved that. They try to do that but, at the same time, they do not want to upset the east coast fishery because they have a number of members from that part of the country, the only part, I believe, where they actually have any members except for one member in Ontario.

I am just suggesting to the member that I am not afraid to stand up in my caucus and in this place and say that I think what that government did to the east coast fishery was a travesty. I think this government should take some steps, such as increasing the quota of the seal hunt, to see if we cannot help improve the fishing stock on the east coast.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the speaker. This is the first time since I have known him that he made a whole speech in the House and never mentioned my name. I feel a little hurt this morning.

I am sure the member would agree that the European Union, which is subsidizing its farmers a great deal, went through a period of time a few years back when there just was not any food on the shelves. It suffered a great deal in that regard. It is also pretty strong in the fact that it will never let that happen again. I can understand that, as I am sure he can.

We will go to the WTO negotiations to try to level the playing field. In order to do that, we are going to ask the EU to reduce its subsidies, to bring down its method of supporting its farmers. To do that, Canada may be asked to give something up.

The first question I have is does he have any idea what the European Union might expect Canada to give up in order to negotiate a deal?

The second question is with regard to the seal hunt, which I agree would be a good idea and a good solution. Would he be prepared to stand up to the interest groups that would want the seals protected and would come right on the heels of bringing in such legislation, or would he cave in like they usually do to small interest groups in their requests?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indirectly I did mention the member, although I did not mention him by name. I said that he was complaining earlier about some of the bureaucracy and the red tape by the farmers. I did sort of touch on it but I also had confidence that he would rise in his place to compliment me in some fashion. I am getting used to that.

I did stand up to IFAW, the International Fund for Animal Welfare. It threatened to sue me over remarks that I made where I accused its members of not being totally honest with the lobby that they were leading. Many members in this place received computerized phone calls to our offices lobbying us, passing out information that was totally false and telling members and senior citizens contributing $10 that baby seals were being slaughtered on the banks off of Newfoundland when we know that is not true. In fact, it is against the law. The government made it against the law and levied over 100 charges. Of course there will be people who will break the law in that regard but we have to be tough on that.

I have certainly stood up to those interest groups and will continue to do so.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to speak on the motion put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party.

This motion comprises a number of elements, the main ones being the financial difficulties currently being experienced by Canadian farmers, Ottawa's incompetence in dealing with this issue, the failure of the federal government to assume responsibility and leadership with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v Marshall, and the federal government's failed fisheries policies and its lack of vision.

I would like to share my time with my colleague from Lotbinière. This morning, my colleague from Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok spoke about fisheries.

Since we are sharing our time, I would like to spend time on the fourth point of the Progressive Conservatives' motion, that is, the lack of vision on the part of the government, something that very often results in a lack of leadership. I will relate this to a matter particularly dear to my heart, one I have spoken of quite frequently of late, and that is the matter of genetically modified foods. This is an issue in which the government has been very short on vision, and one that illustrates my thoughts very well.

First, it starts with inertia. For five years, our shopping baskets have contained genetically modified products, and up to now the government has not brought this to the attention of consumers. The delay is rather hard to explain and may be likened to a lack of transparency.

In the fall of 1997, when we were working on the matter, the agriculture committee recommended to the government unanimously that there be mandatory labelling so consumers buying the products would know what they had in their baskets and what they were eating. Knowing what one is eating is a basic right.

The government has not acted since 1998, except to say that labelling is optional in Canada and that we should wait until the issue comes up for debate. But it did not, with the result that events have now overtaken us.

We therefore find ourselves in another kind of debate with scientists, Health Canada employees, and all sorts of people on one side or the other, while the consumer, who is at the heart of the debate, cannot get a straight answer.

What are the short, medium and long term effects on health? We do not have all the answers to this question. Furthermore, what are the effects on the environment and soil degradation? What are the socioeconomic and legal impacts? There has been no follow-up and, in this final and very progressive century of the millennium, I do not think that an entire population can be left in the dark. I do not know how the government sees this, but I see it as a complete lack of vision.

There are all sorts of underlying issues. There is a lot of talk about consumers because, as users of all these products, they are on the front line, but agricultural producers should also be mentioned. They are also becoming increasingly concerned, and their concerns are twofold. Those producing genetically engineered food have questions about biological diversity.

What will happen if we continue to take this increasingly specialized approach? The diversity of seed available to farmers or producers is becoming extremely limited and is being controlled by a certain group of individuals, or companies, monopolizing the sale of agricultural products. This will inevitably lead to monoculture. In an agricultural context, it is a short leap from monoculture to the risk of a disease that can wipe out an entire crop.

Even those who are proactive on this issue and those who are now using genetically modified seed grain have questions, not all of which have been answered, although they should have been. This is the situation in which those farming with genetically modified organisms find themselves.

Then there are those involved in biological or traditional agriculture. They are ending up in a dangerous situation, because of their smaller fields, which will turn into veritable minefields, for pollen can be carried a very long way. In the spring, they were talking of one kilometre. Then a little later it was five, then twenty. This week I heard a figure of fifty.

How, then, is it possible to have the crops one desires in traditional agriculture, as in the case of Mr. Schmeiser, if one is in an area where there is airborne contamination? There is also a race for patents going on at the present time. All living things are on the verge of being patented. I do not know if this House is aware of the case of a mildly hallucinogenic plant that is used in the Amazon traditionally for medical and religious purposes. One day an American arrived on the scene and announced “This is a rather extraordinary plant, with major characteristics, so we are patenting it”.

The Amazon natives can no longer obtain the plant—which is about as common as dandelions are here in Canada—because it is patented. All these matters relate to ethics. If there are no standards for labelling transgenic food, there is no code of ethics when it comes to discoveries in a rapidly expanding field which affects us all.

This shows a lack of vision, a lack of leadership, and I would venture to say as well a lack of commitment by the government. Let us look at the situation. Since 1993, the budgets have not changed, they have been shrinking continually, and we have reached the threshold we were at in 1993 for research and development budgets.

If there is no funding, no basic research, there is a void, but a void is always filled. So it was filled with a transfer of responsibility that the companies supported, because there was no government expertise, no government funding or independent scientists to do this sort of research.

It is strange, because the government is going to negotiate at the WTO, where they will be talking of export subsidies and domestic support, but they should be talking about international trade barriers too. Such major countries as Japan, the European Community, Korea, Australia, Brazil and in fact a whole series of countries are currently requiring labelling of products containing genetically engineered food.

What are we going to do in this market if there has been no leadership? We will again see a lack of vision resulting in us losing ground it will be hard to make up.

Another comment arising from the situation is that there is some confusion in federal infrastructures leading to a lack of accountability. The entire field of biotechnology is the responsibility of the Department of Industry, product approval is the responsibility of the Department of Health, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency reports to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Yet no one deals with all the environmental problems, since in terms of accountability and responsibility, no one looks after this area at Environment Canada. This matter is the responsibility of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Bouncing the ball back and forth leads to a problem of accountability, and this is what I contend today. The motion by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party contained a lot of elements, including the lack of vision. I think we have a responsibility as parliamentarians, and we must bear this in mind.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, the hon. member has a very deep interest in food labelling. She has asked questions of the minister on a number of occasions and she has participated in the hearings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on biotechnology and food labelling.

The European countries, that area of pristine food, mad cow disease, Belgian chicken, contaminated food. When we compare our food safety regime versus the people who are criticizing us for growing biotechnological GMO foods, I think Canada's record stands crystal clear as to who has the better food safety regime.

Can the member elucidate for us how she would implement a policy of mandatory labelling? Other countries in Europe have this on the books but they have been able to implement their policy. How would the member go about implementing such a policy in this country?

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the government's powers, because I would have introduced obligatory labeling long ago.

It is very simple. Two systems are necessary. Quebec, for example, has already instituted a system of food traceability. This requires being able to track food from the farm to the table. It is tracked in terms of whether it is transgenic, traditional or biological. This is how other countries operate.

When the hon. member speaks about the safety of food in this country, everything is fine, thank goodness, there are no problems, but we are still living in a world of risk management. I do not wish to be an alarmist, but we are not safe from everything.

So far, research and inspections are adequate. But if the government continues to pull back and leave all the responsibilities in the hands of companies, slaughterhouses or whatever, I have a serious concern.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the member for Louis-Hébert for all the work she is now doing on GMOs.

She has really led the way on this issue, which we all know is a very important one. There is talk about it in my riding of Lotbinière, which is a very agricultural riding. It is also considered an important issue because agriculture and health are intimately linked.

I have often complained that this government gives a lot of attention to trade agreements and finance, but completely overlooks the consumer. It overlooks what we are putting into our mouths.

My colleague from Louis-Hébert has set out on a crusade to bring this issue to the attention of the public, and I am proud of her. It is already having an impact all over Quebec. I hope it will reach as far as Ontario, for people are having trouble truly understanding the reality of Canadian and Quebec farm production.

I would like to spend a moment on the motion by my colleague for Brandon—Souris, which reads as follows:

That this House regrets the failure of the government to recognize the important of Canada's food industries—

I am going to express my thoughts on this situation. I wonder if the government is even aware that there is such a thing as a food industry in Canada, judging by its behaviour.

I will remind this government once again that we all worked together between September and December 1998. We brought in representatives of agriculture from the west and from the east; we heard representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; we heard representatives of the UPA. We heard from everyone involved and we found a marvellous title for the report—maybe marvellous is a bit of an exaggeration, but a good title, one that I thought would really get things moving. I will give it again, because the people over there have poor memories “The Farm Income Crisis in Canada”.

I have spoken in committee or in the House on a number of occasions about this crisis, a term people have great difficulty understanding.

In preparing my speech, I looked up crisis in the Petit Larousse for three definitions. This is a fairly major entry, a whole long paragraph.

From it I selected three definitions. The first refers to a decisive or perilous period in a person's existence. A crisis is also defined as a difficult phase being experienced by a group. Third, when used with the adjective economic, it is defined as an imbalance between economic powers, in particular between production and consumption.

But I said to myself that even if the Liberals hear the definition of the word “crisis”, I will give them a bit of a break. I will relate it to the current situation and will go over each of the definitions to show them what a crisis really is.

A “decisive or perilous period” and we will add “in agriculture” in Canada and Quebec. In the case of “difficult phase being experienced by a group”, the group is Quebec or western farmers. In the case of the “economic crisis”, I think we are in a full blown crisis. I will reread the definition “an imbalance between economic powers, in particular between production and consumption”. This is the reason for today's debate.

The government does not understand what a crisis is. In December 1998, they were made aware of the situation. Nearly a year later, nothing has been done. Even with the links I have made, I am sure the government will remain silent.

This government lacks leadership. It lacks the courage of its convictions and it abdicates its responsibilities in the face of the current crisis. A crisis means there is an emergency. A crisis means there is a need for action. A crisis means it is time to put an end to inertia.

This government, however, has just found another argument for waiting rather than acting and taking decisions. It is saying “We have to be careful in the programs we will establish, because we are going to be negotiating on November 30 at the WTO, the world trade organization”.

When I read the morning papers, one headline read “WTO: minister creates confusion”. I was somewhat concerned. This means once again that this government is really inconsistent and without vision. Its vision is to collect tens of billions of dollars and spend them in areas of provincial jurisdiction. That is the vision of this government: to have billions of dollars in its pocket and to let a situation such as currently exists in the west worsen. That is vision too.

Once again, however, the vision stops at the financial and economic levels. The government never talks of farm producers or consumers. How can we expect this government to have vision?

Coming back to the motion introduced by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party, it provides, and I quote:

—by failing to address the serious problems of Canada's agricultural producers, who are suffering from increasing subsidized competition—

Here again, where is Canada's leadership on the three important criteria that will guide the WTO negotiations? As for the decrease in funding, we have done our part. Our commitment under the GATT in 1995 was 15%. This has now climbed to 50%. But, in the meantime, the United States and the European community are refusing to assume their responsibilities.

As for reducing domestic measures, the question is where. We must not turn around and make our agricultural production vulnerable. We must reaffirm it, defend ourselves, and stand firm.

Finally, with respect to market access, we must know our products and defend our market. Not only must we defend economic principles, but we must understand agriculture. Once again, the members opposite are having trouble doing this.

I come back to the Progressive Conservative member's motion:

—by failing to address the serious problems of Canada's agricultural producers, who are suffering from increasing subsidized competition, rising input costs—

Earlier, the member for Louis-Hébert reminded us that financial assistance has been declining since 1993. Yet, costs are rising and we know that the industry is becoming increasingly specialized. There is a need for research and money, but the members opposite are living in a dream world.

Now, let us look at natural disasters. There is a disaster; it is noted; the affected farmers are asked to be patient and told that, when they file their income tax return, the government will look into it. Then the government gets busy juggling figures while the farmers have time to go belly up, as they have no way out.

This government is trying to convince us it can handle crises. This is ridiculous, because we are already close to one. Members can imagine what things would be like if there were really a crisis. The entire country would be in a real mess.

I am therefore calling upon this government once again to show some leadership, courage and vision, to show some sign of being a government capable of understanding the situation. The year is not 1949 or 1959; it is 1999, with the third millennium just around the corner. Yet this government continues to maintain rigid policies, policies that lack any flexibility and continue to heavily penalize agricultural producers.

I maintain that this government has chalked up a total failure in its vision, in its approach to the reality of Canada's and Quebec's farmers, and in its strategy. I say to my Liberal friends, wake up before it is too late.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being no further members rising, it being 1.55 p.m. it is my duty to inform the House that the proceedings on the motion have expired.

I would suggest that we begin Statements by Members. Is that agreeable to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Business Registration

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to open the newest one stop business registration service for the SUCCESS program in Vancouver last week. The SUCCESS program allows new and existing entrepreneurs to register their businesses in one place at one time. It is a fine example of government cutting red tape for small business owners and I am sure that is something we can all be proud of.

Taxation

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I call this a tribute to the finance minister, “The boy who would be king”:

There once was a finance guy, we all know who, He taxed us all heavily, both me and

others who begged him to give them a break but he told them rudely to jump in the

queue behind lots of his Liberal friends A queue that was Liberal beginning to

enter the conscience of taxpayers all so much that they each made a telephone

payment including that bad GST the one that reminded us both you and

Ministers who can remember the time when one of their number was forced to

remember the words that had caused such a flap to kill and abolish and otherwise

scrape up excuses for why they didn't act just one of the times they didn't stick to the

favourite line of our finance guy I'll lower your taxes one day, would I

liven things up with a tax cut or two I'll tell you right now that's one thing he won't

bother to help out the average guy so long as he pulls the wool over their...

I guess the finance guy, till his last breath will tax us and tax us and tax us to

much.

International Day Of Tolerance

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the international day of tolerance as declared by the United Nations in 1995.

This day serves as a reminder of our obligation to inform society and make it aware that diversity and individual differences are an asset to our world.

We must extinguish ignorance and fear, the main sources of intolerance, through education, the most effective means of prevention. We must work hard to remove all barriers and promote equality in order to allow tolerance to thrive. As the world becomes more diverse and interdependent, tolerance becomes fundamental to the survival of mankind.

Canada has prospered in diversity. We, as Canadians, have succeeded to live in harmony, to grow as a multicultural, multiracial and multiethnic nation, and to promote and be the role model for a tolerant society.

Our duty as Canadian parliamentarians is to prevent the intolerance of today from becoming the conflict of tomorrow. Let us strive in unity to achieve worldwide tolerance.

Canadian Forces

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this year for the first time in 12 years there was an increase in the defence budget aimed specifically at improving the remuneration and quality of life of our Canadian forces. This badly needed increase should be only the first in a series of careful reinvestments by our government in Canada's military.

At a time when Canada is more committed than ever to our vital role as a peacekeeper, it is essential that our forces be trained and equipped as well as possible. Make no mistake, our forces do an excellent job with the people and the equipment they currently have. However, they are stretched to the limit and we must address that fact.

The people of Canada understand and agree that it is time to reinvest in our military. It is time to reinvest in our military. It is time to reinvest in our military.

Taxation

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government thinks that Canadians' paycheques are not really their own. Liberals believe that one-half of every paycheque should be confiscated from the person who earned it. The Liberals are ripping off Canadians.

When my wife and I were first married, many years ago, we decided that she would be a full time mom and I would earn the family income. At that time we were able to meet our needs on my modest salary, including purchasing our first home. That is because my pay stub tax bite was only about 15%. Now Canadian taxpayers are losing nearly half of their income to the taxman.

Over the last 30 years Canadians have paid an increasing proportion of their earnings in taxes to heavy-handed, uncaring, uncompassionate Liberal and Tory governments. Canadians want to keep more of the money they work so hard to earn.

The Liberals keep saying that they have lowered taxes, but the pay stub evidence shows that is not factually correct. It is time for the Liberals to either lower taxes or get out.

Youth Violence

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, two nights ago a 15 year old Toronto youth died tragically in what appears to be a brutal, random, unprovoked attack of violence.

Matthew Baranovski and his friends appear to have been minding their own business when they were set upon by a larger group for no apparent reason and the community is in shock.

Now the experts and the media are wringing their hands in horror, asking what is happening to our youth. I have news for them. This is nothing new.

Seven years ago my son Jesse suffered a similar fate under very, very similar circumstances. The entire country was shocked with the murder of Reena Virk in 1997. On Halloween last year Clayton McGloan was swarmed, beaten and stabbed to death in Calgary. Last June Jonathon Wamback was viciously beaten in Newmarket and left in a coma. Fortunately he survived and will hopefully recover. I could go on and on but my time is limited.

Seven years ago I said that Jesse would not be the last, and nothing has changed. On behalf of all parents who have lost sons or daughters to youth violence, our hearts go out to Matthew's family. But sadly, Matthew Baranovski will not be the last, and still this government continues to tinker.

Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we can learn much from democracy. Take, for example, the Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar byelection.

We learn that hateful, underhanded, dirty election tricks not only serve to undermine Canadians' faith in our democratic process, they do not work. We learn that when a federal government cynically turns its back on communities suffering the worst agricultural crisis since the great depression, those communities not only remember, they take action. But most of all we learn that when a community wants a representative who stands up for its interests, who will not abandon that community in its time of crisis, there is only one choice: the New Democratic Party of Canada.

On behalf of the NDP caucus, congratulations to the voters of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar on electing their new member of parliament, Dennis Gruending.