Debates of May 10th, 1999

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this motion is unparliamentary and undemocratic. On behalf of my constituents I will vote against it.

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I support the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 423

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. The next question is on third reading of Bill C-72.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find consent in the House to record the members who have just voted as voting on the motion now before the House, with Liberals voting yes.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the taxes are too high. We are voting no to this motion.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will vote in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the taxes are unfair. The NDP members vote no to this motion.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members who are present will vote against the motion.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government still has to scrap the GST, so I vote no to this motion.

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I support the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 424

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

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

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part tonight in the adjournment proceedings to discuss the upcoming negotiations on agriculture within the World Trade Organization.

As I stated in the House on April 19, it is important that the government be familiar with the views of all parts of the agriculture sector that may be positively or adversely affected by the trade talks.

In Canada, agricultural trade is more often than not a small family business competing against the world's largest corporations. In many ways it is like David versus Goliath, which makes it vitally important that we have a strong, consistent federal government looking out for the interests of agriculture.

We need rules that let the small guy trade with the big. We are all for world trade, but only if the rules are applied equally. Let us look at the recent example of Canadian beef not being allowed access to the European Union. I support our government's efforts to get tough by using the rules already in place to take action against the EU.

Trade rules applied equally and fairly are sentiments shared by many groups, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, but also the Ontario wheat producers, Ontario pork producers and Ontario dairy farmers to name but a few from my province.

Horticulture too is import sensitive but export dependent. This sector is but one example of the great stake they hold in the talks.

These negotiations, scheduled for November 30 to December 3 in Seattle, are crucial to Canadian egg, dairy and poultry farmers. They want the WTO to focus on eliminating subsidies, suggesting that the United States and the European Union still continue to subsidize their farmers while Canada has lived up to its previous commitments.

It is great to be free traders in Canada, but the world also must be fair traders.

Tariff rate quotas must also be set realistically and not artificially inflated according to the amount the importing countries can actually accept or afford.

We have known for two years in advance that agriculture will be on the bargaining table at the next WTO talks. For those years meetings have been held by Agriculture Canada officials with a cross section of producers groups. Meanwhile, our supply management system has proven year in and year out its effectiveness.

The new issues that should emerge in Seattle this fall will deal with biotech products and single desk buying and selling. Canada currently cannot send genetically altered canola to Europe any longer because of their fear of genetics, based on Britain's mad cow disease.

Members will know that there are no black and whites in trade, just varying shades of grey. Thus it is important that Canada stick to a position based on the views of all our agriculture sectors and not trade one off against the other. It is a tough row to hoe because of the very complicated issues that will discussed.

I remain hopeful that the World Trade Organization negotiations this fall will work toward implementing effective rules that will be fairly enforced enabling our agricultural producers to compete head on with a level playing field.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for her question. She is a strong member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. She has shown a great and abiding interest in Canada's upcoming negotiations with our WTO partners.

These are crucial talks and the government has a firm commitment to consult closely with the agriculture and food sector and with provincial governments before its establishes an initial negotiating position for the upcoming World Trade Organization negotiations on agriculture.

Recently in Ottawa, people from all parts of the agriculture and food sector and from all regions of the country came together to provide their advice about the elements of an initial Canadian position.

The conference heard that Canada should seek to eliminate export subsidies in the upcoming negotiations. Participants also indicated that Canada should push to improve market access, particularly with respect to minimum access commitments. Industry participants called for clearer rules and stronger disciplines on trade distorting domestic subsidies.

Finally, the industry indicated that Canada should continue to insist that health and safety standards should be based on science not emotion.

These are some of the main highlights of the discussion. The government has listened carefully to all the views expressed at the conference and they will be considered as we work to develop a negotiating position.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his provincial counterparts will discuss the outcome of the consultations at their meeting in Prince Albert this coming July. The government will then take a decision on an initial agricultural negotiating position that will truly reflect the needs and interests of Canadian agriculture in the food sector.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my four minute speech will not be a love in like the one we just heard. The House is now going to hear some real opposition.

The auditor general recently came out with his report. Chapter 4 discusses the incredible deficiencies within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Recently I asked a question of the minister and got an answer back from the parliamentary secretary regarding shrimp discarding or high-grading.

About a year ago in committee, the member for Labrador asked if there was massive high-grading of shrimp and discarding of small pieces of broken shrimp going on within our 200 mile limit off the coast of Labrador. A letter from industry addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and copied for all members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans stated that high-grading was extremely rare and does not happen as massively or as proportionately as the member for Labrador had indicated.

In a recent meeting we had with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I asked if high-grading or discarding of shrimp happened within our 200 mile limit off the coast of Labrador? The answer was a very solid yes. The next question was how much of this was happening? The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated that he did not know the answer.

It only leads us to believe that the member from Labrador, who is in the government's own party, was correct when he said there were very large amounts of high-grading and discarding of shrimp going on within the 200 mile limit. That begs the question: How can this happen?

The government has announced in its recent estimates for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans a further cut of 17%, totalling $54 million, to science and research over the next three years. This is at a time when the world is clamouring for more scientific information.

We just heard the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture say that what we need is good science. The auditor general has indicated, and I hope he is listening, that 5,000 scientists have been cut from the federal service. These are up and coming scientists, scientists with basic knowledge and long term knowledge of the various industries.

The government talks about needing better science. We cannot have better science if it keeps laying them all off. There are two things we can do to scientists to ruin their careers: take away their funding and discredit their reports. That is what happens here all the time.

We recently had a concern about seals. There were two prominent scientists from Newfoundland, who indicated we have to have a seal cull and the other indicated we cannot have a seal cull.

If the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not the final source of good, solid, sound information, then where do the fishermen and their communities get this information from?

I am asking the parliamentary secretary to answer the following questions. How can the government justify a $54 million cut to science? What is the government doing about the high-grading of shrimp, that is the discarding of shrimp off our coastal waters? Will the government put science back into the information so that fishermen, plant workers, communities and the provinces can have sound, long term management plans for the fisheries off our east coast?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, we would not expect a love-in from the hon. member opposite but we certainly would like him to get his facts straight. He is considerably wrong on some of his facts this evening.

I will deal first with the high-grading of northern shrimp. There is no question the department is concerned about this practice which is illegal and wastes shrimp. As a result the minister announced increased observer coverage and comparisons of observed and unobserved catches in the inshore fishery. That is a practice that has been going on. There is greater evidence that kind of observer system works. It was talked about at committee the other day, I believe, by the minister.

This will provide better data on what is happening on the water and will allow the detection of violations. The auditor general, and I hope he is listening as well, commented positively on these measures as steps being taken by the department to better monitor the fishery and to better use observer data. That is a step forward.

The overriding concern of the minister is to conserve living marine resources and to ensure they are used in a sustainable manner. In all fisheries, decisions on quota levels are based on the best scientific information available. It is not just numbers of scientists. It is how that information is collected, how it is tabulated and how decisions are made. If this information is uncertain, we err on the side of caution, meaning that quotas might be set lower and additional conservation measures might be introduced.

Keep in mind that these are temporary allocations that are recommended and can be withdrawn when the science dictates otherwise.

[The Speaker]

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

(The House adjourned at 7.28 p.m.)