Joe McGuire

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question posed by the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre I want to say that while overall the agriculture and agri-food sector is strong and makes a significant contribution to the Canadian economy, the government knows that the past year has not been an easy one for many producers.

The updated projections released on November 2 were produced jointly with the provinces. The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food does not produce incorrect or misleading information. The same people who predicted the minus $48 million were the same people who revised the projections to $325 million.

The $325 million upward revision between the July and November projections for 1999 is mainly the result of an increase in NISA payments and cattle and durum wheat receipts, combined with the decrease in operating costs, in particular pesticide and fertilizer. Statistics Canada estimates of farm cash receipts for January to September 1999 are in line with the October forecast for the prairies of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

However, the farm income forecasts are not the most important numbers. The numbers are fluid and changing. Whatever the numbers turn out to be they are just that, numbers. The real subject here is people, not income forecasts.

The government has introduced changes to the AIDA program that will benefit many producers across the country. We will now be covering a portion of negative margins, which occur when a farm has a particularly bad year and the operation has insufficient revenues to cover variable costs for fuel, machinery repair and chemicals.

Farmers now have the option to make a one time choice in 1999 of the reference period on which the claimant calculation for AIDA is based. They will be able to choose either the previous three years or three of the previous five when the high and low income years are not counted.

In provinces where the federal government delivers the program we are committed to having the processing of AIDA claims completed by Christmas.

[Trade, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's agricultural industry, especially western Canada's agricultural industry, depends on international trade rules that all countries abide by. Canada is in Seattle to put those agreements in place so our farmers will be competing against farmers, not against foreign treasuries.

[Agriculture, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, our government is on record as saying that one of our first priorities is to reduce international trade subsidies and domestic subsidies. That is what we are doing in Seattle today and what we will continue to do.

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

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?

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

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.

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

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.

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

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.

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering when I was listening to the speeches by the member for Fundy—Royal and the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac what would have been their reaction if last February the government had reacted to Mr. Christmas' request to open up the fishery to the first nations of Atlantic Canada.

Can we imagine the howls of derision from members on that side of the House, or from that member when she was on the other side the House, if the government unilaterally gave away the fishing rights to the aboriginals? Can we imagine the howls and screaming that would be coming from the opposite benches that we should be able to read the minds of the supreme court justices the same as they were able to read the minds of the lower court justices in Nova Scotia?

They are standing up holier than thou to say that we should have been prepared, that we should have been able to read the minds of the supreme court justices and that we should have shared earlier, and maybe we should have, with the aboriginals.

Can we imagine what would have happened if DFO had called a meeting to bring all sides together and said they would be sharing the Atlantic fishery because Donald Marshall has a case going to the courts and may lose it? Can we imagine what would have happened if DFO pre-empted that decision by negotiating something before the courts had a chance to see it? Can we imagine what the reaction would have been from over there?

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member for Sydney—Victoria a question with regard to the government not being prepared for the situation in agriculture.

We just had an agriculture standing committee meeting this morning where we had representatives from the Royal Bank, which is the largest lender in the agricultural field in Canada, and the Farm Credit Corporation as witnesses in our attempt to find out what the underlying causes are of the current crisis, especially in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Their testimony was very surprising in a number of areas. The witness from the Royal Bank said that he had just come back from a North American banking conference in Colorado where at least six American banks held up the NISA program as an example of where the Americans should be going as far as farm safety nets were concerned. Their views on AIDA were described as a program for the times that addressed the situation as it exists today. The Royal Bank representatives said that they have approximately 15,000 farmers dealing with their bank and that there are 350 farmers in arrears, and many of those they are not worried about.

With respect to NISA and AIDA, the people who are lending money to farmers are not experiencing the crisis. They debunk the idea that this is a crisis that could be comparable to the 1930s, the dust bowl and the depression. The people who are lending the money do have concerns but they are not in the crisis mode that a lot of people in the opposition are who are around the prairie provinces holding community meetings.

There are many farmers who will go bankrupt, but as was stated, there are always people in businesses, whether it is farming, the corner garage or whatever, who get into business and go out of business. However, the people who are lending farmers the dollars and who expect the dollars to be repaid are not in the crisis mode that the motion is portraying. How would the member respond to that?

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about novels and novel foods in the same breath.

The agriculture committee had hearings into genetically modified foods two years ago, long before it became the issue of the day. The hon. member should talk to her colleague about the contributions we have made to the government's position on genetically modified foods and on labelling.

We have talked to consumers, scientists and all the partners who were involved in biotechnology. We are on a plane that will take us to either voluntary or compulsory food labelling.