Don Boudria

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I want to draw the attention of this House to the policy and initiatives of the government regarding an important sector of the Canadian economy. I am referring to the agricultural and agri-food industry. More specifically, I want to talk about the dairy, poultry and pork industries, for which quotas are in place.

Mr. Speaker, as the member representing the riding next to mine, I am sure you will agree on the importance of quotas in the agricultural sector.

The main objective of the Liberal government's agricultural policy is food security for Canadians and decent revenues for all our farmers. Supply management, which is a system put in place by a Liberal government almost a quarter of a century ago, confirms the merits and the success of this policy.

You all remember former Liberal minister Eugene Whelan. I know that the hon. member for Québec-Est knew him well, because I think that at one time he worked in his office. Mr. Whelan's daughter is now a member of this House and she also does a very good job of representing the interests of farmers, as do the hon. members for Haldimand-Norfolk and Prince Edward-Hastings, and also the minister of agriculture.

As I said, in the early seventies, the Liberal government of the time put in place regulated marketing programs for the dairy, poultry and pork industries. This system is based on two basic principles: domestic production quotas and, of course, efficient control over imports to protect the quotas.

Supply management stabilized farmers' revenues, and ensured the supply of top quality and healthy food products to Canadians, while also providing an important regional economic development tool.

For the benefit of opposition members I would like to mention again the considerable accomplishments of this government regarding supply management. Less than six weeks after being elected, the government had already negotiated an agreement under GATT which is acceptable to the agricultural sector, and which ensures that supply management will enable us to meet the challenges ahead and take advantage of the opportunities provided by GATT. This is what we call effective and concerted action.

I would like to quote from an article written by Mr. Pierre Glaude and published in the December 20, 1993 issue of Agricom, a newspaper in my riding: "The goal is the same", said the new chairman of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, Mr. Laurent Pellerin, "only the means to reach it have changed. The organization is trying to reassure its members. Under the new GATT agreement, supply management programs will be maintained through tariffs".

In other words, contrary to what some members opposite have said, the spokespersons for the Quebec agricultural community consider that the measures taken by our government were successful in protecting our quotas.

Not only in Quebec do farmers and their representatives make such statements. In my riding, people agree. Representatives of the farm industry maintain that the new tariffs will protect our quota systems.

This may be the best argument I could use to show how much Canadian farmers still have confidence in our quota system and why members opposite should not try to undermine that. The confidence of our farmers is what enables us to maintain the value of our quotas. Quotas have increased in value since the GATT accord was signed. What does this tell us? It tells us that the agricultural community is confident and takes position that supply management will be around for a long time. After all, people do not buy quotas, and certainly not on credit, when they expect these quotas be phased out very shortly. The agricultural community believes, as we do, that quotas will be around for a long time and will be protected by the new tariffs negotiated with other countries.

Speaking of tariffs, I have here, as I mentioned it this morning, a list of the tariffs tabled by our government at GATT, and I want to point out that the United States raised no objections to these tariffs. We must have tabled hundreds of pages of agricultural tariffs in Marrakesh, but no objections were raised by the United States. In the dairy sector, tariffs of around 300 per cent were mentioned, and I disagree with the way the Reform Party Member calculated the price of those tariffs. In any case, these tariffs will be reduced by 15 per cent over a period of six years, not 15 per cent annually but 15 per cent over six years.

In the Liberal red book, and especially in the policy paper on agriculture, the government was committed to staunchly defending our supply management programs at the GATT negotiations. That is what the Liberal government did, and it succeeded. It managed to obtain a tariff system under which we will be able to maintain our marketing boards and supply management and everything that entails. As a result, the impact of fluctuating prices will be kept to a minimum and farmers as well as food processors will be guaranteed a decent income.

During the Uruguay round, the Liberal government did everything it could to defend Canada's supply management system. We should remember that the position of the Canadian government during the weeks leading up to the GATT agreement was established in consultation with the agricultural sector. Furthermore, the minister of agriculture worked very hard with colleagues and senior officials to ensure that all sectors in Canada's agriculture industry would not only survive GATT but also be able to take advantage of the opportunities provided in the GATT agreement.

Earlier, the Official Opposition's finance critic said that everyone in the agriculture industry had lost at GATT, but nothing could be further from the truth. The agricultural industry made major gains at GATT, and all members opposite know that perfectly well. They know about the US farm bill which dates back to 1985 and which the United States used to subsidize its agricultural industry and thus harm our exports.

Some US $70 billion were paid out during the first five years of this American farm program, and we know that the purpose of this program was to take away part of the market share held by other countries, especially countries in the southern hemisphere, but of course Canada was also affected by the U.S. Farm Bill, though it was not the main target. The United States wanted to react against overproduction and the fact that other countries, after the crisis in Afghanistan, had tried to sell wheat and other products to the Soviet Union and thus take over part of the so-called traditional market share of the Americans.

The members opposite know this, just as they know that our farmers could no longer continue receiving large farm subsidies, given the major losses experienced in the sector. Some members opposite even admitted as much a while ago. That is why the government had to work with other countries for the good of the entire agricultural community.

First, it had to work to strengthen the laws governing supply management. As we know, there were problems with some of these laws. You may recall the incident with ice cream and yogurt, following the adoption in 1988 of the free trade agreement, which moreover was endorsed by the current Leader of the Opposition. Hon. members will also recall that the FTA led us to lose our case with respect to quotas on ice cream and yogurt. These were restored with the GATT agreement.

With respect to the grains sector, some of the subsidies from other countries have been reduced, thereby allowing us to market our products. New markets have been found for Canadian products. Our ministers have worked hard and so has the parliamentary secretary. The agricultural sector has been well treated by our government and we have just begun our work. We have only been in office for six months and we have already accomplished a great deal. And we will accomplish even more in the future.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague across the way who just gave us this very excellent discourse is an accountant by profession. Obviously he knows how to count things well and proper.

I wonder how he can reconcile for me the Bloc Quebecois policy whereby on the one hand it is saying today that we must reduce the number of specialists in agriculture and hire-as the member for Quebec-Est said this morning-more farmers to be in the agriculture department. A couple of hours later it was saying hire more scientists in agriculture, which is the opposite of the previous argument.

I wonder if he can also tell us what he thinks as an accountant of a party that asks us to decrease overall budgetary expenditures and at the same time today is telling us that we are not spending enough.

Can he reconcile that kind of accounting for us, because I am having some difficulty. Perhaps the professional judgment of my colleague across can help us understand this Bloc Quebecois modern math.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Yes.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Québec-Est will straighten his colleague out when he gets a chance to talk to him a bit and explain a few facts.

The hon. member for Québec-Est surely knows that the United States of America did not challenge a single tariff established by Canada.

It had until April 15 to do so. I have the list in front of me, page after page of tariffs.

Therefore, this is the final list for agricultural tariffs and not one was challenged by the United States. Did the hon. member opposite know that? According to the comments he made previously, I would say he did not.

Second, the hon. member talked about durum wheat. Does he know that Canada won four times over that issue? If you will allow an expression used in hockey, and we talked about hockey last evening in this House, it is four to nothing. We have won four to nothing.

The United States took us to the GATT and we have won four times to date. If we were successful four times in a row, one need not be a lawyer from Baie-Comeau to understand that we will win a fifth time. The Canadian government is protecting Canadian farmers, it is doing all it can for them. Therefore, to describe the situation in such a way and to refer to sovereignty as a means to end the debate is something else. Members opposite may mix sovereignty with ice cream or with wheat, or even the three together when it suits them, but the truth is a bit different.

We are talking about the loss of article XI of the GATT. I have before me an article published in a francophone paper of my riding and I call upon the hon. member to give an answer to all this.

If what he is saying is true, how does he explain, for instance, that according to some agricultural journals, and I will quote only the title since time is running out: "Despite the loss of article XI of the Gatt, Canadian supply management programs are safe"? I could read one quote after another from agricultural journals stating that our quotas are safe. How does he explain that quotas are protected in the opinion of the agricultural community but not in the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois? Could it be that the Bloc members do not support quotas?

[National Sport Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, here we are at the beginning of the parliamentary season and tonight we are already going into overtime.

The speeches from members across the way could be characterized as very careful stick handling. The House of Commons today will score with all Canadians, I am sure, when we pass this bill. A referee of the NHL is in the Chair as we are having this debate, and I am speaking of you, Mr. Speaker. I think the parliamentary secretary has scored a hat trick with all three readings in one day. This is a shoot out for the member for Kamloops because in the end, he is going to have the winning goal.

We achieved all of this without penalty. Mr. Speaker, I hope you do not think I am offside for making these remarks as we are approaching the termination of the debate.

The net gain in all of this is that Canadians will win and no one will lose. This has to be the only game in town where you have winners and no losers. Indeed, this is a victory for the Canadian hockey team with a very large C .

The Canadian team has just won. And tonight, all of us will be winners when we adopt this bill.

[National Sport Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent to prolong the debate for a maximum of one-half hour or at the collapse of the debate, whichever comes first, in order to permit more members to participate.

[Income Security, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased when I read the motion. In the beginning I searched to see whether it was from the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing or put forward by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Of course, as we know, the two hon. members have the same surname, and that has caused some confusion. I thank the hon. member opposite for fully supporting this government's policy, seeing that by and large, what he is proposing in his motion is in fact what this government is seeking, and indeed has undertaken, to do.

I am sure the hon. member across has read the red book. I say that because of the way his motion is written. He has inspired himself with Liberal policies. I am very glad though that he has done so. I do not agree with the text of his presentation to the House today but I do agree with his motion.

For instance, today he complimented the provincial government of Saskatchewan for its social policy. My very distinguished colleague from the riding of Prince Albert has just informed me that a number of hospitals were closed in his riding alone. Can you imagine that? That is the kind of policy that gets praise from the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.

He also complimented the NDP generally. I am sure it was an oversight on his part. I cannot for the life of me think of anyone wanting to compliment Bob Rae for any of his policies, particularly social policy, job creation policy and tax policy, in the province where you and I have the honour and privilege to represent constituents, namely the province of Ontario.

In my area in Ontario we have seen the devastation of NDP provincial policies. We have seen what they have done to our area. It is more than a passing coincidence that every single NDP candidate, every single NDP MP in Ontario without exception, was soundly defeated. That tells you something. The NDP in my riding got approximately 4 per cent of the votes. That tells you what the people thought of that party.

I get back to the motion because it is a good motion. I want to read portions of the red book. I know that all members of the House will consider it a privilege. Reading from page 22 of the red book, let me read the following:

The federal and provincial governments share common problems of too much government debt, too much foreign owned debt, and too high borrowing requirements, domestically and internationally. All three levels of government put the burden of these problems on the same taxpayer who is subject to taxes on income, capital and consumption. To this list governments add other charges in the form of licences, permits, user fees, and additional payroll deductions. A Liberal government will work closely with the provincial governments to achieve maximum possible co-ordination of tax policies.

That is just the kind of thing that is advocated in the motion. I read further, Mr. Speaker, from the red book because I know that you would want me to do this. It says the following:

In the first session of the new Parliament the Liberal government will give the all party finance committee of the House of Commons a 12-month mandate to consult fully with Canadians and provincial governments and to report on the ways to achieve tax fairness, simplicity and harmonization.

That is the exact thing that is asked for in the motion. Let me read the motion a little bit here. It says:

That the government should consider the advisability of ensuring that the reform of the tax system is harmonized and integrated with review and reform-

And so on. This is exactly what our government is doing. I am sorry I was interrupted in my reading of the red book and we should never do that to the red book. I continue:

In particular, the committee will be mandated to report on all options for alternatives to the current GST. A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system

that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers, to small business, minimizes disruption to small business and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization.

So, you see, Mr. Speaker, that is what the Liberal Party was suggesting during the last election campaign and we, of course, had made our intentions known in the red book, from which I have just quoted.

But that is not all, Mr. Speaker. As you know, earlier this year, the Minister of Finance tabled a budget, a budget that this House has passed.

In this budget, we have made good our promises, if not all at least most of our election promises, and this just in the first year of our mandate. So, you see, Mr. Speaker, I think that on the strength of this first budget alone, this government would deserve to be re-elected. Of course, in the years to come, we will give the public many more reasons to re-elect us, as the hon. members opposite will learn to appreciate.

In our red book, and again in the budget, we promised to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP within three years. There it is, in the budget.

Also in the budget: to implement a national program to renew infrastructure; restore funding for the National Literacy Program; establish a Youth Service Corps; provide new youth internship and apprenticeship programs; improve access to capital for small business; replace the GST; re-institute the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program; create a Canadian information highway. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. Perhaps I should: set up a Technology Partnership Program; launch an Engineers and Scientists Program, and so on.

These are all things that we had promised in the red book, electoral promises that we are acting on.

There are two main thrusts. The first one is to make the tax system better, more balanced and more in line with our social programs.

I will now outline the second.

The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development proposed to this House a change in the system in which we deliver social programs. Much to the chagrin of some opposition members, we are proceeding to do exactly what the motion is asking us.

The Minister of Human Resources Development has mandated a committee to do some work. Stage one of that will be hearings by this committee, federal-provincial and territorial labour market and social services ministers to meet and to discuss this, later on a task force to advise the minister and then an action plan to be drafted and presented in this House.

I congratulate the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing for supporting so wholeheartedly the policies of our government.

[Petitions, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 1,000 Canadians from several communities in a number of provinces.

The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament not to repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide and euthanasia.

I wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to indicate to you and to the House that I fully concur with the views expressed in this petition.

[Committees Of The House, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Committees Of The House, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees.

If the House gives its unanimous consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 17th report later this day.