Howard Hilstrom

[Agriculture, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers' worst fears were realized at the WTO talks in Seattle. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food failed to get any movement on foreign subsidies. Even the Minister for International Trade has been quoted as saying that there was a lack of leadership at those talks.

Now that the minister has failed at the WTO, what is he going to do to help farmers suffering from foreign subsidies?

[Agriculture, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals seem to think that the millennium round means that they have a thousand years to negotiate. Farmers will not survive on Liberal promises.

The Prime Minister has had since 1993 to negotiate reductions in foreign farm subsidies. He has not even tried. Why is the Prime Minister willing to sacrifice thousands of farmers by waiting another five to ten years hoping for subsidy reductions?

[Agriculture, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government has stated that reductions in agriculture subsidies will be a priority in the WTO millennium round of trade negotiations. However, these talks will take up to five years to complete. Farmers cannot wait for five years for these talks to be successful. Foreign subsidies are driving them into bankruptcy today.

Why is the Prime Minister refusing to launch a team Canada mission to Europe and Washington aimed at reducing agriculture subsidies immediately?

[Globalization Of Economies, November 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. His motion deals with the repercussions of globalization on economies of the world and certainly the concept of preserving social cohesiveness in the countries so affected.

The hon. member does not seem to be entirely in favour of globalization in his motion. He uses as his example the motion passed in parliament in 1989 regarding the eradication of child poverty. The Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives have both been in government since that date. I note that child poverty has been raised in the House and is now considered to be a more serious issue than it was even at that time.

The problem solving of those two governments has ended with them blaming others and now blaming globalization for the failure of their domestic policies on child poverty. I would hope that in the future that we will have another debate on child poverty. The Reform way of dealing with major issues like that one and social issues which have a domestic solution to them is to set out clear and concise steps that can be taken, are measurable and will result in a solution.

Many people are throwing around the term globalization. I think there is an unclear concept of what is globalization. Special interest groups, for instance the Council of Canadians, have a very closed concept of what globalization should mean. To them it seems like globalization means that Canada should have rules in the world for other nations to follow, that Canada should be able to protect its national interest and be relatively isolationist if it cannot dictate rules to other people. That way Canada would be able to protect its civil society and its concept of how the world should be run. It is the concept of government knows best, which is a detraction from free trade in the world.

My definition of globalization is simply that it is the interaction of people of different nations in all aspects of the human existence, which would include trade as one of the major components.

Globalization is neither inherently good nor bad. It is simply a fact. Globalization has been with us since the beginning of man in Africa many millions of years ago. Globalization is, as I said, most obvious in the trade of goods and services between nations. The most successful nations of the world have always been those which are successful in trading with their neighbours.

Since the second world war there have been eight rounds of world trade talks. The talks which are beginning in Seattle represent the ninth round. We can only hope that those talks will be successful.

The first half of this century saw two world wars. At that time trade and empires were built on the foundation of force. The second half of this century has seen no world wars. This is no doubt due in large part to the interaction of nations on an economic level through trade as opposed to the isolationist and self-sufficient concept which many nations have.

North Korea is the best example of the danger to the stability of a region, and ultimately to the whole world, due to its socialistic and isolationist policies. It tried very hard to be self-sufficient without trading. We saw the disaster that has had, not only on the country but on its neighbours, as it felt the need to have missiles instead of trade agreements settle disputes.

I would now like to speak specifically about the agricultural component of our trade talks that are starting in Seattle. Supply management is an important part of Canadian agriculture. Prior to the 1993 conclusion of the Uruguay round, supply management was clearly a domestic industry, not participating in the world trading scene through the use of highly restrictive import quotas. The Progressive Conservatives began the process of trading away the status quo of supply management when they negotiated the changes to import tariffs, designed to be reduced ultimately to zero. The Liberals were part of the final negotiations, and on being elected in 1993, signed the agreement. Both parties have tried to put forth the conception that they will defend supply management to the end. The Liberals in particular have stated this concept. I do not know if farmers really believe that the government's promises will be kept. The Reform Party supports supply management and is unequivocal in telling the government that it is not to reduce our tariffs at a rate faster than the U.S. and the EU reduce their protectionist measures of the supply management sector, in particular the dairy sector.

I note that this motion seems to have two components. I think that one part of the motion certainly has some merit in the idea that a committee should be struck to look at the impacts of the fur trade, for example, and the whole globalization issue and the interaction of peoples around the world. I think it would be good for parliament to have such a committee.

However, I am concerned that the real purpose of this motion is to block further gains at the next round of World Trade Organization talks. We can only look at what is happening in Seattle at this very moment. Apparently there are in the neighbourhood of 50,000 protesters at the talks who have the stated goal of disrupting and ending the talks. Certainly the David Suzuki-type environmentalists are there. The Council of Canadians with its socialist activities is going to have it its way or no way. I think the world should simply look at these groups and say “You folks have had your say, but you are not going to have your way and impose your concept of trade on the whole world”. I am sure that is where it will end and that saner heads will prevail.

It has been stated many times in the past that Canada is a trading nation. Statistics tell us that 43% of Canada's gross domestic product is earned from trade exports. In the U.S. the percentage of trade is 12% of its gross domestic product. This means that we in Canada rely to a greater extent on trade than many other nations. As a result, the Seattle talks of the World Trade Organization are of great importance.

I am certainly pleased to see that China has agreed to become part of the world trade talks and that other countries have welcomed it. As I stated earlier, the danger of not having every country involved in these talks is great.

Our farmers are currently in the middle of an income crisis. The primary cause of this crisis is the subsidies of the European Union and the United States which cause the overproduction of many commodities. European wheat farmers, for example, receive 56% of their income from government and in the U.S. it is around 38%.

Reform's position on agriculture in the next round of WTO talks, to put it succinctly, is that we want to allow Canadian farmers and the Canadian food industry to reach their full potential. We will vigorously seek to free entry of Canadian products into foreign markets. That is what we are pressing the government to do. We should accept nothing less than having subsidies in other countries reduced. That will have the effect of lowering production around the world of certain commodities, in particular export grains. With that lower production prices will go up and our farmers will have the level playing field that is so important to our economic well-being.

[Agriculture, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister has promised on behalf of the government that farmers will receive all the AIDA money owed to them before Christmas this year. Talk about dejà vu.

Similar promises made last December had farmers believing that they would receive their money by the spring of 1999. Many farmers are still waiting. Farmers will not be so forgiving this year.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm today the promise that all outstanding AIDA money will be in the hands of farmers by Christmas this year?

[Farmers, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a recent study has found that suicides are a much more common cause of death on farms than accidents.

This year it is worse than ever. Stress help lines in the prairies are reporting increased caseloads. These calls include people who are considering suicide themselves or are concerned that their partner might end their life.

The root cause of increased work for mental health professionals has been directly attributed to the ongoing farm income crisis. What has the government done to correct this tragedy? I think Janice Archdekin, a Saskatchewan farmer, summed it up best when she said “They do not care that people are dying”.

Last year the minister promised that farmers would receive a bankable plan by Christmas. He broke his promise. He failed to deliver. Last week at the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool's annual meeting the agriculture minister again promised farmers that they would receive their AIDA money by Christmas 1999.

Farmers are not taking the minister's promises seriously any more. I challenge him to add some credibility to his words and pledge to resign if he breaks his promise like he did one year ago.

[Canadian Farmers, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government is failing farmers and misleading Canadians.

It is failing farm families on the edge of bankruptcy. Farms that have been in families for generations will soon belong to the bank.

The government's AIDA program is not delivering. Only 28% of prairie farmers who have applied for AIDA have received a cheque. What about the other 72%? What kind of Christmas will those families have?

The government is not content with ignoring farmers. It is also trying to mislead Canadians into believing that there is no problem on the farm.

The Prime Minister claims that he has given farmers $1.5 billion through the AIDA program. This is just not true. Only 15% of the AIDA money has been delivered.

When the Prime Minister is faced with premiers from western Canada, he invents new statistics to hide the crisis. Why can he not fix the problem instead of trying to sweep farmers under the rug?

It is clear that the Liberals do not care about the farm income crisis and farm families will be left out in the cold this winter.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Palliser is once again dead wrong on his interpretation of what he thinks he heard during the 1993 election. Certainly the Reform Party never ever said that there would not be programs in place to keep the field level for international competition between our farmers and other farmers. That misrepresentation is just the same as when the NDP goes around trying to say that the Reform Party will get rid of medicare or health care, that it will wreck health care and it will be gone forever.

We all ran in the last election. NDP members went around saying that kind of garbage and the voters sent back 60 Reformers and 18 or 19 NDPers. I do not think the interpretation of the Reform platform in the last election, or in the election of 1993, contributed in any what whatsoever to the Liberal government taking virtually all the domestic support away from the farmers of Canada.

Certainly the government is trying to replace it now on the same old ad hoc basis it has been using since the start of Confederation. When there is a problem it tries to figure out something in a hurry. It comes up with details and criteria which do not work because it has not had time to put any thought into it.

Reform is saying “Mr. and Mrs. Voter, give us a chance and we will come up with the long term programs”. We will make sure that Canada can compete with other countries around the world. We will free Canadians so they can do business without as much government interference.

I would invite everyone to compare the NDP platform with what we have done here in Ottawa on behalf of farmers.

Reform is way ahead in asking questions in the House on agriculture. When I look at the opportunity to use supply day motions to discuss agriculture issues, Reform is way ahead. Which party was it that moved for an emergency debate on the grain handlers crisis? It was Reform. The Reform Party got the debate going, but then we learned that a settlement had been reached during the debate.

That is the kind of action we need in Ottawa. Reformers take the bull by the horns and show all other opposition parties, including the NDP, what can be done in moving this country forward.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion brought before the House by the NDP caucus. I will take its details on trade and various other issues and put them into the context of history so that New Democrats understood why the motion cannot be supported by virtually anyone in the House except dyed-in-the-wool socialists.

When we look at the history of trade around the world since recorded times, we see that the most prosperous countries ever to exist had gigantic trading patterns with their neighbours and countries other than themselves. They did not only trade internally, hoping to become more prosperous and have better lives for their citizens as we see in this motion. The Greeks and the Phoenicians relied on trade as do Japan, the U.S. and even Canada today. The motion before us would in effect slam our borders shut until such time as we could dictate to the world what the trading patterns and the details of them should be.

I refer directly to the motion which starts off by saying in the first paragraph that this government has sabotaged Canadian democracy. Does that make everyone feel good when trying to deal with trade issues and negotiate with partners?

The second paragraph says that the government should not negotiate any further liberalization of trade or investment, and it goes on to talk about the WTO and the FTA. If that does not apply to agriculture, which is trade, I do not know what does. Probably the biggest complaint I have about the motion is that we should stop where we are, not move forward and not improve matters for farmers.

As the chief agriculture critic I will make a few more comments about agriculture than other trade issues. As I have pointed out, New Democrats say to the world that either it does as they say on trade agreements or they will not help improve conditions for Canadian farmers or third world farmers through greater trade liberalization and negotiations.

The last paragraph of the motion says:

That the government should take action to remedy its overzealous and irresponsible pursuit of greater trade liberalization, which has caused extreme hardship for Canadian farmers—

When we look at the benefits of trade liberalization for Canadian farmers we know they are better off because of the greater number of exports. Cattle is a great example, as are grains such as canola. Everything is just that much better by having liberalized free trade.

In the last paragraph of the motion the New Democrats are trying to say that Canadian farmers have hit upon a hard time. They had better not be blaming trade liberalization for that. They had better be blaming this government and the previous Conservative government and the signing of the trade treaty in 1993.

It was a start, but when they came home they totally destroyed domestic support programs for agriculture which farmers needed to compete on a level playing field with our neighbours to the south and Europeans. They maintained their domestic support and we slashed ours and put our farmers into bankruptcy. That can only rest on the heads of the Liberals and the Conservatives.

However, the solution according to NDP members would be to stop everything and seal the border. I am paraphrasing a bit because trade would continue, but in essence they want to stop everything and start to talk about getting their way and dictating to the world how things should be before Canada continues with the negotiations.

Reform has been taking good actions and doing what it can in Ottawa. We certainly have solutions to the farm crisis to which the NDP alludes. In the short term domestic support has to be raised with the idea of keeping our farmers competitive with our trading partners who are distorting the market through their domestic subsidy practices.

Also the safety net programs have to be repaired or made current to meet today's conditions. We have seen the failure of AIDA to address the primary needs of many full time producers on average farms. The AIDA program has not served them. This is not a fault of trade. It is a fault of the current government which is more worried about the budget and what the voters think in non-farming areas than it is about farmers who are trying to feed the nation.

One pillar of the Reform Party is that we must have free and fair trade abroad. It is time, as I said, for the government to launch a concerted action to reduce and eventually eliminate foreign subsidies. I know our negotiators will talk about it in the trade negotiations, but what would be the matter with the Prime Minister getting on plane, taking probably the agriculture and trade ministers with him, going to Europe to meet with the Europeans and telling them point blank that enough is enough and they will fight them to the end in this regard? That never happens.

The government, as part of the solution to the hardship experienced by the farmers, could reduce the costs it imposes on farmers out west, in Ontario, in the maritimes and in B.C. For instance, the four cent federal excise tax on every litre of fuel adds up to a lot of money. Many of us still tend to think in terms of gallons. If we multiply that by five it amounts to 20 to 30 cents cents a gallon which farmers are paying. A tractor running in a field burning up 20 gallons an hour soon runs up to a lot of money. Our government could be taking action in that area.

We could help farmers if we would look at letting them do more value added. We have the case of prairie pasta producers who are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps by further processing their durum wheat into pasta flour and products.

What happens is that the Canadian Wheat Board says that it is the controller on behalf of the federal Government of Canada of the wheat trade in the country and that farmers will either deal with the board or be thrown in jail, unless it happens to be Frank Hurley who gets a slap on the wrist.

The average farmer in Manitoba and Saskatchewan will go to jail under this government for selling his own wheat. If it is the last thing I do before I leave this parliament, I guarantee that it will be a voluntary wheat board where a farmer has a choice as to whether or not he is in there participating and sharing in pooling the money he receives for his grain.

I will talk for a minute about the movers of the motion, members of the NDP who aspire to be in government. Certainly the Canadian public and voters do not intend to give them that opportunity. To compare what the NDP has done in parliament with what the Reform Party has done, we only need to look at the Address in Reply to the Speech for the Throne. The leader of the NDP said three little sentences on agriculture. The leader of the opposition from the Reform Party said approximately five or six paragraphs with some real meat and some real understanding of agriculture in Canada. That is the importance we place on it.

In the Standing Committee on Agriculture members of the Reform caucus presented motion after motion which initiated action and got inquiries going into the income crisis. We have had supply day after supply day on agriculture, not on some phony trumped up motion on trade that sets out a manifesto for the NDP with which nobody else agrees. I invite any questions that anyone might like to ask of me.

[Agriculture, November 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister should know that when forecasts are made up by economists and Statistics Canada they use conservative figures that are realistic.

What has happened is that the figures are now reflecting the most optimistic thing the Prime Minister can think of: farmers are doing well; they have $1.5 billion.

Why are they still out there suffering and losing their farms? Has the Prime Minister chosen to listen to bureaucrats instead of farmers?