Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me to speak on agriculture.
I extend my best wishes to the Minister of Agriculture on his return from his Asian trip. He has returned determined to act in the agricultural sector. I know that this is a very difficult field in which to work, and I also know that the Minister is beyond reproach, a person of high calibre in the world of agriculture.
This motion that the government is proposing to us today, dealing with agriculture and agri-food in Canada, must be read carefully. It must be read very carefully because it is made up of mere generalizations about Canada's farm economy, good intentions, statements of fine and good intentions that, for the most part, hide the tough reality that this country's farmers are facing.
It is fine with me if the government is bursting with fine and good intentions about agriculture and if, through its Minister, it makes promising statements about agricultural development; but can the spinelessness, the inertia, the near-paralysis that this government has shown in several fields since being elected barely six months ago be hidden? Can the iniquity that the federal government has shown toward Quebec for many long years be hidden?
In the motion we are debating today, for example, we read, and I quote:
That this House take note of the proactive work that the government is doing- to enhance the agriculture and agri-food sector of Canada's economy-
But I ask you, Madam Speaker, what proactive work has this government done lately? Is it the signing of the GATT, which from several standpoints has been a deep disappointment for Canada's supply-managed sectors, and which has produced for us, among other things, a worrisome situation in the poultry sector? Is it the studies and reports, however manifold, by the kindly officials at Agriculture Canada? Is it the objective of increasing Canadian exports by 50 per cent in order to reach $20 billion by the year 2000?
Madam Speaker, I am quite prepared to be optimistic, like Canada's Minister of Agriculture, and it is quite all right with me if his fine intentions bear fruit, but all his fine words hide another reality: we must not ignore the fact that agriculture, in both the western and eastern parts of this country, is experiencing many significant, serious structural difficulties.
For example, the Minister has just trumpeted the fact that he spent three weeks in Asia to stimulate Canadian farm exports. In fact, the Minister signed one single contract with Korea: one small contract for 50,000 tonnes of feed grains, with a country that has been an established export market for Canada for several years. The Minister hastened to tell us that he has developed, in addition to this small firm contract, several new export possibilities; I stress that they are new export possibilities only, with no firm contracts.
Elsewhere, when we read the media dispatches recounting the ups and downs of his trip, what strikes us most clearly are the criticisms by the Japanese and Chinese of Canada's grain transportation system. That is no small thing, coming from the Japanese and the Chinese, and at a time when we in Canada want to expand our Asian markets. These longstanding customers had so many doubts about our western Canadian grain transportation system that the Chinese, in particular, did not sign a new wheat contract, and the Japanese decided to look elsewhere, to the Australians, for their canola supply; until now, Canada had a near-monopoly in canola exports to Japan.
All this happened because, in 1994, Canada has a grain transportation system that is no more effective than it was in 1908. Is this a reasonable objective, then: is it reasonable to increase Canadian farm exports by 50 per cent in order to reach $20 billion by the year 2000 while, right now, we are incapable of meeting existing contracts because there is a crisis in transportation on the Prairies, costing the entire Canadian economy a great deal of money? This year alone, $35 million will be spent in demurrage costs of ships waiting to load in the port of Vancouver.
Canada has already lost sales of approximately 200 million tonnes of wheat because of this ineffective and poorly-run transportation system. Listen, getting to and from the port of Vancouver by train is, on average, no faster today than it was 80 years ago. That does not mean that it is not in Canada's interest to increase its exports to Asia. That is even desirable, but if we use plain common sense, should we not first ensure that we have an adequate transportation system enabling us to meet our
existing contracts with foreign countries before compromising ourselves in contracts we will be unable to meet?
That is as if a business person were trying to double his or her customers while not being able to meet the demand from present customers. That thinking shows a certain lack of logic. We can also wonder what Agriculture Canada, the federal government, and the Department of Transport are doing about grain transportation, because this system has been ineffective for more than a decade. It has not been ineffective for only a few months, as the Minister said.
In the 1970s I was an assistant to one of the greatest ministers in Canada's history, Mr. Eugene Whelan, and the grain transportation problem existed then too.
There have been at least three separate federal statutes, two government agencies, two departments, and several other interested parties governing grain transportation: such an administrative mishmash that one wonders whether any planning has taken place.
At least, it is obvious that no one can take responsibility for the present crisis. Mr. Warren Joly of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers' Association said, and I quote:
The Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association said: "We are in this mess because of a disastrous policy and now we are trying to address it with an inefficient, knee-jerk system".
The minister has received a dozen suggestions for improving the system, a very inefficient system. I would even be tempted to ask him to set up a commission of inquiry to find long-term solutions to setting up a transportation system in the West that would meet the needs of Canadians.
And to think that in spite of the crisis the port in Thunder Bay and the St. Lawrence are not used at full capacity. Over the past ten years their use has decreased by nearly 50 per cent. In fact, the seaway is steadily losing quantities of grain to the detriment of eastern ports. Since 1984, the amount of grain transshipped has dropped from 12 million to 6 million tonnes. However, a Great Laker can carry an amount equivalent to 250 railway cars, and the turnaround time in Thunder Bay is four days shorter than it is in Vancouver.
According to Mr. Glen Stewart, president of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, the Western Grain Transportation Act encourages pouring grain into the Pacific ports, and this is detrimental to the St. Lawrence. The situation is understandable up to a point, because we do have more clients now in the Orient than we do in Europe. But this does not explain how grains going to Africa and Europe first go to Vancouver and are then sent through the Panama Canal. Even though there is a crisis in the western grain transportation system, only 35 per cent of the grain goes through Thunder Bay and the St. Lawrence.
Are we to conclude that Agriculture Canada is unable to develop a good western transportation system, or must we conclude that Agriculture Canada is promoting western agriculture to the detriment of the east? Canadian products are of high quality and world renowned, but it is obvious that Agriculture Canada, a part of this federal government, is doing a less than satisfactory job.
As a department, Agriculture Canada has a long history. Initially, its primary responsibility was to ensure western development and, to some extent, Agriculture Canada's attention has remained focussed on the interests of western Canada. Frequently, this duty to promote western development was carry out in a manner that was extremely prejudicial to the interests of Quebec.
We just have to look at the estimates for Agriculture Canada over the past 10 or 15 years. In 1980, for example, Quebec received $300 million from the federal government, and the west, that is, the prairie provinces, received $1 billion-55 per cent of Agriculture Canada's budget. In 1987, Quebec received $410 million, while the West received $4 billion-76 per cent of the total budget. Last year, Quebec received $372 million, while the West received $1.5 billion-more than 50 per cent of Agriculture Canada's budget.
The federal government's unfair treatment of Quebec is demonstrated in a variety of ways.
In the 1980s, for instance, federal spending went up eight times faster in the West than it did in Quebec. In 1987, Quebec contributed more than $1 billion in taxes for the development of western agriculture. Quebec spent twice as much money on western agriculture as it did on its own agriculture, through the Quebec government.
Grosso modo, from 1980 to 1992, the amount of aid to the West increased from 42 per cent of the federal budget to nearly 64 per cent, and the amount of aid to Quebec went from 30 per cent down to only 10 per cent; this means that the 25 per cent of Canadians who live in Quebec pay into a system that gives back only 10 per cent. This is not very profitable for farmers in Quebec.
Speaking of grain transportation, why is it subsidized all the way to the Pacific going west, but only as far as Thunder Bay going east? And still speaking of transportation, why are so many railway lines being shut down in Quebec, on the pretext that they are not cost-efficient, while nearly 25,000 km of lines are maintained in the West, even if they are not cost-efficient, on the pretext that they are essential for the Canadian economy?
Agricultural diversification is yet another situation where we find Quebec has been unfairly treated. While the federal government has been investing for many years in western diversification, Quebec has received nothing. Over the past ten years, the area used for potato crops in the West has increased 30 per cent, while in Quebec, it has increased only 2 per cent. And I could add a number of other examples.
In 1988, a report produced by the Coopérative fédérée du Québec, the Union des producteurs agricoles, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, summed up perfectly the effects of the federal government's discriminatory policies toward Quebec by saying, and I quote: "The inequitable policy affects the level of competitiveness of Quebec farmers in comparison with their counterparts in the West, particularly in terms of grain and livestock production. Canada's agricultural policy contributes to the displacement of livestock production from the east to the west of the country".
A further illustration of Agriculture Canada's feeble defence of Quebec's interests is the case of Grand Pré milk, produced by the Groupe Lactel. Grand Pré milk has been sold in Puerto Rico for 15 years, accounting for 40 per cent of the Puerto Rican market. In 1991, the Americans changed the health standards. Grand Pré milk lost this lucrative market.
A change in health standards was tantamount to the Americans' imposing a non-tariff barrier on us. In spite of this, the federal government did not respond. They could have taken certain measures, but they decided to do nothing, and their inaction led to the consequences I mentioned.
Why did the federal government not take action to protect a sector that was lucrative for Quebec, whereas in other sectors-there are many examples-the federal government took immediate action, such as the recent case, for example, of American beer in Ontario. In this case, the federal government responded very quickly in protecting the interests of breweries in Ontario. The interests of Quebec do not prompt the same response in the Department of Agriculture.
The most recent example of the government's spinelessness and inertia is, of course, the GATT. Article XI of the GATT was important for producers working under a quota system and of extreme importance to Quebec, since 42 per cent of its agricultural monetary earnings come from such products.
The Minister had promised to protect article XI, but he came back empty-handed with nothing but tariffs that are supposed to have the same effect, but that bring the whole supply management system into question again. We can see its effects in the poultry sector; a trade war has arisen between Quebec and Ontario.
With the new tariffs, farmers will have to adapt to an entirely new system within six years. That is a very short time for those farmers.
Earlier, the Minister of Agriculture was telling us how he wanted to negotiate with the Americans, sector by sector, following the GATT agreement. In fact, that is not what he is doing; he is negotiating a package deal with the Americans because, when all is said and done, he has not succeeded in establishing clear directives under the GATT. Even the new tariffs of 300 to 350 per cent have succeeded in flooring consumers once again: they have the impression that they are paying too much for their food products when that is not the case.
In its negotiations with the United States, Canada seems to want to fold once again where products affecting Quebec, including ice cream and yogurt, are concerned. According to all reports on the negotiations, Canadians appear to be giving the Americans greater access to the Canadian ice cream and yogurt market, in order to protect the volume of wheat exports from the West. Is this not another case in which Quebec comes out the loser in federal agricultural negotiations?
The Bloc Quebecois is warning the federal government. We will never agree that the interests of farmers in eastern Canada should be sacrificed in order to allow better access to the American market for Canadian durum wheat. We will oppose any tradeoffs between the regions in order to reach an agreement with the Americans.
Agriculture Canada appears to have a carefree and careless attitude toward the development of agriculture in Canada. That attitude is surely not the fault of the present Minister. And we are well aware that agriculture is not a very easy sector of activity. No doubt the present Minister has many problems with his party, because it seems that, when agricultural issues arise, they are always set aside or not given as much attention as issues affecting other sectors. So it is not the fault of the present Minister, but we have a system that seeks to make cuts to farm programs, at a time when great changes are taking place in agriculture.
Basically, Agriculture Canada is operating in a laxist mode, letting market forces take over. Instead of protecting farmers and encouraging the infrastructure in order to increase the number of farmers, it lets market forces take over and seems to encourage the largest integrated companies that have ever more control over the agricultural sector. This means that farmers will eventually become employees, not independent managers. It should be noted that farmers have very low incomes and work an abnormally high number of hours, and that 73 per cent of them declared off-farm income in order to supplement their income.
Half of the farmers' wives have no income for the work they do on the farm, because farm businesses do not generate enough income. Farmers are not rich operators. In 1992, nearly 22 per cent of farms lost money. This trend toward loss of income and loss of farms is part of a longstanding pattern. There are fewer and fewer farmers in Canada, and active farmers are less and less well off financially. It cannot be said that this is a passing phenomenon; it is a trend that has been evident for a some years.
Who then can say that farmers are well served by Agriculture Canada? Surely not Quebec farmers. How can the government claim in the motion before us today that it is contributing to the well-being of farmers and to job creation?
This government, which claims to be concerned about the well-being of farmers, is in the process of dealing another blow to the farm economy. A tax on food, a proposal currently being discussed by the government, could have a disastrous effect on farmers. Imposing a tax on agriculture, which is already in an extremely tenuous situation, would be tantamount to taking an additional one billion out of farmers' pockets. One billion more to be subsidized by farmers. As a result, a great many of them could be forced into bankruptcy.
Despite the uncaring and unfair attitude of the federal government, Quebec farmers have rallied solidly behind their association, the UPA, and have shown that they can compete on world markets. They are eagerly looking forward to Quebec's sovereignty because they already know that the money Quebec spends to support agriculture in Canada will be available for Quebec farmers. In view of the federal government's actions over the past ten or fifteen years, Quebec farmers have had to band together and build a strong organization. The way in which they have organized themselves has proven to be the envy of other provincial farm organizations. Their organizational ability is their strength.
Farmers also realize that they will be the first ones to benefit from sovereignty since the Quebec government will then have money to spend in the regions. It will begin by shoring up the regions with money from new taxes and it will ensure that structures and support systems for farmers are in place. This group will be first in line to benefit from this situation and that is why they are eagerly looking forward to this day. They have already established several organizations in anticipation of sovereignty.
At a Montreal gathering in 1991, farmers recognized the importance of decentralization. They called for powers to be redistributed from the top down to give regions more autonomy and more decision-making authority. I am confident that this will prove to be the strength of Quebec farmers.
In conclusion, I have to say that the government's motion, however well-intentioned it may be, is full of oversights and neglects the problems which Quebec farmers are facing. I am proud of Quebec's farming community and I know that it will be the first to benefit from the money flowing from Quebec sovereignty.
