House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 65% of the vote.
Foreign Affairs November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in September 1997 Canadian passports were illegally used by Israeli agents in an anti-terrorist operation. At that time the minister gave the House solemn assurances that this would never happen again.
Now we have allegations that it did happen again, allegations that the minister apparently knew about but kept to himself. Are there any other allegations of this nature which the minister is aware of and yet has not disclosed to the House?
Foreign Affairs November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have strong feelings on this issue. On the one hand, we believe in the security of the state of Israel and its fight against terrorism. On the other hand, as the minister said, we are concerned about allegations that our passports are being used illegally. Our passports are well respected around the world.
It is being reported that the minister was informed of this allegation some time ago. When did he first learn about this allegation and what did he do about it at the time?
Foreign Affairs November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, CTV is reporting an allegation made by a former Canadian now living in Israel. Leslie Lewis claims he was approached last year to give his Canadian passport to an Israeli agent. Lewis also claims his daughter was approached for the same reason.
The Israeli government has denied the allegation and says it no longer uses Canadian passports in its fight against terrorism. Would the foreign affairs minister tell us what he knows about this allegation?
Employment Insurance November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, that is another swing and a miss from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is taking 2.7% off of most workers' paycheques when he should only be allowed to take 1.9%. That costs the average worker about $350 a year and it costs the average small business about $500 per worker per year. To get it straight I will ask the Prime Minister again. Why is he taking 2.7% when he should only be taking 1.9%?
Employment Insurance November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister appears to be confused but that should not be not unusual. We see from the papers that the Prime Minister is suffering from a peculiar delusion. He thinks he is a baseball player of some sort who is in a batting slump. At least now he is using his baseball bat for recreational purposes. The question still remains why is the Prime Minister taking most workers for 2.7% on unemployment insurance instead—
Employment Insurance November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, every time Canadian workers get their paycheques they see the Prime Minister has skimmed something off the top. For three out of four workers the Liberals skim 2.7% off their paycheques for employment insurance alone. The chief actuary of the employment insurance plan says that those workers' premiums should not be higher than 1.9% which is enough for a safe and reliable plan.
Why is the Prime Minister taking 2.7% off those paycheques for EI when he ought to be taking only 1.9%?
Supply November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for the minister.
In the minister's remarks there was not one single reference to tax relief as a possible tool for dealing with this problem. I wonder why that is. The government has a surplus, so at least tax relief is a live option; it is not something that is academic. The federal government is one of the greatest imposers of taxes on agriculture that there is, so it is not as if it is not in the taxation game.
The NISA program is a net income dependent program. If the minister would calculate what the amount of the NISA might have been if there had been five years of tax relief prior to this particular period, surely he would see that that program would be stronger than it is.
Why does the minister not, for the sake of his producers, become an advocate of tax relief as at least one of the measures that would have helped this situation and still could help?
Supply November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I know the instinctive gut reaction of the NDP to any economic crisis is to yell for a subsidy. We are open to listening to the arguments members are putting for emergency aid.
I suggest that the long term strategy of the government should be to do what we can to reduce and eliminate those subsidies by our big competitors, particularly with respect to the United States. I suggest three things that are more practical than anything I have heard from this side of the House or that.
First, the government should use that dispute settling mechanism more actively and quickly. This crisis was seen coming. It took six weeks to activate that mechanism and it should not do that.
Second, the government should move more actively to lobby U.S. consumer interests. Our allies in this fight with the U.S. are American consumer interests gouged by the U.S. subsidization programs and protectionism as much as our farmers.
Third, get into this European-American dialogue which is going to put great pressure on reduction of European subsidies. Those are three things that can be done on a proactive side to reduce and eliminate the subsidies.
Supply November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his questions. Let me deal with them in the order in which he raised them.
First, my general point was that in the 20th century the record of the Liberal government has been to grant far more subsidies than to grant subsidy relief. The minister can check that out and go through all the subsidies. I am not talking only about agriculture. I am talking about the Liberal government's general record in subsidization. Yes, there has been some removal of subsidies in the agriculture sector in the last number of years. But the overall record of the government has been to resort to subsidies time and time again. My point is that when it is a government with a reputation for subsidization it makes it a poor advocate for subsidy reduction in other countries because they simply point to the government's record and say “you guys are great people to talk”.
The second point with respect to this subsidy question is by leaving NISA, the net income stabilization account, as the primary farm support program we would think the government would be more interested in increasing net incomes during the times when prices are good. If we are to rely on a NISA type program it is stronger when prices are low if we leave more dollars in the pockets of consumers when prices are high. Net income stabilization works better if we leave more income in people's pockets during the boom time. That is why I hope minister would be an advocate of tax relief with the finance minister because that would make the one program he is relying on work better.
The second point the minister made is typical of the questions and reactions of Liberal ministers, half the story. The minister referred to our proposals for reductions in some government spending, including reductions in his department. What he forgot to mention was the tax relief that those reductions when added up across all the departments made possible. Yes, we advocated reductions in some of the overhead spending of the agriculture department, but the net effect to doing that over five years was to deliver $20 billion in tax relief to Canadians, including significant tax relief to Canadian farmers, tax relief greater in its aggregate than any reduction to agriculture.
I suggest the minister read both sides of what we are talking about, the pain of reduction but the benefit of tax relief. We end up with a net benefit and a net benefit to Canadian farmers.
Supply November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I represent an urban riding, Calgary Southwest. To the best of my knowledge all my constituents are in the habit of eating three times a day. Thus all of them, as indeed all of us, have a vested interest in the financial health of the agricultural sector, which is the subject of the motion before the House.
I believe I am now the only party leader in the House who was actually raised on a farm. I urge the other leaders to join in this debate in recognition of the importance of agriculture to us all.
The first purpose of the motion before the House is to draw the attention of the House and the media to what my colleague from Saskatchewan has rightfully called the farm income crisis.
Some of my other colleagues will describe the nature and extent of this crisis by reference to its impact on particular producers and their families in rural ridings. But the basic facts are clear, some of which have already been cited. Farm income is likely to drop by more than 40% this year as grain, beef and pork producers all face declining prices. This is in addition to a steep price decline last year.
Wheat prices have fallen more than 40% over the last 12 months while hog farmers have seen a price decline of 28%. On a provincial basis, to cite only two examples, the realized net farm income of Saskatchewan farmers is expected to drop by more than 60% this year to less than $300 million, and Prince Edward Island's realized net farm income for 1998 is expected to be 87% less than the 1992-1996 average.
I suggest that if the prices or incomes in any other industrial or commercial sector such as the auto sector were to drop by 30% or 60% or 87% we would immediately recognize and acknowledge a crisis. That is what this motion now calls on the government to do with respect to agriculture.
The second purpose of this motion is to urge the government to respond to this crisis with more than empty words and assurances that what it has been doing is good enough. We are all familiar with the government's standard excuse for non action, the tiresome argument that the general slowdown in the Canadian economy and the particular income crisis in agriculture is all due to factors beyond the government's control.
The official opposition takes a different and more proactive approach. We divide the causes of our current economic difficulties into two categories. One category identifies factors beyond our control which we ought to monitor like the Asian downturn and the worldwide downturn in commodity prices. But the other category includes factors contributing to the economic downturn and the crisis in certain sectors which are within our control and which we can and should be doing something about. It is to this category of factors that we draw the attention of the House and the government.
The slowdown in the Canadian economy in general and the farm income crisis in particular is aided and abetted by high debt and taxation levels at home and by the slowness of the Liberal government to attack domestic and external barriers to trade. Every Canadian producer, including every Canadian agricultural producer, has a domestic monkey on his back that negatively affects his ability to compete internationally. That monkey is the excessive levels of taxation in this country.
In the case of agricultural producers the tax component of input costs, in particular fuel and fertilizer, reduces disposable farm income year after year. Broad based and immediate reduction of taxes including taxes masquerading as user fees is therefore one measure the government should employ to deal immediately with the farm income crisis.
If the federal government had followed the fiscal plan first advocated by Reform which called for a balanced budget early in the 1990s and tax relief and debt reduction immediately thereafter, the disposable income and savings of agricultural producers for the last five years would have been significantly higher than they are today, thereby putting them in a much better position to withstand the current downturn in commodity prices. In other words, the best income support program is not some government safety net after the fact but tax policies that leave more dollars in the pockets of Canadian producers and consumers to start with. How many income crises will it take for this government to learn that lesson?
Second, every Canadian agricultural producer has another monkey on his back in the form of unfair subsidies and unfair trading practices by foreign countries.
In Canada's case the most damaging of these foreign monkeys has been the excessive agricultural subsidies paid to European Union and American farmers, subsidy levels in the order of 30% to 37%, and recent attempts by several U.S. states to blockade shipments of Canadian livestock and grain in complete violation of the spirit and the letter of the free trade agreement.
As everyone in this House knows, the Liberal Party of Canada has a checkered record with respect to both subsidies and free trade. Throughout the 20th century Liberal administrations have instituted far more subsidies than they have removed, which makes them very poor champions of subsidy reduction on the international stage. Because it bitterly fought the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1988 and even promised at one time to revoke it, Liberal Party protestations against violations of that agreement are treated with extreme scepticism in Washington.
That is why this motion calls for more vigorous action by this government to defend Canadian farmers from unfair subsidies and unfair trading practices by foreign countries.
I have one final observation. When we ask Canadian farmers to evaluate this government's performance on agriculture more and more of them are responding by saying it is like what it has done to their taxes and health care. What they mean by that is mismanagement, mismanagement that is leading to a lower standard of living.
Many Canadians will be judging the government's ability to respond to the general economic slowdown by how it responds to the immediate income crisis in agriculture. That is why this debate is so important. If the government cannot respond more quickly, more positively and decisively to the downturn in one sector, the agriculture sector, who will believe that it is capable of responding quickly, positively and decisively to the general economic downturn which the finance minister himself is predicting?
If the government wants to restore some measure of confidence in its ability to manage economic crises other than by resorting to denials, excuses and diversions, let it respond positively to the motion before the House. I urge hon. members to support the motion.