Ralph Goodale

[Agriculture, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's preface made reference to the implications of world trade agreements with respect to Canadian dairy policy. While there are some implications of world trade agreements for Canadian dairy policy, the particular connection that he draws in terms of the dairy subsidy is not a connection at all.

The reductions in the dairy subsidy that have been announced are taking place over a seven-year period, two years of which have already gone by and five years of which are yet to come. We consulted with the dairy industry very closely in terms of the best possible way in which to manage the issue. The phase down approach we have adopted is quite consistent with the advice we received.

As the dairy industry deals with the reductions in subsidies I am hopeful there will be good co-operation between the producers and the processors in terms of how pricing issues and a variety of other issues are handled within the framework of a long term dairy policy.

[Agriculture, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, 1997 is Canada's year for Asia-Pacific and my agri-food trade mission to Japan and Indonesia is part of our ongoing Team Canada effort to build on our export success in that region of the world. Asia-Pacific is the fastest growing economic zone on the face of the earth and we have to be there vigorously and persistently to get our share of the trade action. That is what this mission is all about. It probably involves the largest ever Canadian agri-food trade delegation from the private sector and the provinces.

In 1996 we set an all time record of $18.8 billion worth of export sales in agri-food, and this mission will make that total higher.

[Bovine Somatotropin, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has suggested is an interesting idea. In fact, a variation of that idea was put forward a couple of years ago by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The type of investigation, the type of debate, that the hon. gentleman has suggested was conducted before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food at least two years ago. The results of all of that are a matter of public record.

[Bovine Somatotropin, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will know, the responsibility for conducting the necessary scientific reviews in terms of health and safety matters rests with the department of health. The department of health is conducting its work and has been since about 1990. No decision has been taken, meaning that no notice of compliance has been issued. Accordingly, the laws of Canada stand in terms of preventing the importation and sale of rBST in Canada.

The responsibility for watching the border in terms of illegal importations or potentially illegal importations of course rests with Canada customs. They duly exercise their responsibilities and carry out their duties at the border to make sure that products which are not legal in Canada are not allowed into Canada.

We will always do our very best to enforce the law and maintain the health and safety of Canadians.

[Tobacco, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should know that in 1996-97 the funding for research was down some 90 per cent compared with the level it was at in the mid-1980s. That research, which involves about one and a half person-years, is focused on agronomic matters which have absolutely nothing to do with the promotion of tobacco production. Our emphasis is on diversification and assisting farmers in finding ways to get out of tobacco production.

[Food Inspection, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House, the hon. gentleman and all Canadians that as we work our way through any changes that pertain to the Canadian food inspection system the health and safety of Canadians is, has always been and will always be the number one priority.

[Food Inspection, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, under the business alignment plan of our food production and protection branch we are pursuing a five-part approach to the issue of cost recovery and user fees. The notion of imposing a user fee is the last of the options after we have explored and exhausted the four previous alternatives.

The hon. gentleman makes an interesting suggestion with respect to certain fees for certain services. Our department has always been willing to be flexible and reasonable in considering these suggestions. I will examine the proposal the hon. gentleman makes to see if it is viable.

[Railways, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the new Canada Transportation Act is at least in part to shift the emphasis away from what used to be a policy of branchline abandonment as the only game in town toward a new policy where at least there is the alternative of considering seriously a short line operation where it makes economic sense to do so.

In my province, which is also the hon. gentleman's province, it would be a big help to the short line industry if the provincial NDP government would change the law with respect to successor rights so short lines could exist in Saskatchewan.

[Grain Shipments, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the grain backlog in western Canada is obviously a serious and costly problem.

There was a very constructive meeting held last week in Calgary, which I called and which involved all the players involved in the logistics of grain transportation in western Canada. There was a very determined attitude at that meeting aimed at solutions and not at finger pointing.

We identified the next six to eight weeks as obviously a critically important time not only to meet basic shipment targets but to whittle away at that accumulated backlog.

Agreement was reached to try to simplify grain collection logistics in the countryside on a temporary basis to make the most efficient use of locomotive power and to speed car turnaround times.

There were a variety of other measures agreed to to augment locomotive power, to improve terminal operations and to explore some trucking programs that could also add to the capacity of our system.

It is also important to note-

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, with the repeal of the Western Grain Transportation Act and the consequential elimination of the former Crow benefit we put in place a number of transitional measures. One of those was the western grain transition payments program which was a total of $1.6 billion distributed to prairie farm land owners in recognition of the impact upon them of the elimination of the subsidy that had existed for the better part of 100 years in one form or another.

I am pleased to tell the hon. gentleman that the $1.6 billion has now been distributed. The process is completed except for a final handful of cases where there are some legal issues to resolve about land ownership and so forth.

I am pleased to say that the payment process was reviewed, as it would normally be, by the auditor general. We got a favourable review indicating that the program had been conducted very well and handled according to the appropriate financial standards.

I can assure the hon. gentleman that in terms of the program we not only believe the right money went to the right place at the right time but the auditor general appears to agree with our assessment.

The second part of the compensation system is the western grain transportation adjustment fund which totals $300 million. It will be invested over a period of two or three years. A portion of that-