Ralph Goodale

[Agriculture, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a variety of representations have been received by me on this particular point. The representations go both ways. Some farmers and farm organizations are

strongly advocating support for the Canadian Wheat Board and its traditional strength as a marketing agency on behalf of Canadian farmers. Others are taking a different point of view and supporting the argument that is contained in the question that has just been asked.

As I say, I am receiving a large number of these representations. Some of them propose the notion of a plebiscite as a method of resolving this controversy on the prairies with respect to grain marketing systems.

To those who have proposed the notion of a plebiscite I have responded with a number of technical questions that I think they ought to address and think carefully about before rushing to embrace that particular form of solution.

At this moment in time, to my knowledge, I have not received any replies to those questions but I anticipate I will. That will be a part of the input that the government will take into account as we consider this question.

[Agriculture, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. It is on subject matter about which I know he cares very deeply.

I spoke by telephone this morning with the United States Secretary of Agriculture, the Hon. Mike Espy. We explored in that conversation whether we were close enough in our respective positions on Canada-U.S. agriculture trade to make a face-to-face meeting between us sometime next week a productive undertaking. Obviously we are dealing with some very difficult issues.

We may well have further communications later today and there may be the possibility of a useful meeting between the secretary and myself at some point next week.

The member asks what assurances can be offered of our intent to stand up in defence of Canadian farmers. Such assurances have already been offered in the House and elsewhere by me as minister of agriculture, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, by the Minister for International Trade and by the Prime Minister and that will be very much the approach we take into any further meetings with the United States.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 16th, 1994]

Between June 1992 and January 1994 there were 44 appointments to Agriculture Canada at the level of director or higher. Of these, 33 were appointments from within the department, 10 were from other federal government departments, and one was from the Quebec provincial government.

Details concerning the appointees, their current and former positions and the dates of appointment are listed below. None of the employees appointed at these levels were exempt staff. This list does not include any contract employees, since people retained under contract are not appointed to specific classified positions in which case it cannot be determined whether their assigned duties are at the director level or higher.

[Agriculture, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the free trade agreement are one potential avenue that might be pursued. There is the potential of an appeal of the CITT ruling to the Federal Court. There is also the potential of commencing a brand new CITT inquiry.

The difficulty with all these avenues is that they take a long time. The time factor was of particular concern to apple growers when they met me. In terms of my consideration of what the government's response might be, I am bearing very much in mind the timing issue apple growers had uppermost in their minds.

[Agriculture, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for the courtesy of some notice of the question.

As I am sure he will appreciate, since the decision of the CITT is in effect a decision of a quasi-judicial body, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way on the merits or demerits of the decision.

However I can confirm that I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of Canadian Apple Growers on Monday, March 7, when they were in Ottawa, in conjunction with the National Convention of the Canadian Horticulture Council. We discussed a variety of options in terms of how the decision of the CITT might be reacted to, including the various forms of appeal or other potential reactions.

I am now considering the input I received from apple growers about a week and a half ago. In due course we will see what an appropriate further response might be.

[Canadian Wheat Board, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question and for her interest in the Canadian Wheat Board.

This question and others that have been asked reflect the diversity of opinion in western Canada with respect to the operations and the jurisdiction of the wheat board. I continue to have a great many consultations and discussions with the board and with others, particularly with farmers, about the board's operations and its future direction.

With respect to the matter of a plebiscite, there are many differing views on the question. Indeed some who had argued against a plebiscite a year ago are now arguing in favour of one and vice versa.

In considering the government's position we will keep the hon. member's representations in mind. My objective, and it is the objective of the government, is to obtain the very best possible marketing results for farmers both now and in the long term. Every action of the government will be very much aimed in that direction.

[Farm Credit Corporation, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific FCC cases on the floor of the House of Commons.

I do want to assure her that I will insist that the Farm Credit Corporation deal with all of its clients in a fair and balanced way, taking into account the legitimate rights and interests of the farmer clients involved and also taking into account the fiscal integrity of the corporation which I am sure is important to the hon. member in the Reform Party.

[Farm Credit Corporation, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and thank her for her courtesy in providing me with advance notice of the question.

During the 1980s almost $1 billion in accumulated farm debt in the Farm Credit Corporation was effectively written off by the Government of Canada. This was followed by a policy review beginning in 1989 which resulted in a new mandate for the Farm Credit Corporation which was accepted I am told with broad support in the House of Commons at that time and brought into effect in the spring of 1993. That new mandate includes the

enhancement of rural Canada by providing specialized financial services that are related to farming.

In our election platform last fall, we proposed three new financial instruments to assist farmers: an agricultural equity development program, a vendor loan guarantee program and a long term mortgage program, including certain protections against interest rate fluctuations.

I am pleased to tell the hon. member that the Farm Credit Corporation is now making substantial progress in devising the details of these new instruments, as we had undertaken to do in the fall of last year. I hope to be in a position to make some specific announcements this spring.

[Agriculture, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out in his question, there are several outstanding issues in bilateral trade in agriculture between Canada and the United States. Those have been under discussion since last November. The work on those issues is still ongoing. They have not been resolved to date, nor have they gone away.

My preference would be to have a solid framework agreement between Canada and the United States to lay to rest those outstanding issues once and for all. Such an agreement, mutually acceptable to both countries, would clearly be preferable to ongoing trade actions and reactions that could have the effect of undermining the $10 billion worth of agricultural trade between our two countries.

However, it is important to note two points. First of all, in our discussions with the United States, Canada will not trade off one commodity against another. Each must be dealt with independently on its own merits.

Second, any agreement we might contemplate with the United States must be fair and reasonable and in the Canadian national interest. A bad deal for Canada will not be acceptable to this government.

[The Late Douglas Charles Neil, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to know the late Doug Neil and to serve with him for a term in the House in the 1970s.

Doug was first elected as the member for Moose Jaw in 1972 and he served as a member of Parliament until 1984. From 1974 until 1979 it was my honour to represent the Saskatchewan constituency of Assiniboia which at that time was right next to the constituency of Moose Jaw.

Doug and I shared a common interest in issues such as agriculture, transportation and rural affairs. We had many encounters on these issues and others in the House, in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, in the Standing Committee on Transport and on many public platforms, especially in western Canada. We obviously had our policy disagreements, but I believe we also shared a mutual respect for each other and a profound commitment to the well-being of those we were elected to serve.

Prior to his career as a member of Parliament, Doug Neil distinguished himself as an RCAF navigator, a barrister and solicitor, a Moose Jaw city councillor and an active contributor to his community through such vehicles as the Moose Jaw Wild Animal Regional Park, the Royal Canadian Legion, the United Services Institute and the Moose Jaw Kinsmen and K-40 organizations.

Doug Neil was well known and well respected in Moose Jaw. He was a proud citizen of Saskatchewan and Canada. He was a successful and effective member of Parliament and a dedicated servant to his community. He will be missed.

I wish to join with the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre to express on behalf of the Government of Canada our sincere condolences to Mr. Neil's family.