Ralph Goodale

[Agriculture, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question about a very serious issue in the Canadian cattle industry.

Canada's first case of BSE was diagnosed in December of last year in Alberta. The cow was originally imported from the United Kingdom in 1987. Continued access for Canadian cattle and products to international markets depends very heavily upon my department's commitment to undertake very stringent control measures with respect to BSE.

The department is following a procedure that will ensure there will be no animals remaining in Canada that could have had any contact with any source of BSE infection. That position is strongly supported by every major livestock organization in the country as well as by veterinarian professionals, trading officials and our international trading partners.

[Agriculture, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is helpful, in the context of the circumstances existing at the present time, to speculate about the proposition the hon. member has raised.

It is extremely important for us to urge the parties to assume their responsibilities, to get back to the bargaining table and to take full advantage of all mediation facilities that are being made available to them in the present circumstances by the Government of Canada.

They have a responsibility to resolve the dispute and to resolve it fast.

[Agriculture, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member will know, as a western Canadian with a great deal of interest in the health and well-being of the western Canadian grains industry, I am very anxious to pursue every conceivable possibility that will enhance the position of western Canadian grain farmers properly within the context of national public policy.,

The precise question he has asked in terms of labour relations and other issues affecting the west coast grain handling situation must be put within that broader national context of overall policy considerations with which the Minister of Human Resources Development, with his particular responsibility for labour, would be intensely involved.

The idea the hon. member suggests is not a new one. It has been proposed by others in western Canada from time to time, but at the present moment it is not under active consideration.

[Agriculture, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

The question he has raised is one of broad policy considerations. I must admit that in the last number of days I have been focusing more importantly on the immediate concern with respect to the work stoppage on the west coast. I am pleased to take the opportunity of this question to provide an update on the present situation.

As members will know the federal mediator that was made available in this dispute was appointed last Tuesday, February 1. The talks with the parties commenced on Wednesday. They continued through the day on Wednesday and in fact until 5 a.m. on Thursday. There was an adjournment during the day on Thursday. The talks resumed at 3 p.m. on Thursday. As the hon. member advised in his question, those talks broke off at some point yesterday afternoon or last evening.

The mediator, Mr. Lewis, will be providing a full report shortly-in fact it may be in hand at the moment-to my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development. The minister is making his senior mediator from the offices in Ottawa available to assist in bringing the parties back to the table and resuming the discussions in Vancouver.

The government would strongly urge the parties to reflect very carefully upon their respective positions and their responsibilities in this matter. The parties should resume their negotiations immediately.

[Agriculture, January 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. These discussions with the United States bearing on a number of agricultural commodities are presently ongoing. I am sure the hon. member will understand that I must for obvious reasons be rather guarded in what I say publicly.

I do not think it is appropriate for us to bargain long distance and perhaps in that way do some things that would potentially impair the Canadian position. I hope the hon. member will understand the need for some confidentiality.

I can say that ever since Canada unfortunately lost a GATT panel decision on its import quotas on ice cream and yogurt in 1989, all of us with the interests of agriculture at heart-and I am sure that includes members on both sides of this House-who sincerely want the best for agriculture have been very aware that this particular issue, because of that previous GATT panel ruling, would have to be resolved in one manner or another at some future date with the United States as we go about attempting to arrive at a solution.

Again I assure the hon. member and all farmers that the vital interests of Canadian agriculture in all parts of this country are very much on the top of the government's mind.

[Agriculture, January 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what the source of the hon. member's question might be, but if it is based on

some of the speculation in the media about what may or may not be under discussion between Canada and the United States I would advise the hon. member that speculation is not entirely well-founded.

I would assure him that to the extent the ongoing discussions with the United States bear upon questions that have to do with supply management, the Government of Canada is acutely aware of the interests of all Canadian producers in this subject, especially the interests of producers in the province of Quebec where supply management forms a very large part of the agricultural industry in that province. In whatever discussions we may have with the United States the interests of those producers will be front and centre in our thinking.

When we are in a position to announce some conclusion to our discussions with the United States, members of the House will be the first to know.

[Grain Transportation, January 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Obviously the issue of grain transportation, and in particular the Western Grain Transportation Act, is a subject that is under active consideration by this government.

The previous government had established a number of processes that will result in a series of reports we expect to receive during the early part of this year, specifically on grain transportation efficiencies.

In the member's question he has pointed out a fairly glaring example of an inefficiency in the system. We await that report on grain transportation efficiencies. We also await a report on the method of payment under the Western Grain Transportation Act conducted by a producer payment panel.

While we as a new government are by no means bound by processes started by a previous government, we are anxious to receive this input. We will be making our decisions in due course.

[Speech From The Throne, January 20th, 1994]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to briefly respond to the question. I am sure we will have other opportunities to consider the questions raised by the hon. member in greater detail. The member certainly has touched upon some vital questions in terms of the future of Canadian agriculture.

I mentioned in my remarks that we would be reviewing the whole system of farm safety net programs and hopefully moving toward the concept of whole farm income safety nets for the future. They have a number of advantages from our domestic point of view. The whole farm income concept also has the great advantage of being largely production and market neutral. Therefore it is less likely to be subject to any violation of the new GATT. That is one of the reasons we are very interested in this concept of whole farm income safety nets. That would touch upon many of the support programs the hon. member has referred to, including crop insurance and so forth.

The area is under review. We have a conference coming up in February to begin the process of that review. Working with the provinces, the farmers and farm organizations, I think we can arrive perhaps at the end of 1994 at a much clearer understanding about how we need to adjust our programs to ensure they are doing the job properly for Canadian farmers.

The answer on the Western Grain Transportation Act would necessarily be long. I assure the hon. member it is a subject which is very likely to be affected at least in some way by the implications of the GATT. It is a subject matter that we will undoubtedly revisit in this House on many occasions as I consult, as I ought to do, before any changes are made.

[Speech From The Throne, January 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am fully aware that opinion in some parts of western Canada is very sharply divided upon the method of marketing barley.

The short answer to the member's question as to why the system is no longer in place as it was temporarily in place in the latter part of 1993 is simply that the previous government proceeded by a method which the courts ruled to be beyond the government's jurisdiction. The courts ruled that the process undertaken by the previous government was in fact contrary to law.

In terms of whether the system ought to be revisited or reviewed in the future, some in western Canada are proposing the idea of a plebiscite on the issue. The matter of a producer plebiscite can be considered in due course. However, I would caution members against rushing too quickly toward that conclusion. That is because plebiscites sometimes are not quite as simple and clean solutions as one might otherwise think.

In this case, for example, I think there would need to be a legislative framework to ensure that the plebiscite was conducted properly. One would need to have some definition of a trigger mechanism to start the process of a plebiscite. One would have to give careful attention to the wording of the question. As the hon. member knows, whether the question is phrased positively or negatively can have a profound impact on the outcome. Then there are the thorny questions like who gets on the voters list, who is entitled to vote on the issue, and whether it is restricted in some way.

There are a good many complexities relating to the question of a plebiscite. I think all of us would want to think it through very carefully before rushing into that as necessarily the right way to go in these circumstances.

[Speech From The Throne, January 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate both the comment made by the previous member and the question just asked by the member from my home province of Saskatchewan.

With respect to the situation prevailing at this present moment the short answer to the member's question is that the new regime under GATT has not yet come into effect. The implementation date is July 1995, so the benefits we hope to achieve and that I mentioned in my speech will be forthcoming after implementation. I would dearly love to see those benefits come in advance but unfortunately we cannot get them until the process actually gets into place.

On the question of whether we have given up our ability to have import controls under article XI where other countries have not given up corresponding things, the facts are that all countries have surrendered their rights to have those kinds of border restrictions. In Canada those restrictions related to our supply managed sectors under the auspices of article XI.

In the United States it is the section 22 waiver under the U.S. agricultural adjustment act. In Europe it is the system of variable levies. In Japan and Korea it is the limitation system they had with respect to rice. All those methods previously used as non-tariff barriers will no longer be permissible in future under the new GATT once it is implemented in 1995. All of us have surrendered something in that regard, getting instead this system of comprehensive tariffication.

Will there be aberrations along the way? Undoubtedly so. We will have to be vigilant, to watch out, to make sure that this playing field is as level as it possibly can be. One thing we do have to assist us in that regard now, or when the GATT is implemented, is a new world trade organization which should be a substantial improvement over the ad hoc and undisciplined system that used to exist in the past.