Wayne Easter

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to see this alternate budget to which the member referred in his remarks.

I did see an alternate budget put out by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives last week. It looked at balancing the budget by looking at the expenditure side and some of the tax loopholes, the foundations that have been set up for the wealthy and the tax breaks there and so on.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to go through a paper put out by the Council of Canadians which looks at the question: Are social programs to blame for the federal debt? It clearly points out in the analysis that program spending as a percentage of GDP has remained relatively constant in social programs over the years.

Your remarks seem to indicate an attack on the social program side. I am wondering if you in your budget, do you have any-

[Trade, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on February 2 the United States formally notified the federal government that it considers our move toward tariffication of supply managed commodities to be a violation of the NAFTA.

Let me state clearly that our tariffication is what was agreed to at the GATT, including by the Americans. In reality our good neighbour to the south is playing big bully games against the very principles agreed to at the GATT.

On February 14 the Minister of International Trade made it clear he will not make any concessions to the Americans on this issue. I support that position. This government cannot make any concessions on the supply managed commodities. Our legal position is sound and the GATT takes precedence over the NAFTA.

I would expect, therefore, that consultations with the Americans will be short and the message will be clear: no concessions on the tariff issue.

[Dr. J. A. Doiron, February 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honour the life of a great Canadian and former Lieutenant-Governor who passed away recently.

Dr. J. A. Doiron was one of the first Acadians on Prince Edward Island to serve as the Queen's representative as Lieutenant-Governor.

Dr. Doiron was a true patriot both to his country as well as to his Acadian heritage. It was his belief that to understand the heritage of all Canadians was the first step in building a strong Canada. He took pride in serving as one of the only bilingual dentists on Prince Edward Island and was a member in many island francophone organizations. Dr. Doiron received honorary doctoral degrees in humanities, laws and the social sciences.

Perhaps one of his proudest moments was receiving the Order of Canada in July of last year. Dr. Doiron was a true gentleman, was loved by all who knew him and will be missed dearly by his family, friends and all Islanders.

[Canadian Wheat Board, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the election last week of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee was a clear victory for those supporting the principles of orderly marketing.

Ten out of eleven candidates running won for the pro-board side. That is the highest number of candidates on the pro-board side ever elected. It comes at a time when promoters of the open market dual marketing system so-called were sowing seeds of misinformation on the board and trying their hardest to undermine orderly marketing. Some even supported tactics of breaking the law. It goes to show that the rhetoric and publicity tactics of the anti-board groups are just that, rhetoric but no substance and little support. Every wheat board permit holder had the right to vote in this election. The evidence is in. Congratulations. The government must now continue to support and strengthen the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the question posed to the Minister for International Trade was prompted by concerns expressed from a number of agricultural organizations that Bill C-57, an act to implement the World Trade Organization, was deficient and needed to be amended.

My question focused on one area of concern, namely the issue of tariff levels and supplemental quotas on supply managed commodities. However, there are concerns in other areas as well: clauses referring to the Western Grain Transportation Act and comparisons to the United States implementation legislation.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that the U.S. implementing legislation has more teeth in it and retains a greater degree of political control.

On November 28 the minister responded to my question concerning the issues of tariff levels and supplemental quotas on supply managed commodities by stating that amendments to the Customs Tariff Act, et cetera, would be introduced "if necessary".

The minister did not respond to my satisfaction or to the industry's satisfaction by either stating that there was no cause for concern or that given these concerns legislation to amend the act would be forthcoming.

According to a paper prepared for the standing committee on agriculture by the research branch of the Library of Parliament on Bill C-57, the issue of supplemental quotas was outlined as follows, and I quote: "Even though this clause 109 of C-57 may appear necessary to allow additional imports in the case of emergencies, it is not clear what the tariff would be on those supplemental imports".

The research document continued further by stating that: "It has been mentioned that artificial shortages can be created that would necessitate supplemental imports that could displace domestic products permanently. So far officials have not been able to give an appropriate answer on the level of the tariffs affecting the supplemental imports".

In testimony before the international trade committee, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture echoed those concerns as well.

This point must be addressed. As I said in previous debates, a situation could occur in which a processor shorted the demand. For example, in hatcheries the hatcheries control the purchase of the breeder birds so it is not difficult for them to plan to be short and need supplementals.

As a result of shorting needs, they demand supplementals. The manufacturer would apply for same and would be granted tariff free supplemental import permits and that would go a long way to breaking the supply management system.

The question remains why has the minister not introduced the appropriate amendments to the Customs Tariffs Act to address the concerns expressed. My grave concern as well is that if these amendments are not encompassed in legislation and are just encompassed in regulation it becomes very easy for some minister down the road who does not support supply management to the extent that this government does to allow that little weakening in terms of the legislation to see the supply management system destroyed over time.

The only other point I want to make and question the minister on is that Bill C-57 contains no provisions to ensure that exporters of grain have any warning with respect to when the cap on volume or the cap on expenditures under the WGTA and the new requirements of the GATT will be reached. This result could be that commitments and sales made by the Canadian Wheat

Board at a set price could well be negatively impacted if the caps are attained prior to the movement of grain involved.

How will this issue be addressed and what would be the impact on the marketing of the Canadian Wheat Board, its ability to market at top dollar and access supplies? I raise those questions to the minister out of a deeply felt concern.

[Trade, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

Bill C-57 seems to prohibit tariffs on supplementary agricultural imports. Without proper amendment this could jeopardize our ability to safeguard supply management as we are committed to do.

Is the minister prepared to introduce the necessary amendments to the Import and Export Permits Act and the Customs Tariffs Act to ensure that the very essence of Canada's supply management system is maintained?

[Central America, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the opportunity and the privilege of meeting with the Association of Central American Farmers Organizations for Co-Operation and Development.

This is an umbrella organization that seeks to promote the interests of small and medium sized farmers in Central America at regional and international levels. It has been on a tour of Canada to meet with Canadian farm leaders and policy makers and to promote a vision for the sustainable development of Central America.

I congratulate ASOCODE for its efforts. As it suggested, we must go beyond a bureaucratic level in a relationship with Central and Latin America. We must continue to further the efforts of the government in working at a political level and should expand to working with populist groups as well.

I found working with such groups extremely enlightening in developing understanding. I encourage all parliamentarians to focus some attention on the needs of Central America and what we have in common.

[Grain Export Protection Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks by members opposite on Bill C-262, especially the remarks by the member for Lisgar-Marquette. I recognize full well the impact that labour and management problems, whether in the railway system or on the west coast, have on the farm community. In fact I have been involved in a lot of those disputes over the years.

I think there are ways of resolving those issues through better labour management negotiations other than what this bill proposes. I believe this bill puts too much of the burden on the labour side of the equation rather than on equality between the two. I think it is possible to have labour and management come together. I know as a member on the government side that I will certainly be encouraging the Minister of Human Resources Development to look at ways of resolving disputes before they get to the stage where the system shuts down.

I remember one time I was involved in a dispute where we as a farm organization met with labour. We knew they were going to go on strike in July. The end of the crop year is July 31. We were able to talk to them and prevent them from taking that kind of action prior to the end of the crop year because prices were going down at the end of the crop year.

It is possible to find other ways to resolve labour disputes and we will be working at that as a government in coming years.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

I hear the member opposite. The government made a commitment, might I say, to support the supply management system. In the legislation we are trying to ensure we support the supply management system to the extent the agreement that we signed implied. We trying to ensure through the supplemental quota provisions that the industry cannot use those supplemental quotas in such a way as to break the system.

In conclusion I indicate again that the system has certainly changed substantially as a result of the GATT negotiations. The World Trade Organization in Bill C-57 will try to implement those changes into domestic law. As a government we certainly recognize a legitimate concern under supplemental quotas, but we have indicated that those concerns will be addressed if not through this legislation then by some other means.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak to Motion No. 1, especially clause 3.4. Clause 3.4 of Motion No. 1 indicates that in the case where imports exceed the established tariff rate levels, the minister shall impose tariffs to ensure that such products are not permitted at prices lower than those in the domestic market.

The concern that is being raised in Bill C-57 is the proposal that would allow supplemental imports of supply managed commodities as "within accessed commitment", which means they would enter Canada at low or no tariff.

In talking to people in the industry about section 3.4, they have indicated that they think the section is far too restrictive in that it provides the minister with little or no discretionary power.

It is important to understand that in supply managed industries some commodities require from time to time to import and require supplementary quotas. The problem is how do you do that in such a way so as not to allow the industry to use the supplemental quotas as a lever with which to either manipulate prices or to break the supply management system?

Let me give the House an example. A cheese manufacturer who makes frozen pizzas, when asked for future milk demands, understates them. Later when the cheese manufacturer needed milk to manufacture cheese for pizza he would indicate that market demand has all of a sudden increased. Milk could not be sourced in Canada because no one would be prepared to produce that unexpected demand in that short a time. The manufacturer then could apply for and be granted a tariff free supplemental import permit. Other manufacturers would learn of this advantage and either try and beat the system themselves, as the original applicant had done, or pressure domestic producers for a lower price to match that of the non-tariff imports so that they could compete.

That kind of situation could happen if supplemental quotas are granted without restriction. This amendment has restricted the discretion of the minister to the point that it would be unworkable.

The supplemental quota is an extremely important area, especially as a result of the new arrangements under the GATT in which we are moving from import controls to tariff level controls.

The government has assured us that supplemental quotas can be granted in such a way so as not to undermine the supply management system.