Murray Calder

[Food And Agriculture Organization, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today at a press conference in Quebec City the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food together with other governments involved announced that Canada and the province of Quebec, Quebec City, and the Food and Agriculture Organization would host an international symposium from October 11 to October 13, 1995 to commemorate the founding of the FAO in Quebec City 50 years ago.

Canada played a leading role in preparing the groundwork for the FAO's founding through an interim commission chaired by Lester B. Pearson. The organization has grown from 42 to 171 members since 1945 and has carried out field projects in more than 140 countries around the world.

The 50th anniversary of the FAO will be October 16, 1995-

[Voluntary Firefighters, June 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the motion presented by my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk.

The motion recommends that the government amend the voluntary firefighter's tax exemption from $500 to $1,000 in order to account for inflation and recognize the value of their services to the community. Most Canadians probably do not recognize the importance of our volunteer firefighters and I would like to look at some of the stats.

Nationally there are 76,000 volunteer firefighters. Over65 per cent or 17,000 of the 26,000 firefighters in Ontario alone are volunteers. Ninety-five per cent of the province's 653 fire departments are staffed in whole or in part by them.

The legislative reference to this motion is section 6(1) of the Income Tax Act. This section exempts the first $500 from taxation of allowances received by the firefighter. Raising the level or threshold is not a new idea. In the 1980 fiscal year the amount was increased from $300 to $500 as was previously stated and there have been no increases since 1980 despite substantial increases in inflation and the cost of living.

There are really two issues here: first, to update the tax provision which is outdated and no longer representative of today's buying power; second, the issue of fairness in providing recognition to those thousands of volunteers. Clearly without volunteers many communities would not have fire protection.

This is not an exaggeration but a recognition that many rural communities simply do not have the financial resources to pay for full time firefighters. Even with volunteers many communities in my riding are still dependent on shared services with their neighbouring municipalities. I would like to take a couple of minutes to give members a personal position on this.

In the late 1960s we had a fire on our farm. We have a poultry farm. It was a three storey building, 21,000 square feet, and it caught on fire. It is dead centre on our farm. We had a century old farmhouse. There was a drive-in shed and two more barns on the other side.

The heat was so intense it broke every window on one side of the farmhouse. There was a 2,000 litre propane tank in front of the barn. The firefighters helped us that night to move that tank away. There would have been a huge hole in the ground had that not been done. They could not save the barn, but they saved the house, the drive-in shed and the two other barns. A lot of it was in jeopardy of their own lives.

What would the cost be of increasing the exemption? I believe this point was raised earlier by another speaker. The cost of full utilization of the new exemption is estimated to be $38 million. This is a lot of money and yet what volunteer firefighters provide our communities offsets this lost revenue. Without these volunteers a community would either have to forgo fire protection or hire a full time force at a staggering price, a lot more than what I have just mentioned. The resulting increases in municipal taxes necessary would be prohibitive.

Let us move on beyond dollars and take a closer look at these people in our community. These volunteers are busy people who hold down full time jobs and yet have time to devote to their community. I know that every Thursday evening in many of the towns and villages in my riding firefighters hold drill practices. Often they will go on training sessions held in different parts of the provinces at their own expense.

A volunteer force is a term used to distinguish it from a paid or professional force. These are terms I do not like to use because there is nothing unprofessional about these volunteer firefighters. Beyond firefighting they are called upon to perform a host of other duties. They are trained in CPR, first aid, highway accident rescues and other emergencies.

Regarding highway accident rescues, it could be a father heading out to an accident in which his own son or daughter could be involved. That is a great emotional point.

One emergency in particular that comes to mind in my riding is the tornado touchdown both in Grand Valley and the Orangeville areas. This week marks its grizzly anniversary.

Beyond these duties firefighters selflessly devote their time to parades, fire safety awareness campaigns, sponsorship of local causes and fundraising events to help sustain their service. Not only do they do their own work for nothing but they also have to go out and raise money for their own fire department. Almost all of this is done at their own personal expense in terms of time and money.

I believe that this motion is significant in that it provides recognition by this House of the work our volunteer firefighters do and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in support of it.

[Petitions, May 25th, 1994]

The second petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 is a 200-name petition from the Stayner area of my riding requesting the following:

We the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to ban the sales of the serial killer board game and to prevent any other such game or material to be made available in Canada in order to protect innocent children.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[Petitions, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. Pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a 300-name petition requesting the following:

We your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present exemption on the excise portion of ethanol for a decade, allowing for a strong and self-sufficient ethanol industry in Canada.

[Georgian Bay '94 Marine Heritage Festival, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Georgian Bay '94 Marine Heritage Festival is a co-operative initiative that will involve 61 shoreline municipalities along Georgian Bay and the north channel.

More than 100 community and family oriented events will take place between June 1 and September 30. These activities will include cultural celebrations, heritage re-enactments, interpretive and educational environmental events, on the water competitions including the International Atlantic Challenge and the tall ships visits to the communities all along the bay.

I congratulate the organizers of the Georgian Bay '94 Marine Heritage Festival for their initiative in promoting this unique part of Canada. I encourage all Canadians to take part in this historic event.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the hon. member shares with me the responsibility that we have to enhance our environment and turn it over to our children in better condition than when we took it on. That is a commitment that as a farmer I have always had.

As to the rest of it, I have lobbied for farm issues for years. One of the problems that I had as a person representing supply management within Canada was as I lobbied for my own sector I knew I was doing it to the detriment of another part of agriculture, one of the people who worked in the same business. In other words, if I was effectively able to get a good deal for supply management it could have been to the detriment of grains and red meat and that always bothered me.

Under the new GATT agreement we are now underneath one umbrella. Now we can lobby for the farm industry as a whole. Also, the GATT agreement laid out world-wide foundations that we never had before and now have.

When I campaigned in the October election I campaigned for the retention of article XI(2)(c)(i) for supply management because at that point that was what we understood to be the only position that we had and therefore we went for it.

When we became the government we found afterwards that the position of article XI(2)(c)(i) was not attainable because there were 116 countries out of 117 voting against it. That was not our fault. What we did was go to the places, the SM-5, the supply managed groups to replace that aspect of it and said: "All right, what do we need? What do we need to protect that part of agriculture?" They told us. We negotiated it and got it. That part of supply management is protected.

However, I want to go back to the foundation as the soil is within agriculture. With the GATT signing we now have a foundation that is world-wide that we can build from. If another country like the United States challenges us on wheat we can work from a base set of rules which we never had before. I think we are miles ahead because of that.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

The government recognizes that an economically healthy farm sector depends on conservation and protection of our natural resources. It is a simple fact. Without fertile soil and clean water, Canada's farmers cannot continue to produce the high quality nutritious food they are famous for.

Over the past few years all Canadians have come to recognize the importance of protecting the environment. Many Canadians have changed the way they go about their daily lives. They are reusing, recycling and reducing, the famous three rs.

More and more of our industries are also changing the way they go about business. They are trying to minimize their impact on the environment. They are also increasingly recognizing the need to protect the environment can represent business opportunities that not only result in environmental benefits but in jobs as well.

Canada's agri-food industry is no different. Things are changing on the farm. Many urban Canadians may not realize it but Canadian farmers are changing the way they do business. As we all know, change is not easy but farmers are used to facing challenges. For example, farmers across the nation are working to preserve wetlands that are crucial to wildlife and the entire ecosystem. In Prince Edward Island farmers are partners in the P.E.I. wetlands stewardship program that helps them build fences around wetland areas to protect them from cattle. Farmers are increasingly moving to low till or zero till cropping technologies to reduce soil loss and runoff into our lakes and rivers. In my riding of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe the Grey County Federation of Agriculture made mention of this problem in a brief presented to me in March.

Because much of our landscape is blessed with many rivers it is essential to protect them from contamination and from erosion. A study in progress in Ontario is indicating that no till farming has increased almost 50 per cent in the last three years.

Farm families have always been great recyclers and reusers. It is often born of necessity. Therefore it is no surprise that recycling empty pesticide containers is a major initiative found in many Canadian farm communities. Agricultural pesticide use is declining. Figures show Ontario farmers have reduced their use by about 20 per cent over the last decade.

In Quebec, farmers are taking part in a program to reduce their pesticide use by half by the year 2000. Farm organizations are increasingly taking a leadership role in promoting environmentally sustainable agriculture. Prairie pools and the co-operative formed by the Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta wheat pools are developing an environmental assessment guide. It will be distributed across the prairies to help farmers incorporate environmental planning into their farm management practices.

The government is working and will continue to work in partnership with farmers, farm organizations, industry representatives and the provinces to ensure this trend continues. It is in everyone's interest to see that Canada's agri-food industry is second to none in the world when it comes to working in harmony with nature. Building Canada's reputation as an environmentally sustainable producer of food and crops can only help us in seizing world-wide marketing opportunities.

Just last month the Canadian Agricultural Energy Use Data Analysis Centre was opened in Saskatoon. The centre will provide farmers, companies involved in agriculture and governments with the information they need to improve the efficiency of energy use in the agricultural sector. It is a partnership effort involving the federal government, the Saskatchewan government and the University of Saskatchewan.

Also last month the direct seeding program was announced. This three-year $1.6 million program will help Saskatchewan farmers to obtain the information they need to make the technology transfer to direct seeding, that is seeding the new crop directly into the stubble of the past crop.

What are the benefits of direct seeding? It reduces field work. It saves farmers fuel costs. It reduces soil erosion. The crop yields are equal to or better than traditional seeding methods.

There is another benefit that non-farming Canadians may want to spend a few minutes thinking about. We have heard a lot about greenhouse gases changing the global environment. Canadians are worried about this. Let us consider that scientists believe the undisturbed plant material left behind by direct seeding methods can reduce greenhouse gas concentrations. Agriculture can play an important role in protecting our environment.

The direct seeding program is a result of the partnership of the federal government, the provincial government, private business and non-government organizations. This is the kind of partnership for sustainable agriculture that we need to see continue and will continue from this government.

I quote from a Saskatchewan Wheat Pool brochure on sustainable agriculture: "We are not where we should be or could be, but we are a long way from where we used to be". The government, in consultation with stakeholders, is developing long term approaches to sustainable agriculture that will get us to where we should be, approaches that will integrate not only our environmental goals but our economic and social goals. Our rural areas and farming communities must be safe, healthy and vital places. These long term approaches will guide us as we develop a new national soil and water conservation program. This involves reviewing our programs for their environmental impacts and it involves continuing to help our agri-food industry to acquire the environmentally sound technologies and

practices it needs to meet our goals for a sustainable industry. That is this government's agenda to get us where we should be.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a lot of interest to the member's comments. I cannot say that I agree with all of them.

I am a poultry producer and I work under supply management. There are a few things I would like to clarify before I ask my question. First, if you go to the supermarket and take a look at the meat shelf, you will find that poultry is probably the most inexpensive buy on the shelf.

As a poultry producer, I make x dollars during the year because I have x number of chickens that I can grow. If I find ways of bringing my overhead costs down, I up my profit margins. That is what makes my industry so efficient.

It is a stable industry under supply management. A stable industry has money to put into research and development. As I said previously today, in the early 1950s it took 14 to 16 weeks to raise a four pound bird. A male bird now can be raised to that same weight in 37 days. That is research and development. That is from a stable industry.

The member suggests we are going to do away with supply management. We are not because we replaced import quotas with tariffs that effectively protect the industry within Canada. I would caution the member that as we look at lowering provincial barriers across the country, this national board will replace that same job.

We have to take a look at what happened in the United States. In 1958 Tyson Foods vertically integrated. We are talking about rural Canada. The strength of rural Canada is its farmers. Tyson Foods vertically integrated. Eighty per cent of the chicken production that was bordered along Canada went to the south central states. I know because I bought up some of that surplus equipment for my farming operation. It went dirt cheap. These

guys could not survive because of overhead costs and the price that they were getting for their poultry.

Within our industry we have health standards which the United States does not even come close to. A declassed bird in the United States is 60 per cent bruising and is sold off of the shelf. You will not see that here in Canada. We have pride in the products that we are putting forward.

Our farmers were protected under the GATT because the levels were set high enough to protect the industry. We have an efficient and stable industry under supply management which is putting forward an inexpensive food product.

I guess I have to ask the hon. member: What more do you want?

[Killer Cards, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the many constituents who have petitioned this House, I congratulate the Minister of Justice for bringing forth draft amendments to the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff Act.

These draft amendments would restrict the sale and distribution of serial killer cards and board games. We do not need products which commercialize and glorify violent crime. There is too much violent crime as witnessed by my constituents in the village of Clifford in the senseless shooting of Joan Heimbecker.

I trust that members from all sides on the justice committee will work co-operatively to achieve the restriction of these offensive products.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's speech very much. In fact the subsidies she talked about are a basic pet peeve of mine.

When they got into trouble in New Zealand, they had something they called welfare for sheep. That was the subsidy program they had. In 1984 when New Zealand had to realign its debt there was an 80 per cent write-off of equity in that country which I imagine the hon. member is well aware of.

As a poultry producer dealing under supply management at the present time in my farming operation I collect two subsidies, the farm tax rebate and the fuel tax rebate.

Since the early 1950s I have watched my industry go from producing a four pound chicken in 14 to 16 weeks to producing a four pound chicken in 37 to 41 days, a male or a female.

Under this type of system our industry has had a capital influx into research and development, R and D, which is one of the most important things in agriculture today. As a farmer I know that is true.

I am wondering what the hon. member thinks about supply management when she talks about the subsidy system from which we are not really collecting and being market responsive.