Lyle Vanclief

[Rail Strike, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to point out to the House that if it is costing the farmers one dollar needlessly it is one dollar too much. The Canadian economy is being hurt and we want to get the economy back on the rails.

Obviously the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP do not care. If they did care they would have helped us do that earlier this week and our economy would have been rolling again.

It is costing hundreds of millions of dollars and I implore the Bloc Quebecois to stop blocking the railways.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to comment for a few minutes this afternoon on the budget that was presented this week.

I want to start by passing on the comments that I made to members of the press in my riding when I spoke to them on budget night. When asked what my reaction was I said it was one of excitement because this is not the first budget that I have seen. I certainly have not been present for the considerable number that some members in the House have, but this is the seventh one.

This budget fulfils the expectations and hopes for the majority of Canadians. I have been telling my constituents for the last number of weeks and months as they offered suggestions to the government that our challenge was to meet the requirements out there with fair and equal treatment for everyone along with being effective. We met those criteria.

We know that two situations in Canada today are clouding the issue. One is the uncertainty of the future of the province of Quebec. I am pleased to say that the majority of the people in Prince Edward-Hastings say: "My Canada includes Quebec".

Fortunately for all of us, more and more Quebecers are realizing that every day and they have every reason to. More and more Quebecers are realizing that a strong central government is what is good for this country and what is good for everybody. All of us will be better off as Canadians and as human beings if we are part of the family we call Canada.

The finance minister pointed to the second cloud which is the debt and the deficit. I do not have to remind anyone of the size of that: over $500 billion in debt, a $42 billion deficit a year ago, some $80,000 a minute to cover the interest on it, and I could go on.

I need to say no more in emphasizing the fact that the government has a tremendous challenge. Our country has a tremendous challenge. This challenge can only be successfully met with competence, compassion, reform and hope. We made a great step toward that on Monday night with the budget.

We have been honest with Canadians by saying that we too know there is a lot more yet to do. What we did on Monday night was done by pushing the needed measures as close to the edge as possible and doing it without playing havoc with the economy which is growing at a faster rate than just about any other country in the world. Certainly it is the fastest of any of the G-7 countries. Things are on the move. Perhaps they are not moving as fast as we would like but they are certainly on the move and they are going in the right direction.

We knew we were being watched. We were being watched by the international community, by the money markets, the domestic financial institutions, the domestic money markets, the business community. We were being watched by everyone, including all Canadians.

We did what was needed but we did not enjoy it. I can say we did not want to do it because it is not nice to say that we are going to reduce employment, that we are going to have to make some changes. When I say we did not want to do it, it was not because it did not need to be done. It did need to be done. As the Prime Minister has said so clearly and so often, we did it because it was necessary.

It reminds me of some advice I gave to the finance minister leading up to the budget and the slogan used by the prominent company, Nike: Just do it. And we did it. We did it by making $7 worth of cuts for every $1 increase in revenue. We did it after

having listened to Canadians in the greatest consultation process that has ever taken place leading up to a budget.

We did it without increasing income tax. We did it without taxing dental and employer provided medical plans. We did it without making many changes that would affect to any great extent registered retirement savings plan contributions.

We did it without taxing lotteries. Many people thought we would. A number of people said not to tax lottery winnings. I told them that if they were to win a million dollars and had to pay tax on it but did not want to, I knew some people who would take their ticket for them.

We did it without changing the capital gains tax for small business and farmers. In so doing we again recognized the importance of small business and farmers in the Canadian economy.

Yes, we did it on the revenue side by increasing the tax on gasoline 1.5 cents a litre. I think that is fair and equitable from coast to coast. We also did it by cutting the size of government. Yes, I recognize that people in Prince Edward-Hastings riding in the civil service will have to contribute and will be contributing.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member for Frontenac that the changes made to the Western Grain Transportation Act are one time and final. As of August 1 this year the western grain transportation support will be over and done with. The dairy support-it is one of the hon. member's concerns-will still be 85 per cent in place as of August 1, 1995.

The changes we have made to the agriculture and agri-food budget have been fair and equitable. They will be effective.

I would also remind the hon. member that Quebec has not been unduly affected by the budget. If I look at the changes in the research branch, the reduction in staff in the province of Quebec at the end of all this-

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the question posed by the hon. member on the human resources investment fund that was recently announced in the budget.

The human resources investment fund will build on the strengths of its initial program components. Those program components include employment programs and services, social development programs in such areas as literacy and participation of disabled persons, the Canada student loans program and youth programs such as Youth Service Canada and Youth Internship.

The terms of the fund's operation will be developed in the coming months in consultation with the provinces with whom the government has already indicated its willingness to work.

The objectives of the fund may in some cases be best achieved through the direct delivery of services by the federal government. In other cases provinces or at times even local authorities may be best placed to achieve our common goals.

Based on what we have learned through the broad consultation process associated with social security reform, the new fund will establish certain principles. It will help create opportunities for people to develop skills, secure employment and adapt to change. The fund will better equip Canadians to keep their jobs in a changing world and provide the skills to find a new job quickly if it becomes necessary.

The new fund will focus on individual and local needs instead of trying to fit people into programs with rigid eligibility criteria. Programs will be tailored to meet the needs of the individual. At the same time the fund will encourage people to take charge of their own lives, establishing mutual responsibility. Individuals, employers and local communities will have as much at stake in the employment initiatives as governments.

The human resources investment fund will strengthen partnerships and create an effective division of responsibility between levels of government as well as among governments and the private sector.

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the hon. member's comments. I only regret that it is two minutes and not twenty, because I think I could help him understand. I am sure in the end he would understand and appreciate the action we have taken.

The hon. member is suggesting that the elimination of the Crow will have a damaging effect on the prairie economy. In fact, this government is certainly committed to restoring the economy in western Canada to its full potential. The document that has been put forth for discussion purposes, and I stress that, would see approximately half or about $800 million of the $1.6 billion ex gratia capital payment going to Saskatchewan.

The share will be representative of Saskatchewan's share of prairie grain movement. Farmers will also benefit from the capital gains tax advantage.

The government's assistance however is not limited to that. There will also be a share in the $300 million adjustment fund. That will be available for some areas in Saskatchewan as well.

These initiatives are only part of this government's plan to restore the prairie economy and help make this region an integral economic force in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. Changes with respect to freight rates have the potential to encourage diversification and value added production throughout the west.

I might interject here. I just got off the phone with a friend in a riding next to mine whose company is in the livestock industry. It had three orders from pork producers in western Canada today to increase and make some changes in those operations because of what this is going to do. It is indeed going to follow up on diversification.

Only days after the announcement, and the above is a good example, that potential is being recognized. Industry groups are already talking about moving into other crops and diversifying their operations.

It is not only farmers who are adjusting. Transportation industries ranging from trucking companies to seaports are closely examining the services they offer in order to increase

their efficiencies. Some are already offering suggestions for alternate commodities based on the transportation costs of these products.

These activities, coupled with the government's assistance to help farmers adjust to the short term impact of the loss of the WGTA will inevitably lead to long term economic growth in the prairies.

I ask the hon. member not to underestimate the skills and resources of all those involved in the prairie economy. These factors along with the financial assistance being provided will ensure a rapid adjustment to changes in the WGTA and the long term economic benefits for the prairies and for all Canadians.

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the hon. member's comments and expansion on the question directed to the minister some days ago.

The World Summit for Social Development is to take place next week in Copenhagen. It will be the first major international event to propose a vision for social development that has taken place in the 21st century.

Over a period of 18 months the federal government has been working with provincial and territorial governments, labour, business, aboriginal organizations and non-governmental organizations to prepare the Canadian participation and make the summit a success.

Many Canadian objectives are incorporated in the summit documents. I would like to list some that Canada will be supporting: reduction of poverty through job creation; economic security for people through productive employment; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; respecting women's equality; respecting and valuing cultural diversity; and spending less worldwide on military hardware and more on investing in people, in other words to be less concerned about the security of the state and more concerned about the economic and social security of individuals.

In this context the 20:20 formula the member referred to will be discussed in Copenhagen. It is certainly of interest to Canada. Donors would allocate 20 per cent of their official development budget to meeting the basic needs of other countries. Recipient countries would allocate 20 per cent of their national budget to programs aimed at meeting the human needs of people. However in Canada we plan to allocate 25 per cent of the CIDA budget to meeting basic human needs.

In an increasing global environment international security and stability have an important impact on Canadian people and Canadian prosperity. Actively promoting social justice, poverty alleviation, good government and human rights at home and abroad is an investment in Canada as well as assistance to those in greater need.

[The Budget, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the question of the member for Frontenac.

Yes, the annual $560 million western grain transportation subsidy is being completely eliminated on August 1. However I point out to the hon. member-and I know he realizes it-that the dairy subsidy is only being reduced by 15 per cent this year and 15 per cent next year. As of August 1, 85 per cent of that support will still be there.

Eliminating the so-called Crow subsidy addresses a longstanding equity concern that has been raised by eastern farmers. The adjustment package reflects the potential impact of eliminating a 96-year old commitment to the western grain sector.

In addition to the $1.6 billion, a multi-year adjustment package of $300 million is being put in place to facilitate the transition to a more efficient transportation system. The amount is not excessive. It is necessary to help grain producers adapt to the change and to compete effectively in international markets against subsidized foreign competition.

It is important to note the dairy industry does not face international competition because of supply management for 90 per cent of its production. Equally important, this government package of reforms to grain transportation is consistent with the position set out by the Quebec coalition on the WGTA.

The package of reforms is fair and balanced with respect to the different situations in different regions and different sectors. Everyone has done his or her share in contributing to deficit reduction. The government does not have a double standard as the hon. member for Frontenac has suggested. It is not true.

Rather, through the budget we offered all Canadians a single standard to strive for that will ensure future growth of the agriculture sector and maintain our competitiveness on the global field.

[Atlantic Canada, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments tonight. I can assure him that we heard what he has said. We heard what his representatives have said and we heard what the supply management industry has said.

Yesterday the hon. member asked the Prime Minister whether he plans on telling President Clinton that Canada has no intention of negotiating bilaterally any reduction in the tariff equivalents that were negotiated in the Uruguay round and then implemented by Canada.

As the Prime Minister stated very clearly in his response to the member, our application of tariff equivalents on supply managed commodities that were negotiated in the Uruguay round is fully consistent with our rights under both GATT and NAFTA.

We are satisfied that our legal position is sound and we will continue to hold firm on our position. This message will be conveyed to President Clinton by the Prime Minister during President Clinton's visit to Canada and to this House to speak tomorrow. The Prime Minister, as we know, will be meeting with President Clinton for the next two days.

During the FTA, NAFTA and multilateral trade negotiations, Canada's position was that we would not make any concessions that would undermine supply management. This position is reflected in all those agreements.

Tariffication was a central issue during the Uruguay round. It was clear that these tariff equivalents would apply to all imports, including those from the United States.

The United States has requested consultation and it should be seen as just that; a request to meet and discuss the issues. It is the first step in the dispute settlement process. If the United States so desires, it may eventually seek to resolve the issue by way of a panel under either NAFTA or the WTO or as it is otherwise

known, GATT. This, however, does not preclude Canada from requesting a panel in either NAFTA or the WTO, if we so desire.

I would like to point out again to the member that the Prime Minister met with the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, including representatives from supply management agencies, and including the president of the UPA who was present at that meeting on Monday of this week.

He indicated very clearly that Canada has a strong, legal case and that Canada would ardently defend its rights regarding the tariffication of import measures on supply managed commodities.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the hon. member's comments tonight.

On February 2 the United States trade representative, Ambassador Kantor, requested formal consultations under NAFTA relating to the U.S. access to the Canadian market for dairy and poultry products.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister for International Trade have repeated frequently and remain of the view that our application of tariff equivalents in our bilateral trade in poultry and dairy products, including ice cream and yogurt, is fully consistent with our rights under GATT and NAFTA. In fact, the ministers issued a press release on February 2 of this year setting out that view so there could be no misunderstanding on it. The Canadian position has not changed and is not changing. Moreover, both ministers stated their view again in this House last Friday.

The U.S. request for consultations should be seen as just that, a request to meet with us and to discuss the issue. The fact that the U.S. is seeking consultations under the dispute settlement provisions of NAFTA does give it a more formal character, I agree, but it does not alter its fundamental nature.

Requests for formal consultations occur quite frequently between trading partners. Sometimes they are in the form of a panel before they are over. Other times the consultations are adequate to resolve the issue. In some cases they are concluded only after lengthy discussions.

We expect these consultations to start in the next week or so. In this particular case we are satisfied that our legal position is sound and we will continue to hold our own. Our preferred approach is a negotiated solution.

It could be expected that the issue might arise in the upcoming visit of Mr. Clinton to Ottawa. If it does, the Canadian line will not change. We are acting within our trade agreement rights and we will defend those rights.

[Financial Administration Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on this bill that is before the House, Bill C-263.

I want to assure the member who just concluded his remarks that my remarks are not made in an adversarial way but just to simply point out how this bill would address the Canadian Wheat Board. I know it is a crown corporation that is of some interest to the Reform Party and it is of some interest to all of us in this House, particularly those who are involved in the agri-food industry.

I want to point out in the next few minutes why this bill is absolutely unnecessary and actually would be doing much of what the Reform Party has faulted governments in Canada for in the past, repeating something that is already done and doing things twice and spending money that is not necessarily spent.

The Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935 as a marketing agency for western grain farmers. At the time farmers in western Canada wanted a system that would control price fluctuations, distribute delivery opportunity equitably and move the largest volumes of grain at the best possible prices.

That mandate is still the same. The Canadian Wheat Board remains the same now as it was years ago in the mandate that it has, to earn farmers the best possible returns for their wheat and barley. That is exactly what the board has been doing for that 60 years. It has done an excellent job of selling Canadian grain at the best possible prices and then returning as much money as possible to the users of that board, those users being western Canadian farmers.

Although the Canadian board is a crown corporation, its operations are financed by 130,000 grain farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the grain growing areas of British Columbia.

This in itself makes this crown corporation unlike many of the others. Some crown corporations including the Canadian Wheat Board are exempt from the application of the Financial Administration Act. It is one of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt listed this afternoon as being exempt.

With this bill this exemption would be removed and the crown corporations affected by the bill would become subject to a different reporting system with different requirements.

For example, under this bill the Canadian Wheat Board would be required to submit a corporate plan to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for approval by the governor in council. The board would also have to submit an operating and capital budget annually for approval by Treasury Board. This report would then be included in a review by the parliamentary committee.

Finally, the wheat board would be subject to an audit by an outside auditor and possibly the Auditor General of Canada.

There is no doubt in my mind that the objectives of the bill are well intended. I can assure everyone that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the government are in favour of ensuring that the accountability is there. That accountability at the present time is to farmers, the government and to taxpayers.

It is essential to remember that the board's operations are funded by farmers, not by government. Nor does the board operate with a capital base funded by the government. Although some accountability to the government is appropriate the board's first responsibility is to western Canadian wheat and barley producers.

I should also emphasize that the board is already accountable to the government through a variety of provisions in the Canadian Wheat Board Act, a separate act. The safeguards established under that act are virtually the same as those under the Financial Administration Act. Again, why repeat it?

Even though they are there they are slightly modified to take into account the unique nature of the wheat board's business. For example, the board is required to file an annual report with the minister by March 31. This annual report is tabled in Parliament.

The wheat board act requires the board to have an external auditing firm conduct an audit each year and to keep proper books. The Canadian Wheat Board Act also grants borrowing powers subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance. In all of these examples the provisions of the Financial Administration Act are virtually identical.

I could go on but the point is Bill C-263 which has been put before us today is not the way to enhance the accountability of the Canadian Wheat Board. The government's main concern for accountability and the reporting process that ensures it should stem from a need to be aware of possible government expenditures.

There will only be government expenditures if there is a deficit in the pool accounts. A deficit in the pool accounts will only occur if the Canadian Wheat Board's initial payments to farmers are set at or raised to levels that exceed the ultimate levels from the sales of wheat and barley. Since the government must approve the level of the initial payments it already has an effective method of accountability in this area as well.

Another serious concern with the bill is that the nature of the marketing activities of the Canadian Wheat Board requires extreme confidentiality. The reporting relationship between the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is created under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and it is appropriate, given the need to ensure that confidentiality.

We are also concerned about timing. The minister has already announced his intention to begin a process that will rigorously examine all of the facts and issues relating to western grain marketing and the Canadian Wheat Board. It is no secret that opinions on this and these issues are sharply divided on the subjects. There have been meetings, rallies and demonstrations on both sides of these issues.

Before the government makes any decision on the future of the board, farmers have a right to carefully consider the situation and together they must decide what represents the best balanced solution for their industry. Bill C-263 represents a very important decision. Its impacts on the Canadian Wheat Board and on western grain growers are potentially far reaching.

It is our duty to act fairly through a transparent forum and to consult farmers before we make any major decision on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.

We know what the majority of farmers want. When we are convinced that the procedure to get their views has been fair, impartial and equitable and does represent what the majority wants, then and only then will this government be ready to approve changes to existing legislation.

Until then I urge members of this House to respond to Bill C-263 with a clear and strong message that we are not yet ready to make major changes without understanding the consequences and most important without consulting with its users, the prairie farmers.

There is still a lot of work to be done and there is still much consultation to go through before we can come to a definitive decision on the future of the wheat board.

In conclusion, I would ask the members of this House not to support Bill C-263 as it relates to the Canadian Wheat Board.