Lyle Vanclief

[Agriculture, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to the member across the way, he should get his facts straight. The United States has not yet made its decision on whether it is going to put end use certificates in place.

We have expressed to the United States our views on that. It knows our views and we will await its action as far as end use certificates.

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the House on third and final reading of Bill C-55, the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act.

I begin by thanking hon. members for supporting this bill at second reading. My colleagues clearly see the need to proceed with this bill because it will bring positive and lasting change to the Yukon. We appreciate their contribution to second reading debate and ask the House to once again give positive consideration to this legislation.

Bill C-55 will establish a new surface rights regime in the Yukon, a regime that will serve and protect the interests of all residents of the territory. As well, this final piece of legislation is required to allow implementation of the Yukon First Nations land claim and self-government agreements to proceed.

Clearly we only have one reasonable course of action. We must proceed with this bill as quickly as possible. We must live up to the crown's commitments to build new relationships with Yukon First Nations. In doing so we will open the doors for economic development, job creation and other social benefits for all residents of the Yukon.

Yukoners are virtually unanimous in wanting this bill to pass quickly. The minister has received letters, for example, from the Yukon Chamber of Mines urging the government to pass this legislation. Yukoners want and need the certainty of the economic development opportunities that this bill and the land claims settlement will bring.

Hon. members are aware that the surface rights board that will be established by Bill C-55 is a requirement of the Yukon umbrella final agreement. The creation of this board acknowledges the changing face of land ownership in the Yukon. It is an excellent example of foresight, planning and preparedness by government.

As land claims in the Yukon are settled, large tracts of land will be confirmed as First Nations land. Other residents of the Yukon will also be able to more readily acquire land as private owners. The crown's current role as primary land owner in the territory will gradually be eliminated.

At the same time, the certainty of land and resource ownership that will result will rekindle interest in subsurface minerals, including minerals on privately held land. In support of resource development and resource development initiatives, a new mechanism of public government is needed. This will ensure that access rights are available to those who want and need to use the land.

That mechanism is known as the Yukon surface rights board. It has been modelled on similar boards operating in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. This board will resolve disputes relating to both settlement and non-settlement lands throughout the Yukon. As has already been said, we anticipate that most of these disputes will involve access to land for exploring for or developing subsurface mineral resources.

We want to emphasize that the Yukon surface rights board will have a range of known and definite powers for resolving disputes. These will include the power to issue access orders, to establish terms and conditions of access, and to award compensation for access or for damage resulting from access. However, Bill C-55 will require people to attempt to negotiate access in compensation agreements before bringing a dispute to the board. The board will only be asked to resolve disputes where no such agreement was possible.

Orders of the Yukon surface rights board will be enforceable through the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory. Decisions may be appealed to the court on limited grounds, such as bias or lack of procedural fairness.

We also want to stress that the board will take a balanced approach to its work. Bill C-55 ensures that all sectors of the Yukon society will have an opportunity to participate in the important decisions that need to be made.

Under the terms of its land claims agreement, the Council for Yukon Indians will have the right to nominate one-half of the members of the surface rights board excluding the chairperson. Yukon Indians will also be guaranteed representation on any panel created by the board to deal with matters concerning settlement lands. This will give aboriginal people an important and effective role in decision making relating to surface rights.

The remainder of the board's members will be nominated by the federal government. The minister intends to ensure that all interests in the Yukon are represented on the board. It will become a practical example of resource co-management that can be replicated in other jurisdictions.

Bill C-55 was drafted with cost efficiency in mind. It provides a less costly and time consuming option than the courts for addressing issues of access and compensation. The requirement for negotiation and possibly mediation before bringing a dispute to the board is also intended as a cost saving measure.

As hon. members are aware, this bill is based on extensive consultation with representatives of the Yukon First Nations, the territorial government, the mining industry and the Yukon general public. Many of these parties have been directly involved in drafting this legislation. Consequently, Bill C-55 is fair and responsible to everyone with a stake in the future of the Yukon.

As a result of the unprecedented consultative process, we have been able to reach a general agreement on the principles of this bill. We have also reached consensus on almost all of its provisions.

As I said at the outset, we have no reasonable alternative but to proceed with this bill. Parliament's endorsement of this legislation is critical to the process of settling land claims in the Yukon and bringing the fundamental democratic right of self-government to Yukon First Nations. It is vital that we uphold the crown's honour by fulfilling our obligation to Yukon First Nations under the land claims agreement.

Bill C-55 is also sound, responsible and necessary legislation in its own right. It will bring decision making closer to the people affected. It will provide a known regime for obtaining access to private and public lands. This in turn will facilitate economic development and provide a level playing field for Yukon industry compared to other areas in Canada. This will ensure that resource development projects will go ahead after many years of delay and frustration.

Bill C-55 will also give Yukon Indians the chance for a new partnership with governments and non-aboriginal Yukoners. This is a goal that is supported by all Canadians. I therefore urge my hon. colleagues to agree to send this legislation to the other place after which an order in council can be approved to proclaim this legislation into law.

Combined with the Yukon land claims and self-government legislation, Bill C-55 will help bring about positive changes that have been long envisaged in the Yukon.

[First Nations Housing, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this government is now examining how changes can be made to the Western Grain Transportation Act, which enable Canada to meet its international obligation and which result in the greatest possible benefits to prairie farmers and the prairie economy.

There are two compelling reasons we are talking about change. The new world trade agreement under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade calls upon countries to reduce export subsidies. Those reductions must occur both in expenditures and volumes exported. The western grain transportation subsidy on shipments to west coast ports and Churchill is considered an export subsidy under the terms of the agreement.

Legislation which will enable Canada to implement the terms of the GATT was tabled in the House recently. The uncertainty that would result in the grain industry were we not to reform the WGTA in response to the new world trade agreement would be untenable. The WGTA must be reformed before there is any threat of the volume limits on export subsidies being exceeded.

The second compelling reason for change is exactly the concern expressed in the member's question. That is the viability of the prairie economy. It has long been argued that the current method of payment discourages high value production and processing in western Canada. The world is changing. The new world trade deal has opened new opportunities for Canadian products and specifically for higher valued consumer oriented products. We must ensure that our industry is equipped to compete and gain its share of these rapidly expanding world markets.

As the government considers the best means for reforming the WGTA the fiscal circumstances of the government cannot be ignored. Agriculture will, along with other departments of government, have to bear its fair share of the effort to put our fiscal house in order.

As we consider reform the views of farmers across Canada are being taken into account. Far from ignoring the views of farmers we are asking them very specific questions on how a new payment method for the WGTA might be designed.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has had meetings with representatives of the major farm organizations and commodity groups from eastern and western Canada. They are being asked for their views on the two specific options that have recently come forward from the producer payment panel and from the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta. At the same time consultations have been undertaken by the Minister of Transport on efficiency issues.

The end result will be reform for the grain transportation system that will meet our fiscal responsibilities and our international trading obligations. We also want to ensure that our Canadian farmers come out on the winning end of the issue.

[Hugh O'Neil, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the career of one of most respected and accomplished parliamentarians of the province of Ontario. Hugh O'Neil announced yesterday that he would not be seeking re-election.

Hugh O'Neil was first elected to the provincial legislature for the riding of Quinte in 1975. Since then his 20-year career has seen him go from being the lone voice of the Liberal Party in eastern Ontario to being a senior and trusted minister of the cabinet under Premier David Peterson. He has led Liberals to unprecedented heights in eastern Ontario with electoral victories, including my own to this Chamber in 1988.

His dedication to serving the community and his unerring ability to get the job done against all odds have been the hallmarks of his remarkable career. No amount of credit or praise can express the appreciation and gratitude that I feel he deserves for his outstanding service and for his unparalleled political accomplishments.

The people of the Quinte area will be the lesser with the loss of his strong voice in Toronto. I know all members of the House, particularly those who know Hugh, join me today in wishing him and his wife Donna all the very best for a well deserved retirement.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the hon. member for Frontenac. The dairy farmers of Quebec and all of the supply managed sectors in Quebec know the value of supply management. If the translation was correct, he indicated that they did not realize the value or they did not know. However, in his previous comments he said that they did.

Forty-eight per cent of industrial milk production in Canada is held by producers in Quebec, not 48 per cent of the total production. There is a lot of fluid milk or consumer milk but the industrial milk is that milk which goes for cheese and further processing. That is held in Quebec.

I have said for a number of years and I will continue to say that even though there has been some tariffication used as border controls rather than a quantitative control, I am very confident that supply management will be there for those sectors for a long period of time.

I question the member's statement of the value of quota. If the member looks at what has happened to the value of quota, he will find with very few exceptions that its value in the last number of months or since the GATT agreement of about a year ago has not increased. I do not believe it has decreased, but if it has it has been a very marginal amount. That happens over the years because of production et cetera. It will go up and down.

It is solid and it can be maintained. The government has shown very clearly in working with the all the stakeholders in the industry over the last number of months that it is our intention to maintain it for the betterment of all Canadians right from the farmer to the consumer.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member across expects members on this side of the House to say that they do not believe in supply management of the dairy, egg and poultry sector, he is speaking to the wrong group. We believe in it. We support it. We are working with those sectors.

I have had the opportunity and still have the privilege of chairing the task force that is working with all of the stakeholders in the supply managed sector. Each one of the commodities, be they dairy, egg or poultry, are adjusting and evolving.

I am sure the member is somewhat familiar with what has taken place during the last few weeks in the poultry industry. The supply managed industry has provided, at a reasonable cost to Canadian consumers, the highest quality, most constant supply of those products that any country in the world has without fluctuating prices. The supply is always there. It is of high quality and it is safe.

In return it has given a tremendous amount of stability not only to the primary producer but to the processors and to the complete agri-food chain. They know where their product is coming from. They negotiate what the price is going to be and then the consumer knows that product will always be there and be of top quality.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to be able to speak for a few minutes this morning on Bill C-57 and to talk about world trade and the importance of world trade to Canada and to Canadians, in particular the men and women who work in the country's agriculture and agri-food sector.

The legislation we are discussing today will establish the new World Trade Organization or the WTO. It will incorporate the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, a sweeping 120-nation accord which was agreed to in principle in December last year and was approved by member countries last March or April in Morocco. The agreement and the WTO which will administer it offer great benefits for Canadians in the creation of jobs, wealth and the opening and securing of new and vital markets for the country's export commodities.

Canada is a nation that is dependent on trade, and we all know it. Nowhere is that more evident than in the agriculture and agri-food sector. In 1993 Canadian agri-food exports of $13.3 billion contributed a surplus of almost $3 billion to Canada's balance of trade, almost one-third of Canada's total merchandise trade balance. As former Liberal agriculture minister, Eugene Whelan, once noted, agriculture pays the bills.

At the same time Canada's share of the world agri-food market has declined since the early 1960s. In contrast the European union's share, particularly that of France and the Netherlands, has increased significantly. From Canada's per-

spective exports to Europe fell from $1.35 billion in 1981 to about three-quarters of a billion in 1993. At the same time our imports from the European union rose from about $400 million to almost $1 billion. This tells us that while the sector is doing well it must continue to do better.

Last year the industry and federal and provincial governments agreed on the goal of increasing Canada's agri-food exports by 50 per cent from $13 billion per year in 1993 to about $20 billion per year in 2000.

In July of this year the agriculture ministers reaffirmed that goal and added a further target of achieving a 3.5 per cent share of world agri-food trade. That is an objective in line with our historic share, but it will push the requirements to meet that to exports which will reach a value and total of about $23 billion.

In addition to steps that are being undertaken in Canada, the new WTO will have a large role to play in increasing our exports, increasing jobs and increasing prosperity. The World Trade Organization represents a significant step forward for the agriculture and agri-food sector. The agreement sets down for the first time ever clear rules for international trade of agricultural products.

The agreement represents a substantial reduction in trade distorting export subsidies, better trade rules for agriculture, and improved and more secure access to markets around the world for Canadian producers and processors. It will greatly assist Canadian producers and processors in their continuing efforts to develop new markets around the world. The new markets will be in addition to the Mexican and U.S. markets that we have obtained through NAFTA. New rules will apply equally to all countries and the specific exemptions of countries will be eliminated. This will allow Canadians to compete in a more predictable and fairer international trading environment.

What does it mean in real terms? The respected OECD or Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development predicts that for all sectors, the total, the agreement will inject almost $8 billion into the Canadian economy by the year 2002. That is $8 billion into the pockets of working men and women across the country over the next eight years.

The government was elected to create jobs and wealth. That is why I am bullish on the WTO. I know some members, particularly those from Quebec, Ontario and Atlantic Canada, have some genuine concerns about just what sort of impact the agreement will have on the country's vital and prosperous supply managed sector, the dairy, egg and poultry sector.

Let me take this opportunity to assure the House that supply management will be able to continue to operate as an effective Canadian approach to producing and marketing dairy and poultry products. The agreement supports the continuation of the supply managed industry through two fronts. The first front is the import tariffs first announced in December 1993. They will maintain a high level of protection for the sector. It is true these levels will be reduced by a total of 15 per cent over the course of the next six years, but it will still afford producers and processors with the protection they require. The six-year phase in period will give them ample opportunity to make the necessary adjustments in order to compete and win in the new international marketplace.

Imports which will be coming in under the minimum access commitments will not unduly disrupt the Canadian market. For butter the access commitment will rise from about 1,900 tonnes to around 3,200 tonnes from the year 1995 to the year 2000, a five-year period. In the poultry area import access of chicken will continue to be governed by the CUSTA or the FTA. Access for turkey will rise slightly to about 5,600 tonnes by the year 2000 while egg access will also rise very slowly. It is unlikely there would be imports of dairy, poultry or egg products outside these access commitments since the tariff levels will make them uneconomical.

The government regards very seriously its commitment to the future and to the well-being of the supply managed sector. That is why on December 16, 1993 the federal and provincial agriculture ministers formed a small task force, headed by myself, to look into the specific implications for Canada's supply managed industries.

After consulting with all stakeholders the task force proposed that an industry ad hoc review committee in each case be established for each commodity group sector. These ad hoc committees have been meeting throughout the year, will be meeting over the fall, and will continue to meet to determine whether a consensus can be reached on orderly marketing frameworks for the future. The task force was scheduled to report to the federal-provincial ministers meeting in December. I can report the results are very promising, although they have been incredibly challenging and are not all completed yet. Successful conclusions will be reached in order to maintain the sustainability of our orderly marketing system to the benefit of the industry and to all Canadians.

The World Trade Organization also holds benefits for other sectors within the Canadian agricultural industry. Volumes of European union and United States wheat shipped with export subsidies will be reduced over the next six years by 40 per cent from the levels they are at present. The reductions in export subsidies for wheat, barley, vegetable oils and other grains are expected to significantly improve market prospects for Canadian grains and oilseeds in world markets.

The agreement offers good export potential for other commodities as well. Replacing import restrictions and levies with tariffs in the European union, Japan and Korea will result in additional export opportunities for beef, pork, malt and a range of processed food products. The inclusion of an agreement on intellectual property rights will offer protection for Canadian whisky and wine names. This is expected to improve the marketing of these products throughout the world.

Processed food and vegetables such as French fried potatoes, canned corn, frozen blueberries and raspberries, and other products such as honey, maple syrup and apples, will benefit from reduced tariff and non-tariff barriers notably in the European union and Japan. Special crops such as dried peas, beans, lentils, tobacco, mustard, canary seed and alfalfa will also benefit from improved access. For example, the European union will eliminate tariffs on lentils and white pea beans over the phase in period. Japan will reduce its tariffs on lentils by 36 per cent.

A framework of rules will reduce the misuse of technical measures as unjustified barriers to trade. Measures to protect human, animal and plant life or health, which measures were usually referred to as sanitary and phytosanitary measures, will be subject to clear disciplines. We will continue to have the right to establish the level of health protection that we consider appropriate in Canada. However, the measures any other country uses to achieve that level of protection must be based on a sound scientific approach.

As I mentioned earlier, the WTO will for the first time establish clear rules for international trade of agricultural products and eliminate heavy handed and unfair trade rules and restrictions. A good example is the U.S. and its use of the section 22, a trade measure it has used that has been featured prominently in recent Canada-United States bilateral relations.

When the World Trade Organization is implemented in 1995 the United States will have to give up its GATT waiver which allows it to take section 22 trade actions. Obviously there will continue to be disagreements in our large and mutually beneficial trade. We will deal with those on an individual basis as they arise. Thanks to the WTO a particularly onerous piece of trade protection such as section 22 will be a thing of the past.

As countries around the globe change to meet their WTO commitments, Canada too will have to make some adjustments in order to comply with the new world of international trade.

While the export subsidy provisions of the agreement will have an impact on the Western Grain Transportation Act, the Government of Canada has already been consulting with the sector to reform the WGTA. This consultation is designed to ensure that the WGTA better meets the needs of producers, industry and Canada's export customers and to bring it in line, along with other government programs and policies, with the new fiscal realities being faced by the government.

This consultation will ensure that affected stakeholders will have a vital role to play in crafting a made in Canada reform of the WGTA. Over the course of the next few months the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will conclude these consultations with a view to being in a position to make an announcement early in 1995. The government is confident that these reforms can be implemented long before the World Trade Organization reduction provisions would take effect.

The world is changing and it is imperative that Canada change with it, lest we will be left behind. The WTO will usher in a new, vibrant and exciting period in international trade, a period where clear trade rules will replace unfair and discriminatory trade barriers, where Canadian products will be able to compete in markets around the world on their own merit and not be hobbled by the extra weight of trade restrictions, where Canadian producers, processors and exporters do not head for the end zone only to find that the goal posts have been moved.

As I said at the beginning, Canada is a trading nation. Much of its wealth depends on trade. Fully one in four jobs in this country are trade related. The agriculture sector, indeed all sectors, need the stability and the market certainty that the World Trade Organization has to offer.

Canadians are ready, willing and able to do the job. They simply require access to the proper tools with which to do that job. The WTO will provide them with the necessary tools to compete and to win the export markets, to further hone our competitive edge and to create jobs and prosperity for all Canadians. I think they deserve that chance.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the hon. member's amendment to clause 6 of Bill C-49.

The minister already has the power to designate inspectors under other legislation the minister administers. This change, taken in conjunction with clause 18 in Bill C-49, merely allows the minister to designate inspectors under the Food and Drugs Act. The Minister of Health can also appoint inspectors as well as the Minister of Industry with whom the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food shares the responsibility for the administration of the Food and Drugs Act.

The authority to inspect comes from individual acts, not from the minister. That is what we need to point out here. The amendment gets very restrictive and does not state what it is possible to do under the act. The minister can appoint an inspector. The minister cannot be as specific and restrictive as this amendment states. The authority to inspect comes in the individual acts that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food administers, such as the Food and Drugs Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Canadian Agriculture Products Act. The inspection powers that are given to the minister must be done in general terms in order to ensure that it applies to the inspection provisions of such acts as the Food and Drugs Act.

I must remind the members that if it is made this restrictive it can be costly, it can be absolutely too restrictive. An inspector's duties are outlined in other acts and we must remember that inspectors have many more duties than inspect because they might have to make recommendations and determinations on what further action goes on from there.

We must be very careful that we do not tie the activities of inspectors or the activities of the minister. The bill allows the minister appointments through other acts which give the inspectors their jurisdictions and their activities from there.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the amendment of the member for Malpeque.

First, to be very clear, I do not feel that the amendment is necessary. We certainly accept and understand the concerns of the member. I understand the concerns of members opposite. There is no question that in part III of the main estimates all of this is done.

The Financial Administration Act requires that Parliament authorize all payments out of the consolidated revenue fund. If Parliament is not satisfied with the information that is provided to support the spending estimates of departments, it can refuse to appropriate funds on request. This gives Parliament effective control over public spending and information used to justify that spending.

As we know the standing committee has a major impact on the information provided in part III of the main estimates which for all departments has replaced annual reports.

We must remember that the soonest annual reports come out after the completion of a fiscal year is eight to ten months. The legislation requires them and it is eight to ten months after the fact. By that time the estimates are also in progress. The estimates include everything that has always been in an annual report. I think the challenge for the committees, whether it be agriculture or other standing committees, is to do a better job and better understand the main estimates when they are discussed. After reading part III of the main estimates, we have a chance to talk about what has happened, what the estimates are for this year and what is the direction for years to come.

The member for Frontenac said that organizations in the province of Quebec have an annual report. I do not question that they have an annual report. However, I question whether they

have main estimates and the progression of a document like that available to us here.

The question is whether it is necessary to retain a reference to the reporting requirement and when it would not be feasible. It would not be feasible to legislate under an annual report. If what is in an annual report is legislated, every time somebody wanted to change the types of things that were in an annual report there would have to be changes in legislation. That is certainly not feasible and not in the interests of time when we already have all of this available.

I think we have an opportunity here to do an even better job than has been done in the past. We can do it and save money and avoid duplication.

I recommend that we leave the bill as it is and suggest that the amendment of my hon. colleague is not necessary.

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, first of all to the members of the Bloc Quebecois and Reform I would like on

behalf of the minister to extend apologies that he could not remain for the debate on this bill because of cabinet duties. He assured me he will be reading your comments.

I would like to clarify a couple of things for the Reform Party today. The member for Lisgar-Marquette made some comments. Since we could not comment at that time I would like to do so now. The member made reference to Grandin wheat. I would point out to the member that soon after taking office this government consulted with the industry. It felt that Grandin wheat was not going to improve the quality of the great Canadian product we sell. It did not grant a licence to that variety of wheat.

There was reference to an assistant commissioner who had some dealings with that. I would clarify for the member that that person is no longer an assistant commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission.

I find this passing strange and I would like to have some comments from the member for Athabasca at this time. As the great free enterpriser that the Reform Party sees itself, I find it interesting that it has some concern that we as a government want anyone who is dealing with it, people who are buying grains from Canadian farmers to have licences and the support or the bonding or whatever term should be applied to it in order to protect Canadian farmers.

That is one of the duties we have. If it was a producer in one of their ridings who was found to be dealing with someone who was not bonded, I wonder what their feeling would be on that.

In closing, I would make one further clarification for the Reform Party members. The member for Lisgar-Marquette said that commissioners are appointed for life. That is not the case. They are seven year appointments. Assistant commissioners are five year appointments. I just wanted to put that clarification on the record.