Lyle Vanclief

[Transport, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again does not have his facts straight. The minister has not made any statement as to the future of the WGTA. He has made a statement and has put in process the opportunity for all of the participants in the grain industry to take part in a debate in the consultation process regarding the future of that type of support to Canadian agriculture.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, September 27th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the comments of the member for Lisgar-Marquette. I guess that is about as far as we can say, that they were enjoyable.

I do want to point out to the member from the Reform Party that it keeps stressing that decisions like this by governments should be producer driven. There are already, as he and the Reform Party well know, 12 farm organizations and others requesting addition to the list. I do not really know what more they want than that type of thing. The legislation is producer driven and we as a government are responding to that at absolutely no taxpayer cost whatsoever other than providing a very efficient administrative process or availability to do so.

When I mention that it is clearly stated in the bill that Alberta barley producers will not be taking part. I would ask the member if he has any comments on the fact that since the Alberta barley growers through the Alberta barley commission have their own fund which they voluntarily submit money to, would he consider suggesting to the Alberta barley commission that it become part of this research situation?

When we look at the figures of the amount of money that the Alberta barley commission collects, it collects $1.11 million and spends $270,000 or 24 per cent of the amount of money that it collects on administration. When it is done through the Canadian Wheat Board it will cost 2 per cent.

Would the member for Lisgar-Marquette and his Reform Party colleagues consider suggesting to the Alberta barley producers who certainly want a good return on their dollar that it would be a much better return?

The Reform Party is always talking about administrative costs and wastes. We see 24 per cent used on administration and less than 50 per cent of what it collects used on research, market development, producer servicing and policy development. That same organization is sitting on an annual surplus of farmers' money that it is doing absolutely nothing with after having collected it of $295,839.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, September 27th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I will now congratulate the first speaker from the Bloc, the member for Frontenac, on being appointed critic for agriculture and agri-food as we could not make comments after his first comments in the House today.

I also want to comment on some of the concerns that the Bloc has raised. One is the statement made by the Bloc inadvertently that the wheat board buys Canadian wheat and barley. The wheat board does not buy Canadian wheat and barley. The wheat board

sells Canadian wheat and barley on behalf of producers in western Canada. It does not buy the product at all.

Regarding the other concern of some overlap or concern about spending taxpayers' dollars, one really tremendous thing about this amendment to the act which I want to clarify for them is that this will cost Canadian taxpayers absolutely nothing.

The cost of administration within the wheat board and in the research foundation will both be subtracted from the fees collected voluntarily from the producers.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to stand today to make some comments on Bill C-49.

I want to refresh everybody's memory on the purpose of the bill. It is giving effect to a change in the title of the department. At one time it was known as the department of agriculture or the ministry of agriculture and now it will be known as the ministry of agriculture and agri-food. That is one of the changes. Other changes and amendments will have to be made in corresponding

acts just to expand the act because of the role the department has been playing for many years. We are just bringing it up to date.

In response to some comments made by speakers in the opposition, the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois, concerning the allocation of spending, et cetera, they are not covered in the bill. They are not for discussion in the bill. It is at an administrative level in co-operation with the provinces and the federal government. It is ongoing at all times and certainly can and will continue.

In response to the member from the Reform Party suggesting that the minister give a speech on Thanksgiving Day, if he desires to do so he can certainly get a copy of a speech the minister made on September 19 in Regina to the Chamber of Commerce wherein he stressed the importance of agriculture and the agri-food industry in Canada. He also made some comments about what he saw as some of the issues that needed to be addressed. As the member already knows, next Thursday the minister will be attending a very detailed session on our vision and projected concerns about the total industry with members of the standing committee.

The bill makes other changes. At the present time it states that the mandate is clarified in the bill to include not only primary agriculture but products derived from agriculture. It is necessary to do that. The bill enlarges the responsibility of the minister by changing reference to experimental farm stations to research related to agriculture and products derived from agriculture, including the operation of experimental farm stations across Canada.

We need these important amendments to bring the matter up to date. They reflect the longstanding relationship between the ministry and the agriculture and agri-food industry of Canada. That relationship started changing a number of years ago when the ministry was given the mandate to ensure the safety of the Canadian food supply.

Our inspection services are still one of the most important points of contact between the industry and the department. The highest percentage of the employees in the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food are in the food inspection and production branch.

As years have gone by the department has played an increasingly important, necessary and continuing role in research and market development assistance. Enforcing safety rules is still important but the department sees itself as more of a supervisor in inspection roles.

A key activity in the department now is partnership. We must continue to rethink our working relationships with the industry clients out there. It is important to re-emphasize that food safety will always be our top priority but our priorities are in other areas as well. A partnership, however, can only survive if there is good communication among the department and the other parties. I am certainly looking forward to the type of communication and co-operation at the standing committee we have always had since I came to Parliament in 1988.

I want to emphasize another partnership recognized in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It was recognized for the first time at the meeting of federal and provincial agriculture ministers in Winnipeg back in early July. I am referring to the important role farm women play in the agriculture and agri-food industry. Not only do we look to them as the nourishers of the nation, but they are playing ever increasing and ever more important roles as business people, as individuals and as partners with their spouses or in businesses. They can play and will play even more roles. They bring to our attention in the department that we have to be constantly aware of safety in agriculture.

In Ontario a number of years ago, I had the privilege to be on a health and safety in agriculture task force for two years. At that time the necessity of our role was certainly made clear by farm women and other people involved in the industry.

We know, especially at the primary producer level, that days and nights can be long, wet, muddy or whatever, that conditions are not considered ideal. There are also bankers that would like to get the crop in the bin or to the elevator because there are bills to pay. We have to be very conscious of those concerns and the safety of everybody involved in the industry.

The role of government is changing. Canada's food inspection system is a good example. We cannot afford to have a full time permanent inspector at every factory and every processing plant for every minute. Therefore to a large extent we must rely on the industry to police itself. It too is a net beneficiary of the very high standards of food and produce quality in Canada. It has a responsibility to ensure the products and the processes it takes part in meeting the standards we set. There is also a facilitator role for the department to play.

The industry understands the high quality of our Canadian products is one of the biggest and best selling points for our domestic consumers and those abroad, and we have many of those. Our reputation for quality in Canada is money in the bank. We must make sure we can continue that.

It is a shared responsibility that is expensive to maintain. We spend a tremendous amount of money. I am not saying it is money wasted in any way, shape or form, but cost sharing arrangements are being discussed with the industry. They have worked very well in other countries. They are working very well in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Certainly those countries have very good standards as well.

We have to keep improving the inspection system and that is not cheap. For its part the department is trying to harmonize standards across the country. To our colleague from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke earlier I want to point out that one area in which we are making good progress and have co-operation is in getting rid of duplication or overlap among provinces in the Canadian food inspection system. We have a way to go yet. We can and will get rid of the duplication.

That area is of net benefit to everyone and it is necessary to continue that co-operation. We need to work more with the industry as far as research is concerned as often the result of scientific and technical breakthroughs are benefits to all Canadians.

We have goals we must reach in trade. In his comments earlier today the minister spoke about the goals we want to reach, including $20 billion in agriculture and agri-food export trade from Canada by the year 2000. We know if we are to reach that goal, I say to my colleagues and to the industry, we will have to get better at it than we are at the present time.

We need to capitalize on opportunities, new technologies, changing markets and trading agreements such as GATT, NAFTA and all the others we are involved in. That goal is there. The market is there.

The Asia-Pacific market, for example, is one that really beckons us. We know that 50 per cent of the increase in the world's wealth between now and the year 2000 will take place in the Asia-Pacific area. We also know that 50 per cent of the increase in world trade between now and the year 2000 is going to take place in that area. We know there is a booming increase in trade opportunities in Latin America and South America and we must be there. We as a department, collectively and collaboratively, need to work with all of the stakeholders and all the partners in the industry in order to take the best advantage of that. The opportunities are there so we need to work very closely.

In our platform during the campaign last fall we promised the creation of an agri-food council that would focus on international competitiveness. Some of my colleagues across the way will say yes, we put things in place but what are we going to do? I can assure you that these groups of people will not be put in place unless they are going to be given a mandate and that mandate is listened to and we can draw on the resources of those people.

We also said that we would be creating an agri-food trade service. We are doing that in the markets and industry services branch in order to provide a single window to get rid of duplication and get rid of red tape. Therefore, when an industry or someone in the industry wants to discuss access to federal government programs or federal government support, whether that be in research which we are encouraging as partnerships in research, or whether that be in support as far as marketing opportunities, they can do it at a single window.

Getting Ready to go Global is a $4 million program. Earlier this week I had the opportunity to join with some constituents at the Experimental Farm in Ottawa where the Indian agricultural program is working with some support from the Getting Ready to go Global program in the development of, and I hope I call it by the proper name, white Indian corn to be made into corn chips, et cetera.

The Getting Ready to go Global program is helping them to do the things that are there. It is to improve management capability, help people promote strategic alliances, apply technological solutions and develop market intelligence. We are pleased to be able to help there.

The agri-food industry marketing strategies is another one. There is the export expansion fund. I will give an example of the type of work of the agri-food industry marketing strategy. The department is providing up to $475,000 to the Quebec Agri-food Export Club in support of its international market developments. This is a club with international sales, excluding sales to the United States, of $25 million. It provides information, advice and training to its members. It supports and promotes co-operation among members in promotional activities abroad.

The department also helps agri-food exporters by collecting and disseminating trade intelligence. We have at the present time, and we will continue to emphasize this, about 85 commissioners working either full time or part time in over 100 foreign markets around the world.

For too long the Canadian agri-food industry has been content to just sell to the United States customer. Yes, it is our biggest, our closest and our easiest. However, we cannot put all our eggs in one basket, if I can use that well-worn phrase. We have to continue to look at the other areas, and we are doing that. We have to learn how to satisfy the appetites of the rest of the world. As the minister said this morning, we in North America are probably not too far away from the time when 50 per cent of the production at the farm gate will be used in some way in our society other than as a food product. There are increasing requirements for that.

The minister said as well that we have to look at the opportunities out there, whether they be domestic or abroad, and we have to produce what we can sell. We can no longer be successful trying to sell what we like to produce. We are all guilty of that. When you are in farming you kind of get into feeling that "I have always done this and I have always done that". That is what you become familiar with, but you have to roll with the punches.

I want to confirm the goals that the changes in this bill emphasize and offer as an opportunity. It is more than just a recognition that we have been doing these things in the department. We have been doing these things in the Government of Canada. I want to stress that better research in agriculture and agri-food will help us develop new products. Better partnerships will help us keep our standards high. In better partnerships, be that with farm women, industry, or the stakeholders, there are a lot of links in this chain and they all have to be strong and tight in order to pull.

Better partnerships will help us keep in touch with the needs within the sector. Better intelligence will keep us on top of market trends. Better promotion will increase the demand for Canadian agri-food products not only domestically but abroad. Better relations between the industry and the department will ensure that the agri-food industry continues to be the engine of prosperity for all Canadians.

In closing, I want to remind the House and everyone in Canada that the agri-food industry from the primary producer to the consumer, including the retail and the restaurant and hotel industry, employs 15 per cent of Canadian workers. It employs 1.8 million Canadians and accounts for 8 per cent of our gross domestic product. It is an important industry.

The government pledges to work even harder in order to make it even more successful and we look forward to the support of all the members in the House in doing so.

[Young Offenders Act, June 21st, 1994]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was unavoidably detained in the lobby for a moment and not here at the beginning of the vote. If I had been here I would have voted in favour of the legislation.

[Agriculture, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am able to report, as we know, that a task force was established in January to discuss with all stakeholders in the industry the future of supply management and orderly marketing in those sectors in Canada.

Those meetings have been taking place. The five commodity committees are meeting on a regular basis. I am proud and pleased to say that all stakeholders in the industry are taking part in those discussions. We will be reporting the very optimistic results of those discussions. The industry will be prepared to meet the challenges and the opportunities of the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations when they are implemented in 1995.

[Agriculture, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes full well the importance of the Ontario tender fruit industry. I emphasize the fact and stress that the industry has about $25 million in commercial sales a year.

The industry presented the government recently with a document entitled "Partnership for a Revitalized Ontario Tender Fruit Industry". That document is under review by the staff of the department.

As recently as this morning I met with a number of department personnel to discuss that. I can assure the hon. member and the industry that we will be meeting in the very near future with the industry participants to work together to strengthen and revitalize the industry.

[Barley Marketing, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government supports very strongly orderly marketing systems. We will work with the industry to continue the success of orderly marketing systems in the country for agricultural products so that farmers and Canadians can benefit from them in the future as they have in the past.

[Barley Marketing, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the matter has been before the government as we know for some time and before the previous government as well.

Some players and some stakeholders in the industry have responded to the six questions the minister put out with their answers and their suggestions. The minister is reviewing them at the present time in full consultation with the industry as he is doing so.

[Witness Protection Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to answer the questions from the hon. member.

In answer to his first question, yes, the department will continue and is open to dialogue as far as the labelling of food products in Canada is concerned.

In response to the second question, Canada has country of origin labelling requirements for food products sold in Canada at the retail level. These requirements are provided under the appropriate regulations for food covered by the Meat Inspection Act, the Canadian Agricultural Products Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.

The rules apply to these products for purposes of health and sanitary inspection whether they are produced domestically or imported. Our main objective has been and will continue to be the safety of the agri-food product.

Both federal and provincial labelling requirements for agri-food products were in place prior to the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement and were not affected by the agreement coming into force.

Product which is imported and only packed in Canada will still be marked with the country of origin. However if it is substantially transformed with the addition of further value it will then be marked as product of Canada.

Under the NAFTA, rules were negotiated for determining the country of origin. These rules will be used for customs purposes. In this regard U.S. customs require that all imported products be marked with the country of origin while Canada does not use markings for customs purposes for agri-food products.

Under the negotiations Canada achieved its objective of transforming the U.S. discretionary marking rules into a clear set of rules based on tariff classification. As a result Canada will have a better mechanism to ensure that the U.S. applies more consistent rules to Canadian exports into the United States.

Appropriate government departments are currently working to ensure that the new rules do not create unnecessary costs for Canadian exporters and that they are favourable for Canadian products which may be packed in the United States and returned for sale in Canada.