Marlene Cowling

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question with respect to agriculture.

I want to assure the hon. member that for those of us who come to this House from a farming background, we have a number of issues around agriculture that are going to keep farm families in this country alive and well. I would like to mention a few of those.

One is the whole farm support program. I believe that the hon. minister of agriculture should be congratulated for taking the incentive to listen to farm families through a consultation process again and bringing forward those issues which are dear and near to the hearts of farm families.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

I should remind the hon. member that we are going through a process of review for the social security programs and it will be up to the people of this country to make that decision. We are listening through that consultation process and I am assured that the people of Canada will tell us what they believe is the right thing to do with respect to social programs.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to speak on full supply for the 1994-95 main estimates.

Many of us are participating in the consideration of the main estimates which are prepared in support of the government's appropriation bill for the first time. I would like to take this opportunity to summarize for members the significant features of the 1994-95 main estimates and to describe the relationship between these estimates and the government's expenditure plan which was presented in the February 1994 budget.

The 1994-95 main estimates set out details of $160.7 billion of planned government spending. This represents a decrease of 0.2 per cent over the 1993-94 main estimates. It is important to note that almost 70 per cent of the $160.7 billion has been authorized by Parliament through substantive legislation. These statutory expenditures in the amount of $112.2 billion include the following: major federal government social transfers to Canadians, including old age security, guaranteed income supplements, spouse's allowance and unemployment insurance benefits, transfers to provinces under the fiscal equalization program, transfers to the provinces for health, post-secondary education and social assistance and public debt charges.

Therefore through these estimates the government is seeking Parliament's approval to spend $48.6 billion for those programs which rely on annual appropriations. Planned expenditures for these voted programs represent a decrease of $330 million or 0.7 per cent from 1993-94.

What is the relationship between these main estimates in the amount of $160.7 billion and the total budgetary expenditure forecast in the amount of $163.6 billion projected in the February 1994 budget? Allow me first to identify those items which

are included, followed by a description of items we were unable to include for various reasons.

As the member for Dauphin-Swan River, I am pleased to note that the 1994-95 main estimates incorporate a number of significant expenditures reductions set out in the February 1994 budget which amount to $1.2 billion. These savings are comprised of reductions in areas such as operating budgets, $400 million; ministerial offices, $13 million; defence, $350 million; cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter program, $395 million; and international assistance, $91 million.

These reductions clearly demonstrate the government's ability to follow through on its plans and policies to restore fiscal responsibility. We are keeping our word.

Items not included which total $2.9 billion essentially fall into three categories: adjustments, reserves and allowances for lapses. With reference to adjustments, some elements of the planned spending could not be incorporated in the main estimates because of the timing of the budget decisions or because they depend on the passage of separate legislation.

However, let me reaffirm the government's intention to deliver on the fundamental policy reforms and expenditure reduction measures involved. Major items in this category, all of which are decreases, announced in the February 1994 budget and not reflected in the 1994-95 main estimates include: changes to the unemployment insurance program, $725 million; reductions in subsidies to businesses, $117 million; reductions in non-statutory grants and contributions, $45 million; suspension of annual salary increments for public service employees, $50 million; and a reduction in the House of Commons budget, $5 million. The total savings anticipated from these adjustments in 1994 are $942 million.

The second item which was provided for in the expenditure plan of the Minister of Finance but not included in the main estimates is reserves. Reserves are excluded from the main estimates because they are used to meet spending requirements which cannot be detailed but are likely to arise during the year and appear as supplementary estimates.

Supplementary estimates A, which were tabled in the House of Commons on May 27, 1994, are an example of the use of reserves, in this case to allow the government to deliver the Atlantic groundfish strategy. Reserves in the 1994-95 estimates amount to $4.7 billion.

The third and final item which was included in the total budgetary expenditure forecast presented by the Minister of Finance but not included in these estimates is the provision for an anticipated lapse of $875 million in spending authority; that is, spending authority that will not be exercised by departments and agencies.

Lapses can occur due to many factors which are difficult to predict, ranging from contractual delays with outside parties to weather induced delays on construction projects.

Thus far in discussing these main estimates I have focused entirely on the significant features of the government's planned spending and direct budgetary action to reduce expenditures. In addition, I would draw members' attention to the fact that main estimates documents also contain information on numerous initiatives which the government has under way to improve service delivery to Canadians and to make government more efficient. Highlights of these initiatives are provided in part I, chapter 5 of the main estimates.

Improving service delivery to Canadians can be accomplished without increasing expenditures through greater co-operation with other levels of government, redesigning service delivery mechanisms and establishing a regulatory regime that encourages competitiveness and economic growth.

For example, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal is co-ordinating and steering a process to examine overlap and duplication and to clarify federal-provincial roles and responsibilities through co-operative intergovernmental arrangements.

The federal government has invited the provinces to examine such areas as securities regulations, environmental assessment regulations, food inspection, access to government business programs and services, student aid administration, drug prosecutions, social housing and labour market programs.

Another initiative designed to improve service delivery to Canadians is the establishment of Canada business service centres. CBSCs provide a comprehensive access point for information, assistance and referrals on all government programs and service to businesses. CBSCs are also intended to improve co-ordination and co-operation among federal departments and agencies that offer programs and services that interest or effect the business community. Aside from start-up funding to offset technology investments, CBSCs are being established without new operating resources.

In conclusion, as the member for Dauphin-Swan River, I would note that the 1994-95 main estimates reflect the government's resolve to implement measures which it believes are necessary to restore fiscal responsibility while remaining responsive and innovative to ensure quality and efficiency in public services.

[Northern Living Allowance, June 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to address the reduction of the northern living allowance. The towns listed in appendix C of the Revenue Canada income tax guide are to endure a gradual reduction of the amounts with total elimination by 1995.

For the Canadians who live in these towns, and specifically my constituents of Dauphin-Swan River, this deduction is not one of convenience but a means of compensating for the burden of having to travel up to 300 kilometres to seek medical attention.

All Canadians are entitled to equal access to health care and government services. Geography and standard of living create barriers to such services. With the emphasis of the Canadian economy focused upon urban centres dotting the 49th parallel it would seem that we are penalizing those who inhabit our northern and rural regions. Large corporations offer their employees isolation pay in order to entice transfer to these locations.

I implore the hon. Minister of Finance within his mandate of fiscal responsibility and reduced spending to explore other avenues of revenue generation other than eliminating the northern living allowance for those towns listed in appendix C.

[Government Contracts, June 2nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on May 4 the hon. member for Laurentides proposed:

That the government should systematically table, every month, all contracts awarded by departments and by the agencies that report to them, with any related information, in order to (a) keep the taxpayer appropriately informed, (b) stimulate competitiveness, and (c) ensure that government decisions are open and transparent.

As the member for Dauphin-Swan River I want to assure the hon. member that from the very outset of its mandate this government has been committed to fairness and openness in government contracting. This government has stressed the need for maximum use of competition by departments and agencies when contracting for the goods and services it requires from the private sector to fulfil its various programs.

I believe there is a compelling need especially these days for strict fiscal restraint to ensure that each dollar spent by the government is a necessary expense and that it represents the best value that can be achieved in the use of that scarce resource. At the same time I agree that all government contracting must be undertaken in a manner that keeps the taxpayer informed, stimulates competitiveness, and ensures that government decisions are open and transparent. Treasury Board already has in place contracting policies that address these specific goals.

I should like to point out the magnitude of the government's contracting activities. The Government of Canada is the country's largest user of private sector supplies. There are over 200,000 transactions each year ranging from small purchases such as items of stationery to major procurements such as military equipment.

By relying on the program experts of departments, only a very small percentage of government contracts often associated with large and risky initiatives require the collective review of ministers. All contracts however are subject to the requirements of the Treasury Board contracting policy whose principles and procedures I again emphasize ensure an open, transparent and competitive contracting process.

While the Department of Public Works and Government Services undertakes many contracts on behalf of other departments, close to half of all contracts are awarded under the authority of individual departments.

In these circumstances I cannot agree that the government should impose the suggested detailed monthly consolidation of all this contracting information. The cost of preparing such a list and the time spent preparing it would far exceed any benefit. Information on the magnitude of government contracting already exists.

This government is making improvements to ensure even greater transparency. Each year the public accounts include substantial information on contract expenditures. This is listed by individual department. It is then further broken down by individual contractor for all contracts which exceed $100,000.

For professional and special service contracts, an area which has grown over the past decade, I refer the hon. member to the convenient summary in the public accounts. It groups contracts for each department under the most common types of services the government acquires, such as accounting services, engineering and architectural services, information services, legal services, training and educational services, and the like.

In addition, there is Canada's international trade commitments which require specific detailed reporting on contracts awarded. For example the comprehensive reports required under the North American Free Trade Agreement are currently being implemented.

In this regard I would like to inform the hon. member that under the terms of this agreement the government is committed to the use of open and competitive contracting for all the procurements in excess of the NAFTA thresholds. This means ensuring that American and Mexican as well as Canadian companies are aware of the government's needs and have an opportunity to bid to provide them.

Even as we are adjusting to the international aspects of this new operating environment, we must also make preparations to provide the other parties with the annual report which I previously mentioned. This will prove that we are fulfilling the terms and the spirit of the agreement. I know that achieving trilateral agreement on the nature and precise detail of what is to be recorded has not been easy.

Furthermore, at least in Canada's case, there is a related ongoing period of difficult adjustment. As departments develop and begin to put in place systems to collect the required information, I can assure the hon. member that the end result of this long and arduous process will be a publicly available document which will more than meet any need for statistical information on government contracts.

As well, because this report will be public, departments will doubtlessly consider this to be a further incentive to use the competitive contracting process.

As the member for Dauphin-Swan River I agree that interested suppliers need to know what acquisitions the government plans to make. This is the key to a truly competitive process.

Treasury Board policy encourages the use of open bidding service for advertising upcoming purchases of goods and services. The open bidding method uses both electronic information technology and the print medium to advertise bids. It is compulsory for advertising all procurements subject to NAFTA.

The Department of Public Works and Government Services uses this means for communicating with industry for all procurements over $25,000.

When the government knows that it must acquire a good or service it uses the open bidding service and the government

business opportunities publication to inform suppliers of a proposed purchase and thereby to solicit proposals from them.

The related notice of proposed procurement is carried by these media for either 40 days if it is subject to the NAFTA or 30 days if it is not covered under the NAFTA. The notice identifies what is needed, how much of it, any related technical specifications, the supply timeframe, and any other relevant information which pertains to this proposed acquisition.

As well it lists the criteria which will be used to evaluate whether the supplier is qualified to provide the good or service and the second set of criteria which state what will be used to evaluate the proposals of the qualified suppliers.

By providing all this detail up front business is assured sufficient time to decide whether it could supply the item, whether it wants to supply it, to seek any further clarifications which it may wish and then to develop and submit its proposal.

There are of course other situations where the government anticipates that it will need a good or a service in the next little while but it does not need it immediately. Again, the open bidding service and the government business opportunities can be used to identify a list of possible suppliers which can be turned to when the item is actually needed.

In this case the government places a notice of planned procurement on them for either 30 or 40 days depending on whether or not the item is covered under NAFTA. This particular notice will in a comparable manner to the notice of proposed procurements state what is wanted, the quantity thereof, and the like.

In this case though it will only identify the financial, commercial and technical aspects which will serve as the criteria to be used to evaluate whether a supplier is qualified to be included on the suppliers' list.

Again by using the open bidding service and government business opportunities to create this list companies are placed in a position of having ample information and time to determine whether they are interested in pursuing this possible business opportunity.

In view of all the preceding, I cannot agree that the imposition of more detailed and expensive reporting requirements on departments and agencies would serve the best purposes of either the House or the taxpayers of Canada.

This government strives to have the most effective public service in the world. The motion proposed by the hon. member would require a transfer of human and technological resources from areas where they could better serve Canadians and redirect them to meet the proposed monthly contracting reports. This simply cannot be justified as a cost effective use of these limited resources. In this context, I would suggest that the hon. member especially think about the many small departments and agencies which do not have the resources to assume an overhead burden like the one which has been proposed.

If this suggestion were to be adopted these organizations would end up redirecting their resources with the possible result and that thereby could be diverted from meeting their primary mission to Canadians.

[Canadian Wheat Board, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is western Canada's single desk selling agency for the export sale of wheat and barley.

The Canadian Wheat Board has served the interests of western Canadian farmers superbly over the years and continues to do so.

In addition, it provides an unparalleled level of customer service to all the millers and bakers and noodle makers around the world who are the ultimate consumers of our product.

The Canadian Wheat Board is one of the great Canadian success stories in international trade.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as a grain farmer representing the rural constituency of Dauphin-Swan River in western Canada I firmly believe that we need a long term vision for the grain industry.

The current difficulty in moving grain is just one of a number of issues affecting Canada's grain and oilseed industry. The short term immediate problem must be addressed to ensure that it is not repeated next year.

However, it is also time to take a look at the grain marketing system as a whole. We must be prepared to ask ourselves if our industry is positioned properly to build on the opportunities that are out there.

The new trade deals offer new market opportunities and the Canadian grain industry must examine how it can best take advantage of these opportunities. New trade agreements, notably the North American free trade agreement and the GATT deal, mean obligations that the Canadian government must meet.

For example, the GATT requires that we make changes to the WGTA for shipments to the west coast and to Churchill. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has asked representatives of the grain marketing system to a meeting in Winnipeg on May 16.

Why should the industry and government work together to develop a vision for the future? First, the marketplace is changing, trade patterns are shifting, traditional markets for Canadian grain are disappearing, Asian countries and the Americas are now the focus of Canada's grain marketing efforts. These changes in trade patterns mean different demands on Canada's grain handling and transportation system.

There are also production driven demands as farmers turn to higher income, alternative special crops. We are selling to fewer larger institutional buyers and more to individual buyers such as millers who require just in time delivery. This changes, for example, the time and resources required to ship our grain.

As we look toward a vision for a grain policy framework, clearly decisions we make today on a number of grain issues need to be based on a long term vision for the grain industry. Today I would like to outline the policy framework we intend to

use as a basis for working with industry to shape a vision for where we want the grain marketing system to be in five to ten years.

The first area is transportation. My hon. colleague will or has already outlined the steps we are taking within the industry to resolve the serious short term system capacity problems plaguing the industry.

Other transportation issues include the St. Lawrence seaway, the WGTA issues, rail system efficiencies and the NTA rate setting. On the St. Lawrence seaway, the Standing Committee on Transport has established a subcommittee to review the seaway system. This government is grateful to have this report.

On WGTA, by June the minister will have reports from the producer payment panel on methods of paying the benefit and from the Grain Transportation Agency on efficiencies. A study was also undertaken of the NTA rate scale.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food plans to announce a process for reviewing the recommendations on all of these issues so that the government is in a position to make decisions by the 1995 crop year.

The industry is very concerned about a number of grain marketing issues, but the issue is very divisive. The Canadian Wheat Board for its part already has made important studies toward positioning itself to meet new global marketplace demands. For example, it has made changes to improve its price information for producers and the industry. It has made changes to the quota system so there is better information on the amount and quality of grain in the country elevators.

In the trade area we are faced with a combination of tremendous trade opportunities in the U.S. mixed with increased protectionist pressures. Canada continues to work toward a negotiated settlement. That is good for Canadian agriculture.

Our objective is to achieve a settlement before the 90-day consultation period which is up in July. If agreement is not possible and the U.S. acts to restrict imports of our wheat we have the right to retaliate, and we will. Canada will not roll over and play dead.

In the regulatory area, the Canadian Wheat Board and grain commission have made numerous changes in their operations which are contributing to greater industry competitiveness. For example, the Canadian Grain Commission has examined ways of handling grain that are not visually distinguishable.

Visual distinguishability remains an integral part of our grading system. Our commitment to a grading system which ensures quality and consistency remains unquestioned. We are also considering options as to how the grain commission regulates terminal elevator tariffs. The goal is more flexibility for grain companies and, in turn, a more flexible grain handling system overall.

There is an industry based committee in place now to continue monitoring the implementation of regulatory review recommendations over the course of this year.

Another factor in the whole grain policy area is the safety net programming. In order for the industry to change in the face of a changing global marketplace it must be supported by a strong safety net program. Currently a committee representing farm groups and federal and provincial governments is reviewing the Canadian farm safety nets.

Its consensus is to make a whole farm safety net program available to all commodities. They also agree that some type of additional support or supplementary programs may be needed to deal with specific regional or commodity problems as they arise.

Federal and provincial ministers of agriculture expect to receive the committee's report in July. The goal of this government is a safety net program that is GATT consistent, market neutral, financially sound, affordable, effective and understandable. Our policy framework involves decisions on WGTA before the 1995 crop year, continued implementation of the regulatory review over the next year, overseen by the industry based advisory committee, a negotiated settlement in our trade dispute with the U.S. before the section 28 deadline in July but only if the settlement is a good deal for Canada, and finally whole farm safety nets for the 1995-96 year with companion programs if necessary. The committee of producer representatives and federal and provincial governments will work together toward this goal.

These are the means we have established to achieve our goals and the timeframes we have set. On this basis the minister has asked representatives of the grain companies, railways, grain handling labour unions and government agencies to a meeting in Winnipeg on May 16.

We must move immediately to re-establish Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of export grains and oilseeds. It is critical that the people who own and run the system come together now to set their collective sights on the next five or ten years.

Before we make decisions today we must ask ourselves what kind of a grain marketing system is needed for a competitive tomorrow.

[Petitions, May 10th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to table a petition which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.

An ethanol industry will provide definite stability for agriculture, particularly in western Canada and for the Canadian economy, as ethanol is one of the most environmentally friendly fuels available.

Some 200 petitioners have called on the government to extend the exemption on the excise portion of ethanol for a decade to allow the strong and self-sufficient ethanol industry in Canada to go forward. I present the petition on their behalf.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member did not hear what I had said earlier. I would hope that we could be very positive and take a look at the positive side of this matter.

I am going to mention again that the agreement guarantees the participation of the Sahtu Dene and the Metis. They can control their own destiny. They can be managers of their own resources, land use planning, environmental impact assessment and review within the Mackenzie Valley, and regulation of land and water use within that settlement area.

I encourage hon. members on the other side of the House to accept our philosophy. Let us get on with self-government. Let us allow the aboriginal peoples of the country to have some dignity.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in 1990 there was some disagreement between the Sahtu and the Metis. Why we are here today is so that they can take on their own initiatives and their own mandate, so that they can do this themselves.

I encourage hon. members across the way to support us in this venture. I believe we must work together on this venture.