Joe McGuire

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

It is indeed a pleasure to take part in the debate today and to say a few words about a topic affecting not only the regions of the country but Canadians as a whole.

The opposition motion speaks about a government alienated from the various regions of the land. My contribution to the debate will be to offer a concrete example of federal presence in every province, a positive presence that is a force for economic growth, environmental sustainability and prosperity in all parts of the country.

I am talking about the Government of Canada's nationwide system of scientific research and technology development which represents a significant contribution to the success of Canadian agriculture. This network has a proud history of over 100 years. It has given Canada new crops and scientific advances that have transformed this nation and continue to contribute to our economic growth.

This includes Marquis wheat, canola, the Shepody potato and the new frontier of plant biotechnology, just to name a few. Marquis wheat transformed the Canadian west by giving Canadian farmers a variety suited to the harsh winters and short growing seasons of the Canadian prairies.

The impact of canola on Canadian farmers, particularly in the west, cannot be underestimated. It has made a tremendous contribution to the prairie farm economy by providing an alternative to King wheat. Not only has it provided an alternative, but this year, for the first time ever, it has outperformed wheat, as far as grains are concerned, in western Canada. That is the first time in history that has happened.

The Shepody potato is one of 23 potato varieties developed by federal scientists. It alone accounts for 15% of Canadian potato production and is ranked number two among varieties for french fry production. This variety and this particular research is the underpinning of the economy of my province of Prince Edward Island and also contributes greatly to the economies of the provinces of New Brunswick, Manitoba and Alberta, as well as to the economies of many nations around the world to whom we sell our seed potatoes.

Canada's pioneering federal researchers have put Canada in the lead to develop new products and processes that will make Canadian agriculture more productive and environmentally suitable and sustainable.

These are some of the tangible benefits of federal agricultural research. The Government of Canada spends $350 million a year to conduct this research in all regions of the country for the benefit of all Canadians from coast to coast.

Agriculture and agri-food's 18 research centres have formed the backbone of Canadian agri-food research. There is at least one research centre in every province. These centres represent a system that is both national in scope and regional in focus. These centres also collaborate with their counterparts in the industry, academia and provincial governments to form a powerful research community with links across the country. Each federal centre has a specialized research focus reflecting the industry strengths of the region in which it is located.

Federal researchers and scientists have well earned international reputations for their skill and expertise which they use to help all Canadians regardless of region.

The livestock research in Lethbridge and Lacombe is helping producers in more than just Alberta. Biotechnology research in Saskatoon is helping create jobs well beyond Saskatchewan. Food research in Quebec and Ontario is creating opportunities for growth in every region of this country.

Research efforts and resources are meeting regional needs through the matching investment initiative as well. This is a program that brings government and industry together in joint research projects.

In 1998-99 the Government of Canada and its partners in industry collaborated on over 860 projects with a combined investment of more that $58 million. Investment through this initiative is projected to reach the level of $70 million by the year 2000.

Federal research in agriculture also focuses efforts in the vital area of sustainability. Work done by both the research branch and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Agency aims to improve the environmental performance of agriculture in areas such as integrated pest management, conservation tillage and animal waste treatment.

Federal research is also focusing on ways to use water and fertilizers more effectively. This means improved soil structure, better conservation of water and a reduction of so-called greenhouse gases that are behind global warming.

Federal agricultural research is helping to shape the future of agriculture. In many ways it is helping to ensure that there will be a future for agriculture. That is what makes the research done in federal research centres so important to Canadians whether they are farmers or consumers.

The agri-food industry is responsible for 9% of our gross domestic product and provides jobs for 1.8 million Canadians. These people are found in B.C., on the prairies, in central Canada, in the maritimes and in the north.

Our nationwide network of federal research centres and expertise is the foundation on which this essential industry is built.

The Government of Canada is indeed responding to the needs of Canadians in all regions. One of the ways we are doing it is through our investment in research and technology development.

[Transit Passes, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has given me the opportunity to speak to the subject of shipbuilding.

The federal government acknowledges the important contribution the marine industry makes to our national economy. As well, I must reiterate that the government currently maintains a generous package of measures which, in conjunction with provincial policies and sound industrial practices, benefit shipbuilders.

These measures are: a 33.5% accelerated capital tax allowance for Canadian built ships; a 25% duty on most non-NAFTA ship imports; domestic procurement on a competitive basis for all government shipbuilding and ship repair needs; Export Development Corporation financing for commercially viable transactions; and a very favourable research and development tax credit system.

We acknowledge that despite this support the industry continues to face considerable challenges in international markets. For instance, in December 1997, in an OECD workshop on shipbuilding policies, it was reported that a substantial overcapacity exists in the shipbuilding industry and that this overcapacity would grow to around 40% of the estimated world capacity by 2005.

The Canadian shipbuilding sector went through a voluntary rationalization process that culminated in a more streamlined and viable industry. The government participated in this industry led process by contributing nearly $200 million between 1986 and 1993. Through reorganizing and streamlining its operations over the past decade, the Canadian industry has been able to improve its productivity levels even with the forecast world overcapacity and has been successful in obtaining some international sales in specific markets, such as tugboats.

In summary, substantial support has been provided to the shipbuilding industry in the past and we continue to support it through a variety of initiatives. If the provinces wish to supplement our initiatives, as has been done by Quebec and Nova Scotia, they are free to do so.

The comments concerning the Minister of Finance made by the opposition and by the president of Davie Industries workers' union are completely false. As is the case for all cabinet ministers, all such assets are placed in trust under the control of a trustee. It is the trustee who has the final say. Consequently, there is no conflict of interest.

[Transit Passes, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I must say this question goes back to November 26, 1998. A lot of things have happened since the member asked the minister the question.

I have addressed the length of the application, which has been fairly well exaggerated. The amount of money is $900 million plus $600 million, $1.5 million federal-provincial, 60:40 cost shared because the jurisdiction is a shared jurisdiction.

As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his provincial colleagues announced after their meeting on February 23 and 24, Canadian farmers now avail themselves of comprehensive income disaster protection. Whatever commodity they produce in whatever province, agriculture producers will be eligible to receive government assistance if their gross margin falls below 70% of their three year average.

The spirit of federal-provincial co-operation and our sense of urgency, given the gravity of farm income difficulties, meant that the new agricultural income disaster assistance program was developed very quickly and expeditiously.

As of March 5, application forms were available in electronic format and in hard copy a week or so later. This is quite an achievement.

The national program will not be delivered in isolation of its existing instruments. AIDA is built on the substantial protection already offered by other safety nets, including NISA and crop insurance. The design and administration of AIDA includes several built-in incentives to take full advantage of the existing safety nets. This encourages farmers to get actively involved in the management of their own risks.

Similarly, the disaster program will be delivered in full respect of existing provincial initiatives. Where a provincial program decreases the cost of AIDA by enhancing producers' incomes, this will be taken into account. It was agreed that producers should not be compensated twice for the same income shortfall. Ways were found to accommodate and build on other initiatives with the same purpose as the national disaster program.

In closing, I am very satisfied with the progress that was made in such a short time. Farmers impressed upon us the urgency of the situation and the government has taken action.

[Transit Passes, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first of all we should straighten out just how many pages we are talking about. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has stated 40 to 50 pages. In actual fact the number of pages for the AIDA form, if the farmer is enrolled in NISA, is seven pages. The rest are instructions. There are an additional five pages if the farmer is non-NISA, with the rest being instructions. The number of pages may be relevant in one way but very irrelevant in another. The actual form is from five to seven pages.

The basic information needed is revenue and expense data filed for income tax purposes for the current year and the preceding three years. Everyone with a farm business has this information already on hand.

This year the tax forms also serve as the NISA application. The forms now fill three functions. They can do their income tax, their NISA and their AIDA. There is a limited amount of supplementary information required for AIDA. The added information relates primarily to the changes in inventories, accounts payable and accounts receivable and is essential to ensuring that the applicant receives the appropriate payment. Let me provide two examples.

First, let us consider a farm which had a major production loss in 1998. The cash receipts will not be down that much because the farmer will be selling the inventory on hand, emptying the barns or the bins. Inventory decline must be reflected in AIDA or the payment will not reflect the true loss.

Second, those in difficulty will leave bills unpaid. This must be reflected to determine the true loss.

Finally, if a producer has an accountant for income tax and NISA, it should not cost too much more to transfer that data to the AIDA application form. The cost of hiring an accountant need not be overly excessive.

[Liberal Party Of Nova Scotia, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend in Halifax hundreds of Nova Scotia Liberals will come together to hold the annual general meeting of the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia.

Run by Premier Russell MacLellan, grassroots Liberals from across the province will engage not only in mundane organizational business, but in a program designed to provide input into the programs and policies of the Liberal Government of Nova Scotia.

This democratic exercise will allow the party to renew and re-energize itself before the upcoming session of the legislature. A jam-packed agenda will provide a forum for everyone in attendance to not only make their personal contributions, but to avail themselves of the experience and expertise of their fellow Liberals.

This will be especially true for young Liberals since a major focus of the convention is directed toward youth.

On behalf of my colleagues in the House of Commons and the Senate, I want to congratulate Premier MacLellan, party president Lloyd Campbell and co-chairs Eleanor Norrie and Claude O'Hara on their initiative and wish them and their fellow Nova Scotians a very successful convention.

[Election In Newfoundland And Labrador, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and congratulate Premier Brian Tobin and the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador on their successful re-election.

Yesterday voters in that province returned a Liberal majority government, a fourth consecutive Liberal majority, the second under Premier Tobin's leadership.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have renewed the Liberal government's mandate to continue its agenda of reducing unemployment, balancing the budget and ensuring that the province receives the full benefit of its present and future resources, including mineral exploration, energy production and a rejuvenated and diversified fishing industry.

It is fitting, in the year commemorating the 50th anniversary of Newfoundland joining the Canadian family, that the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador is the victor in yesterday's election.

Joey Smallwood can rest easy. I congratulate Brian Tobin and the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Canadian Farmers, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Last December we did announce a $900 million whole farm national disaster assistance program.

In the interim the provinces have been giving money to farmers in need because our payout will be based on income tax returns.

At the February 23 and 24 national safety conference in Victoria the minister will be announcing the final details. Applications will become available in March and the final payout will be made in June, whether or not the provinces are on side.

[Division No. 307, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, since the member for Brandon—Souris mentioned the minister's remarks and my own remarks that were made recently, I promise tonight, unless provoked, not to raise the platform of the fifth party again. I would like to leave that now and bring the member up to date on what we are doing.

I am sure the member as a member of the committee knows what is going on. The reason why we are taking a little longer is that we know the pressure on producers and we have known it for some time. Producers have told us that they did not want an ad hoc program. Therefore, if we are not doing an ad hoc program, we do not want to be sending out cheques to people for various amounts. No one will know what we are doing or how we are doing it. We will take our time. Time is running short, but we will take our time to make sure we do it right for the short term and right for the long term.

On November 26 the minister made a presentation to cabinet where he had the opportunity to present the plan to his colleagues. Obviously we cannot talk about the exact details of the plan because it is still being discussed in cabinet. The minister put forward his plan on how he wants to help Canadian producers impacted by the current situation. There was a good discussion on the issue and the government realizes the severity of the situation.

November 26 was not a decision making day. There are a number of important steps that have yet to be taken before a final decision is made. It is still early to indicate what amount of additional assistance is being contemplated. Assistance to farmers is one of several important priority areas for investment including knowledge and innovation, the alleviation of child poverty, and health care. Therefore we are competing for—

[Agriculture, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have touched a very sore spot. I am quoting from their very own platform of 1997. I want to put on the record just what is in that platform.

It states:

In cases such as agriculture and transportation, there is significant overlap between the provinces and the federal governments, with substantial duplication of services as a result. In the case of the environment, there are four federal departments responsible for elements of our environment. By merging the Departments of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries and Oceans into a Department of Sustainable Development, we can ensure proper priority is placed on the inter-generational responsibilities we all bear for the preservation of our environment, while at the same time finding the savings we need to meet our other main objectives.

In that regard they were going to cut the department of agriculture, which was going to be a savings of $608 million.

They go on to say:

We intend to reform this Department with a view to aligning its objectives more closely with those of the large and well-funded provincial ministries of agriculture.

I am not sure what the provincial ministers are saying about this today.

They go on to say:

Consistent with the trend in recent multilateral trade negotiations, we will be moving to reduce and eventually eliminate farm subsidy programs.

They were going to eliminate them all.

They continue:

Consistent with our commitment to freer markets, we will also accelerate the five year phase out in dairy subsidies.

The relationship between this Department and the private sector will also be changed. For example, we will broaden the scope for the transfer of research and development activities to the private sector. In exchange, we will be looking to increase cost-recovery for food inspection and regulatory oversight.

I know this is very difficult for them to accept after the initial speech in which they were asking the government to come out with both long term and short term subsidies to help farmers, which we are taking very seriously.

I will summarize what they would have done if they were sitting on this side of the House. Number one, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food would have disappeared. The budget would have been cut by $608 million or 40%.

Research and development activities would have been transferred to the private sector. Cost recovery for food inspection and regulatory oversight would have been increased. The dairy subsidy would have been phased out in three years, not five, without any compensation to dairy farmers, and farm subsidy programs would have been reduced and eliminated.

This platform is very similar to the Reform platform. They were going to put agriculture under a department for sustainable development. They did not foresee in the foreseeable future that farming might take a tumble.

Our government and our minister are working toward both a long term and a short term solution to the problems farmers are experiencing today.

The system, as a whole, is a good system. However, the minister has also clearly said that he recognizes the current downturn might prove too deep and too difficult for some producers to manage using what is currently in place.

Some farmers may not have enough in their NISA accounts to see them through 1999. That may be because they are new to the business or because they have had a couple of bad years due to circumstances outside their control. For whatever reason, they have not been able to save enough in their NISA accounts. We want to be able to assist those farmers.

We also want to design a program that will not undermine the system we have. In other words, we want to make sure that we design something which encourages farmers to use NISA in the way it was intended, but also provide a system to those most in need.

The National Safety Net Advisory Committee has examined disaster programs that are in place in British Columbia, Alberta and Prince Edward Island. It has recommended that a program based on the design of these programs, but with some modifications, be implemented at the national level.

The committee wants the program to be income-based and generally available to ensure it meets our trade obligations and cannot be successfully challenged. Such a whole farm approach is essential for this program to be effective and to succeed. I say that because some hon. members may either be nostalgic for the days of huge Tory-style payouts or may be confusing the committee's recommendations with such an approach.

The program viewed by the safety net committee would be a so-called green program, one that treats all farms fairly and does not discriminate against any commodity. That will be welcome news to farmers across the country.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has said that he and his provincial counterparts are looking at this design very carefully. Such a proposal is in line with the results of a meeting held with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his provincial counterparts in Niagara-on-the-Lake in July of this year.

I began my speech by asking where the solutions to the farm income situation were going to come from. They are not going to come from the PC platform or the Reform Party platform.

NISA and its companion funds provide a partial answer. I am confident that the ongoing work of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the cabinet, in partnership with farmers and provincial governments, will give us the other parts.

[Agriculture, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate tonight.

I think before we go any further we should put on the record what the fifth party and the official opposition said just a few short months ago about the future they saw for agriculture in this country. I am going to quote directly from the platform of the Progressive Conservative Party, the fifth party.

I quote directly from the platform. It states “In cases such as agriculture and transportation—”