Murray Calder

[Rural Development, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday in Charlottetown my colleague the Secretary of State for Rural Development officially announced the second annual report on rural and remote Canada. Entitled “Enhancing the Quality of Life for Rural Canadians”, it outlines in detail the achievements for 2000-01.

Twenty-nine federal departments through their hard work have enhanced the lives of Canadians living in rural and remote areas. Just a few of these achievements, based on 11 priority areas, have been identified by rural Canadians and they include: $427 million dedicated to the rural infrastructure program; $125 million invested in environmental initiatives and connecting Canadians to federal government services online; and $90 million toward improving access to financial resources for business and communities.

This is our commitment to rural Canada.

[National Horse of Canada Act, November 20th, 2001]

moved that Bill S-22, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada, be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill S-22, the national horse of Canada act, in the House today. This is a Senate bill that prioritized my own bill, Bill C-311, which had first reading on March 28.

The bill recognizes the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada. I should note that the Senate bill has been amended to use the more widely recognized Canadian horse spelling in its English version. This reflects the wishes of many horse breeders who support the bill.

The recognition of this horse is historic and symbolic in importance. It also is of economic importance to many horse breeders throughout Canada. Once faced with extinction, this horse has rebounded thanks to dedicated breeders. National recognition will enhance its marketability and ensure its continued survival.

This sturdy little Canadian horse has played a role in Canadian history since its arrival in 1665 in New France from the stables of Louis XIV. For over three and a half centuries it has tilled our soil, carried Canadian soldiers into battle and has adapted well to Canada's harsh conditions. It is known for its strength, endurance and determination, in short, a fitting Canadian symbol. I urge support for the bill.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

[Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a lot of interest to the speech of the member for Yukon and would like to tell him that in the past I have had a chance to work with the minister of Indian affairs. In 1995 we worked on the privatization of CN, so I see a lot of good things in Bill C-37 right now, having worked with the minister previously.

I would like the member to explain some points to me. In Bill C-37 I see basically a lot of components of the Manitoba land claims act and settlement. I would like him to explain to me what he would like to see when the bill goes to committee. There are some strong points in the bill. Could he highlight what points he would like to see drawn out in committee immediately to go along on this deal making process he was talking about?

[Petitions, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to present a petition concerning the release of census records to genealogists and historians. The petition is signed by more than 2,500 Canadians from all 10 provinces. If we add that to previous petitions I have presented this year, more than 11,700 signatures have been submitted.

The petition points out that an estimated 7.5 million Canadians are engaged in the pursuit of their family histories and that census records are a valuable tool for such research. Such records have been used for historical research, tracing genetic diseases and settling wills and estates.

The petitioners are calling on parliament to take whatever steps are necessary to retroactively amend the confidentiality clauses of the Census and Statistics Act, 1906 to allow the release to the public of post-1901 census records after a reasonable period of time.

[Agriculture, September 27th, 2001]

It could be Bombardier. One never knows. Actually, those are loan guarantees not subsidies. Let me clarify that right off the bat.

Let us take a look at the family farm. These are some of the things that are facing agriculture right now. Back in the 1940s and the 1950s, when the family farm was transferred to the next generation, it was basically given to that generation and that generation took care of the generation that had retired. We do not see that today. One generation sells it to the next generation.

If we want to get down to this, I would start to question the definition of the family farm. The older generation needs so much money to retire. They look at their farming operations for that retirement money. However, if they attach a $500,000 mortgage to it, they have taken the farm and basically stopped it dead in its tracks because it has to pay for a $500,000 mortgage without any benefit to the efficiency within the farm. That farm now is paying off a $500,000 mortgage. It is stopped dead in its tracks. It cannot update its equipment or anything else like that until it pays off that mortgage. Anything within agriculture today that stands still is falling behind.

I believe we not only have to look at programs of support for the farming industry but we also have to look at how we will put programs in place so we can transfer the capital assets from one generation to the next. That is very incumbent upon agriculture today.

I have been working on my own family operation with just exactly that. I started this type of planning 20 years ago. My son is getting ready to go into the OAC at Guelph next year. He will take agri-economics. He also talking about veterinary science too. I am the third generation on the farm. With the planning that we put in place, there will be a fourth generation.

Someone mentioned the wheat board. I was on the standing committee of agriculture when we looked into this. It was a crown corporation with five commissioners. The reason why there was a government entity was because of the guarantee on the initial payments, which came under the finances act. Everyone of us in the House, and I know the member across the way is constantly talking about finances, has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada. So when we came up with the new wheat board, it had 15 members on it. It still had the five commissioners of the crown corporation but we now had 10 elected farmers on that board. Now we have the feedback of the grassroots into the CWB.

The more they get involved within the CWB, and I have had a chance to talk to some of these directors, the more supportive they are of the way the Canada Wheat Board is run. However, they are elected and have connections to the grassroots. Everyone in the House knows that if we do not do what our constituents think is the right, come election time we will not be back. That is the reality. So now there is a commitment of the grassroots to the Canada Wheat Board. Therefore, members can see just how complicated this issue is.

[Agriculture, September 27th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I listened with a lot of interest to what the member for Yorkton--Melville had to say. The rural caucus on the government side lobbied hard to get a task force put together to look at the foreseeable future of agriculture, and the Prime Minister agreed. Members of the task force have been going out across Canada. In the first two weeks of September we were on the east coast working our way in, and we have been out west. In fact, part of the task force right now is in B.C. Some of the issues that the member across the way talked about are exactly what we have heard.

What I would like to talk about right now is the fact that we have a number of programs. We have CFIP, which is a Canadian income program, NISA, crop insurance. Quebec has ASRA. There is MRI or GRIP. These programs were brought in years back.

Let us deal with crop insurance, for instance. It was brought in in the mid-sixties. I am not driving a mid-sixties car yet agriculture is dealing with a mid-sixties program.

I happen to be in supply management. It is one sector of agriculture that currently does not cost the Government of Canada.

I see the member from Selkirk--Interlake kind of smiling over there. He was wondering when I would talk about chicken farming. It is fairly early in my speech.

The point that I am making is that there are some programs within Canadian agriculture right now that are in fact working. There are other programs that are in place that were designed years back and quite frankly they have to be updated, such as crop insurance.

When I insure my poultry barns, I insure each of them for fire insurance. If one barn burns, down I do not take the average of all the barns and that is what I am paid. That specific barn is insured. That is one thing that needs to be updated within crop insurance.

Another aspect is I believe that the input costs that go into it have to be insured. In essence, there could be a cost of production formula incorporated within crop insurance. This is what we have heard as we have moved across the country.

A cost of production formula is something that we deal with in the poultry industry. It works this way. We take the average of the input costs from the best and the poorest growers so that it is in the centre. It is great for the best grower because his input costs are a lot lower than what the average is so he is doing very well. However, the costs for the poorest grower are obviously a lot higher than what the average is and he is not doing as well. That is what we have done in the poultry industry to breed efficiency within the system and to get rid of inefficiency.

That is one of the things we have to still take a look at within the crop insurance program, if in fact we head toward the issue of a cost of production formula.

The member for Yorkton--Melville also talked about CFIP, the son of AIDA. I agree with him. However, it was brought in under an agreement between the federal and provincial governments and different farming organizations in 1998 to deal with the pork industry. Quite frankly, this is a program that needs a lot of rejigging if it is going to be a broad based paintbrush covering all commodities.

What I am saying is that we have programs in place that we have to analyze to see whether these they are good enough to be updated and kept in place to carry on to the next generation or whether they should be thrown out and a new program brought in to deal with the new issues that are facing agriculture.

I know my colleagues across the way will agree with this. Of the population of Canada, currently 2% is involved in agriculture. Of that, half of 1% produces 80% of the food and the other 1.5% produces 20%. Those are the statistics.

The next generation right now, if looks at the family farm, whatever that is, and will to go into that in a second, and the fact that their parents are not making, then why the heck would they want to go into it. Now we are into a philosophical debate. I am always convinced that somebody will be growing the food on the land. However, who will it be? Will it be somebody running the family farm or will it be a corporate entity?

[Rural Development, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Rural Development. Yesterday the secretary of state attended a conference in Thunder Bay with community futures development corporations.

As a rural member I am very interested in the outcome of that conference yesterday. Could the secretary of state tell us of any new initiatives that were announced?

[Agriculture, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Last week the Canadian farm income program started processing and issuing cheques for farmers who have experienced a dramatic decline in income because of low commodity prices. We would like to thank the minister for that. However commodity prices are still low and incomes for farmers this year will still be low.

What further assistance will be made available?

[Petitions, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of Ontario and Alberta, as well as members of the Royal Canadian Air Force and the RCAFWDs who call upon parliament to preserve the Rockcliffe station and keep it in the public domain.

The petitioners hope that the federal government will make Rockcliffe station a living memorial to the important contribution the men and women of the RCAF made to the history of Canada.

[Agriculture, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Spring seeding is done and the bills are now starting to come due. I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain how the Canada farm income program will benefit farmers with those bills.