Murray Calder

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

That is right. And Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

If a province's total revenue raising ability falls short of this standard, its per capita revenues are raised to the standard level through the federal equalization payments.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, there seems to be a problem with members of the Reform Party on the other side of the floor. Of course there is always a problem with them. We are talking about social responsibility and every once in a while we have to redefine and describe for the Reform Party what the word social means.

Equalization payments are one of the cornerstones of Canada. This country is a family. The children of the family that are better off than the ones that are not take care of each other. That is one of the things that has made this country unique worldwide.

I listened to today's debate and a number of points need to be clarified. Questions were asked by members on the other side of the House which I want to do my best to answer.

I have heard over and over again why time allocation? One question that would lead into that is what does the bill do? The legislation amends two programs covered by the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, equalization and the provincial personal income tax review guarantee. Both programs expire on March 31, 1999. Today is February 15, which means a month and a half from now we have to have something in place because these other two programs are going to expire. There is a good reason right off the bat. Also, our flag is 34 years old today. This is the importance of what we are talking about.

The bill before us is designed to extend the programs from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2004. We are basically establishing a five year review. There is nothing wrong with that. Things change in this country on a yearly basis, so why would we not have legislation in place that we can renew and review on a regular basis? Five years seems to be a very good basis to set it on. That will allow the equalization payments to continue to be made and revenue guaranteed payments made as required.

There are a number of points that the bill proposes to change in the equalization programs. I will consider the three most important points.

One ensures that the changes in the measurement of fiscal capacity, that is the provinces' ability to take and raise revenue, are provided for in the renewal and will be phased in over a five year period. It also amends the floor and ceiling provisions that protect provincial and federal governments from large and unexpected changes in the equalization entitlements.

Finally, it will amend and clarify the list of provincial revenues considered in measuring eligibility for equalization payments. That is in addition to the amendments to the act. The regulation will change and make adjustments to the measurement of the provinces' relative revenue raising capacity from different tax sources.

Another question I heard was how did the federal government decide on the contents of the equalization renewal package? This is something the opposition should listen to. The answer is that the federal and the provincial governments established priorities for the renewal in early 1997. This is not just something the federal government came up with. It is something we came up with in conjunction with the provincial governments. It is another example of how the government tries its best to work with all the provinces to get the best deal possible for the whole country.

I talked about family, and that is what it is all about. This is the government doing its best for the family of Canada.

The proposals for the changes to the equalization program will have an anticipated cost of around $48 million in the budget year 1999-2000. That will rise to $242 million when it is fully phased in in the budget year 2003-04. That is being put forward after extensive review of the issues with the provinces and the territories at the official and ministerial level. Again, there is extensive review with the provinces and the territories. We are not just doing this on our own. We talk to them and find out what is the best way they think we should be doing it and we come to a compromise.

My colleague across the way from the Conservative Party just does not understand that. He just does not get it. One of the reasons he is in the fifth party is because he just does not get it. If the hon. member would listen to what I am saying here, I will try to answer some more of his questions.

Another question I have heard here in the House today is why are the changes being phased in rather than being implemented immediately. The phase-in of changes is proposed in order to dampen the distributional impact across provinces over time and also to ensure that federal and provincial fiscal planners have sufficient time to adjust to the changes in a predictable, manageable way. We are not going to say “There it is guys, deal with it”; we are saying “Here it is, it is coming. This is how we want to change this after consulting with you”. It gives the provincial ministers of finance a chance to adjust to it. It is a good old-fashioned family way of doing it. It is logical.

I have heard other general questions today as to how equalization works. It seems relatively straightforward. Equalization transfers are determined on the basis of a legislated formula.

First, the amount of revenue that each province could raise if it applied national average tax rates is calculated for revenue sources that provinces and their local governments typically levy. The program currently includes around 30 tax bases.

Second, each province's overall ability to raise revenues from these sources is compared to that of the five provinces making up a representative standard, an average. Those provinces are Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba for the member across the way.

[Petitions, February 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey recognizing marriage as a voluntary union of a single male and a single female and to ensure that marriage be preserved and protected.

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Whoops.

[Trade, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are experiencing devastating financial problems in part because of subsidies in the United States and European Union.

In a recent agreement Canada and the U.S. made progress toward addressing the problem. The two countries agreed to a co-operative response to the European Union's trade distorting subsidies.

Subsidies encourage overproduction which leads to oversupply and results in depressed markets. The combined voice of Canada and the United States will be more persuasive than our individual voices in encouraging the EU to eliminate trade distorting practices.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board have taken an extremely important initiative. I urge them to continue their work in eliminating trade distorting subsidies.

[Petitions, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a group of constituents from Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey I would like to present the House of Commons with a petition that requests the government, through the Medical Research Council, increase and adequately fund the remaining years of the Canadian Multicentre osteoporosis study.

[Agriculture, November 30th, 1998]

I do not have an answer for that. The EU subsidizes wheat on average by $116 a tonne or $3.15 a bushel. The United States is subsidizing at a rate of $72 a tonne or $1.95 a bushel while Canada is subsidizing at a rate of $15 a tonne or 40 cents a bushel and Australia is subsidizing at rate of $13 a tonne or 35 cents a bushel. There is the problem.

The United States says it is the free trader of the world and wants to do away with subsidies. As far as I am concerned that is bovine fertilizer. We need what we are working toward right now, a national disaster program that would kick in and give support to farmers when the current safety net systems are not sufficient.

As a farmer I have taken a lot of phone calls from farmers in my area. I have been talking to guys who lived through the crisis with me in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It is not just the opposition that gets these phone calls. Members on this side get the phone calls too and we are acutely aware of what is going on out there.

I have spoken repeatedly on this issue over the past six weeks in national caucus. I have talked not only with the Prime Minister but with all cabinet ministers present at national caucus each Wednesday. They are all acutely aware of what is happening. We have to make sure as a government that in saving our farmers whatever we do and however we do it, and we will be doing that, it must be GATT green so that it does not trigger a countervail.

When I produced pigs back in the late 1970s to the mid-1980s countervails were absolute death to our industry because they would tie up production. I have been watching production in our country. We have looked at international trade and we have moved production in pork from $16 million a year to $19 million a year. That means we had better be exporting three million pigs or the floor will be blown out of the market. That is what is happening.

[Agriculture, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Scarborough East for sharing his time with me and also compliment the member for South Shore for having this emergency debate tonight.

I have been farming since 1974. From 1974 until 1985 I was a pig producer. We had about an 80 to a 90 sow farrow to finish operation and I can remember going through the farm crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s. I can remember the pain, the loss of pride, the embarrassment and even the loss of the will to live. It was a very sad experience. It was an experience I will never forget and it is also an experience I do not want to see us go through again. But I believe right now we are on the threshold of exactly that.

That is one of the reasons why this government is working as best as it possibly can and as quickly as it possibly can to address this issue.

In the Globe and Mail underneath the national news it finally caught on and said “farming crisis to worsen” and then gave Statistics Canada data. I would like to read some of it because it is very scary.

In 1997 farmers' net farm income was just over $2 billion. That is down by 53.4% from the $4.3 billion they earned in 1996. The story is not in on what is going to happen this year. The Statistics Canada figures go on to state that wheat crops have fallen by 43.3% in the third quarter of this year. Revenues were sliced nearly in half to the tune of 45.5%. For barley the drop was 48.8%. For hog revenues it has fallen by 26.1%. It also noted that the wheat board's initial spring prices for this year were $130 a tonne, a drop of 24.4% from the year before.

When we got into the 11th hour of the negotiations in 1993, the axiom at that point was that low prices would stop low prices. Why do low prices exist today if that is the case? Obviously one cannot produce something for nothing for a very long period of time before one is broke. I saw enough farmers in the late 1970s and early 1980s have that happen to them.

I was part of the Farm Credit Corporation and the loans on my farm were locked in a fixed rate of interest of 12.5%. I saw interest rates go to 22%. That was when we got into the penny auctions. We saw sheriffs at the door and farm houses sealed up. Basically farmers left with the clothes on their backs. It was a very terrible time.

It is partially because of a combination of things. We have had financial and political instability within Europe, Latin America and Russia. This year, for instance, Russia's average harvest, which is not all that great, came in at 22% below its average in a normal year.

We are experiencing another trade war. I would like to read some data from the USDA that I have picked up surfing the net. I can also give information on what is happening in Europe. In the United States, underneath the FAIR act of 1998 there was $6 billion in product flexibility contracts, $1.5 billion in conservation reserve payments, $750 million in loan deficiency payments, for a total of $8.25 billion being injected into the farm economy in the United States.

Also, there were additional support payments of $2.8 billion for market loss, $1.5 billion for the 1998 crop losses, $875 million for multiple year crop losses, $200 million for livestock feed assistance, $200 million for U.S. dairy producers, $27 million for other disaster spendings for a total of $5.975 billion. That is referred to as the $6 billion farm aid package.

There is also $1 billion in taxes underneath a new law to producers. The total in the United States is $15.225 billion for 1998. That is one of the reasons production is up and prices are down. It is because of subsidies. These are subsidies the United States said it would do away with. Obviously it has not.

Let us take a look at Europe. Export subsidies as of November 19, 1998, are $47 Canadian for wheat.

There is a subsidy of $105 a tonne for barley and a subsidy of $138 a tonne for malt.

[Employment, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Stats Canada last week released a report on employment in Canada from 1989 to 1997. We all know that unemployment still needs to be lowered. What is the minister doing to help Canadians find good jobs?

[International Trade, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary for International Trade. I just read in one of our newspapers that the U.S. is investigating charges that Canadian cattle is being unfairly subsidized and dumped into the U.S. market.

What is the minister going to do to defend our Canadian cattle industry?