Murray Calder

[Infrastructure Program, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to read you an excerpt from a letter: "I am writing to further offer my strong support for the project because of the significant job creation this project will provide-One of the main objectives of the infrastructure program is to promote public and private sector partnerships that will not only improve the local and regional economic climate but also help Canada as a whole attract corporations by providing prime business opportunity-".

One would logically assume that the Prime Minister or the minister responsible for the program would have made this statement.

The fact is that the member for Simcoe Centre made this statement in support of infrastucture programs in the city of Barrie despite condemning them yesterday.

The national infrastucture program has been a catalyst for job creation. If the Reform Party followed our government's example perhaps the public would not be so cynical of politicians.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill C-52, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act.

I have listened to the debate on this bill with great interest and have noticed once again how the members of the opposite side will stretch logic to the breaking point in order to turn discussion to their pet subjects.

I have also noticed that no argument, no matter how sound, will steer them away from these pet subjects with the result that we who support the passage of Bill C-50 must repeat dozens of variations on the same factual themes. They are indeed factual themes which no amount of political rhetoric can dismiss.

Bill C-52 is a clear instance of sound legislation to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of government. It eliminates overlap and duplication. It provides for consolidation and coherence in government purchasing and contracting. It generates vast savings and taxpayers' dollars thus contributing to deficit reduction and helping restore public faith in government.

It eliminates antiquated, redundant legislation and regulation, bringing administrative practices into the electronic age. It permits single window access to information for clients, suppliers and taxpayers. Despite the declarations of members of the opposite side, there has been a great deal of talk about transparency.

Despite that fact, it has been clear from the outset that this government is committed to fairness and openness in government contracting. This government is determined to ensure that all contracting is undertaken in a manner that keeps the Canadian taxpayers informed, stimulates competitiveness and ensures that the process is open and fair.

Treasury Board promulgates policies that are aimed specifically at these objectives. It clearly bears repeating that the information on the magnitude of the government contracting already exists and this government is making improvements to ensure even greater openness.

In the meantime, the government encourages all suppliers and all members of Parliament to use the open bidding service that advertises upcoming opportunities to supply goods and services.

With this system, information on current as well as past purchases is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to anyone and everyone who is interested. Suppliers no longer need to be included on a government source list. They no longer have to await an invitation to bid. They can review available opportunities in their product or service areas and order the required bid documents for those that they are interested in. Documents are forwarded immediately by fax, mail or courier.

At the same time as we take measures to ensure open access to contracting information, every practical means must be brought to bear to reduce expenditures and ensure maximum value for each dollar spent. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged the magnitude of the task of government purchasing. The federal government is Canada's largest user of private sector suppliers with more than 200,000 transactions per year. It buys everything from stationery to military equipment.

Members should bear in mind that by relying on program experts in the various departments the number of contracts that require the review of ministers is very small, consisting of large, risky or sensitive purchases. It is the task of Public Works and Government Services Canada to make many of these purchases on behalf of other departments. Nonetheless, close to half of all the contracts are awarded under the authority of individual departments.

Yet despite this diversity of sources and despite the massive information already or shortly to be in the public domain, members opposite insist that the government should compile and publish separate detailed information. The additional cost of gathering and publishing such information would be a glaring extravagance that flies in the face of fiscal restraint.

One hon. member has said that if research is necessary to compile the information, and I quote directly: "Goodness, gracious, hire some researchers to do the job". Another member has argued that since the cost would be such a small percentage of the total cost of government purchasing, it is reallynegligible.

Is that responsible opposition and criticism? I do not think so. Is that legitimate concern for sound administration of public funds? Or is it perhaps the very kind of thinking, the very lack of respect for taxpayers' money that got us into our deficit difficulties in the first place?

A good example of an inaccurate picture is the case of Saint John Shipbuilding and the patrol frigate program. A listing of contracts by constituency would show that contract in a New Brunswick riding but no less than $1.2 billion of the work will actually go to Quebec suppliers.

An excellent example of misleading information is the case of the petroleum companies which bill all their government sales through their Ottawa offices. It represents hundreds of millions of dollars of business per year, none of which is supplied by Ottawa.

In the end the government has to serve its clients and the public purse in the most effective and least expensive manner. Members on both sides of the House quite rightly insist that wherever feasible contracts should be competitive and should go to the lowest quality bidder.

[Great Lakes, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a historic event occurred in the town of Collingwood in my riding of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe on August 27. On that day Canada and Ontario received a report which showed that the Collingwood harbour area of concern had met its restoration goals. That means that Collingwood harbour is on its way to becoming the first of 43 Great Lakes areas of concern in Canada and the United States to be delisted.

Its water, shorelines and wetlands have been restored and rehabilitated for the benefit of the people, the fish and the wildlife. This represents an important first step toward meeting the targets of the Canada-Ontario agreement respecting the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.

The Government of Canada has made a strong commitment to the environment. It also recognizes that the success depends on effective working partnerships. Collingwood, through its public advisory committee, its remedial action plan team and the community at large-

[Social Security Programs, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech. I have one very short question.

The hon. member's party has repeatedly criticized everything that we have put forward so far, and the social reform is no different. It has said, and I caution it is in Hansard , that it is going to cut $15 billion. From where?

[The Environment, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to congratulate the Minister of the Environment and the government for doing in less than a year what the previous government could not do in seven.

The announcement of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act signals this government's commitment to its red book promises and its commitment to the health of our environment and economy.

The act will remove uncertainty and get environmental assessment out of the courts and back into the hands of the people where it belongs.

The minister in her statement clearly pointed out that the government wants to work with all jurisdictions that care about their environmental future and is willing to discuss harmonization with every province and aboriginal group.

Five ministers of the previous government tried to do this and failed and it only took one Liberal minister, one Liberal government to succeed. One Liberal to five others, sounds like fair odds to me.

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

Madam Speaker, the key here-we have to take a look at what is being discussed in the bill-is the word voluntary. That is exactly what we are discussing here.

As a poultry producer, I have a lot of faith in my industry. I know what research and development means for the chicken industry. I hope that wheat and barley producers have that same commitment to their industry and that they want to put money into research and development.

In looking at research and development in this industry, if the researchers see they have the backing of the people who are involved in the industry itself, they will go a lot farther in the development of wheat and barley for the world market.

Let us face it. Canada is an exporting nation. If we have the best quality wheat and barley product to put forward on the world market, I know we can go farther. I will cite members an example in the chicken industry.

In the 1960s, it took us 14 to 16 weeks to produce a four-pound chicken and we said: "Wow, that is as far as we can go". I do it in 36 days now and through research and development, they are also talking about a 30-day chicken. Wheat and barley is no different.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand where the hon. member is coming from with this. First, the bill allows for more funding and is actually GATT responsive. That is one thing we have to look at here.

To allay his concerns as to whether or not it is backed, I just want to read off some of the grassroots organizations that have already said they approved. The list includes the Prairie Pools Incorporated, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Manitoba Pool Elevators, the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Canadian Seed Growers Association, the Saskatchewan Seed Growers Association, the United Grain Growers, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers and Keystone Agricultural Producers.

I do not think the hon. member has anything to worry about concerning the Canadian Wheat Board in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

The purpose of the bill is to allow for a voluntary check-off on board sales of wheat in four western provinces and the sales of barley in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia. The funds collected, an amount estimated to be $4.7 million a year,

would be administered by the Western Grains Research Foundation and would be used for plant breeding research.

The research moneys would be directed toward improving farm income through two main mechanisms: by improving the field performance of barley and wheat through varieties with increased disease and pest resistance, and by developing varieties with specific qualities required by the marketplace.

The CWB act is specific in the terms of the deductions that can be made from final payments. The bill would amend the CWB act to allow voluntary research check-offs to be made. There are a number of key provisions in the bill which are worth taking note of.

The CWB would now be legally empowered to make voluntary deductions from final payments to producers of wheat and barley for the purpose of plant breeding and research. We are really talking about responsible legislation from the government that in essence is helping western Canadian grain farmers ensure the future and viability of the industry.

The program is voluntary but I believe that participation will be high as most farmers, including myself, realize the importance of research and development. The program has the potential to bring in $4.7 million in additional plant breeding research. This figure is significant in light of the fact that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research centres spent $18.7 million on wheat research in 1991-92 and a further $10.5 million for barley.

Plant researchers have expressed the belief that a well co-ordinated and adequately funded research program over 10 to 15 years in all western wheat classes could lead to the development of varieties that are 15 per cent higher yielding and equal in protein to current varieties.

Based on a current price of $125 per tonne for wheat, the preceding implies that the gross total return for the research levy is projected to be worth approximately $400 million to the prairie farmers annually.

Producer funded research programs are not new. This type of initiative is well established and conforms to our GATT obligations, as producer funded programs are not subject to any restrictions. Over 15 U.S. states have check-off programs on wheat. These are made at the state level and are deducted at first point of sale.

The levy can be refunded by request within 60 days. The check-offs are generally voluntary and have a high level of participation. In general most funds are used for market development activities and domestic production. Research also receives a small portion of the levy fund.

There is also an Australian example. The Australian wheat board has a wheat industry fund levy that has been in place since the 1989-90 crop year. In this case a non-voluntary levy is used in part to fund plant breeding research. It is set at approximately 1.5 per cent of the return price. As all hon. members can see, Canada is not breaking new ground here; we are simply catching up.

Another key aspect of the bill is the provision made by way of order in council for fixing the rate of deductions and for excluding from deductions certain grains and/or classes of grains for certain regions within Canada. A study of the needs for enhanced plant breeding programs in wheat and barley has shown the need for an additional $3 million annually in wheat and $1 million in barley.

The business plan of the WGRF proposes a check-off of 20 cents per tonne or a half cent per bushel of wheat, and 40 cents per tonne or about one cent a bushel for barley.

I believe this is a small price to pay. The world grain industry today has a high dependence on export markets. Consumers demand both stability of supply and the quality of the product for their end use requirements. The ability to meet these demands provides a competitive advantage for Canada.

Satisfaction of both these demands depends to a large extent on the genetic make-up and the varieties grown by barley and wheat producers in Canada. It is expected that there will be significant growth in demand, not only in the heavily populated Pacific rim nations but around the world, particularly for the quality and quantities of grain that western Canada has so far been unable to supply.

Canada must be able to respond rapidly to new demands for the varieties of wheat suitable for specific end use such as frozen bread dough and noodles. Meeting this challenge could mean significant new market opportunities for western producers.

The bill also provides for the deposit of the amount of deductions from the final payments into a special account, by way of order in council providing for the ultimate distribution of those amounts to the account through the WGRF to the various organizations where needed.

These would include governments, organizations, corporations, foundations, educational institutions and other bodies having among their objectives the support of scientific research to develop and improve wheat and barley varieties.

The WGRF is made up of 12 major prairie farm organizations, including the United Grain Growers, the Manitoba Pool Elevators and the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The board of directors is made up of these 12 organizations as well as one representative from the research branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada which will collectively set their priorities.

The program has been designed with its own checks and balances. There is accountability at the individual producer level since a person can flag their support or disapproval by opting out of the program. There is accountability at the institutional level since the WGRF is made up of such a broad base of farm groups.

The WGRF which will be overseeing the research also represents the interests of its member organizations. There are costs associated with the program. The CWB has estimated a one-time setup cost of $56,800 and the annual costs of approximately $55,700. The WGRF has estimated its total costs at $50,000.

The total administrative costs are estimated to be less than 2 per cent of the research funds generated and will be deducted from the levy funds. The proposed bill obliges the WGRF to provide annual reports to both the producers and the federal government of their activities.

What we have finally is a recognition that producers have an important role to play in an activity that is directly related to their livelihood.

Producer funding is increasingly important because plant breeding of wheat and barley has been eroded by so many years of inflation. By allowing producers to have such a direct role in this process they can contribute directly to ensuring the future and viability of their industry.

[Petitions, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting to the House a petition which carries over 4,700 signatures.

The petition was initiated by Connie Murray of Clifford, Ontario in the memory of the tragic shooting and death of 25-year old Joan Heimbecker.

The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which would grant no parole for convicted criminals and that life sentences be carried out for the full duration of the convict's life.

[Petitions, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition: "We, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present exemption on the excise portion of ethanol for a decade, allowing for a strong and self-sufficient ethanol industry in Canada".