John Harvard

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the distinguished member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul. It gives me great pleasure to address the House in reply to the recent Speech from the Throne.

I am a proud member of the club of 1988. November 21 will mark my 11th anniversary as a member of the House, representing the voters in the west end of Winnipeg first for the riding of Winnipeg—St. James and now, following redistribution in 1997, the riding of Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia.

In those 11 years I have witnessed much change, most of it for the better. I spent my first five years on the opposition benches during the Mulroney years. I am quite sure you remember them well, Mr. Speaker, even though you were not here.

I recall the letters and phone calls I received in those days. People were down on their federal government, and some of them were even down on their country. There were issues like the divisive constitutional changes proposed at Meech Lake and Charlottetown, the bitter debate over free trade, the soaring deficit and debt, and an economic recession thrown in for good measure. All those issues left many Canadians feeling pessimistic about their futures.

In late 1993 the country changed for the better with the election of a new government, bringing in a new approach and some new directions. The new Liberal government embarked on an ambitious plan to put Canadians back to work and to restore stability and credibility to the nation's finances. We have worked hard to rebuild the foundations of Canada. We have worked hard to restore the confidence of Canadians in the future.

I am proud to say that in short order the government transformed the record deficit of $42 billion that we inherited from our predecessors to two consecutive balanced budgets, with a third on the way, and a growing budget surplus. As a result interest rates have fallen sharply, driving the economy to create, it is hard to believe, nearly two million jobs since we took office in the fall of 1993.

In my province of Manitoba the federal government's economic policies have helped push the unemployment rate down to 5.4%. That is one of the lowest in the country, if not the lowest.

With the nation's finances firmly under control and the economy growing, the government has been able to make key reinvestments in social and economic programs. That is something Canadians want us to do.

For example, research and development funding has been boosted significantly. Health care funding has been increased by $11.5 billion, of which my province of Manitoba will receive $425 million. We have improved support for those pursuing post-secondary education through changes to the tax system and by introducing the millennium scholarship fund.

Our infrastructure renewal programs have seen some $6 billion invested across the country improving everything from community centres to highways, including a number of projects in my riding of Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia.

Despite what the opposition may want Canadians to believe, we have begun cutting taxes in the last three budgets, or effectively over the past three budgets, to about $16.5 billion. Average families in my riding earning $50,000 will see their federal taxes fall by $550.

This is only the beginning. We stand today before a new century confident in the future of our country. All Canadians can be proud of our achievements as an independent and prosperous country with a dynamic economy and a strong and democratic society. As the United Nations consistently reminds us, Canada is the best place to live in the world. That declaration has come from the United Nations for the last six years.

Canadians are confident that despite a rapidly changing world where technology, knowledge and creativity are the driving forces of the new economy, Canada will succeed. Maintaining and enhancing our standard of living require a comprehensive strategy to take us into the 21st century. The throne speech boldly sets out that strategy.

The government's vision for the future includes a commitment to Canada's children and youth, which is a very good start; the building of a dynamic economy; further strengthening our health care system; ensuring the quality of our environment; building stronger communities; improving the relationship with aboriginal peoples; and advancing Canada's place in the world. It is large order. It is an ambitious agenda, but it is something that we simply have to do on behalf of all Canadians.

Our plan for the next two to five years is comprehensive: first, increase maternity and parental leave benefits; second, a federal provincial agreement on more supports for early childhood development, which is very important; third, more after tax money in the hands of families; fourth, more family friendly workplaces; fifth, modernization of family law; sixth, a third significant investment in the national child benefit; and seventh, strengthened learning opportunities through an expanded SchoolNet. That is real support for Canadian families in the Canadian way.

While hon. members opposite profess to offer so-called solutions to the country's woes, the government has delivered and is preparing to deliver even more. I think Canadians recognize this. The phone calls and letters I receive these days are much more optimistic and much more positive about our future than the ones I received 10 or 11 years ago.

I want to be very frank. This is not to say that all is well and that the government can afford to rest on its laurels. That is not the truth. There are all kinds of things to do to keep on building this great country. There is a lot to be done.

For example, in my home area of Canada in the west, prairie farmers find themselves in the midst of one of the worst agricultural periods since the Great Depression. The Liberal government has responded with a $1.5 billion income assistance program designed and implemented in partnership with the provinces and stakeholders.

Many argue that $1.5 billion is not enough. It would be more accurate to say that not enough of it has been paid out so far. Federal assistance to prairie farmers has recently been boosted by an additional $170 million, something announced by the agriculture minister just days ago, raising the total federal emergency aid to farmers to over a billion dollars. This is over and above ongoing federal support payments of $600 million to agriculture.

Having grown up on a farm in southern Manitoba around the community of Glenboro, I understand and greatly sympathize with the plight of prairie farmers. I would like to see existing income assistance moneys paid out as soon as possible.

This is only part of the solution. In the Speech from the Throne the government reaffirmed its long term commitment to Canada's farmers. We will work to reduce foreign export subsidies at the upcoming WTO meetings in Seattle.

The government also reaffirmed the importance of biotechnology research to the future of Canada's agriculture industry and pledged additional support. In addition, the government is committed to helping prairie farmers by building on the work already done by Judge Estey and Mr. Kroeger in their reports on the grain transportation system.

The government must ensure that there is greater competition within the system and that producers receive the benefits through lower transportation costs.

I will comment briefly on the importance of ongoing communication between the government and the public. I recently had the honour of heading up a caucus task force on the four western provinces. That task force was mandated to complement the work of the existing western Liberal caucus by consulting with western Canadians about what the government's priorities should be as we approach the new millennium.

Without prejudicing the contents of the report, which I expect will be released very soon, western Canadians overwhelmingly welcomed the opportunity to be consulted on what the government's priorities should be as we enter the new millennium.

The throne speech reflects many of the comments that my task force heard during our consultations. The commitment to further tax cuts while reinvesting in the social safety net, the commitment to further investments in research and development and improvements to our infrastructure, and ensuring that Canada's children and families are a priority are all important issues for western Canadians. The government is listening to western Canadians, indeed to all Canadians, and it is responding to what it is hearing.

The throne speech provides an inspiring vision to take Canada into the new millennium. As the Prime Minister so boldly stated, Canada will be the place to be in the 21st century.

[Agriculture, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be coming to Ottawa tomorrow to highlight the current farm income crisis facing prairie farmers.

I am also pleased to note that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which I am honoured to chair, will meet with and hear directly from premiers Doer and Romanow and their delegations.

The farm income crisis is real. The government recognizes that many farm families are suffering. Canadians know that it is in our interest to maintain a stable agricultural industry.

That is why the government has allocated $900 million in assistance to the agriculture income disaster assistance program. That is why the government has modified AIDA to make it more accessible to struggling farmers. That is why the government has indicated that it will look at further changes to strengthen the program.

The government is committed to helping Canada's farmers get through the current income crisis.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I really think we should shed a tear for truth. The hon. member from Alberta is suggesting that we have been indifferent to killer subsidies imposed by the European Union and the U.S.A.

Let me remind the hon. member that in the past year the government has hosted and led an unprecedented number of meetings with all of the agricultural and agri-food stakeholders on what their input should be with regard to coming to a Canadian position on the WTO negotiations. All of the industrial stakeholders were very impressed with the kind of program which the minister of agriculture put together in the past year to come to a determination of what our country should say at the WTO negotiations beginning in Seattle next month.

In this debate we should have more facts and a little more truth so that people can understand what this debate is all about. Those are the facts.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure whether the member for Churchill expressed her question clearly, or maybe I misunderstood it. If she is referring to the reference period, the reference period has to do with the past three years. I know there have been considerations about looking at a different kind of reference period called the Olympic model. Things are being considered.

AIDA has been modified to some extent from the time when it was brought in last Christmas. I would not be surprised that in aid of improving it and streamlining it there will be some other changes.

Who knows, there might even be another reference period adopted to give farmers a choice.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can remember all those questions. I remind my hon. friend from Manitoba that the input costs or the fees charged by the grain commission have been frozen. I recognize the financial difficulties of farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and elsewhere. If those fees continue to be frozen for an indefinite period I would certainly support it and recommend it to the government.

I love advice from the Reform Party on a voluntary wheat board. The fact of the matter is that the producers the Reform claims to support are in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I remind the member for Selkirk—Interlake that we changed the governance of the wheat board. It now has 15 members, 10 of whom are elected by farmers.

The Canadian Wheat Board is dominated by producers who speak for farmers. If the Canadian Wheat Board wants to make changes with respect to marketing, whether it has to do with co-ops or anybody else, God bless them. Let it go ahead. It is the producers' board. We in Ottawa should not be telling them otherwise. Get a grip.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the previous speaker from Brandon—Souris did not answer the question. It does not come as a great surprise to me.

I will be splitting my time with the distinguished member for Waterloo—Wellington. I am very pleased to take part in this important debate. I wish to bring another perspective to the discussion.

Canadian farmers produce some of the safest, highest quality and most affordable food in the world, but having the best product at the best price does not do a lot of good unless there is an efficient, cost effective way to get product to the market.

This is what the government's grain handling and transportation reform is all about. It is the issue I will speak to today. This is an important issue for the bottom lines of western farmers. It is also an important issue for the thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on a robust farm economy.

Before I talk about the ongoing consultations and the decisions that lie ahead I would like to give some sense of the history of this very complex issue. The difficulty of transporting grain across vast expanses of land to deliver it to port for export is an issue that is multifaceted and that has prompted endless discussion. The severe backlog of grain shipments and ships waiting in the port of Vancouver during the winter of 1996-97, particularly in February of that year, hurt producers in the pocketbook. As a result the government's resolve to tackle the problem hardened.

During that winter, extreme weather conditions and railway infrastructure problems caused disruptions that affected every part of the grain transportation system. The then agriculture minister convened a meeting in Calgary to which he invited all participants in the system: railways, grain companies, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grain Commission and the car allocation policy group. They turned their efforts to finding solutions.

All agreed that it was time to concentrate on building a grain transportation system in which there would be more accountability and reliability, where there would be rewards for those who overperform, penalties for those who underperform and a system with incentives built into it to make sure grain gets to where it is supposed to be and on time.

In July 1997 the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board again convened a meeting of all stakeholders to develop strategies to ensure grain moves efficiently throughout the crop year and to further discuss industry calls for an early review of the grain handling and transportation system rather than wait for the 1999 statutory review under the Canada Transportation Act.

Several months later in December the Minister of Transport announced that Mr. Justice Willard Estey was to head a major review of the grain handling and transportation system.

His mandate was to come up with recommendations for, first, a responsive, efficient, customer oriented logistics system that would enhance the competitiveness of producers, shippers, carriers and ports; second, a system where all stakeholders including producers would share in the rewards of productivity improvements and would also share in the appropriate direct consequences for activities that detract from system performance; and, third, a system with well defined accountability for all elements of the grain logistics system to encourage high performance levels by each participant.

Justice Estey consulted with industry stakeholders in the early part of the year and provided a preliminary report at the end of April 1998. His final report delivered at the end of last year contained 15 recommendations. These recommendations constituted a blueprint for a less regulated, more accountable and competitive grain handling and transportation system

The government agrees with Justice Estey's vision that the western grain handling and transportation system should be made more efficient, more accountable and beneficial to farmers. We want it to move to a more contract based, commercially oriented environment with appropriate safeguards for all stakeholders.

Justice Estey set out key principles to be followed in solving grain transportation issues but there was still work to be done to put the operational details in place. To achieve this the Minister of Transport appointed Arthur Kroeger, a former deputy minister of transport, to involve western stakeholders in developing those operational details.

Over the course of this past summer Mr. Kroeger held extensive consultations among grain industry stakeholders on 12 of the 15 recommendations included in the Estey report. He headed a steering committee which set up three working groups that concentrated on rates, revenues, commercial relations, competition and safeguards. Mr. Kroeger was asked to provide recommendations on any issue that was not agreed upon by the stakeholders during the process.

When he delivered his report to the government last month he indicated in a letter to the Minister of Transport that there was still a dispute over the issue of eliminating regulated grain freight rates and replacing them with a cap on revenue for each railway. The point of a revenue cap is to provide a safeguard to ensure that producers are not paying too much to transport their grain and that as savings are achieved throughout the transportation system farmers get to benefit as much as anyone.

The main dispute was the starting point for a revenue cap, which Mr. Kroeger recommended should be set at 12% below the 1998 level. This would be a reduction of $3.73 per tonne or a total of $112 million below the 1998 level based on a total grain volume of 30 million tonnes. This means that shippers of grain would benefit to the tune of $112 million in the year 2000. I assure the House that many farmers are holding for greater savings than those.

In his report Mr. Justice Estey recognized the mutual dependence between the railways and grain producers, and I quote what he said:

—the efficiency and economic health of the rail system is of prime importance, ranking next in importance to the economic well-being of farmers. The railway and the farmers cannot do without each other. Mutual survival dictates that efficiencies and economies must be shared between the two.

I could not agree more. The prosperity of our producers depends on it. Mr. Kroeger also recommended that the federal government assess the results of these reductions at the end of a five year period. If at the end of that period the results were found to be unsatisfactory we would have other options open to us such as developing further measures to increase competition. In the meantime, however, the revenue cap would provide safeguards against excessive rate increases to grain producers during the trial period.

All the issues in the report and Mr. Kroeger's letter will be very carefully studied before we move to any consideration of new legislation.

We recognize the important role that grain handling and transport play in the costs and incomes of farmers and in the strength of the rural and agricultural economy of the west. I am confident, though, that through changes to the grain transportation system Canada's grain sector will become more competitive, which can only help western Canadian grain producers.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the question of my hon. friend from Brandon—Souris. Is it the Reform Party's policy to ask for an additional $1 billion for farmers in the province of Saskatchewan?

I remind the House that if the answer to the question is yes, this is a demand from a party that just a couple of years ago wanted to take about $1.5 billion out of agriculture. Which is it?

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will bring forward some factual information in reply to my hon. friend from Brandon—Souris.

I think he left the impression with some listeners and viewers that the GRIP in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan was taken away against their wishes. I remind the member for Brandon—Souris that GRIP was abandoned because those two provinces did not want GRIP. They felt that the premiums were too high and the federal government agreed to it. The province of Ontario wanted to continue with GRIP and does so today.

The member for Brandon—Souris finds the AIDA program wanting and would like to see it improved. Again he would like to leave the impression that it is the sole responsibility of the federal government. I would remind the member for Brandon—Souris that this is not just a one government program. The provinces are involved as well. The federal government pays 60% of AIDA. The provinces pay 40%. The provinces agreed to the criteria involved in AIDA.

My friend from Brandon—Souris supported the former Filmon government which agreed to AIDA. The Romanow government, which still exists by a thread, agreed to the criteria of AIDA.

It is nice to bring these things into perspective so that the people out there, many of whom are not farmers and are living in cities, understand the true facts about AIDA.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to one or two observations made by the hon. member for Palliser.

In his remarks a few minutes ago he indicated, and one could perhaps infer it from what he said, that very little AIDA money is flowing into his home province of Saskatchewan. In the interest of accuracy we should share with the member the latest information.

As of October 20, five days ago, a total of $72,149,506 has been paid out to farmers in the member's province of Saskatchewan. That is from a total number of claims paid of 6,865. With Saskatchewan having so many cereal grain farmers and cereal grain farmers being so impacted by low commodity prices it is understandable that the largest amount of money would be going into the member's home province. Almost half of the AIDA money paid out has gone to Saskatchewan.

I wanted to share that information with the member as I am quite sure he would want farmers to understand it.

[Grain, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the wheat board.

Well over 70% of the grain produced in western Canada is exported out of the country. Therefore the next round of WTO negotiations beginning in Seattle next month raises several critical issues ranging from those damaging export subsidies to support for the Canadian Wheat Board.

What is the minister doing to ensure that farmers will gain maximum benefits from the international marketplace?