Lyle Vanclief

[The Environment, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I extend my congratulations to one of Ontario's environmental groups, Fishermen Involved in Saving Habitat, FISH.

Environment Canada and FISH have been working together with the support of the environmental partners fund to carry out an environmental education project. This partnership has resulted in the development of the bronze level of the watershed report card, a management tool for bringing various stakeholders and community members together and collectively designing strategies for the protection of natural habitat. The bronze level is a crucial foundation which will pave the way for the silver and gold levels of the report card which will deal with the implementation of action plans for relevant ecosystems.

This project is possible because of the support of its community partners. These partners include the American Fisheries Society, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, many volunteer workshop participants and of course Fishermen Involved in Saving Habitat.

[Quinte Ballet School, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the faculty and students of the Quinte Ballet School, located in the city of Belleville.

During the past 22 years the Quinte Ballet School has consistently achieved recognition for the quality of its education and the professionalism of its work. The school's philosophy is centred on the principle that any student having the desire to dance can receive the highest possible level of dance training.

In particular, I would like to praise the dedicated work of the school's founding artistic director, Mr. Brian Scott, and his tireless efforts and artistic excellence.

It is only one of four private dance schools in Canada, and it is not supported by government funding.

The students at the school are taught in both classical ballet and contemporary dance and are currently performing professionally as graduates in many professional activities, including the National Ballet of Canada.

Next Friday night, May 5, the students of the Quinte Ballet School will be presenting their fourth annual spring performance at the Centrepoint Theatre here in the city of Ottawa. I encourage colleagues and all lovers of performing arts to attend.

[Northern Telecom, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow at its annual meeting in Montreal, Northern Telecom will be marking a century of progress. Founded in 1895 as a small manufacturer of telephones, it has since become a world leader with revenues of over $12 billion.

Today NorTel employs 21,000 Canadians. Four out of ten of those jobs are linked to export success. In the city of Belleville in my riding, close to 1,000 constituents are employed in NorTel's production of telecommunications equipment for use in over 90 countries.

I think it is particularly important to note NorTel's continuing investment in Canada. Not only does it invest in R and D to develop networks of tomorrow, it also commits itself to Canada's students. Last year NorTel hired over 600 new graduates from Canadian universities.

NorTel is an excellent example of the benefits that research and development and export success bring to Canada. I congratulate NorTel on its first 100 years and wish it all the best for the next century.

[Farm Improvement And Marketing Co-Operatives Loans Act, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to open the debate at second reading on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the government.

Bill C-75 is an act to amend the Farm Improvement and Marketing Co-operatives Loans Act. The acronym I will be referring to is FIMCLA. This amendment would only change one clause in the act. However, without the amendment we would have to suspend the program. Bill C-75 would increase the total amount of loans guaranteed under the act over a five-year period from $1.5 billion to $3 billion. Before I get into the question of why we want to make this change, I will tell the House a little about the FIMCLA program.

This program has been around for 50 years. It started with the Farm Improvement Loans Act passed in 1943 and came into effect in 1945. It was the first guaranteed loan program in Canada and was followed by student and small business loans. It is probably the most successful of all those programs.

At first the farm improvement loan program was intended to help tenant farmers get access to funding to improve their farms or farm living conditions. The guarantees were needed. They could not offer the land as security since they were tenants. Therefore they were unable to get bank loans. Over the years it has been a very popular program especially in western Canada, becoming increasingly popular throughout the nation.

Now farmers use the program to get loans of up to a maximum $250,000 for a wide range of farm improvement programs and projects such as acquisition of additional breeding stock, more land, improvements to buildings, fencing projects, irrigation, improved waste disposal facilities, et cetera. It could also be used and is being used to try alternative farming methods, whether organic farming or any other type of alternative method that farmers are now so aggressively pursuing in the diversification of their operations.

In addition, the program facilitates access to credit for farmer owned marketing co-operatives for activities that add value to the agricultural production. For example, a co-op could borrow up to $3 million under FIMCLA to build a juice plant, or something with vegetables or any other type of co-operative dealing with further value adding and processing of agriculture products.

Loans to co-operatives must be approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Under this program borrowers benefit from interest rate savings of about 0.5 per cent and a lower equity requirement usually around a minimum 20 per cent.

The program is very popular and is becoming even more popular every year. Five years ago the department began to encourage credit unions and caisse populaires to make the program available to their customers as well. This has added about 600 new designated lenders throughout the country.

In towns which may only have one bank or one credit union or no bank or no credit union, farmers often had to drive to another town to get financing. With this change they suddenly had a lot more lenders to work with. In addition, we have seen sustained lower interest rates, higher farm equipment sales and an improved farm debt situation in the last few years.

Not surprisingly, the number of loans registered under the program has more than tripled from about 4,800 in 1990-91 to nearly 18,500 in 1994-95. The value of those loans has climbed from just under $82 million per year to $515 million per year. This year we expect the loans to reach $550 million, bringing a five-year aggregate to $1.4 billion. We expect that to remain constant for the years ahead. At a level of a $3 billion cap we will now be allowed to continue to offer the program. Most of the new growth has taken place in Quebec and Alberta.

Not long ago there was only a single lender using the program in Quebec. Now the giant Caisse Populaire Desjardins movement has become a major participant and Quebec has the third highest number of loans of any province. Similarly in Alberta, which has the second highest number of loans, the Alberta treasury branches have become a significant lender under FIM-

CLA. However, Saskatchewan is still the biggest user of the program.

This new growth has caused the government to propose this amendment to increase the cap. If we do not, as I said before, the program could reach its $1.5 billion cap in June of this year and then we would have to suspend the program for about two years.

In preparation for this amendment we have consulted with the people who are most closely involved in the FIMCLA program, including major farm organizations like the Canadian Federation of Agriculture as well as commercial lenders.

I would also like to address the inevitable question of why we are increasing the cap on this program by $1.5 billion at a time of government restraint. I want to make clear this amendment does not in any way represent $1.5 billion in new spending. Over the last 30 years the program costs have averaged slightly over $1 million a year. It is a loan guarantee, not a loan of the actual money.

The 25-year net loss rate under FIMCLA has been about 1 per cent. If we look at other government programs it shows the dedication to repaying loans and the low loss in those loans in the agricultural community over the years, a record it can be proud of. This loss was a bit higher in the 1980s for obvious reasons but we expect it now to stay at less than 1 per cent in the foreseeable future.

The government has made a commitment to provide farmers with the tools they need. FIMCLA is one such tool, an inexpensive tool that offers a considerable amount of assistance to the agri-food sector. It supports adaptation, diversification and encourages regional development and job creation.

The government has recently increased the cap on small business loans to a total of $12 billion for the same reason. Here again we are asking for the assistance to increase the cap on the Farm Improvement and Marketing Co-operatives Loans Act.

At this time I urge all members in the House to support the amendment which will double the cap on loans under the Farm Improvement and Marketing Co-operatives Loans Act and enable this low cost support to farmers to continue. I look forward to the support of all members in the House.

[National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the comments of the opposition this evening. However, I must remind the member that his comments in no way, shape or form are related to the question he asked in the House. That is what I will be responding to because I believe that is what his constituents want an answer to.

The United States has requested a NAFTA chapter 20 consultation concerning the application of Canada's World Trade Organization tariff equivalents to U.S. dairy and poultry products. The initial round of consultations took place on March 1 in Ottawa.

We in Canada have consistently maintained that both the FTA and the NAFTA make clear that Canada has preserved all its GATT rights with respect to supply-managed agriculture goods, including the right to apply the World Trade Organization tariffication provisions to U.S.-origin agricultural goods. In our view, Canada's approach to tariffication of dairy and poultry products is fully consistent with our international trade obligations under both NAFTA and the WTO.

With respect to ice cream and yoghurt, in response to the 1989 GATT ice cream and yoghurt panel report, we indicated that Canada would implement the panel findings in the context of the Uruguay Round. In the Uruguay Round, Canada and all other WTO parties agreed to tarrify their import restrictions. In our view, Canada's tariffication of quotas on ice cream and yoghurt addresses the GATT panel report of 1989.

I can assure this House, all the dairy farmers and the opposition that we will continue to strongly defend Canada's tariffication approach on all supply-managed commodities.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member for Frontenac had paid more attention because I did not say anything about research and development and he rose and said that I had. As far as his comments on genetic evaluation and milk recording are concerned, he should be informed, if he is not already, that the dairy farmers of Canada have been quite willing to sit down with the government to talk about getting involved in the management of genetic evaluation and the milk recording program. They recognize as producers they will benefit from that. The government is working very closely with them on the transition in order for them to be able to do that.

No part of the argument he made explains why he cannot still have the top dairy cow in Canada in his riding, other than the fact that he wants to hold on to his seat because probably someone in the Prince Edward-Hastings riding may very well take that record away from them. There are some very good dairy producers in Prince Edward-Hastings.

I thank and commend the province of Quebec for the role it is playing in the ongoing discussions to work toward a one-pool price system for milk in Canada. Most of the provinces recognize that is the direction in which we are going to have to go and should go in order for us to meet easier the challenges coming from outside the borders of the country.

In conclusion, I would point out to members opposite, as the minister did, that with respect to their reference to the balance between what was done in the WGTA versus the dairy industry, the WGTA reform package is not in any way inconsistent with the position set out by the Quebec coalition on the WGTA in a letter to the minister of December 1994. They are here barking up one tree while their representatives have told the minister in the past that they agree with the manner in which it was handled.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate today.

I would like to make a few comments at the outset to continue where my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell left off.

I had the opportunity and the privilege yesterday to spend most of the day in the riding of Beauharnois-Salaberry, where I met with 125 or 130 dairy farmers for a couple of hours after lunch. During that time I spoke to them about what we had done in the budget as far as agriculture is concerned. We talked about the WGTA and the effects of that. I spoke about the changes to the federal support for the industrial milk program. One gentle-

man stood up and said: "Yes, we know all about the budget. We don't have a problem with the budget. We would like to have you discuss with us the challenge the United States is putting forward as far as supply management in Canada is concerned." There were no objections at all to what he said.

That is significant and indicative that the dairy farmers have accepted it. They recognize that we are in a time of tremendous change, tremendous opportunity and tremendous and unprecedented challenges. The key words are that we are in a time of unprecedented opportunity.

I had the opportunity yesterday to visit three family dairy farms in the Ormstown area. They are excellent dairy farms, tremendous dairy farms. They were not milking what I would consider to be a lot of cows. They were getting excellent returns, excellent production, and they were very well-managed farms.

I assured them this government understands and recognizes the importance of those types of farming operations, the importance of supply management, and that we are here to support them.

I will put in context some of the figures the members opposite have been throwing out-yes, throwing out. I can see the member for Frontenac smiling right now. He is probably going to try to quote some more from the newspaper he just quoted from. He is smiling all the more; I know he is. He just cannot wait until I get my 10 minutes in so he can get his 5 in. I would ask him to quote completely.

I was simply stating the facts, that if 100 per cent of the milk from the average cow in Canada today was used in the industrial milk market, the 81 cents per hectolitre would mean $56 per cow. I said in that article, and I believe I was quoted in that article as saying, that yes, we recognize that is not a small amount of money, but we have to put it in perspective. Any decrease in anybody's income is significant. There is no question about that.

However, I want to put it in perspective. For the average producer in the province of Quebec, the decrease in their income because of this change in the support to the industrial milk will be $1,341 based on the production of industrial milk in the 1993-94 dairy year. I am not making light of the fact that this is $1,341. It certainly is considerably different from an addition; it is less.

As I said to the producers I chatted with yesterday, do not underestimate or undersell what they in their industry have done in the last number of years, including the manner in which they have used the genetic gene pool in Canada to increase production and the manner in which they have used management practices to increase production in this country. If we look at what our dairy industry has done in the last 12 to 15 years, they have increased their production by incredible amounts.

I was in a barn yesterday near Ormstown, Quebec. I saw a cow there and she was the best cow in the barn, I admit. If my memory serves me correctly, that cow, in her last 365 days of production, produced 30,000 pounds of milk. When my father sold our dairy herd, a commercial working herd, in the mid-1960s, I do not think my father had a cow that produced over 8,000 or 9,000 pounds.

At that meeting of dairy farmers yesterday-I put this to them-how many people would have thought 15 years ago that we would see cows in Canada, the very top ones, producing 30,000 pounds of milk? The efficiency, and what the industry has done, is absolutely phenomenal. I am proud to say they are not finished yet. Yes, this is a challenge to the dairy industry, but I have every confidence that it is one they can meet and beat.

Leading up to the budget we all said, in all parts of the House, including the opposition in question period, that the budget, in all aspects, must be fair, it must be equitable and it must be effective. When we look at what we have done in agriculture, it meets all those tests.

In question period and in the late show period I have addressed to the member for Frontenac the concern about the WGTA and how it affects the west versus eastern Canada, in particular the province of Quebec. I want to state it again. Let us make it clear that the $1.6 billion ex gratia payment that is being made to the western Canadian grain growers is a one-time payment. It is over. They get no further support on transportation as of August 1 of this year.

The support to the industrial milk portion of the Quebec production as of August 1 this year is still at 85 per cent of where it was before versus zero to the grain export in western Canada. The payment in western Canada is roughly equivalent to ratcheting that payment down at the rate of about 10 per cent per year over the next 10 years.

I have been asked by the minister to lead the consultation that must take place over the next few months as far as what we collectively, the government, the industry and all stakeholders in the industry, do with the support to the industrial milk program as time goes on. As we know, the budget stated very clearly a 15 per cent reduction this year, a 15 per cent reduction next year, but it does not address the size of the amount or if there is money left after that.

The first meeting happened this morning in my office with the chairman of the National Dairy Council. Meetings are being arranged with the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Grocery Products Manufacturers, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, UPA, OFA and the different provincial marketing boards so that we can continue having consultations with all of

them to find out how they want to treat the remainder of that as we go forward.

The total support in the last year was about $228 million. That will be reduced 15 per cent this year. It is going to be about $193 million. I point out that out of that $228 million, $106,106,000 went to the province of Quebec. That is because they have 47 per cent of the industrial milk production.

The question is put forward: with the 1981 census being reduced this year, can that be recovered from the marketplace? I addressed that as well in the article, from which the member may quote me. That discussion is there.

The minister has been very clear. He does not wish to make a statement on that at this time. There are ongoing discussions about the cost-of-production formula. In a responsible way, all participants in the dairy industry have taken a look at the recovery of their costs from the marketplace for the farmers for their milk. They did that in a responsible way before. In doing so, they considered what an increase in the price of raw milk to the processors would mean to the processors and what the processors might have to do with the cost of the product they produce for the Canadian consumer.

I want to point out as well that the dairy industry-I believe that is what the opposition is probably hinting at here today-as well as the supply-managed sector, but in particular the dairy industry, is not subject, because of the protection we were able to keep, to the tariffication in GATT, the high levels of tariff, which is deserving. Those producers certainly deserve a return on their investment, on their risk and on their management. The efficient producers deserve a fair return. It is there for them. It is what the level of tariff protection provides for them.

I must also remind members that their production is not subject to the vagaries and challenges as much. Ninety per cent of their production is domestic, it is not on the export market. However the grain producers in western Canada are totally at the whim of world markets. Our supply managed producers are not subjected to that.

They have a tremendous amount of built-in support. It is not something that one can put a dollar value on by getting out a bunch of charts, sheets and graphs and adding up a bunch of figures. It is there. We are proud to have it there. We are going to fight to the last straw the challenge of the United States.

Every indication we have is that GATT overrides NAFTA as far as what we have done in the past. The Prime Minister has told the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the president of the UPA to their faces-the minister and I were present at that meeting-that what we have done as Canadians is right. We are going to fight for it. That is the way we are going to go.

We also have to recognize, and the dairy industry does, that even though reforms have been made, still more reforms will have to be made. The way I have referred to it for a number of years is that they have done it in the past and can continue to do so The dairy industry has shown it can roll with the punches. It has been successful in its genetics management, marketing, and so on. I could go on. The producers are an important link in that chain. The processors are an important link. There is some export. The consumers are an important link.

It is important that every efficient link in that chain has a fair return on investment and the risk involved in the industry. We will fight to maintain that. We look forward to the co-operation of the Bloc Quebecois in doing so not only for the farmers in Quebec but for the farmers in all of Canada.

[Petitions, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 46 people and calls on the government to request Parliament to delete section 718.2 from Bill C-41.

[Petitions, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table two petitions.

The first petition is signed by 53 people. It requests the government not amend the Canadian human rights code and the Canadian Human Rights Act in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality.

[Petitions, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to table from 73 people in the Cobourg, Port Hope area asking Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relations or homosexuality.