Lost her last election, in 1997, with 21% of the vote.
The Tokamak Project September 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the focus and priorities of this government are creating a climate for economic growth.
The Candu business brings significant benefits to Quebec. As the minister has said over and over again in this House, the sale of one Candu reactor brings significant jobs and economic growth to the people of Quebec.
Nipissing And James Bay Railway Company Act September 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question of whether we are on track with respect to the climate change commitments outlined in the red book, let me assure the hon. member that we are making progress. I also acknowledge that stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 and achieving further reductions post-2000 will not be easy.
Climate change is a complex issue for which there are no simple solutions. Very few countries will be able to stabilize their emissions by the year 2000. The problem lies in the very nature of modern economics and consumer lifestyles. We must change many of the ways we live and do business. Turning on the lights, heating homes and driving to work all produce greenhouse gas emissions. It is a matter of making fundamental changes to the way we live. It will take time and no one government or sector of the economy alone can solve the problem.
That is why the red book commitment on climate change states that the federal government will work with provincial and urban governments and major stakeholders with the aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We are doing just that through the federal-provincial initiative known as Canada's national action program on climate change. This program takes a sustainable development approach, that is, balancing environmental and economic imperatives.
The national action program encourages a mix of approaches: voluntary, regulatory and economic instruments. A key voluntary measure is the voluntary challenge and registry, VCR, program designed to engage the private and public sectors to undertake mitigative climate change plans on a voluntary basis. These plans are also registered for public scrutiny. This approach allows companies to undertake initiatives which make the most sense from their operational viewpoint.
Over 580 companies and organizations have registered with the VCR. They represent about 70 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions originating from industrial and business activities. We have made climate change an important item on the agenda of corporate Canada. CEOs know there is a problem and are initiating mitigative plans and actions.
Natural Resources Canada has a number of its own programs to address greenhouse gas emissions. It has implemented energy efficiency regulations on electrical appliances and motors; set up the autosmart and fleetsmart programs to teach fuel efficient driving habits; and implemented a range of programs to encourage energy efficiency in buildings. The last budget also announced changes to the tax rules to encourage renewable energy investments. Consultations are now in progress to examine improving the tax treatment of energy efficiency investments.
The federal government's actions can make a difference. For example, by the year 2000 our new regulations on commercial lighting will reduce emissions annually by an amount equivalent to the carbon dioxide produced yearly by one million cars.
The federal government is also showing leadership by getting its own house in order. It plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its operations by 20 per cent by the year 2005 through the Greening of Government Initiative affecting government buildings and motor vehicle fleets.
However, the federal government cannot do it alone. All Canadians contribute to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. All Canadians must contribute to the solution. Stabilizing and eventually reducing emissions will depend on the collective effort made by all governments, industry and business sectors and the general public.
When and how we stabilize emissions are very much the subject of the joint meeting of the federal and provincial energy and environment ministers scheduled for early December. At that time ministers will review progress to date under the national action program on climate change and recommend the next action steps.
The Senate June 20th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate about federal government funding of the national fusion program.
For a number of years the federal government has co-funded research and development of fusion, the national fusion program, in partnership with Hydro-Quebec and Ontario Hydro.
The cost of the Quebec part of the national program, the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion at Varennes, has been shared by the federal government, Hydro-Quebec and the University of Quebec. The federal government's contribution to the Quebec program is currently $7.2 million annually.
Since 1981 the investment by the federal government in fusion research at Varennes has amounted to $90 million. This investment has helped to develop scientific expertise and industrial technology in Quebec and it will continue to pay dividends in the future.
In nuclear energy the mandate of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is to seek to maintain a viable, competitive business in supplying and servicing CANDU reactors at a reduced cost to the federal government. This will mean that AECL will no longer conduct non-CANDU related basic science. AECL is working with the federal government to wind up or transfer elements of its basic science programs to other facilities if possible.
High technology industries in Quebec will continue to benefit from the nuclear industry through contracts developed from CANDU sales to Korea and through the good performance of the Gentilly 2 CANDU reactor.
Consultants' studies show that a typical CANDU 6 sale overseas could bring over $100 million in contracts to Quebec and generate about 4,000 person years of employment. AECL expects to sign contracts for the sale of CANDU reactors to China in the near future and there are prospects for the sale of additional units to Korea.
These two corporations, among the very largest in Canada, have received a year's notice of the federal government's intent to terminate funding for the national fusion program. The federal government will work with them to ensure a smooth transition. We are continuing to fund the program in the current fiscal year.
These are the principal reasons that have gone into the decision by the federal government to end funding for the national fusion program.
Supply June 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the House that I have had numerous letters from a number of farmers in my riding requesting that we enhance the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board by adding other commodities to the board.
My question for the hon. member is this. Does he believe that the theory behind the motion of the third party in the House of Commons is to destroy, undermine and undercut the credibility of the Canadian Wheat Board as well as undercut the grassroots movement of this country which is Canadian farmers?
Supply June 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a group of people in this country that have had more change in the last 60 years than Canadian farmers. Canadian farmers are open to change and Canadian farmers who are shareholders of the Canadian Wheat Board are open to change.
With respect to the question about the confidentiality of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Wheat Board books are open every single year. What the Canadian Wheat Board cannot do is take it directly to the Reform Party and put it in front of their eyes. It is up to Reform members to make that kind of a decision. It is up to the third party to at least make some pretence to find out the quality of the best marketing system in the world which is in fact the Canadian Wheat Board.
Supply June 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, there is an incredible difference between this Liberal government and the third party in this House of Commons.
The government is listening and consulting with the grassroots movement of the country. We are awaiting the results of a panel. A good majority of those grassroots people will in fact be coming from the third party of this House of Commons.
It is very easy to sit on the opposite side of the House and pull apart and dismantle a marketing system that works incredibly well for farmers. It is my understanding that the third party is on a crusade to destroy the most effective marketing system we have in this country, the Canadian Wheat Board.
Supply June 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I do not like what I am about to do but in order to answer the hon. member's question I will have to crawl to the depths of the Reform Party, to its rhetoric.
The rhetoric in the House in the last three or four hours is appalling. We have asked Reform Party members on several occasions what they mean about dual marketing. The Liberal government has provided them with the facts of what the Canadian Wheat Board is about, that we are listening to farmers. It is about time we heard some facts about where they would like the government to go with respect to dual marketing and Canadian farmers.
Supply June 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and speak to the pivotal role of the Canadian Wheat Board and the role it plays in prairie agriculture.
It is important to remind members opposite that the Canadian Wheat Board came into being through a grassroots movement by Canadian farmers. They lobbied the federal government to put in place a marketing agency to help them access export markets. The Canadian Wheat Board exists because prairie farmers demanded it.
The Canadian Wheat Board continues to exist because by far the majority of farmers support it. This is very important for members to keep in mind. Farmers are in essence the board's shareholders. The mandate of the board is to get the best possible returns for Canadian prairie farmers.
As the farmer's marketing agency, the Canadian Wheat Board returns all sales revenues after the costs of marketing to the wheat and barley farmers of western Canada. Farmers do not have to split sales revenues with other shareholders. It is all divided among them based on deliveries and grades.
It is no secret that I have long been a strong supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board. As a farmer I know what the board means for the bottom line of our farms. The board provides me and farmers like me with consistently higher prices than we could get by marketing on our own. This was proven in an external performance appraisal conducted by three well known and well respected agricultural economists from the prairies.
The evaluation clearly stated that if single desk selling were ended prairie farmers would lose $13.35 per tonne, which would amount to a total loss to prairie farmers of $365 million per year. Is this what Reformers want? Do they want to take $365 million out of farmers pockets every year? Farmers will not stand for it and neither will I. These are the facts. I do not know one farmer who would be willing to give up over $13 per tonne.
The board's mandate is to make money for Canadian farmers, period. That is what the board has been doing very well for the past 60 years.
It is interesting that when we ask supporters of dual marketing for their facts, all they can provide are vague references to one time only limited niche markets, and the rhetoric goes on and on. They have never provided one shred of evidence that farmers would be better off financially in the long term with dual marketing.
The board is able to provide prairie farmers with high returns because it operates from a position of strength. It uses its considerable resources, its information on markets, crop and weather surveillance, and combines that with excellent customer service to create stable, long term markets for quality wheat and barley for farmers in my riding of Dauphin-Swan River and for farmers right across the prairies.
Members might not realize the Canadian Wheat Board is one of Canada's largest exporters, with annual sales revenues approaching $5 billion. The board is constantly looking for new markets for new products farmers can grow to satisfy export market demands. AC Karma is an excellent example of this. The board is working hard to expand markets in countries throughout the world, including the Pacific rim.
There are plenty of reasons the wheat board is one of the most well respected grain marketers in the world and why the same customers come back year after year. The board's reputation for products of excellent and reliable quality is commonly recognized as Canada's trump card on international grain markets. Buyers from around the world ignore cheap grain to buy Canadian.
Why would they do this? They know it is consistent from year to year, load to load. Our export partners know they get the best quality wheat and barley in the world from the Canadian Wheat Board, and they come back year after year.
It is also important for members to know the Canadian Wheat Board is being responsive to farmers' needs and that it is being flexible. For example, improvements have been made to the delivery system, with extensive input from farmers and elevator companies, to address the delivery needs of farmers.
The board is also recommending a number of legislative changes which will put money into farmers' hands faster by changing payment structures. It will provide increased information to farmers to help them with their management decisions.
The Liberal government recognizes the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board to western Canadian farmers and it wants the board to be the best it can be. For that reason I commend the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for establishing the grain marketing panel. He has pulled together panel members who represent a cross-section of the industry to look at our grain marketing system. One of the focuses has been the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Through the grain marketing panel we are consulting with farmers. Farmers are telling us how the system can be improved to serve them better. The minister has indicated that changes may be made. These changes will be to the benefit of prairie farmers.
I attended meetings of the grain marketing panel in Brandon and in my home town of Grandview. The clear message farmers from my riding of Dauphin-Swan River and from across Manitoba
were sending was they wanted the Canadian Wheat Board to remain the single desk seller for Canadian wheat and barley.
The Canadian Wheat Board is an important and highly effective marketing agency, and the majority of western Canadian farmers are anxious to strengthen the board, rather than weaken it. Every day my office receives calls from farmers in support of the board and single desk selling. They tell me the board and single desk selling are crucial to their survival.
The results of the election to the Canadian Wheat Board's advisory committee, in which 10 of 11 farmer representatives chosen were strong wheat board supporters, are proof that grain farmers from across the prairies firmly support the board. The evidence is clear. Farmers want the Canadian Wheat Board. They want single desk selling.
This motion is yet another example of shortsighted, ill conceived policy by the Reform Party that will hurt farmers. If the Reform Party is so interested in agriculture, I wonder why agriculture policy was not even on the agenda at its recent conference. That speaks volumes about where agriculture is on the Reform Party's priority list. It is nowhere on the list.
I can tell the House, for the record, that a strong Canadian Wheat Board is on the top of my priority list for the following reasons.
The Canadian Wheat Board, with its single desk selling, works with other players in order to achieve major objectives which would be difficult to accomplish in any other way. One, it maximizes returns to producers. Two, it ensures unparalleled quality control. Three, it provides ongoing customer service in the international marketplace.
The farmers of Dauphin-Swan River and many of the grassroots farmers from across western Canada want a strong Canadian Wheat Board and I support them wholeheartedly.
Ray Karlson June 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to acknowledge the outstanding achievement of a member of my riding of Dauphin-Swan River, Mr. Ray Karlson.
Yesterday Mr. Karlson, the superintendent for mail operations in Dauphin, Manitoba, received the Golden Postmark Award in recognition of outstanding contributions to Canada Post and his community.
Fair, courteous, resourceful, compassionate and an all-around terrific boss are the words used to describe Mr. Karlson by his co-workers. Mr. Karlson is known for going above and beyond the call for employees and the people of Dauphin and area, whether it means coming in on weekends or delivering a parcel personally.
Mail service is of crucial importance to rural areas. I would like to take this opportunity to salute Mr. Karlson and all Canada Post employees in rural Canada for their commitment to their jobs and communities. They deserve our stamp of approval.
Farm Debt Mediation Act June 17th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I am more than pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on a very important piece of legislation for farm families, Bill C-38, the farm debt mediation act.
This new legislation will replace the current Farm Debt Review Act with a new farm debt and mediation process. This is another example of how the Liberal government is putting the needs of rural Canada, of farm families and farmers first. It is one of a long list of initiatives we are undertaking to improve the system to better serve the agricultural sector.
This new act addresses the problems that farmers have identified over the years with the Farm Debt Review Board system. It goes a long way to improving the farmer's position in insolvency proceedings.
The Farm Debt Review Act first came into being 10 years ago in response to debt problems in the farm sector at that time. It established farm debt review boards in every province to provide third party mediation between farmers and their creditors.
With the passage of this new act, the Farm Debt Review Board would be replaced by a new broader based farm income review service. This new service will help farmers position themselves to better adapt to new income opportunities to help those farmers who may experience financial difficulties related to either income or debt servicing ability.
This is a proactive approach. We are setting up a system to help farmers before difficulties become debt load problems with creditors. We are giving farmers more options and better opportunities to make their operations viable and stay on to do what they do best, to farm, to produce high quality food and to feed the world.
The government developed the concept for this new service to compliment the other positive initiatives we have taken in the areas of agriculture and agri-food.
This legislation is the result of cross-Canada consultations with farmers and their creditors as well as provincial governments. It is therefore not surprising that there is widespread support for the initiatives of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
In keeping with the Liberal government's strong record of consulting with Canadians, we are proposing to refer the act to the standing committee before second reading to give farmers every opportunity to add their input.
The best solutions are found through consultation and co-operation. That is exactly what the government is doing with farmers for farmers. This new service is designed to be an integral part of an overall package of adaptation initiatives aimed at helping the sector adapt and take advantage of opportunities to build a strong rural Canada.
The service will be funded out of the Canadian adaptation and rural development fund which was announced in the 1995 budget to help the sector make the transition to a more efficient and competitive market economy.
The new legislation retains the stay of proceedings, review and mediation but now puts the mediation aspect into legislation. By placing mediation within the act, farmers are assured of an impartial mediation process and that the mediator is not advising the farmer or negotiating on behalf of the farmer or the creditor.
Further, farmers will not have the opportunity to appeal decisions regarding the granting, extension and termination of stays of proceedings which do not exist under the existing act.
By setting up an appeal process and a formal appeal board, the Liberal government is giving farmers a further recourse. In keeping with the government's commitment to reduce cost of government and to save taxpayer dollars, this new service would be less costly to administer with the current Farm Debt Review Board.
Since it is less administratively cumbersome, there would be better opportunities to reduce duplication and to work within provincial mediation services. There would be two components of the new farm income review service, a debt mediation service and a farm consultation service not tied to a debt crisis.
The new debt mediation service would also be based on a single mediator model rather than the current three-person panel. There would no longer be farm debt review boards and mediators would not be appointed by the minister.
We are depoliticizing the process to the benefit of farmers. These changes would reduce the program cost by more than $1 million per year.
The other component of the new farm income review service, the farm consultation service, would provide financial consultation to farmers facing emerging problems or when farm families are looking for opportunities.
The service would be preventive in nature and would provide advice on cash flow problems as well as helping farmers look at options for diversification, expansion, downsizing and restructuring their operations.
The bill will help farmers better manage their economic future and will help increase the overall prosperity of our agricultural sector and of our rural communities.
There is more optimism in the agriculture sector than I have ever seen. That optimism is the result of the positive policies the government is putting place like new legislation to help farmers.
I saw this optimism this past weekend when I had the pleasure of attending a centennial farm celebration for the Dalgeish family in Grandview. Four generations of the Dalgeish family have toiled
for long hours in very difficult conditions through the dirty thirties, through searing heat and bitter cold, through droughts and floods, through strong markets and world price wars. They have persevered and worked the same farm for 100 years, and that is certainly something worth celebrating. I am a third generation farmer and I know how important it is to ensure the farming tradition continues.
I am pleased to be part of a government that is putting in proactive farmer initiative policies for long term survival and prosperity of family farms, policies to ensure we have many more centennial farms to celebrate.
I have always been and I continue to be an ambassador for rural Canada, an ambassador for rural economic development. Never in Canadian history has the future of rural Canada looked so bright, and this is at least in part due to the very positive action the government has taken to enhance the agricultural sector. The government is putting in place the foundations needed to take rural Canada, farmers, into the 21st century. For this reason I wholeheartedly support the bill.