Rose-Marie Ur

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand in the House today and respond to this government's motion in support of Canadian agriculture. To the extent that this is a wide ranging debate, I hope to touch on a number of issues which are directly impacted by federal agricultural policies.

The primary industry in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex is agriculture. Stats show that nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars worth of farm products are produced in Lambton and Middlesex counties and more than half a billion dollars worth of farm supplies and equipment are purchased.

All of us in this House recognize that the production, sale and trade of agriculture produce is becoming more and more subject to both the constraints and opportunities that exist within the highly competitive nature of international trade.

Over the past couple of years more monumental changes have taken place in the field of international agriculture trade, necessitating some fairly radical adjustments to Canada's domestic structures. To that extent I have to say that the farmers of my riding who sell their products under Canada's supply management system were extremely disappointed that Canada was

unable to secure a strengthening and clarification out of article XI at the recent Uruguay round of GATT negotiations.

Canada's unique system of marketing boards, agencies and commissions is arguably the most sophisticated system in the world, ensuring producers a reasonable income and consumers stable quantities of the highest quality food.

Two years ago Canada had a number of impressive allies in her fight to strengthen and clarify article XI of the GATT. However, due to relentless pressure and threats from the United States, our allies fell by the wayside one by one. Unfortunately by the time the deadline approached Canada stood completely alone at the bargaining table. We were faced with a fundamental decision: Do we leave and scuttle seven years of negotiation involving the interests of 116 nations and our own, or do we examine the factors associated with this most comprehensive round of global trade talks in history and work to implement the measures that would ensure the survival of our unique supply management system?

The Government of Canada chose the second option. I am hopeful that Canada's farmers who operate under our current supply management system comprised chiefly of poultry egg and dairy sectors can successfully retain their system through a well regulated conversion process from the original import quota system to one that is to be characterized by initially high levels of tariffication.

Despite recent threats and posturing by the United States, I am hopeful that the Government of Canada will successfully implement this initial set of tariffs of supply managed produce beginning July 1, 1995. My constituents and I find it disturbing to read in the media accounts outlining the possibility of tradeoffs with the Americans in which some of the tariff levels and supply managed commodities may be significantly lowered in return for greater access of Canadian wheat to U.S. market.

While the Government of Canada is still negotiating with the United States to sort out a number of longstanding bilateral issues, I am gratified to have received assurances from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that in the process of these bilateral negotiations with our American friends there will be no tradeoffs between agricultural sectors.

The farmers in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex tell me that they do not want subsidies, they just want a decent price for their product. As I see it, we need to develop a farm income stabilization program that is regionally flexible, yet one that is also GATT consistent, market neutral, financially sound, affordable and effective.

One program to be looked at is GRIP. It is true that GRIP plays differently in different provinces. For example, in my province of Ontario it is seen as a very successful program. In others, especially Saskatchewan, people have the opposite opinion. Perhaps what is needed then is a set of more regionally sensitive safety net programs that take into account the various agricultural sectors and their producers.

The question of interest free cash advance payments comes to mind. On February 14 of this year I made a statement to the House calling upon the minister of agriculture to reinstate the interest free provisions of the advanced payment for crops act which was removed last June by the previous government.

I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the same request. While I respect the reality that interest free cash advances have cost about $50 million to $75 million each year and that these moneys would come out of the total budget of $850 million for all income support and safety net programs, I am convinced that it is a well spent investment, especially for our farmers who experience cash flow problems at various times each year. It almost goes without saying that proper stewardship in the form of sustainable agriculture continues to grow in importance.

Canadian agriculture has a proud environmental record and can be attributed to an even greener environment through a greater federal commitment to the development of ethanol as an alternate fuel. As co-chair of the ethanol task force, I have been working with my colleagues diligently over the past number of months in trying to convince cabinet members to take that extra step in providing assurances to the development and flourishing of Canada's fledgling ethanol industry.

Frankly it is an idea whose time is long overdue and I intend to keep advancing this notion at every opportunity. Ethanol as a fuel has come under the microscope more often in the past five years than any other transportation fuel from the standpoint of energy efficiency, environmental and economic benefits, sustainability, farm practices, cost benefit ratio, energy source comparisons and the impact on grain supply.

Can the same be said for the big oil companies that fought changes such as the removal of lead until the public demanded it be removed? Speaking of the public, demand for ethanol is so high in Canada that our small existing ethanol producing facilities have been forced to import ethanol from the United States in order to meet that growing demand. This is nothing short of ludicrous. Canadians have the will, the know-how in the market, both domestic and international, to support a major expansion of our ethanol industry.

The ethanol industry is not looking for an 8.5 per litre federal tax exemption for ethanol blended fuels. It already has its exemption as do alternate fuels. What ethanol manufacturers are seeking is a guarantee of the present commitment by the federal government or a maintenance of the status quo on tax treatment for the next 10 years.

Such a guarantee would ensure private sector investment for potential ethanol manufacturers who would like to create jobs and economic development to benefit the economy through the construction of a $170 million world class ethanol production complex utilizing 20 million bushels of Ontario corn.

The Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan governments have all seen fit to help kickstart this renewable industry through long term tax exemptions.

Members of the ethanol tax force and our many supporters both here in the House and in the Canadian agricultural community at large are only asking for similar consideration federally. No subsidies, no loans, no grants, no loan guarantees are requested. If the crude oil increases and/or corn prices decline the ethanol industry is prepared to have a clawback formula.

Ethanol has much to offer Canadians who are environmentally conscious, thirsty for economic recovery and concerned about the sustainability of our agriculture and energy industries.

We do not need any more studies. What we do need is the political will to make the right decision. We all know that Canada produces enough grain to put 10 per cent ethanol in all Canadian gasoline and still be one of the world's top four grain exporters. Moreover, as evidenced by federal and provincial government policy, evaluation of ethanol cannot be assessed only in the context of cost versus gasoline. There are numerous factors that must also be considered.

There is a very positive and undeniable economic benefit to Canada when one thoroughly assesses all the impacts of renewable fuel programs in important areas such as farm income stabilization, rural development, direct Canadian jobs, exports and improved balance of trade, more valuable animal feed stocks, reduction in primary energy use, lower emissions of greenhouse gas. All of these are positive factors which will be the fruits of a courageous and visionary federal ethanol fuel policy.

We have to act and we have to act now or Canada will be left by the wayside. Renewable ethanol is already a large scale business in the United States and it is getting larger as we speak. Over 49 new plants are on the drawing board and 14 existing plants have plans for expansion.

Here in Canada we simply cannot afford to dither any longer. As I said, we simply do not need any more studies by well paid bureaucrats. The beneficial results of the ethanol experiment are already before our eyes south of the border.

Let us not waste any more time. The time for a real federal commitment to ethanol and the positive impact it will have on our environment, our agricultural communities and our economy is now.

[Petitions, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present on behalf of the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and area a petition which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.

It requests 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 to go forward.

[Petitions, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and area.

The petition has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions. It urges the government to amend the National Energy Board Act to provide authority to the National Energy Board toward intervener funding in cost to land owners who intervene in proceedings before the board on issues of public interest and relevant to the construction and operation of pipelines.

[Petitions, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present on behalf of the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and area a petition which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.

It urges the Government of Canada to ban the sale of the serial killer board games and serial killer cards in order to protect innocent children.

[Product Packaging, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate.

I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Winnipeg North for introducing this motion. The question of best-before dating is an important component of the labelling of food and beverages. This is an issue that affects all of us as consumers and it is certainly worthy of consideration by this House.

Under the food and drug regulations the labels of most perishable and semi-perishable prepackaged food with a shelf life of 90 days or less are required to carry a consumer friendly best-before date. The requirement is somewhat different for products that are packaged at the retail premises. These products must show the date they were packaged as well as the best-before date.

These regulations have been in place for almost 20 years and they are there so that consumers can easily determine how fresh a product is and how long it is likely to stay fresh. It is obvious that this is a very popular measure. The Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada regularly conduct surveys of grocery attitudes of Canadian consumers. When they ask what kind of information consumers look for on a label, food products they are buying for the first time, best-before dates consistently rank at the top along with the price.

At the same time it seems there are some misconceptions about these dates. A best-before date is not an expiry date. Products do not go bad as soon as they pass the best-before date. This date is only a guide. If your milk is best-before April 12 you can still drink it on the 13th or the 14th or even later if it has been stored properly.

It is important to emphasize as well that this is not a question of food safety. There are regulations that enforce the use of expiry dates where there is a safety concern, such as infant formulas or formulated liquid diets.

This motion, however, would extend the regulations to require best-before dates on foods and beverages with a shelf life longer than 90 days. While this is a popular idea and it might help consumers rotate products on their own shelves there are questions about how useful this information would be. It would entail additional costs for industry, costs that would have to be passed on to the consumer.

At present these products are not required to carry such information, although many manufacturers provide it on a voluntary basis for products like peanut butter and salad dressings.

One of the largest soft drink bottlers announced at the end of March that it would start putting freshness dates on its soft drinks. This subject was recently reviewed by the government in consultation with all interested parties during phase I of the review of the food and drug regulations. During this review all interested parties had a chance to be heard. It was an very open and up-front process.

We found strong support for retaining the present requirements for perishable and semi-perishable foods having a shelf life of 90 days or less. We also found support for the voluntary use of best-before dates of foods with a shelf life of more than 90 days.

During phase II of the review we will further study to ensure that the regulatory requirements adequately reflect current needs. Some changes are being proposed and we are continuing to review the regulations.

This whole question is a part of a larger area of food regulations. Since last summer food regulatory issues including food and beverage packaging and labelling which used to be dealt with by the food division of the former Consumer and Corporate Affairs of Canada have become a part of the mandate of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

I would like to take some time today to talk about the expanded role of that department. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is one of the oldest government departments. It actually predates Confederation. Originally the department was responsible for immigration as well as agriculture. But times and the mandate of the department have changed.

Immigration has not been part of the mandate for a long time but recently the department acquired not only the agri-food packaging and labelling functions of the former CCAC but also the food products branch of the former Industry, Science and Technology Canada.

These additions ensure that all federal services relating to the agri-food industry are housed under one roof, making it easier to do business with the federal government. Now the department's responsibilities extend all along the food chain, from the family farm to the food processor to the wholesale, retail and food service sector to the consumer's table.

The department is now responsible for the inspection of a wide range of manufactured goods in 4,500 non-registered establishments as well as imports to ensure label compliances and consumer protection from economic fraud.

By providing a single access point for the administration of federal agri-food labelling regulations and policies, these organizational changes will benefit both consumers and the competitiveness of the Canadian food industry.

A single federal access point will provide more convenient and efficient service and greater national consistency and uniformity in the administration of its regulations and policies. It will also reduce the frequency in cost of after-the-fact label corrections.

Since the reorganization, the department has opened 12 offices across the country to provide single window access for people with concerns about labelling. The food division is now a part of the food production and inspection branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

The overall objective of this branch is to enhance marketability of agriculture and food products by eliminating or controlling plant and animal diseases and by facilitating compliances with food and safety quality standards.

Our present system of food inspection has served us well. Food safety has always been a priority for this department. Our track record is excellent and surveys consistently show that Canadians have more confidence in the safety of their food than do consumers in the United States.

Nowhere is the old expression "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" more appropriate. We are working with the provinces to develop a national inspection program that harmonizes standards across the country and streamlines the delivery of services. We are moving to a more market driven system in which the beneficiary of the inspection system is given the choice to pay for services deemed to be of value.

We are building new assurances of food safety into the system through the introduction of inspection methods like the hazard analysis and critical control points, internationally recognized as a most effective means of identifying and correcting problems during processing rather than at the end of production.

Although the focus of this motion is the best-before date on packaging, I would like to add another dimension. As a member who represents a large rural riding of Lambton-Middlesex in southwestern Ontario, I am very interested in food quality. I am a strong believer that foods produced and processed with chemicals that are banned in Canada should not be allowed into Canada. Our inspection methods are second to none.

We in Canada know that when we sit down to a chicken dinner which has been raised and processed in Canada meeting the most stringent standards that we are eating wholesome chicken. This may not be true with U.S. chicken which can be dipped in trisodium phosphate or zapped with gamma rays to pass inspection.

As consumers, we must continue to have programs in place to protect the high quality of food Canadians have enjoyed. Our platform committed us to ensuring that only safe, wholesome food enters the Canadian market. This is exactly what we are doing and we are working hard to do it efficiently.

To conclude, whatever we do to improve industry competitiveness, consumer safety will not be compromised.

I strongly support the member in his motion.

[National Revenue, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government's budget plan states that a single registration number for businesses dealing with the government will be available in May 1994, eliminating current government duplication and overlap and reducing costs for businesses in their dealings with government.

My question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. How does the government plan to fulfil its promise to introduce the single business registration number by May 1994 and how will this number reduce costs?

[Women In Agriculture, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of International Women's Week I would like to say a few words about the considerable contribution of Canadian women in the field of agriculture.

The shift in the role of rural women has been growing ever since grain and land prices collapsed in the early 1980s.

Between 1981 and 1986, while the total number of farm operators in Canada fell by 8 per cent, the number of female farm operators increased by 18 per cent.

Farm women are suddenly in startling numbers becoming co-managers with their husbands or becoming sole operators. They are proving to be very sharp in the business and marketing end of the industry, a crucial element of modern day agriculture.

I have co-managed our family farm with my husband and family for 25 years.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute the growing contributions of Canadian farm women who, in partnership or alone, have successfully adapted to the increasing complexities of the agriculture industry.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It certainly is a good question and I do not pretend to be the finance minister here. I thought the finance minister had given time and time again during question period really good answers to this question. There have been several cuts made, whether they were the helicopter cuts, the defence cuts. We have heard those questions asked and answered during question period. Really, the issues are all outlined. All one has to do is read the budget papers that we have presented and the answers are there.

I thank the hon. member for his question.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind remarks and for his questions also.

I too believe that one of our first priorities, one of the issues I ran on when I was campaigning last fall, is that we should certainly take a look at the funding and the way government spends its money.

As to the examples the hon. member has given me, pensions for instance, that question came up quite often when I was at all-candidates meetings. I certainly appreciate the member's question on that.

I felt that with the Canada pension plan I always referred to pensions for members. Perhaps we could look at it in that fashion. I am sure it is going to be reviewed in the near future and work it on the same basic principle as Canada pensions.

I know several people came up to me after these meetings thinking that was a genuine way of looking at Canada pensions, making them more fair to the general public's pension plan.

I certainly agree that governments have to address spending but as to the Challenger jets and so on, there is security. The Prime Minister has said at different times that he would prefer to be one of the regular folks on economy class but he cannot travel in that fashion. When one is elected to that office, there are standards one has to live by. We have to certainly respect his security and the security of whomever is Prime Minister.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand in the House to present my maiden speech.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment to the chair.

I will begin in recognition of the International Year of the Family by thanking my own family for their encouragement and the support they have always given me.

I would also like to thank the most dedicated campaign team for all their hard work and the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex for the trust and confidence they have put in me by electing me as their representative in the 35th Parliament and may I also add as the first female representative for the riding since Confederation.

Prior to my being elected, I also had the privilege to work with the former member for Lambton-Middlesex, the Hon. Ralph Ferguson, who was the agriculture minister in the Turner government.

Hon. members may be interested to know that Lambton-Middlesex has a pivotal role in Canada's history. The historic Battle of the Longwoods took place in Middlesex country during the War of 1812. In fact the great Indian Chief Tecumseh was killed during the Battle of the Longwoods. No doubt were it not for the role of Tecumseh in repelling the Americans, we would probably be a part of the United States today.

On the Lambton side of the riding oil was discovered in the mid-1800s in Enniskillen Township, the first oil discovery in all of North America. In fact some of these oil wells have been producing for over 100 years and are still producing today.

Lambton-Middlesex is one of the largest ridings in southwestern Ontario. It is predominantly rural in nature, containing 18 municipalities, several towns and villages, one urban centre, Strathroy, and four native reserves.

The single largest industry in Lambton-Middlesex is agriculture, producing fruits, vegetables, corn, soybeans, raising poultry, dairy, pork, and beef, just to name a few.

I am proud to say that a number of very prominent Canadian leaders in the field of agriculture reside in my riding.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention that Cuddy's turkey farms, one of the largest turkey breeding farms in North America, is located in Lambton-Middlesex. It exports turkey parts all over the world.

As co-chair of the ethanol task force and ad hoc committee exploring the viability of a Canadian ethanol industry, I am pleased to see that the Minister of Finance is willing to review the necessity for greater assurance of federal excise tax exemptions for ethanol. I would urge the minister to make this his next top priority.

We have a window of opportunity that we must not ignore. We must encourage the greater use of ethanol blended fuels. It is good for the environment. It is a renewable resource and will create huge new markets for corn and grain.

This budget sets in motion some of the most fundamental far-reaching reforms in government policy in decades in such crucial areas as social security and defence.

Canadians have told us they are fed up with government inertia. They want a government to have a game plan and stick to it. We have a game plan, our election platform, Creating Opportunity, the red book.

In this budget we are funding every key initiative in the red book. We are delivering on our commitment.

What pleases me the most is that this budget offers a balanced approach because of its three main goals: economic renewal, deficit reduction, and social reform. These are all foundations for our top priorities, jobs and growth.

By focusing on these three goals this budget directly answers the concerns and priorities expressed by Canadians during a first-ever series of consultation conferences. The budget takes action through funding for infrastructure programs, a commitment to rolling back unemployment insurance premiums to the 1993 levels, and through new strategies to promote small business, the engine that drives the new economy.

The recession has taken its toll, as it has all over Canada, on some of the small businesses in my riding. However, a number of enterprising factories producing footwear, auto parts, frozen foods, mobile homes, to name just a few, have bravely weathered the economic storm through their own diligence, creativity and hard work.

I am especially gratified and relieved that the $500,000 exemption for small business and farm property will remain.

I am also very pleased that the home buyers plan which allows first time home buyers to use RRSP funds as a down payment is now a permanent program. The use of RRSPs has grown by leaps and bounds in Canada as more and more Canadians make use of them as a retirement supplement.

In agriculture areas such as my riding of Lambton-Middlesex RRSPs are often the only means of ensuring retirement security. Small and medium sized businesses do not want handouts. What they require is an environment characterized by improved access to capital, the encouragement of innovative leading edge technology, a commitment to better management training, a reduction of the regulatory and paper burden and the adoption of an aggressive trading mentality to take advantage of new export markets.

I am delighted that this budget addresses all these areas. In fact this budget is a winner I believe for small business. The following programs are being initiated: the Canada investment

fund to provide venture capital for companies, improving access to capital for small businesses by establishing a task force to work with Canada's banks to develop a code of conduct for small business lending, establishing a Canada business service centre in every province to provide one-stop shopping for government services, and rolling back the unemployment insurance rate to the level of 1993 for 1995 and 1996. This is going to save businesses $300 million a year, money that can be invested in new jobs. Our small businesses need a break and this budget provides it.

If I had to use one word to describe the message contained in the 1994 budget, then I would use the word hope.

Canadians have also said they want changes in our social security system to ensure it is fair, compassionate and affordable, a reform that delivers incentives for work and creates jobs and opportunities.

That commitment to change has already been launched by the Minister of Human Resources Development. The budget highlights important steps in meeting this challenge. The link between the length of time a person works and the UI benefits is being recalculated.

Assistance is being enhanced for those with dependants to increase benefits to 60 per cent of their wages. Other individuals will receive 55 per cent of their original wages.

This government is committed to deficit reduction. Our program of net spending reduction over the next three years is the most significant of any budget in a decade. A major goal of this budget is to take concerted action to bring government finances under control, action that is essential in Canada's economic revitalization.

In planning this budget the finance minister has relied on cautious, prudent projections of economic growth for this year and next. These projections based on consensus of private sector forecasts are in stark contrast to the overly optimistic expectations of those presented in some previous budgets, expectations that resulted in deficit forecasts that were wrong by millions of dollars.

Obviously the Canadian people will not stand for any more of these rude surprises. The 1994 budget actions, coupled with moderate economic growth we are projecting, will reduce the deficit from $45.7 billion in 1993-94 to $39.7 billion in the coming fiscal year. A further drop to $32.7 billion is expected in 1995-96. For every $1 of revenue increase there are $5 of spending cuts.

Finally, I think it is fair to say that the 1994 budget was developed following unprecedented public consultations that brought together a wide spectrum of Canadians to discuss the economic and fiscal challenges confronting the country. I salute the finance minister in his pledge to continue to consult openly and widely with Canadians.

May I conclude, by saying that I am proud to be a part of this government, a government that has pledged to restore honesty, integrity and accountability to all its operations.

If we continue to honour this pledge then we will have won back the public trust, enabling us to fight to rebuild Canada as a strong, independent sovereign nation, a nation that makes its own decisions, a nation that is caring and compassionate, a nation that will be united from the Atlantic to the Pacific.