Bob Speller

[Supply, February 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member as she talked about leadership. I do not see this as a question of leadership.

I come from a rural area in southwestern Ontario. I am of the view that my constituents elected me to represent them. I have a lot of concern with the idea of proportional representation because it means that the party will choose the people it wants to run. I believe in the democratic principle that we are here as the result of the work we do in our ridings and as a result of every person in my riding having the ability to run for parliament.

I do not think this is a question of leadership, as the hon. member has tried to say. I think there are differing opinions in the House and from across the country on that. We in rural areas are scared to adopt such a system because of our small numbers. There are a small number of people in agriculture, and we understand how important the crisis in agriculture is. If we adopt a system of proportional representation, as it exists in certain other countries, I do not think will not have the same representation.

I would say to the hon. member that it is not only a question of whether the government wants to show leadership. I suggest to her that in many ways we have shown leadership in the House on this issue, particularly with regard to electoral reform and making changes to it.

I am not saying we could not do more. I would invite a debate on that. However, I would say to the member that there are real feelings of differences in the country, which have nothing to do with the politics of it.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on a few of the issues. I know the hon. member is new and may not be aware of this, but the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and a trade subcommittee on trade and trade disputes looked at the free trade area of the Americas in the last parliament.

We managed to consult Canadians all across the country to let them know the process and to be part of the process of this transparency that the Canadian government has been pushing in these negotiations.

I question what he said about there not being transparency. The websites contain the Canadian documentation and position papers. All Canadians and groups who are interested can read the information or take it off the websites. There are a few left to do and they are still under negotiations and consultations.

I also point out to the hon. member that Canada's position was not made somewhere in the back halls of the bureaucracy. All the provinces, premiers and Canadians were consulted first before the government came forward with its position. Canadians, interest groups and the provinces were consulted and then Canada put together a package of consultations.

I do want to ask a question on the motion which demands that parliament first vote on this issue before ratification. As the hon. member knows, generally we will agree on the issues and then there will be a vote.

However that is the American system that the hon. member is putting forward. Right now the Americans have a fast track way in which to get around that because no government will come to an agreement on an issue where it can all of a sudden be changed at the last minute by one group. We cannot negotiate that way. Does the hon. member not agree that this is not the right way to go and that this would only stall negotiations?

[Agriculture, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Malpeque.

I will take a few minutes to talk about an issue that I consider to be one of critical importance to the food security of our country. I believe that the future of our food industries and Canada's ability to produce safe and cheap food is at risk in this debate tonight.

I am not sure that Canadians are aware of this, but if we compare a normal food basket one might buy in any Canadian city to one in any other city or country around the world, we find that Canadians are paying the cheapest prices for the food that they buy. Unfortunately these prices are not getting down to the producers who produce the food. That is the problem we are faced with this evening. In fact, the amount going to the farmer, the producer of that food, has declined dramatically over the last 20 or 30 years.

The problem is that farmers today, in many commodities, cannot even get back the price of production. This means that in regard to the price of their labour, their fuel costs and their production costs, they cannot even get those costs back when they sell their food.

There are a number of reasons for this. Input costs are up. Input costs are the expenses incurred to operate a farm, such as costs for fertilizer, seed, labour and fuel. In fact, the cost of ammonia, which is used in making fertilizer, is up by 56%. That raises the cost of fertilizer. We have seen the price situation with fuel, not only across Canada but around the world. Those fuel prices dramatically increase the costs of production for a farmer because a farmer uses a lot of fuel when he produces a product.

Commodity prices in certain agricultural products are extremely low. For example, the grains and oilseeds prices have dropped dramatically since 1995. The price of corn has dropped by some 46%, wheat by 34% and canola by the same amount. These are figures put out by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I believe that these prices are directly impacted by export subsidies and by trade distorting domestic subsidies from a number of countries around the world, particularly in this situation with the United States and the European Union.

What are the solutions? I think a two-pronged solution is needed here. We need to first deal with the short term problem, which is the problem being faced by farmers today in that they cannot get back their costs of production. We also need to deal with some of the underlying problems of income. This should involve a short term injection of cash, not only from the federal government but also from the provincial governments. At the same time, for the long term problem we need to continue to take an aggressive role at the international negotiating table.

I was glad to see the Prime Minister stand in the House and then take this issue to his meeting with George Bush last week. The Prime Minister went there and said it was a key priority on his part to talk to President Bush about the export subsidies and the ways in which we can coalesce with other countries around the world to bring these down.

I was glad to hear from the Prime Minister that President Bush was of the same opinion. The Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food have also taken the word of Canadian farmers to the international table. They did that by working with farm groups, farm organizations and provinces to come up with an international agreement they could take to the negotiating table, an agreement that first and foremost was credible.

It will take time. If we look at how these negotiations have gone in the past, we realize that we are talking about a number of years to get to a point where there may be agreement. What do we do in the meantime? We need an short injection of cash. I was glad to hear the minister of agriculture tonight make the point that more needs to be done and indeed will be done.

The provinces also need to get involved. Let us look at the expenditure figures from all the provinces. The federal government spends about 2% of its expenditures on agriculture; British Columbia, 0.4%; Alberta, 2.6%; Saskatchewan, 5.7%; Manitoba, 2.5%; Ontario, the richest province, my province, 0.78%; Quebec, 1.6%; New Brunswick, 0.5%; Nova Scotia, 0.9%; Prince Edward Island, 2.4%; and Newfoundland, 0.3%.

Grains and oilseeds in Saskatchewan is a particularly important area. I believe there is room at the provincial level to move forward on the issue.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture says farmers need income programs that are adequately funded, that are able to be delivered quickly and efficiently, and that will be in place until we can get international agreements to deal with them.

As we as a country moved over the last number of years to deal with the deficit we said we needed to make certain commitments to do so. I believe we as a country need to continue to move forward in that area. This is not just a rural issue. I am not sure if Canadians or people in Toronto, for instance, know that one in six jobs in Toronto is in the food industry.

What is at risk is our national sovereignty, our food sovereignty, a cheap and safe food policy. We need the understanding of urban Canada because we are asking the government for tax dollars. We are asking Canadians at all levels for a commitment on the issue.

This is as serious an issue as Canada has faced for a number of years. We need to look at it both federally and provincially so that we as a government and as a country can move forward with solutions. We need a royal commission or something at the level where not only ministers of agriculture from across the country but representatives of all government levels and departments come together to solve the problem.

Farm families are looking to us tonight for solutions. I believe we have some. The government is seriously looking at them. I believe the Prime Minister is focused on it. I ask for their patience. I ask that they come together with their friends and neighbours in urban Canada to ask for their understanding as we in the House are asking tonight.

[David Iftody, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with shock and sadness that I stand today to extend my sympathy to his family and loved ones on the sudden death yesterday of our former colleague, David Iftody.

David was a good friend to many of us. As a former roommate of his, I knew how dedicated he was to his constituents, his province and his country.

He chaired and was an active member of the rural caucus and we fought many agricultural battles together. David was outspoken on behalf of the people of Provencher and we could always count on David to be in our corner when we needed support on rural issues.

David was a hard worker and a good parliamentarian and will be remembered for his positive outlook on life and his cheery smile to match.

On behalf of all his colleagues, I extend our sincere condolences to his family. David's voice and presence will be sorely missed in Manitoba and in the House.

[Human Rights, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member and all Canadians that the Government of Canada takes this issue very seriously.

Our goal is to ensure there is a coherent approach with the ILO on labour, with UNEP on the environment, with the IMF and the World Bank. We want to get these groups all talking together to ensure that these issues are in the forefront of the international agenda.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was called out of the House. I have now returned and want to have my vote applied with the government party.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 1351, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of wine producers of Ontario I thank the member for his tough stands on the issue. He always lets us know the views of his constituents, in particular wine producers in Ontario.

Canadian wine producers are making world class wines, as the member would know. We are exporting many of these wines to the United States and Europe. They are very important markets for us.

With respect to market access to the European Union, let me assure the hon. member that this is a priority of the Government of Canada. We are making every effort to obtain improved access to European markets for Canadian wines, including ice wines from his region.

I am fully aware of the frustration which exists in the industry and at the provincial level about the significant imbalance of market access. We are making every effort to address this situation.

The Minister for International Trade raised this issue directly with many ministers of trade in the European Union and will continue to do so. At the departmental level over the past few months we have been discussing both wine and spirits issues with the European commission to determine the possibility of reaching a bilateral agreement that would be beneficial to these producers.

Officials addressed such subjects as how both sides make wine and improving the protection of geographical indications. The latest meeting in March showed that there were significant differences between our two jurisdictions on the issue. We remain optimistic that agreements can be reached if we focus our efforts on a limited, realistic agenda.

We will continue to consult with the industry and provinces in an effort to develop possible ways to bridge the existing differences between the two sides.

Canadian wines, I might add, are doing well in the United States. Exports have grown to $2.7 million in 1999, an increase of some 200% over the last two years. The Americans are waking up to the great wines we have here in Canada.

The wine, beer and spirit sector tends to be more regulated than most others and is marked by a myriad of rules and regulations governing the trade, sale and distribution of these products. Some of these rules and regulations fall within the scope of Canada's trade agreements, others do not. For example, some states have technical and labelling requirements. These are often beyond the reach of trade agreements as they apply equally to in state and out of state as well as imported wines. As well, it is normal for subnational jurisdictions, provinces or states, to create local regulations on access and handling, typically relenting to revenue protection and social responsibility.

I want to thank the hon. member by recognizing the hard work of the hon. member on behalf of the wine industry. I assure him, on behalf of the Government of Canada, that we take this issue very seriously and we will continue to fight on behalf of these producers.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to vote with the government.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member should read the rules. The rules do not indicate at any point that we put forward a time. If he reads the standing orders he will realize that the motion is in order. I would ask that you call the question.

[Nafta, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that Canada takes very seriously the concerns expressed on all sides of the issue about chapter 11. We have consulted widely with the provinces and stakeholders to make sure that the process is more open and fair.

We have met at the deputy minister level with the Mexicans and Americans, and continue to so, to make sure that the investor-state mechanism reflects what the original parties to the agreement agreed on.