Bob Speller

[Petitions, June 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition to the House from a number of citizens in the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, in fact a number of grandparents in the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, who would call upon the government to do something with the laws regarding grandparent access to grandchildren when there is difficulty between the grandparents and their own children.

They say that in no case may a father or mother without serious cause place obstacles between the child and the grandparents. I think that is something that all members of the House would probably support.

[Excise Tax Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will just take a couple of minutes to talk about that. I cannot let a bill like this get passed in this House without first telling the House about the effects it has on my riding. When I talked about this bill before I explained to the House how important legislation like this is to my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk.

I represent somewhere in the neighbourhood of 800 tobacco producers and I have represented them on this issue over the past few years. Over a number of years I and indeed a number of members in this House have been calling for the government to reduce taxes on tobacco. We felt, as do most of my constituents, that tobacco taxes and the way they have been applied in this country have been to the detriment of many of my constituents certainly the tobacco farmers and the area communities which support them.

I also represent the people of the Six Nations which is the largest Indian reserve in the country. It was dramatically impacted on by this legislation and the lowering of the taxes we brought in earlier this year, in February.

One thing we have seen in Haldimand-Norfolk and in the area surrounding the Six Nations is a great reduction in the number of smoke huts. Prior to the dropping of the taxes there were in the neighbourhood of 150 tobacco huts. Today it is very difficult to find one or two on the reserves. Some of them are now dealing in commodities other than tobacco, more than likely spirits of some sort, but it certainly has had a dramatic impact in that area.

It was the elders, the senior people of the Six Nations who came to me most often and said: "You have to deal with this situation. We don't like what it is doing to our children. We don't like the money aspect it has instilled in our children of going out and trying to make a quick buck". A lot of the time these elders felt that the children were moving away from the old ways and the old teachings by getting into this money grabbing exercise. They certainly were very pleased by what this government has done.

In the past I have talked about how taxation policy has been to the detriment of the tobacco industry. It has been that way because governments have not been able to give the industry-when I talk about the industry, I talk about the tobacco farmers-an idea of their taxation needs over the years.

Even though there is a marketing system for tobacco, when the numbers came out as to what the tobacco requirements would be for a year the government would come in later and all of a sudden apply a high tax on tobacco which would completely throw the market into an upheaval. That is why over the years I have been calling for the reduction in taxation on tobacco.

There is a major relief for the people in the tobacco growing areas. It has helped the spirit in those areas. They are good people who had been encouraged by past governments to get into tobacco. These people really do not have a number of other commodities to move into. These are good Canadians who in the past have supported good government. Over the past few months when I have been down there visiting with them they have praised the government for what it has been doing.

Constituents have not been happy with other areas of the bill. The export tax is one they see as not only against any provisions in GATT but also something that would hurt their legitimate export interests. They have called on me to tell the government, as I have in the past, that an export tax only hurts Canadian jobs and Canadian farmers. It does nothing to solve the problem.

We have gone beyond that. Because of the dramatic drop in taxation we have gone on to solve the problem. It was a tough problem. I listened earlier to the member from the Bloc saying: "Gee, why didn't you do something about it?" I remember when his leader was in the previous government which kept raising the taxes on tobacco. Why was it that his leader did nothing to deal with this situation?

We came in and there was a major problem. Maybe some people in the Reform Party and in the west did not agree with some of the things we did. It was not an easy problem but one which I suppose past governments had decided it best to just let go. Our leader decided to take it upon himself to solve this problem. From all I have seen, it has solved the problem in my area.

Some will complain that right after we brought in the new taxation the sales of tobacco went up, but that was just the situation of people resupplying. If members went into cornerstores in their ridings they could see people were moving out of tobacco sales because they were not making any money on it. People were buying their tobacco outside their normal channels.

We saw in the paper a couple of weeks ago when the numbers came out that those numbers have dropped dramatically. In fact, we are now seeing there really is not a dramatic drop. It is pretty much staying the same in terms of tobacco sales. There has not been the dramatic increase some claimed would happen and all in all, it is levelling off.

It has brought to people's attention that serious problem of how tobacco was illegally getting into the hands of young people in schoolyards. This bill makes sure that if people buy tobacco products they will do it legitimately in legitimate areas. If someone decides to sell to minors they will face the stiffest penalties there have ever been in this country in that regard.

That is good government. It is a good piece of legislation which deals with a problem Canadians wanted dealt with. It bodes well for not only the Prime Minister but also for the Minister of Health and the Minister of National Revenue who solved the problem together.

I will give the Reform Party a chance for five minutes on this. I thank the Prime Minister on behalf of my constituents in Haldimand-Norfolk for dealing with the problem.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, maybe that is one of the differences between this party and the party of the hon. member for Québec-Est. We feel that within government if we are going to

make changes that really directly affect Canadians, in this case farmers, changes that will work in their best interest, that throwing a pot of money at them is not going to solve the problem.

We think that by taking the money we have there and spending it more wisely and making sure that money is not directed for overhead or administration but is directed into the hands of Canadians is probably the better approach.

In terms of his question on the cap on wheat, I am sorry I missed the announcement. I have not heard that there was an announcement on a cap on wheat. In fact if the hon. member might be more honest with it he will know that in fact there is not a cap on wheat yet. However, there is a question of whether or not we should negotiate a settlement.

If anyone in this House thinks that world trade is fair they do not have a clue on how the world trade system works. In fact it is not a fair system. Canada represents a very small percentage of trade done in the world. In relative terms it is important to us in terms of our gross domestic product and its importance to Canada but we are a small country. To suggest that we could stand at a table one on one with the Americans, they do not have to play fair, frankly.

The former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, who used to sit in this House used to constantly say: "The Americans never agreed to a GATT decision because they didn't have to". It is not a fair decision. One of the points that the minister was making to them was this. He said very clearly and he said it in this House a number times that we are not prepared to trade one part of the country off against another part of the country. We are not prepared to trade one sector of this country off against another sector of the country.

In fact, if you remember both the comments by the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade, they were not prepared to deal with this in one lump sum. They were going to go sector by sector by sector. We feel we have a strong position. We feel that the Americans will in the end give in on this because they have to and because they are wrong. We are prepared to stand forth and fight on behalf of Canadian farmers to make sure that point of view is put forward.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking for his name. He is the same guy within that party who has been unfortunately knocking supply management. It is easy to say now, after the fact: "We knew, we knew", but it would have been better to have that party support us on this when the Americans were fighting us. They were saying: "Your party over there doesn't want the wheat board, doesn't want any of these subsidies. Members from Alberta don't want subsidies". We kept arguing that supply management was not a subsidy.

On the issue of subsidies I want to look at what Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada spends province by province. These members from Alberta keep saying: "We can do it ourselves". It is funny how much agricultural spending actually goes into the province of Alberta. In 1993 figures the amount was $536,315,000. That was well over the percentage of farmers that they have. If I were as provincial as some members in the House pretend to be and if I were just fighting for the province of Ontario instead of for the country, I would argue that Ontario with about 25 per cent of the farmers in the country is not getting its fair share. However I understand some of the problems we have in western Canada so I will not do that.

In my speech today I want to talk about a few issues, one of which is trade. Many of the problems we are having in agriculture today and many of the problems the Reform Party has in its own ridings are because of actions brought by other countries. In a lot of cases it is the United States against Canada. I feel they are very unfair actions.

If we are talking about the wheat issue, Mickey Kantor, the international trade person in the United States, said before the Senate committee last week that Canada was taking advantage of a window of opportunity that had been created. The reason the window of opportunity was created was frankly because of something called export enhancement that the United States uses. It is a two-price system which, by the way, we would like to have in this country. However the Reformers fought us against it and we do not have it now. It is a two-price system that has been responsible for wheat going out of the country.

As a result Canadian producers have been shipping wheat and have shown U.S. millers that we have high quality wheat that is graded and will do exactly what it says it will do. As a result U.S. millers have said: "I like that better. I know and I am guaranteed, because of the Canadian system of distributing wheat, that I will get that wheat and it will do what it says it will do".

The U.S. has been complaining that some actions we take with regard to wheat in western Canada and its shipment were unfair subsidies. That is not the case. The U.S. International Trade Commission found in 1990 that transportation subsidies were not a factor in the competitiveness of Canadian wheat. The U.S. General Accounting Office found in 1992 that there was no evidence of unfair wheat board practices. Again in 1992 in a unanimous decision of a binational panel, including a former U.S. Attorney General and former Chief Justice Dickson, found fault with the U.S. contentions.

However the panel recommended that an audit be done, which results were released last month some time. That report found that 102 of the 105 durum wheat contracts between 1989 and 1992 were fully in compliance with the provisions of the free trade agreement. Clearly the U.S. has no strong position on this matter.

I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for the tough stands he has taken. Over the years I stood in the House and watched the previous government negotiate with the Americans. I always felt that somehow we were doing something wrong in this country. I always felt as a farmer that somehow Canadian farmers were not being fairly represented by their government. I was very pleased at the GATT, with the stand the minister took in Geneva, and with some of the tough stands he has taken in terms of putting Canada's agriculture position forward very strongly.

I want to go back to the Bloc Quebecois now and the member for Québec-Est, a very good member of the standing committee who represents the views of his party well on the issue. I take exception to the fact that he is denouncing the government for lack of action in the agriculture sector. He sat around that table with us in the agriculture committee, as well as Bloc members, I might add, who add to the sense of the committee; it worked very well. In recent weeks we have looked at some of the stuff Agriculture Canada is doing. As one on the other side of the House who criticized some of the actions of Agriculture Canada, I recognized over the past little while that in fact a lot of those actions have changed substantially. They have changed substantially because the government has changed. We have given a new direction to Agriculture Canada. That direction can be found in the red book. It outlines clearly the direction we want to take agriculture into the next century.

Looking at the money Agriculture Canada is spending in Quebec-and the hon. member asked for this information-$371,723,000 have gone into the province of Quebec. According to the chart, Quebec ranks behind only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and a bit behind Ontario in this regard. Obviously with the problems they are having in western Canada with respect to wheat prices we can understand why a lot of this money has gone there.

I really do take exception to the hon. member's contention that we have not done anything. Frankly it has been six months. I do not want to use that as an excuse, but we have made some significant changes in those areas that particularly affect agriculture. I have mentioned some of those in trade and the good work the minister of agriculture is doing in standing up for trade. I also want to talk about some of the stuff we have been doing in rural development.

I come from small town Ontario, as you do, Mr. Speaker. What we have found to be happening over the past few years, especially in an area like mine that has been hit hard because of certain commodities grown there, namely tobacco. In small town Ontario unemployment rates have been rising. There has been a loss of business in stores and other areas that help farming communities. We are finding a bit of a drifting because there are no jobs, with a lot of small town people moving to the cities.

I was very pleased when the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food came forward with a plan to deal with rural development. He indicated very clearly that rural development was a top priority. This means rural development not only in Ontario and Quebec but in the west also where small towns are literally closing up in some places.

There is no huge pot of dollars; there is not a lot of money in this promise. Frankly there is not the money there. Instead of money the minister plans-and we had the department before the committee today-to organize those parts of government that are specifically directing their efforts toward helping small towns and infrastructures. We are co-ordinating the machinery of government.

It really is a grassroots participation. That is the final point I want to make. The government and the minister have taken a lot of time talking to ordinary Canadians, talking to ordinary farmers. The development of the small town initiative, the rural initiative, will be through the communities themselves.

That is one of the things I am proud of. We have done very well to make sure that before we make any decisions Canadians are consulted and that the views of farmers are heard. We will continue to do that.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member that I too will not apologize for standing up for supply managed commodities and for standing up for farmers in my constituency. I do not need to apologize.

I was one who stood more than any member in the House and fought for supply management. I know what I told my constituents during election time. I made no promises that I could save supply management. I told them, though, that I would fight damned hard for it. That is what we did in this party.

I am proud of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The Minister for International Trade with whom I have had differences on this matter in the past stood up in Geneva and told the world. Unfortunately, as my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott- Russell said, in the end we could not do it.

It is easy for the Reformers. They spend half their time in the agriculture committee-and Mr. Hoeppner over there will know he is not one of them-crapping on supply management.

[Child Abuse Registry, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

I know the minister is aware of the injustices that have been committed against children in Canada and the many cases of child abuse. I know he would agree that for too long these offences have been hidden.

Will the minister commit to taking some immediate action to establish a national child abuse registry? Prior to hiring a person to work in a position of trust with children, it would require that an employer conduct a search to determine whether the applicant had previously been convicted of a sexual offence against children.

[Petitions, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to put forward petitions concerning killer cards.

I thank the minister for bringing to the attention of the House that he plans to introduce legislation in this area.

The numbers of petitions from places throughout my riding give support to him in getting rid of these killer cards.

[General Agreement On Tariffs And Trade, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the United States will notify the GATT this afternoon that it intends to launch action against Canadian wheat and barley under article XXVIII.

I want to congratulate our minister of agriculture and our Minister for International Trade for not caving in to the Americans on this issue. The American argument is weak as increased sales into their market are a direct result of their own use of the export enhancement program. Fair and open trade cannot continue with these unjust actions.

Canada has a willingness to negotiate but there must be flexibility on both sides. This only goes to help lawyers and bureaucrats on both sides of the border. It does nothing to help farmers.

I call on our government to stay strong on this action and to tell the Americans that we are not prepared to cave in.

[Committees Of The House, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food which deals with bovine somatotropin hormone, often referred to as rBST.

The issue of rBST was picked up by the standing committee on agriculture to study because it was an issue of great concern to those in our farming communities. They wanted the commit-

tee to come forward with certain recommendations to deal with rBST.

The committee concurs with a recommendation of a one year moratorium on the use of rBST. The committee also concurs that during this year a cost benefit analysis of the dairy industry be undertaken and that animal health including the stress placed on target animals, animal genetics and U.S. consumer reaction be studied in order that we as Canadians may get a greater understanding of the effects this will have on our consumers and on our dairy industry.

[Standing Committee On Agriculture And Agri-Food, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate members from all sides of this House who came together in an agriculture committee this week.

This committee, which I chair, deals with a very important issue called BST which is bovine somatotropin. It is an issue that divided a number of members who had a number of different views. However, for the first time since I have been in this House we had a committee that worked across party lines and came up with what I believe to be some very concrete recommendations to this government.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the rules in this House have been changed to allow all committees more say in their agenda and the setting of their agenda and more power in making stronger recommendations to government.

I thank the Prime Minister and the leaders of all parties for giving individual members of Parliament more powers through our committees and more ability to work together in this House.