Paul Steckle

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

It is a privilege and pleasure this morning to speak for the first time in the 37th Parliament of Canada, my first time since being returned for the third time. I want to pay tribute to some of those people who have made it possible for me to come back. First, I want to personally thank my wife and my family for their continued support and indulgence of my time to others. Being a member of parliament, as all of us in the House know, requires giving up a lot of our personal time. I enjoy it and my family has agreed to allow me to do that.

I also want to express my appreciation to the people of Huron—Bruce for their support over the past number of elections. Traditionally, my riding was a Conservative riding. The people who normally supported that party chose to support me because of my representation. I count it a humbling experience to come back, and from time to time I ask them to recommit to that support they first gave to me in 1993.

This morning I want to commit my time to speaking on the issue of agriculture. My riding of Huron—Bruce is primarily an agricultural riding. It is an area which is now traditionally called the western coast of Ontario. It is an area where we primarily make our living from the land. However, we also have a number of other industries.

Probably the most notable industry in our riding is Sifto Salt. It represents the largest salt mine in the world. When people travel the highways of Ontario or in other parts of Canada and the United States, they will likely be saved the embarrassment of finding themselves in a ditch because the salt on those roads probably came from Goderich, Ontario. It is one of the things that we would like to forget for a while since we have had a long period of winter, but spring is not that far around the corner. That brings me to the concerns that I have regarding agriculture today.

It is imperative to remember that we all look upon our farmers as the suppliers of our food source. We rely on them to provide us with our daily food. In the short time that has been allocated to me this morning, I want to give the members some illustrations of where agriculture is today.

Agriculture is at a crossroads in Canada. It is not because we have been unable to produce the food. We have been able to safely produce food in adequate numbers and quantities for Canadians. However, we have been unable to receive adequate returns in the marketplace to make it profitable for farmers to remain on their lands.

I come from a family of seven generations of agrologists, people who have made their living from the land. The generation of people which follow me are not farmers today and will not be farmers. They are making their life vocation in other sectors. That is disconcerting in itself.

Perhaps I can help members better understand where agriculture is today. In my riding of Huron—Bruce, we produce more agricultural products in terms of dollar value than any other riding in Canada east of Winnipeg. We have the largest grain inland elevators in Canada in a little village called Hensall. Every time I turn around or every time I go down a road I pass some of those farmers who have given us the food that we put on our tables. I have a strong tradition in agriculture.

I remember citing in the House of Commons in the 36th parliament the importance of agriculture. Then I saw storm clouds on the horizon. Today the storm clouds have developed into a major storm. These people are seeking refuge and help. They are calling upon government to intervene in the short term.

In the Speech from the Throne the Governor General said “The government will help Canada's agricultural sector move beyond crisis management”. Indeed, the government recognizes that there is crisis in agriculture.

We need to move now. We are 90 days away from seeding in Ontario. While I support agriculture in all corners of the country, my focus is largely on Ontario because that is where my expertise is. When I speak of what is good for Ontario, it also has to be good for other parts of the country. Every province needs to share in the wealth that we generate. That is what Canada is all about.

A farmer came to my office last Friday morning with a balance sheet of his returns from last year. He had his own bookkeeper do the accounting and then sent it to the auditor for a final accounting so it would be accurate.

This farmer is well known in my community. He remains nameless in the House. However he has allowed me to bring his numbers to the House to give some credence to the arguments we are putting forward.

On a 600 acre operation, which is not a large one, he paid himself $110 per acre for the land he owns. He included repairs and had very little depreciation because most of his equipment had been depreciated to a point where there was nothing left. At the end of the day he was $90 per acre short on income and expenses.

This guy would be considered a model farmer in his community. He had a $55,000 loss on 600 acres. Last year he purchased nitrogen fertilizer at $150 per tonne. He has two prices: one a month ago at $350 per tonne for this coming spring and another which is effective now. Unless he purchases it now, it will go to $450 per tonne. This is a 140% increase from two years ago.

For diesel fuel and other fuel sources, because he has a drying operation as well, we are talking about enormous increases in the 90 to 100% range. However his prices were basically put into effect in the 1930s. There is not an industry in Canada that can sustain such losses over that many years. I think food is much more important than we sometimes give it credit for. The issue of food goes much beyond the farm gate. It is an issue of sovereignty.

Do we want continued sovereignty over our food supply? Do we want our rural communities, which share the wealth when farmers prosper, to continue to exist? Do we want churches and schools to disappear from the rural landscape in Ontario and throughout the rest of Canada?

We have choices to make. This is a serious issue. I do not often come to the House with an issue that is so profoundly difficult to talk about. Because I know it so well, it is important that today and in the short term we find a vehicle to deliver cash to farmers which they can take to the bank. If we do not, we will not have farmers in the future.

We did what was right for Bombardier. Farmers will not argue that we did what was right. It is important that we now do the right thing for agriculture. Some 640,000 people in Ontario are directly or indirectly related to this industry and 24,000 people are involved in the aerospace industry.

Let us do the right thing. Let us deliver the money to our farmers before seeding time so that we can enjoy the food we put on our plates every day.

[Underwater Hockey, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I advise you that Huron—Bruce is now home to the new Canadian Underwater Hockey Champions. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you heard me correctly, “underwater hockey”. After producing so many individuals that dominated the game on the ice, Huron—Bruce is branching out to claim supremacy under the water.

From September 8 to 10, 12 players and 3 coaches from the Kincardine Poolsharks travelled to Quebec City to compete in the Canadian under 19 underwater hockey championships. After the 10 game round robin and best of three finals had concluded, this Kincardine team was left undefeated in all three medal games.

I would like to congratulate head coach Terry Brown and team captain Kyle Schilroth, along with all of the Poolsharks' coaches and players. Once again Huron—Bruce managed to score the winning goal.

[Petitions, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present petitions this afternoon from people who represent areas such as Port Elgin and Southampton.

The petitioners are speaking on behalf of the rural mail couriers and have outlined the adverse working conditions of their profession. They believe that their low wages are unfair, their bargaining positions are generally bad, and they have generally less than positive feelings for the way Canada Post has addressed their issues. They are therefore calling upon parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

[Bill Kirkey, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, small rural towns are often described as a family. With this in mind, it is an honour for me to recognize one of my brothers, Bill Kirkey, for his outstanding community spirit and involvement.

Bill was born in November 1935 and, although he was born with cerebral palsy, he worked hard and beat the rather bleak odds forecasted by his doctors in the medical community of the day.

With his determination forged by fire, Bill has since become a highly respected and productive member of his community. Indeed, it would be very difficult to find anyone in the town of Goderich who does not know and respect Bill Kirkey. I would suggest that this is primarily due to the thousands of volunteer hours that Bill has invested in the community.

For the past several decades, numerous charities and community minded initiatives have been the benefactors of Bill's selfless generosity and devotion to his fellow man.

As Bill prepares to celebrate his 65th birthday, I along with all the citizens of Goderich pass on our sincere appreciation for his hard work. Happy Birthday, Bill.

[Committees Of The House, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to what has been said this morning.

First, the member for Selkirk—Interlake commented about southwestern Ontario. As a primary producer in southwestern Ontario I find it offensive that some would suggest that we do not care about the farmers of southwestern Ontario. We care about farmers clear across the country.

I find it rather an oxymoron that a party that believes in cutbacks in all sectors would dare to say that the government has not spent enough or that the money is not reaching the farmers for whom it was intended. That party does not support supply management which has supported and served our farmers well across the country in both the feather industry and the dairy industry, an industry that has not come to the government trough looking for help. Yet that party says “We do not support supply management”. That party does not support the Canadian Wheat Board because it believes it is a monopoly.

If farmers in western Canada were allowed the option of going five years outside of the wheat board, and took responsibility for the crop produced in that five year period, would they be prepared to take responsibility for the crop and stay out of the system for five years even though they were not able to sell their crop? Who would they go to then?

[Blyth Festival Theatre, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, hark, what talent through yonder benches breaks.

Each year for the past 26 seasons the Blyth Festival Theatre has been delighting audiences with its world-renowned performances chronicling all the aspects of our national experience.

With this, I am pleased to inform the House that joining with the ranks of Shakespeare is one of our very own. I congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth as this year her play, Corker , will be showcased at the festival. This satirical comedy pokes fun at our society and underscores the surprises that life often produces.

On behalf of the festival and the citizens of Blyth, I invite all members of the House to review the brochures I have provided to their offices and to then take the time to join me at the festival sometime this summer.

[Committees Of The House, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Pursuant to the order of reference of February 29, 2000, your committee has considered the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001.

[Fisheries, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for the past five years I have been working with various stakeholders and DFO to secure annual funding of $8 million for the sea lamprey control program. That is an $8 million investment for over $80 million in direct returns.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans today, why has DFO failed to provide this essential financial support? When does he intend to correct this oversight?

[Petitions, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have hundreds of petitions to present which are signed by residents of my riding.

The petitioners remind us of the commitment made in 1989 with regard to child poverty in Canada. They ask us to make good on that commitment.

[Division No. 690, February 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, on October 25 I was on my feet in this place to question the government House leader on the joint UN and Elections Canada vote that was to be held in schools across Canada. The initiative which was held on November 19 required all school age students to select a right as defined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which they felt was most important.

My question for the government House leader and eventually to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada was why, given the controversial nature of the UN convention, were Canadians being kept in the dark with respect to this undertaking? More important, why were school administrators, trustees, teachers and parents being kept in the dark?

In a subsequent letter to the editor which I forwarded to my riding media, I explained that the rights as listed on the proposed in school ballot were taken directly from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is important to mention that this convention was passed in 1989 by cabinet only. Indeed the document that has inspired this exercise in democracy, as Mr. Kingsley called it, has never been subjected to the scrutiny of the Canadian adult democracy.

Opponents of the convention have long claimed that the wording of the document is anti-family. I have also come to believe that this is one of the reasons the Canadian parliament has yet to debate the matter and why the United States has failed to ratify the convention to this day.

Before I continue I want to be perfectly clear that I am neither supporting nor condemning the convention. However, I have very grave concerns with some of the potential problems that have been brought forward by the many people who have signed petitions opposing this document. I understand that over 13,000 Canadians have signed petitions since 1997 opposing this convention. I also feel that given the fact that the said petitioners claim that the convention has implications with respect to family life and parental rights and responsibilities, parliamentarians should have the opportunity to debate the issue more fully.

Each and every day we pass laws and regulations that are supposed to improve the quality of life for all Canadians. In fact earlier this evening we gave Bill C-23 its second reading. It is no secret that this bill which amends over 60 pieces of legislation to extend spousal benefits to same sex couples is highly controversial. It is also no secret that I am not supportive of this legislation.

I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I am not supporting this legislation due to the fact that it recognizes financial dependency only in cases where there is conjugality. Yes, as silly as it seems, apparently Mr. Trudeau was wrong and the state does indeed belong in the bedrooms of the nation.

As you know, Madam Speaker, I represent one of the best ridings in all of Canada. Moreover, Huron—Bruce is primarily rural in nature. This fact often creates a situation where extended families are financially required to band together so as to maintain functionality. I can name numerous dependency relationships such as those involving two siblings or even a child and an elderly parent.

I would ask why are these relationships less deserving of benefits or less financially or emotionally dependent on one another than a same sex couple, those who are engaged in relationships based upon conjugality? The short answer is that they are not less deserving.

As we all know, the Supreme Court of Canada has determined in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that society cannot discriminate. With this in mind, I would respectfully suggest that if we fail to recognize all dependency relationships, we are simply exchanging one form of discrimination for another.

In conclusion, I do not want to be seen as someone who is simply opposing this legislation because it would extend benefits to same sex couples. While it is true that I am a staunch supporter of traditional family values and its systems, I am also not a person who is prepared to promote hate or prejudice. I am promoting an inclusionist policy. Let us heed Mr. Trudeau's famous words and draw the shades if we are going—