Paul Steckle

[Petitions, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have before me a petition signed by a great number of constituents from my riding of Huron—Bruce and other points in southwestern Ontario.

The petitioners are concerned that companies are not explaining in greater detail to the public why gasoline prices are increasing so dramatically at certain times, in particular before holidays and long weekends.

They call upon the Parliament of Canada to adopt legislation which would require gasoline companies to give 30 days written notice to the Minister of Natural Resources of an impending significant increase in the price of gasoline, over 1% of the current pump price per litre that is, and that such notice also contain the reason or reasons for the increase and when it will take effect.

[Huron—Bruce, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, despite my best efforts to uphold my humble demeanour, I am again forced to my feet to regale this House with yet another example of why Huron—Bruce is one of the finest constituencies in all of Canada.

Each October the town of Port Elgin in the northern part of my riding hosts its annual Pumpkinfest. This festival, commonly known as the olympics of gardening, provides an opportunity for the pumpkin growers of Ontario and the northern U.S. to collect together to determine who among them is a premium melon cultivator.

This year, as described by talk show host Jay Leno, the Port Elgin Pumpkinfest stepped into the record books. I am pleased to report that the 2000 edition of the Guiness Book of World Records will formally recognize the 1,092 pound gourd grown at this 1998 event.

As I witnessed at the weigh-in, the competition was intense. Again Port Elgin has secured its place as a world leader in the field of growing giant vegetables. Perhaps next year my colleagues in this place might add the Pumpkinfest to their summer agenda.

[Agriculture, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the motion currently before the House.

Each day in this place we as parliamentarians collectively undertake to explore and debate numerous subjects of a widely varying degree of weight and sensitivity. This issue is perhaps one of the most consequential topics examined by this parliament. I do not wish to come off as sounding melodramatic, but each and every one of us likes to eat each and every day. It is for that very reason that we must decisively act now.

Tonight we are participating in an emergency debate. It is an emergency because Canadian farmers cannot wait six months for further action.

It is no understatement to say that Canadian agriculture today finds itself at a crossroads. The current crisis, if left unchecked, will without a doubt spell certain disaster or perhaps even a virtual collapse in market share for the small and medium sized members of this founding national industry.

I would venture to say that there should not be a single member of this House who is not cognizant of the massive financial challenges regularly faced by the farming communities across this land.

Drought, frost, disease, high overhead costs and fierce competition are all factors dealt with on a regular and recurring basis by our primary producers.

However, the impression should not be given that these challenges have not been without benefit. As a lifelong farmer myself, I can honestly say that, due in part to these daily complications, the Canadian agricultural industry has evolved into one of the most competitive and efficient of its kind in the world.

With that being said, when one adds new and complex problems such as low and dramatic vacillations in commodity prices upon the already heavily laden shoulders of our farmers, is it any wonder that we are now faced with a crisis.

I represent one of the largest agricultural producing constituencies east of the Manitoba border. In my home county, Huron county in southwestern Ontario, we have nearly half a million hogs, a number that exceeds the human population of Huron by a factor of 7.

With this in mind, people can understand that the current drop in the price of pork has devastated this commodity group. For those who might not be aware, only a few short months ago a pork farmer would receive somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 per kilogram for his product. That same producer today would be fortunate to receive 60 cents.

The problem posed by this is that the input costs remain. It has been estimated that the average pork producer will take a loss of $60 for every fat hog sold at today's prices. I understand it is even higher than that.

Over the last number of days I have listened and corresponded with untold numbers of pork farmers in my riding of Huron—Bruce. We have been told that if we do not act immediately and if help does not coming right away, their doors will be closed by Christmas. They have no choices available. They cannot afford to keep their pigs and they cannot afford to sell them.

This is a sad reality, but worse is the statistical probability that this slump will expand into other sectors. Cash crops, beef, sheep and lamb are all at risk.

I think members would agree that failure is simply not an option for us. Surely adequately feeding our population should be paramount in the minds of any responsible legislator. In addition, we must also be aware that agriculture now enjoys the status of big business in Canada. In fact, in addition to employing thousands last year, it contributed approximately $20 billion to our national economic output.

The world population is expected to exceed seven billion by the year 2000, a fact that means global production of sustenance must increase exponentially. If given the chance, Canada can assume a leadership role in this endeavour.

The potential is endless only if we maintain a stable economic foothold in the markets. Our agriculture industry has already grown in leaps and bounds during the course of the 20th century, a trend that I strongly feel should be encouraged to continue.

Sadly, as we progress toward the next millennium, the days and the ways of the small family farm face the very real prospect of being moved out to pasture. We are approaching the proverbial fork in the road.

With the rapidly developing and expanding global economy, we can no longer blindly pump public money into controversial and bureaucratic ad hoc programs.

Farmers need a hand up, not a handout. Strategic investment into key areas of growth is essential. Failure to do so promises to be the final nail in the coffin, that of the family farm.

Members must understand that the family farm has been the backbone of the agriculture sector for over a century; a backbone that if broken will seriously cripple our nation's ability to ensure certain quality controls, availability and security.

If something is not done immediately, I see Canada's farming industry then approaching the same slippery slope that our American neighbours fell victim to. Today U.S. corporate giants such as Tyson, Perdu Poultry and Archer, Daniels Midland have the ability to use their dominance and control over the food supply to hold the American consumer hostage. We simply cannot permit that situation to occur here.

We need look no further than our largest trading partner and neighbour to the south to see the potential danger lurking around the corner. In the United States farming is corporate territory controlled exclusively by market fluctuations, shareholders and large multinationals, a reality that should be unsettling to say the least.

There are those among us who believe that bigger is always better. To those people I would simply say that bigger can be good but it does not always mean more efficient. In actuality when a corporation reaches transnational status it usually means power, not necessarily accountability or effectiveness.

One only has to read the mission statement of corporations such as ADM, Monsanto or ConAgra to see that their primary objective is increasing the accumulation of wealth for their shareholders rather than advancing the business of farming for any greater purpose.

To that end I would draw attention to the fact that in the United States poultry industry 38 firms now have 240 processing plants that are responsible for almost 98% of all U.S. chicken. In reality there are only 38 chicken farmers in all of the United States.

In my riding of Huron—Bruce I have 150 operations. In fact, the U.S. chicken farmer is little more than a labourer who receives a meagre 3 cents to 4 cents per pound to grow broilers, a number that would certainly not be acceptable by our own chicken farmers.

It is also important to mention that this figure has remained virtually stagnant and unchanged since the mid-1980s. Stability is one thing, however the unfortunate reality is that the cost incurred by the American farmer has not remained static. Mortgages, taxes and land costs are on the rise. As a result their farmers are subjected to the whims of the corporate masters while being forced to take all the financial risks associated with managing a farming operation of this type. Even with their high risk factor they have no chance of increasing their own profitability, unlike our supply management sectors in Canada.

As unsavoury as this type of arrangement sounds, it is not isolated to the American poultry industry. To the contrary, it is the norm and not the exception in almost every facet of American agriculture. In sheep slaughter the largest four national producers control nearly 70% of all production. IBP, ConAgra, Cargill and Beef America command dominance over a whopping 78% of the entire American beef sector. In the U.S. 20 feed lots market over 50% of the fed beef. In turkey the four U.S. giants, Rocco Turkeys, Hormel, Carolina Turkeys and ConAgra, account for 35% of the business, and these numbers go on and on.

As a rural Canadian it frightens me to think we might be moving in the same direction but that is the reality of the situation currently before us. In a nutshell, if we fail to act immediately our small and medium size producers are doomed. With them out of the way their larger competition will simply move in and take over. Rural Canada then becomes a little more than a branch of corporate America.

I would simply ask all our colleagues to be aware of the gravity of the situation. Talk is cheap and the price of pork even cheaper. In a world of high input costs, unpredictable growing conditions, El Nino, taxes, the Asian flu and the like, the margin of profit for farmers is shrinking fast.

The real question is should we be asking ourself today where do we see Canadian agriculture in the next century. We have a reputation for quality. It could be said that even with the new high tech integration and massive demands on our time Canadian farmers are considered by the world to be among the best and the brightest. Our commitment to excellence is strong but help is needed if we are to continue to be outstanding in our field.

[Small Scale Fishing, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this morning to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. Having sat on the committee with this gentleman I must say he has been a valuable asset on the committee. I value the input he has put in from time to time.

This is an interesting topic but I will not be supporting it because it probably will not be a votable item. I think it is important that we have this debate and discuss the importance of fishers in Canada. I want to lend my support, at least in measure, to that part.

The motion speaks about the opinion of the House in terms of declaring an international week of awareness regarding the benefits of small scale fishing on the environment and for the sustainability of communities.

We have heard many times in the House that the first priority in managing fisheries must be conservation. We can all see the results of putting other priorities before conservation. The effects are evident in the state of the fish stocks on both coasts and in the negative impact the fishery closures can have on people who depend on this industry.

However worthwhile other priorities are, they cannot come before conservation. Without conservation there will be no fish resulting in no fishing industry, no jobs, community disruption and the loss of $2.8 billion a year in seafood exports.

Putting conservation at the top of the list where it belongs changes this whole picture. We must now consider any proposal in light of how it affects conservation. For example, what do we want to see? Do we want to see more and more fishermen on the water competing with one another for an ever diminishing supply of fish, making less and less every year, relying on government subsidies and eventually exterminating the fish stocks? Or do we want government to implement a conservation based management regime that makes decisions based on how they will affect fish stocks in the long run? The right answer is obvious.

We need a sustainable fishery and a regime where a professional core of fishermen practices responsible fishing using conservation harvesting technologies. We need a sustainable fisheries that delivers a good living to those who work in it and an industry capable of weathering the ups and downs of fish stocks and markets without government subsidies.

Conservation must come first. By putting in place this conservation based management we can also create the conditions for a healthy fishing industry. It will not be the industry of the past. Conditions have changed as they have in all industries. We cannot continue using the fishery as a tool for social welfare and economic development. That is the practice that got us to where we are today. Change is necessary.

We know that leaving the old ways behind is causing pain for many Canadians on both coasts. The government has not ploughed blindly ahead oblivious to the human cost of this change. Instead it has moved to ease the pain and smooth the transition for Canada's fishing communities.

On June 19 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the minister responsible for ACOA announced a package of measures worth $730 million to assist those affected by the crisis of the east coast fishery. At the same time the government announced a $400 million restructuring initiative for the west coast salmon fishery.

The east coast measures included $250 million for a voluntary groundfish licence retirement program, approximately $180 million in final lump sum payments to clients of the Atlantic groundfish strategy, and $135 million in adjustment measures to provide fishery workers with access to tools and resources to leave the fishery. It provided up to $100 million for community and regional economic development and up to $65 million for early retirement.

On the west coast the $400 million package included $200 million for fishery restructuring. This was designed to develop more selective fishing practices and balance fleet size with the salmon resource. It included $100 million for early retirement and adjustment programs on behalf of displaced fishery workers and community development. The package also included $100 million for measures to protect and restore salmon habitat. This package would provide funding for habitat initiatives, foster community based stewardship programs aimed at protecting habitat from further damage and extend community restoration and enhancement partnership programs.

It must also be recalled that in the 1998 budget the minister moved our baseline funding for the sea lamprey program from $5.3 million to $6 million. That was a very positive initiative for those of us in central Canada. For those who may not know, the sea lamprey has plagued the sports fishing industry for many years and because of the good will of government of the past and because of our association with the Americans we have been able to limit that species from becoming so dominant that it would completely destroy our sports fishing industry.

The minister saw fit to increase that number to $6 million. It is my hope the minister on baseline funding will provide us even a further increase for that funding in future years so that we can come to rely on that and the sports fishing industry can go forward. It provides for the Government of Canada coffers, in GST alone, $65 million or thereabouts and perhaps even more than that. It is important that we rely on government funding to keep this sport alive.

The government understands the need for change. We need to involve and assist those who are affected by this change. In the best Canadian tradition the government has moved to help Canada's fishing communities deal with the consequences of these changes. They are not always easy.

The government is also continuing to support the development of the aquaculture industry. This industry shows good strong growth and good prospects and is an important contributor to sustainable employment in rural and coastal communities. The government will announce the appointment of an aquaculture commissioner in the near future to facilitate further sustainable growth of the industry.

When it comes to helping Canada's rural communities, many of them fishing communities, the government is paying attention. Rural issues were a theme of the government's 1997 election platform. The government has undertaken a series of policy initiatives, including the creation of a national rural initiative. In the $20 million Canada rural partnership program, $5 million a year for the next four years was announced in the 1998 federal budget. This program provided funding to pilot projects developed by rural associations, organizations and residents to test new ideas in partnerships with government departments.

The Canadian rural partnership program also forms the framework for the Government of Canada's rural development strategy. The program is overseen by the minister of agriculture and is intended to ensure that federal programs, policies and activities provide a co-ordinated network of assistance to rural communities.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans strongly supports this initiative, particularly as it meets the needs of Canada's coastal communities. The program is being designed and implemented by an interdepartmental working group but the ideas and energy behind the project come from rural Canadians.

In 1998-99, $3.2 million will be used to fund a series of pilot projects that will build an existing rural network and support greater grassroots participation in community based development. These projects will test new ways of responding to rural issues such as the need for better access to investment funds and health care.

This goal is to fund projects that help rural communities to develop the tools they need to improve their quality of life and compete in the global economy.

Just last September the minister of agriculture was in Newfoundland to announce 12 Atlantic regional projects. These projects ranged from coastal geoscience to cultural tourism and are being undertaken with the help of close to $500,000 from the Canadian rural partnership program.

Of the 12 Atlantic projects, 2 are slated for Newfoundland, 4 for Prince Edward Island, 5 for Nova Scotia and 1 for New Brunswick. These projects are concerned with finding ways to diversify the economy and generate economic growth.

The federal government has given rural communities a high priority and we can see that it is moving to help them to survive and prosper in the realities of today's world.

Coupled with the assistance of east and west coast fisheries already in place, we can see the government is doing what is needed to ensure the sustainability of Canada's fishing communities.

Once again I must say to my colleague I appreciate his effort in putting forward this motion. It was good for us to have had this debate. I think it has drawn an awareness to the importance of the fishery.

[Canadian Farmers, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the crisis currently unfolding in Canada's agricultural industries.

1998 has been a difficult fiscal year for our primary producers. Commodity prices have plummeted and financial forecasts call for ominous storm clouds to form on the horizon.

This nation was founded upon the institution of the family farm. Sadly, it is that very symbol which now faces almost certain disaster if we fail to intercede. Over the course of the last several weeks my colleagues and I have examined this matter with numerous interested parties. I recall one farmer who summarized this debate effectively when he said “I work on my farm to feed my country but I must work off my farm to feed my family”. It is a very sad reality.

Unfortunately, the choices available are limited. Farmers must either get out of the business now or face the very real prospect of future financial ruin.

I cannot stress enough the urgency of this matter. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in this matter. If we fail to act we run the risk of closing the proverbial gate long after the cattle have run off.

[Bill Mathews, November 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Bill Mathews, a constituent of mine. I was recently informed that Bill volunteered his time and business expertise to assist in developing the business skills of a firm in one of the world's most volatile and disadvantaged economies.

Bill was a CESO volunteer in Russia at a corporation that processes soybean products. During his tenure at this Russian business Bill was able to share his knowledge in areas such as how to expand operations into a franchising system and in construction methods for growth of the company's existing infrastructure. He provided a plan to develop the basement of the company's headquarters which included cost estimates and design work.

In short, Bill made a substantial difference in the way this firm conducted its day to day operations. Because of Bill's efforts the efficiency and future prospects of this company were improved, which in turn will result in more economic output and growth. This will result in an improvement in areas such as employee wages and their standard of living, while at the same time helping to enhance the labour standards of the country as a whole. I applaud Bill's efforts because I feel that they represent a concrete example of how a hand up is often more beneficial than a handout.

[Committees Of The House, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the central Canada freshwater fisheries report. In accordance with Standing Order 108(2), last May the committee undertook a study of fisheries issues in central Canada. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a comprehensive response to this report by the minister within 150 days.

This is a very comprehensive and important report. It deals with a number of issues regarding the Great Lakes fisheries that have never been addressed. Some of the recommendations will be acted on. One request is related to the sea lamprey, a non-indigenous species to the Great Lakes. We have been dealing with this species recently. Today I ask my fellow colleagues, all workers in the House and on the hill, to go to Centre Block to see the sea lamprey display in the rotunda. I ask that all here today make time to see that display today.

[Diabetes Research, October 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when Ayden Byle arrived today on Parliament Hill he was greeted by supporters for his gruelling efforts to run across Canada to raise funds by way of sponsorship and public donations for research into a cure for diabetes.

Ayden started his journey on June 1 in Stanley Park and will be ending his trek this December 1 in Halifax. Although Ayden has been an active athlete throughout his life, at 24 he is insulin dependent and requires five injections a day.

He hopes his run will generate a greater public awareness of diabetes and truly wishes to become a recognized role model for young children struggling with the physical and psychological aspects of this disease.

I encourage all my hon. colleagues to join me in wishing Ayden our best wishes for his success on his journey across Canada.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have pursuant to Standing Order 36 a petition signed by a good number of constituents from the riding of Huron—Bruce. These petitioners share the concern that the additive MMT in Canadian gasoline presents an environmental problem affecting every man, woman and child in Canada. They also call on parliament to set by the end of this calendar year national clean fuel standards for gasoline with zero MMT and low sulphur content.

[Fishers' Bill Of Rights, October 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address private member's Bill C-302 by the member for Charlotte.

All Canadians and all members of this House want to see a healthy fishery into the coming century, one that provides a good living to independent professional owner-operators and employees, one that supports flourishing fishing communities along the nation's coastlines that is sustainable and supports a flexible, versatile and self-reliant industry largely self-regulating and operating without subsidies.

We may argue how to achieve it but few would disagree with this goal. How to best realize this goal is where we differ. Is it by adopting the legislation before the House or by instituting a so-called fishers bill of rights? I do not believe so. This is not the way to achieve this goal.

Passing this bill could actually be counterproductive, harming not only the resource but also the very communities the bill is intended to help. Let me explain why.

Let us first take a look at what the honourable member wants to achieve. In presenting the bill, he said it is an act to establish the rights of fishermen, including the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing licensing and the public right to fish and establish the right of fishermen to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly.

The hon. member must know that fishermen already participate in most if not all these activities and that in practice they are actively involved in stock assessment, fish conservation and monitoring. Fishermen participate through consultation along with other stakeholders in the development of integrated fishery management plans and the setting of fishery quotas. Many fishermen are already involved directly in managing fisheries through the co-management approach or joint project agreements with DFO.

DFO developed the co-management approach as a way to give the people who work in the fishery more say in how it is managed. An example of the co-management approach in the maritimes is the Cape Breton snow crab fishery where fishermen have entered into a multiyear joint project agreement with DFO.

Other examples of co-management include shrimp on the Scotian shelf and exploratory fisheries in skate, monkfish, rock crab and red crab.

Co-management works well as a voluntary approach that increases the participation of fishermen in decision making. The government is planning to introduce a new fishers act that would allow individuals and communities more say over decisions affecting their lives and the capacity to do longer term planning.

Fishermen and others in the industry have said repeatedly that they want government out of the daily operations of the fisheries. The government has listened.

The bill before the House today is unnecessary. There are other reasons for rejecting this bill, among which is it would be impossible to put into practice. Let me give an example of why this approach is impractical.

The bill requires that decisions not be implemented until all appeals have been exhausted and reasonable notice has been given to the fishermen involved. In 1995 the west coast groundfish trawl fishery exceeded its TACs for many species so the minister of fisheries ordered the fishery closed early in the season.

The minister did this not to deprive fishermen of their rights but to exercise his responsibility to protect the fishery. How would that situation have been handled under this bill? Would overfishing have continued while consultations dragged on and on until everyone was satisfied that perhaps the fishery should be closed? What condition would the stocks have been in by then?

Sometimes we need a person in charge with the authority to act. Those with a stake in the fishery should be consulted and they are. But to tie the minister's hands so that essential decisions cannot be made when they must be made would be folly.

The minister of fisheries is the member of cabinet responsible for fisheries. It is up to him or her to set policy to decide when to fish, where to fish and what to fish. If the policy does not work the minister can decide to change it, usually after consulting with those affected.

But to mandate a legislated requirement to consult while the health of the stocks hangs in the balance fetters the minister's ability to act quickly in the interest of conserving the resource.

Surely the intention behind this bill is not to frustrate conservation efforts, not now when some fish stocks require extremely careful management and not when we have already made progress in adopting responsible and co-operative management.

The west coast groundfish trawl fishery now operates under an innovative management regime. This regime includes individual quotas that establish individual accountability for the harvest limits. Community representatives actively contribute to the management of the fishery through the groundfish development authority which was established jointly by the federal and provincial governments in 1996.

Change is happening and not just in the case of groundfish. Management of the west coast herring fishery is also changing in response to recommendations from the industry. Many shell fish fisheries are managed under co-operative agreements with fishermen who are contributing to innovative monitoring and observer programs.

As we all know, the west coast salmon fishery has also undergone major changes. Last June the government announced a major restructuring of the Pacific salmon fishery. It was a momentous decision and was taken only after extensive study and consultation with fishermen and others in the industry.

This consultation is continuing. After the government announced conservation measures last May to protect and restore coho salmon stocks, 23 community meetings took place throughout that province. More than 1,450 British Columbians attended these meetings and their ideas were taken into consideration.

Following the June 19 announcement of $400 million in federal funding the government held extensive discussions with fishermen and other stakeholders on program design. They discussed licence retirement, incentives for new selective harvesting techniques, options for diversifying fishing income and opportunities and the impact of changes on coastal communities. It is interesting to note that many stakeholders requested more activity and less consultation. The government has continued to consult with fishermen on how the licence retirement program should be set up and run.

It is clear that fisheries management in this country is undergoing a transformation. It is this transformation that has been long sought by fishermen. We can see that fishermen and others with a stake in the fishery have a greater role today in managing the fishery than ever before, and that role is growing.

Nevertheless, it is essential that the minister retain the ultimate responsibility for conserving and managing the resource for the benefit of all Canadians. After all, it is important to remember that Canada's fish resources are managed for the benefit of all Canadians. Fishermen receive from the minister the privilege of exploiting these resources and we must remember that conservation is the government's first priority.

If there are no fish there can be no fishers. If we are to ensure that the fishery is there for our children and for their children we must conserve the resource. The bill before the House does nothing for conservation. As for giving fishermen more say in the management of the fishery, that process is already well established.

It is well for us to talk about rights, but with those rights, particularly in the area of fishing, as in all other rights, as citizens of this country we bear a responsibility to the resource, in particular as we look at conserving that resource for generations to come. It is my hope, as we anticipate further discussion on this bill and as we anticipate the vote, that we will consider the impact of those rights and responsibilities.

From a drafting perspective this bill is vague. It touches on many legal issues, including some that are outside federal jurisdiction. That is very clear. Given its vagueness this legislation would be impossible, in all likelihood, to implement in any effective manner. It is for these reasons and others which I have not mentioned this morning that I urge my colleagues in the House to reject Bill C-302 when it finally comes to a vote.