Rose-Marie Ur

[Agriculture, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased to have this opportunity to include my comments during this emergency debate, it is unfortunate that this debate is even necessary.

We must change the mindset that exists in some quarters of official Ottawa, which may see agriculture as some outdated sector of our economy and may suggest that better management on our farms might solve all today's problems. Trust me: management of our farms is not the problem.

We are asking our farmers to confront and challenge the highly competitive export market while being tackled by subsidies in the U.S. and the European Union. Farmers need a level playing field to continue in the industry. For example, let me share with the House this evening an income statement from a local farmer, as of December 31, 2000. He owns and rents about 600 acres. His nitrogen costs were about $250 per tonne, a 67% increase from 1999. As of January 31, 2001, the cost is $350 per tonne, a 40% increase in one month. His diesel fuel increased 42% in one year. His income was just under $186,000 and his expenses were just slightly over $242,000. His net income is thus a negative $55,300.

At this point I should mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

How long can we expect this farmer to continue? This financial predicament has nothing to do with bad farming practices but everything to do with matters outside his or her control, such as high input costs and low commodity prices.

I hope that the decision makers are listening, because what is happening on our farms is not due to bad management or outdated ideas. We have survived thus far, due in large measure to good management and meeting the challenges of ever changing times. As a farmer in my life before politics I know well of the trials and tribulations. We cannot control the weather any more than we wish we could control the U.S. congress or France's financial backing of its agriculture sector.

There are many issues, one being subsidies, that our government is addressing on the global stage. Those matters are important and vital to the long term survival of our highly diversified farms.

I hear from farmers and their organizations every day. In rural Canada we are independent and self-sufficient. Demonstrations, blocking of traffic and rallies to highlight food freedom day are not the first objectives of farmers, but the frustration has grown rapidly.

Last summer several meetings were hosted by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for farmers to talk about their circumstances to their provincial and federal elected members. One of the largest meetings was held in my riding, which is home to many farm leaders such as Ontario corn producers, soybean growers, asparagus growers and Ontario wheat producers, and the list goes on.

We know that the employment and sale expenditure multipliers indicate that for every job in agriculture there are an additional 1.28 jobs outside agriculture, and for each dollar in sales in agriculture, there is $1.57 in sales in agriculture related businesses.

When farmers are in financial difficulty the ripple effect is felt across all sectors of the economy, especially in our rural communities. Agriculture is big business. It is an original life science. This sector is continuously evolving and adapting in order to achieve goals and meet new challenges identified by science, trade and societal demands. Food production has become more efficient. Farmers have increased crop diversification, and agriculture's impact on the environment has gained much significance, especially in recent years.

To maintain Canada's high standard of agricultural production, the industry requires investment. Strengthening the agriculture and agrifood industry will serve to benefit all Canadians by providing safe and affordable food, greater employment, new uses for non-food products and a greener environment. We must secure conditions for success by improving farm income supports, lessening the tax burden on our farmers, improving research and development and investing in sustainable agriculture.

A vision for the future of agriculture has been laid out but the path to get there is still uncertain. Some progress has been made and too often that gets lost in the rush by others to criticize and condemn. I congratulate our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for working with the provinces on the new $5.5 billion three year national safety net agreement. It is part of our 85% increase in farm support since 1995 while the Ontario government, for example, continues to spend less.

The new safety net agreement followed many months of intense discussion. It was not easy. The prairie provinces felt they should be treated differently from Ontario, while the Ontario government was pushing for its fair share of the nationally allocated safety net dollars. Ontario received an additional $32 million per year as a result of those positive changes.

I believe we now have the appropriate programs in place, but we must enhance that with additional funding. It is essential to point out that the provinces do have a role to play here as well. They are quick to denounce and, in Ontario's case, slow to support.

The intent of safety nets is to set a solid foundation for a complementary package of programs to address a variety of farm income problems resulting from such factors as fluctuating prices, poor weather and foreign subsidies, but we must now look at doing more. Commodity prices are at historically low levels. For some products, prices will stay low for both the short and the long term. Foreign subsidies are not coming down. Farm input costs, including fuel and fertilizer costs, are not going down. Together they account for about $3.8 billion, or 13% of total input expenses.

We have enhanced NISA by allowing participants easier access to their accounts, and the federal government contributes at twice the rate of the provincial governments. We have renewed crop insurance. We have extended and enhanced the market revenue insurance program, which is expected to pay out more than $200 million for 2000.

Farmers often need access to credit to help them get their crops planted in the spring. That is why in April 2000 we launched the spring credit advance program, worth $52 million to 3,000 Ontario farmers.

We also know that farmers have bills to pay in the fall, often before they want to market their crops, so we continue to provide fall cash advance programs through the advanced payments program, through which the federal government pays the interest on the first $50,000 of an advance issued to a producer. About 4,000 Ontario farmers have been in the program over the past three years, saving over $6 million in interest.

National and provincial farm groups are suggesting adding $300 million to farm safety nets to address the crisis in the grains and oilseeds sector in particular, with 60% from the federal government and 40% from the province. This would help level the playing field.

We need to make certain that Canadian food continues to be produced at a reasonable price and at a fair return to our primary producers. Our nation is a success with a strong and viable agriculture industry. Let us all work together to ensure that agriculture remains a success within Canada. We can, and we must, do more.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be recorded as voting yes to the motion.

[Petitions, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition on behalf of the citizens in the Grand Bend, Sarnia and London areas.

They urge the government to eliminate the gas additive MMT as it has a negative impact both on people's health and on our ecosystem at large.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment.

It is a pleasure to take part in this historic throne speech debate as we set a course for the new millennium. I first want to express my appreciation to the constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for their continued support on my third consecutive election. They can rest assured that I will continue to put their views and concerns first and foremost.

In this, my maiden speech in the 37th parliament, I want express my sincere thanks to my family, Terry, Sandy, Michelle, Paul and my husband Louis for their dedication and support. Without them I could not do this job. To my friends, my staff, my campaign team and to the many volunteers who believe in me and continue to believe in me and support me, I certainly appreciate it.

This throne speech proposes an action plan to move Canada forward as a nation that creates opportunity, rewards excellence and ensures all citizens are full participants. We will focus on our efforts of ensuring that all share in the benefits of a strong economy and to create a workforce that is ready to meet the challenges of the new economy.

However, it is the current state of agriculture and its future that is most notably on the minds of many of my constituents.

With my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex harvesting more crops than all the maritime provinces combined, agriculture is without a doubt the economic backbone of southern Ontario, indeed Canada.

As agriculture goes, so goes our rural areas. If rural Canada has a future, we must work to ensure a positive future for agriculture.

To put this in perspective for everyone, I will present some numbers to summarize the vital importance of agriculture. For example, of Lambton county's nearly 600,000 acres, 491,000 acres are devoted to growing crops, representing 14% of the total jobs in that county. this results in over $773 million in annual sales. That is nearly a billion dollars of positive economic activity in one county.

The employment and sale expenditure multipliers indicate that for every job in agriculture there are an additional 1.28 jobs outside agriculture, and for each dollar in sales in agriculture there are $1.57 in agriculture related businesses.

Kent county produces 25%, one-quarter of Ontario's total corn crop. In Middlesex county in just one month over 20 million eggs will be produced. There is enough wool produced from sheep each year to knit 19,000 sweaters. The swimming pool at the London Aquatic Centre holds nearly one million gallons of water. There is enough milk produced in the county of Middlesex each year to fill 22 pools that size.

Almost 4,500 acres of land are used to grow fruit such as peaches, pears, cherries, grapes and strawberries. Most of us enjoy a good steak. There are 13,500 beef cattle in Middlesex, producing not only meat and milk but car polish, medicine, leather, camera film, crayons, candles and sports equipment.

The feather industry in one county of my riding has nearly two million chickens and turkeys. In all counties of my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, wheat, oats, barley, mixed grains, corn, alfalfa, soybean, tobacco and potatoes are the cash crops which are grown. Bike tires, suntan lotion, toothpaste, fuel, makeup, ink and bread can be made from these crops. Tomatoes, mushrooms, asparagus and cauliflower are grown as well. Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is truly a diversified riding.

When we talk of a growing economy it means many things. Agriculture is not just food but value added products that we all use in our daily lives whether we live in downtown Vancouver or Toronto or in the villages of Alvinston, Eberts or Melbourne.

Some individuals may be indifferent to the farming crisis. However everyone must recognize the three necessities of life: clean air, clean water, and a safe and abundant food supply. Agriculture is the third largest employer in Canada, generating about $95 billion in domestic retail and food services sales each year. That is why I was pleased to see that agriculture was mentioned in the throne speech last week. It was a recognition of the essential place agriculture has in the economic success of Canada.

I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister state that we must address the subsidy problem. There are problems on the farm. Low commodity prices, coupled with bad weather, high input costs and overproduction due to high subsidies in the U.S. and the European Union, are putting our farmers in a financial vice, wounding the industry by cutting off its circulation as the lifeblood of our rural and urban economies.

The current three year $5.5 billion national safety net agreement is a positive factor in support of our farmers. Our agriculture minister worked very hard with the provinces to finalize this agreement, but we as Liberals know that more must be done. Unless and until the U.S. and EU drop their subsidies, all industries must be treated fairly in the face of international subsidies.

National and provincial farm groups are suggesting that an additional $300 million to the farm safety net for Ontario would be reasonable, with 50% from the federal government. I stress that what is happening today in agriculture has nothing to do with bad farm management decisions. It is out of the farmer's hands.

It is also important to point out that the Ontario government has a role to play here as well. Quebec farm support, for example, is 2.35 times greater than similar funding for income support and stabilization in Ontario. Over the past three years Quebec has spent $457.3 million on farm support. Ontario spent just $194.8 million, and that is going down.

Since 1995 federal support has increased by 85%. We are moving in the right direction. While the current Ontario government spends less than one-half of one per cent of its budget on agriculture, it is eight per cent of Ontario's gross domestic product.

Today, February 6, is Food Freedom Day. It is a day of celebration for those who eat at least once a day, but it is not as happy for those who produce our food.

Today Canadians have earned enough money to pay for their entire year's food supply. It takes just 37 days out of the whole year for the average Canadian consumer to pay for his or her groceries. In 1999 Canadians spent 10% of their personal disposable income on food. That compares to 13% in France, 15% in Germany and 33% in Mexico.

Farmers are earning just a fraction of the average food dollar. While Food Freedom Day is February 6, January 9 is the day on which we have paid for the farmers' amount. That is right. It takes only nine days to pay the farmers for a year's worth of food. Nine cents of a $1.50 loaf of bread is returned to the farmer. Sixteen cents goes to the dairy farmer on a $1.50 glass of milk. A waiter or waitress in a restaurant earns more on tips for serving the food than the farmer who produces it in the first place.

The throne speech of this new session is an important document. While it outlines the goals and proposals of the government on many fronts, it is agriculture that needs our immediate attention.

Our nation is a success, with a strong and viable agriculture industry. Ontario has always been a leader in agricultural production and agribusiness in Canada, and our nation's farmers are the most efficient in the world.

The Liberal government recognizes agriculture's value, not only to the Canadian economy but also to the quality of life in rural communities. I support the action we have taken to support agriculture through research and development, the Canadian adaptation and rural development fund, enhanced farm income programs and support for rural communities through such excellent programs as community futures, but we can and we must do more.

[Food Freedom Day, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today is Food Freedom Day in Canada, as the annual food bill for consumers is paid in full. As of today Canadians have earned enough money to pay for their entire year's food supply, food which is the safest and most affordable in the world. It takes just 37 days for us to pay for our groceries. That is just 10% of our personal disposable income. In France, it is 13%, in Germany 15% and in Mexico 33%.

Our farmers are the most efficient and productive in the world, but while those who eat food celebrate today it is astonishing to note the date on which farmers get paid for all this food. It is January 9. It takes only nine days to pay farmers for a year's worth of food. Statistics Canada figures show that a waiter or waitress will make more on tips for serving the food than the farmer does for producing it in the first place.

[Petitions, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition on behalf of citizens of Grand Bend, Port Dover and Camlachie. They urge the government to eliminate the gas additive MMT as it has a negative impact both on people's health and our ecosystem at large.

[Petitions, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition on behalf of citizens in the Grand Bend, Thedford and London area.

They urge the government to eliminate the gas additive MMT as it has a negative impact both on people's health and our ecosystem at large.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I guess my response will go back in the form of a question. Is this hon. member really saying or can he suggest to us that the province of Quebec will be there for the consumers like the Liberal Government of Canada?

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that in the debate today we are debating whether the taxes have gone up or whether the cost of crude oil has gone up.

The member mentioned the taxes and whether governments will follow through, provincial or federal. I would like to share an example with my hon. colleague. Not too long ago we had the AIDA program. The federal government reviewed the criteria and felt that additional dollars were available and that a negative margin should be covered. It moved unilaterally in Ontario because Ontario was not fixed to go ahead.

This is the kind of rhetoric we hear when the national government wishes to move ahead and the provincial government does not follow.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.

I am pleased to offer my comments on the motion before us today. I, too, am very concerned by the increase in price for gasoline, diesel and home heating fuel. This affects all of us as individuals, as businesses and as consumers.

As the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has outlined so very well, our fellow government caucus members saw a need to study the whole issue of gasoline pricing and this included taxation. We issued a report in June 1998. As one of the co-chairs of that committee, I was and am certainly proud of our report.

This was a group of MPs who were concerned enough to go out and gather material that may have helped explain price fluctuations in Canada. We travelled to dozens of communities, speaking not only with members of the gas-buying public, but with representatives of the oil companies, independent retailers and trucking firms.

One of our committee's recommendations stated that double taxation, with GST on top of the retail price before and after provincial and federal excise taxes, must end, conditional on a guarantee that the tax decrease would be passed on to consumers and not absorbed by oil companies.

The 1.5 cents per litre deficit cutting tax we suggested also must be removed. These are but two of the Liberal committee's 29 recommendations.

This motion specifically refers to taxation and that, I agree, is an important element, but not the only one when it comes to price. There are other issues at play here that must also be addressed, such as competition in the industry, appropriate laws that prevent predatory pricing.

For example, the general mandate of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing was to examine all aspects of the oil industry that had a direct impact on the pricing of gasoline in Canada. We examined such issues as operations and procedures in the oil industry, wholesale and retail selling, refining, gasoline exports, federal-provincial legislation and consumer protection.

As hon. members know, the Conference Board of Canada is currently undertaking a study of the pricing situation as well to give Canadians a solid and forthright accounting of the situation.

With regard to a tax cut on gasoline, we must ensure it is done in concert with the provinces. We must also guarantee that the price will not be taken up by the large oil companies.

I note that the official opposition is not calling for an inquiry into the domination of 85% of the gasoline market by only four refiner-marketers. It is not calling for a study of the fact that all wholesale prices are identical or that refiner-marketers' domination allows control of retail and wholesale pricing or that there have been no new entrants into the market, while independents are going out of business and the retail margins are uneconomic for even the most efficient independent operator.

Today's motion emphasizes the tax portion only. Perhaps this provides good optics, but we in government are responsible for good public policy. I want to emphasize, however, that I support the elimination of the 1.5 cent per litre excise tax that was added in 1995 as a deficit cutting measure.

Let us look at some measures of how to help low income people buy home heating oil this winter. I believe we must be creative and help where we can in the days ahead. The Minister of Finance, it is rumoured, may move in the weeks ahead on this aspect. As well, the minister has stated that the issue of the GST being charged both on the wholesale price and retail price is eminently worthy of further examination.

I have heard from my constituents in the trucking industry about the rise in diesel fuel costs. I recognize that truckers are an important part of our economy. I know the trucking industry is aware that the rack price for diesel is up about 105% from a year ago. The rack price is the wholesale price a refiner charges for fuel sold directly to trucking companies.

In the same time period, the rack price of gasoline is up 65%. This will impact not only on truckers' wallets, but also on those of all consumers.

School bus fleet owners have contracts in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. Based on a 50 cents per litre gasoline cost, they are losing money.

Farmers are also being hit by higher prices. It is costing them $20 an acre more to put in a crop of corn because fuel costs increased by 97% between May 1999 and March 2000. In good farming years that $20 an acre was often all that was left over.

Predictions of a colder winter than usual will certainly increase the use of home heating oil and natural gas. This past February the sudden cold snap along the eastern shores of Canada meant that the demand for middle distillates increased. Home heating oil was one. As people turn up the heat in their homes, some of the crude that would go to diesel is diverted to heating oil. Gas retailers will tell us that there is less profit and volume in diesel and that the only significant user of diesel is the trucking industry.

At the same time it should be understood that the increase in the price of diesel fuel in Canada is almost totally attributable to the rise in the world crude oil price, which has more than doubled over the past. Of all the increases in the pump price of diesel, only about a half cent per litre is related to federal taxes, namely the GST.

However, GST revenues have not increased dramatically because most diesel is used by businesses that recover their GST through the input tax credit mechanism. For example, in January the GST input tax credit effectively offset the pump price for diesel. The same applies for businesses using gasoline where the GST has resulted in a one cent per litre increase at the pumps. Again, most commercial users recover the GST they pay through the input tax credit.

Canada has the lowest excise tax on diesel fuel in the G-7 at 4 cents per litre and the second lowest excise tax on gasoline at 10 cents per litre. The federal excise taxes on gas and diesel fuels are fixed. They do not fluctuate with price changes. That is important to note. Even when the excise tax is combined with the GST, total federal taxes on diesel are par with the United States.

We must address the issue of competitiveness at the federal level. This motion disregards and overlooks the larger perspective. Taxation on gasoline is but one element of a much greater examination of public policy. Governments have a responsibility to use the means at their disposal to ensure that consumers are protected and true competition exists. Our caucus committee firmly recommended that the preservation of true competition is the most important aspect in the protection of the interests of the Canadian consumer.