Rose-Marie Ur

[Petitions, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present two petitions signed by residents of London, Sarnia, Exeter and Grand Bend. They urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT, noting it is not used in Europe and most American states as it clogs emission control devices in vehicles and is opposed by all major car companies.

[Petitions, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present two petitions signed by residents of Grand Bend, Dashwood and Hensall who urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT, noting that it is not used in Europe and most American states as it clogs emission control devices in vehicles.

[Petitions, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present two petitions signed by residents of London, St. Thomas and the Brantford area.

They urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT, noting it is not used in Europe and most American states as it clogs emission control devices in vehicles.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the second petition, signed by residents in Wallaceburg and Dresden, urges parliament to adapt the principles of Bill C-225 to ensure that marriage is preserved and protected.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present the a petition signed by residents of London, Lucan and Kitchener.

They urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT, noting it is not used in Europe and most American States as it fouls emission control devices in vehicles.

[Disabled Persons, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the sixth anniversary of the United Nations international day of disabled persons. We must do everything in our power to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the same advantages as other Canadians.

The international community has recognized the efforts of the Government of Canada to break down the physical and attitudinal barriers that keep persons with disabilities from enjoying the advantages of full citizenship. In New York last year the Prime Minister accepted the Franklin Delano Roosevelt international disability award on behalf of all Canadians.

I encourage all hon. members to support persons with disabilities as the government works to include all people as full partners in their countries and communities.

In the gallery are three people who are shadowing members of parliament: Nancy Villeneuve, Kathy Bainville and Tammy Culhan. We welcome them to the House of Commons.

[Agriculture, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate tonight and I congratulate the member for South Shore for proposing it.

As members will know, headlines and news broadcasts every day and night highlight the farm income crisis. The family farm is under siege. Any sensible approach to helping with this crisis would involve examining the reasons behind the crisis because no farmer wants a subsidy and taxpayers from coast to coast to coast generally oppose multimillion dollar bailouts that would serve no useful purpose other than to neutralize the daily headlines calling for a quick fix.

This problem is international in nature and thus we must look at the big picture. To me a grain farmer in Saskatchewan is just as important as a hog farmer in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex in Ontario. I am confident the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in co-operation with his provincial colleagues and with producers groups will arrive at an equitable solution that is fair both to the industry and to the Canadian taxpayer.

As I mentioned in the House this afternoon, pork producers, for example, are selling hogs for about half the cost of production. There is now a huge oversupply in the marketplace. With the 15% expansion in production in the past two years, with the weak demand and foreign subsidies further distorting the market, the farm income crisis is a complex problem with no easy answers.

There is a discussion on a combination of programs, including the use of the present system, the safety net. We have certainly heard very clearly from the farmers their desire for a national disaster program. In very severe situations this will kick in and give some support to the farmers when the current safety net system may not be sufficient. Grain and pork prices are at or are near historic lows. Farm income is also depressed for many producers of other commodities as well. While the effect is not apparent in provincial estimates of total farm income for provinces with diversified agriculture such as Ontario, the damage is every bit as severe for affected farmers in Ontario as any other province.

The Middlesex county portion of my riding produces more agriculture commodities than that of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It is big business. My riding alone produces nearly half a million hogs per year. The pork industry supports $4.51 billion worth of economic activity in Ontario alone.

The proposed national disaster program should work well for many Ontario pork producers if it can be implemented quickly. At 56 cents a kilogram hog farmers are losing between $55 and $60 for every pig they send to market. A farmer with a 300 sow operation is now losing $1,000 a day. To find prices that low we have to dust off the history books as far as 1972, but even that is not a real comparison due to inflation. In 1972 a pickup cost $5,000. Today it can cost $25,000.

Several years ago agriculture economists predicted the Asian market would be an excellent place for Ontario pork. Saskatchewan even subsidized farmers to switch over to hogs. Not only did Ontario and Canadian farmers expand, so did the Americans. In the third week of October 1998 Ontario farmers shipped 104,000 head, the largest number of hogs ever sold during one week. In the United States weekly hog sales were also breaking records. Low demand is now resulting in low prices and oversupply. Meanwhile grocery store profits are up 20% for Loblaws, 21% for Empire and 38% for Oshawa Group. Someone is still making money but it sure is not the farmer.

I have also heard from farmers whose NISA accounts are drained, as well as their RRSPs.

I have heard from constituents on the other side of the issue who state that the pork industry expanded and some are still expanding, building bigger barns, now with a product for which there is no market, so why bail them out.

I received an e-mail today from a cash crop farmer in my riding: “I am puzzled. The North American pork industry is big, efficient and has been profitable. There is a speed bump in the market and there is this great cry for help from taxpayers. I support our agricultural community wholeheartedly but sometimes we in the farming business need to reassess our position. When corn prices are low and there are a lot of acres being planted in the U.S., farmers take a look and then they decide perhaps they should get their bean drills out and plant a few more acres of beans. Is the Government of Canada going to support the hog farmer enough, because they will need more than just this rescue package to make them world competitive?”

The situation is far different, however, for grains and oilseeds where the basic market problem involved huge U.S. and European subsidies which are likely to depress prices for longer durations.

A program such as the proposed disaster relief by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture would provide support at 70% of a three year average. It would only provide short term help for grain producers. GRIP uses a 15 year average.

Former grain stabilization programs which provided support at 100% in the prairie provinces and 90% in the rest of Canada were thrown out in 1991 because the five year averaging period was too short when grain prices are depressed for several successive years by foreign subsidy awards. It is a difficult situation to be sure with no easy answers. However, I am confident that the minister and his officials will provide a sensible approach to this issue.

We must also look beyond our borders. As members know, it took 45 years before agriculture became a formal part of the WTO agreement. But even with a foot in the door, much remains to be done. Many high tariff barriers remain in place. The procedures for enforcing agreements are very loose and backsliding is common.

The GATT has been revamped and the membership is now bigger and growing. Our country, as an efficient and profitable exporter, as an immense interest in the reform of agricultural trade barriers. It is also equally true that countries which protect their inefficient agriculture producers have an intense interest in maintaining trade barriers. The United States and the European Union in particular typically defend subsidies when the truth is that they hurt their own producers as much as they hurt ours.

If we understand the reasons for this contradiction, we would be well on the way to resolving many of the quandaries of international trade. We must address and develop a set of actions that will lead to more liberal trading arrangements for agriculture in the years ahead. Only then can we avoid the warped market we see today.

We need to find answers because they will form the building blocks in the construction of new rules for global trade in agriculture and a more prosperous future for all the farmers we represent.

In 1941 the Atlantic charter, which became the rationale for GATT, stated its aim was to ensure that after the war all countries “great or small, victor or vanquished, would enjoy access on equal terms to the trade into the raw materials of the world”.

Today that seems to be still a very big goal. Canadian farmers, like all farmers, understand they have a responsibility to feed the world and guarantee a secure future in food supplies. As we do that we have a responsibility to support our farmers through this difficult process, not to abandon the process.

The challenge for Canada and other countries over the next 52 years is quite simply how are we to feed a world of 10 billion people, the estimated population by the year 2050. What it means is we have to produce double the amount of food we do now. Even in the next 25 to 30 years the world will need to produce 300 million tonnes more of wheat, 260 tonnes more of corn and 16 million tonnes more of fish.

Farmers understand this is attainable if they are paid a reasonable and fair price for their efforts. The people who eat the food must understand that as well.

Trade liberalization is the key to an efficient and affordable world food trading system. Unfair subsidies from the United States and the EU are trade distorting. We must all be committed to the reduction of trade subsidies, and the rest of the world, if it wants to be fed, will sooner or later need to come to grips with that.

Stepping on to the world stage, mixing it up with competitors such as the United States, Europe and Japan is a very rough environment and Canada has been succeeding. We are now experiencing a bump in the road with some prices hitting levels not seen since the Great Depression. Many would say this is a unique downturn under special circumstances that requires a national collective effort.

[Canadian Farmers, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pork producers are selling hogs for about half the cost of production, with a huge oversupply in the marketplace, with weak demand and foreign subsidies further distorting the market.

It is a complex problem with no easy answers. Indeed, during hearings at the agriculture committee, five presenters will have five different solutions.

As many farmers in my riding have told me, they want an equitable arrangement, which is fair across the country, that does not just bailout bad business practices but fully recognizes the devastating price drop. Our safety net system is designed to address the normal fluctuations in market income. It cannot address a market crisis of this dimension.

We urge the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, with his provincial colleagues and the producers, to help the industry through this current crisis while being sensitive to the Canadian taxpayer.

[Petitions, November 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present this petition signed by residents of Grand Bend, Forest and Stoney Creek. They note that all studies show how the manganese based MMT in gasoline has been proven to foul emission control devices resulting in higher smog levels which will devastate our Kyoto climate change commitments. They call upon parliament to ban the use of the additive MMT.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present a petition signed by residents of Grand Bend, London, and Newbury who note that all studies show how manganese based MMT in gasoline has been proven to foul emission control devices resulting in higher smog levels which will devastate our Kyoto climate change commitments. They call on parliament to ban the use of the additive MMT.