They are listening.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 41% of the vote.
Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure March 21st, 2001
They are listening.
Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure March 21st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, just a short congratulations to you on your appointment to chair the committee. In time, when you look back on your political legacy, your chairing of this committee has the potential to be a defining moment for you.
I wish we could have another hour of the member for Winnipeg South here tonight because he has spent thousands of hours working on the linkage of electronic government, which is where we as a service agency touch the general public. It is critical in this parliamentary reform that the service to the public, the linkage of what we do here, is transmitted to the people on the street, our constituents, from coast to coast. Right now they ask us as MPs to do things. It seems we never give them the answers they want, or that we give them the answers six weeks, two months or a year later.
I have a question for the member for Winnipeg South, who has touched on a critical issue here, electronic government. How does he envisage electronic government enhancing service to the public? That ultimately is what parliamentary reform is all about, and what ultimately will earn respect for the service we are supposed to provide in the House.
Supply March 20th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, one of the farmers in my region, Mr. John Downer, brought to my attention a comment made on CBC last night that $2.6 billion in government support will be 75% of net farm income.
It is very important that Canadians hear that with 270,000 farms in Canada, the net farm income this year would be $12,800. That would be about $4.30 an hour based on a 60 hour week. That is without benefits, and with wives and children adding their labour for free.
In my city a policeman is paid $26 or $27 an hour. A nurse gets $25 or $26 an hour. Even though the CBC statement was factually correct, it was terribly misleading to all Canadians because it took out of context what really happens. I am appreciative of the opportunity to put it on the record.
Most Canadians would be ashamed if they realized that based on a 60 hour week the average hourly rate was $4.30.
Supply March 20th, 2001
Madam Speaker, the right hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has had experience as prime minister. He has had experience as a minister at the cabinet table. He made remarks about priorities. I would ask him a very specific question. Where would he suggest the cuts come from to find the $500 million?
I would say respectfully that a $200,000 fountain in Shawinigan or a portion of government advertising would really not make up the critical mass necessary to do the job here. What will need to happen eventually are deep and profound sectoral cuts because, as the member would understand, there is a limited amount of cash available.
My question for the right hon. member is: Where would he find that $500 million?
Supply March 20th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I said in my remarks that I am passionately committed to this issue, as are nearly all of my colleagues in the House.
Members of parliament on this side of the House were in a state of absolute shock when we did not get the full $900 million a few weeks ago. Does that mean we are going to go back in our corner and hide? We are going to continue to use our reason and use our arguments to press the government to come up with the amount of money that is required to have a proper national agricultural policy in the country. We are all committed to that.
Supply March 20th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the motion belittles the intelligence of government members because essentially the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake is trying to embarrass government members into a money motion.
Anybody in the House realizes that a money motion is a vote of non-confidence. Quite frankly, I think we can do a hell of a lot more to rebuild the family farm sector of this country in here rather than in another election.
Supply March 20th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that I have always believed that the essence of being in the House is that the stronger regions look out for those regions which do not have the same financial resources.
I understand that Saskatchewan does not have the financial strength that the provinces of Ontario or Alberta have, but I will give an even better example. I think it is a near scandal that we cannot find $6 million or $7 million for the potato farmers in P.E.I. when we all know that we spend that amount in a year around here on paper clips.
In answer to the question, I have always been a believer and have always supported the fact that the advantaged provinces have a duty to look out for those provinces that go through bad patches.
Supply March 20th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I will not be supporting the motion. I feel that the debate is serious and that all parties must be involved, but I feel that the approach taken by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, the agriculture critic, is mischievous. He tries to divide the House. When he uses a word like deceive to describe our efforts on this side of the House, he dumbs down the ongoing constructive approach.
I deal with the issue from the perspective of an urban member of parliament. I do most of the shopping in my family. I have tried for many years to understand the complexities surrounding the issue. I will continue with all my energy and intellect to support family farms, but I want to do it in a reasoned and constructive way.
At the outset, all of us in the House have done a mediocre job educating consumers on agriculture. Few consumers or few urban people realize that the average family farm income is under $20,000 a year. Few consumers realize that the average age of a person farming today is close to 60 years old. I am not surprised that more and more younger people living on farms are not inspired to continue in the footsteps of their mothers and fathers and maintain their farms.
To shift the emphasis we have to go back to the consumer. Is it not amazing that in the city of Toronto one in six jobs depends on the food business? When we in the House of Commons press the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister for support and resources in the automotive, aerospace, tourism or any other sector, we always link it to jobs. It seems that most of the debates on agriculture focus on 270,000 farmers. We should start including in the debate and in the rationale the fact that one in six jobs in urban areas depends upon the agri-food business.
If we turn to the business section of any newspaper, we see the massive profits of food retailers and processors. Then, when we come to producers, we see an incredible disparity. I cannot figure out how producers, who are supplying processors and retailers, are getting screwed right in front of us. How is this happening? Why is it not being challenged?
The numbers we are using are wrong. We talk, for example, of the $500 million of new money going to farmers. To someone making $25,000, $30,000 or even $100,000 a year, it seems like a lot of money going to 270,000 farmers. The reality is that consumers, the urbanites, are the net beneficiaries of the work of farmers.
We have the cheapest food policy of any country in the G-7. Over 90% of Canadians probably do not know this fact. We have a cheap food policy in Canada. In other words, it is not farmers that are getting the subsidies. When we in urban areas go into Loblaws, Sobey's, Dominion, or whatever, we get access to high quality food at very cheap prices. We are the ones who in the end are the net beneficiaries of any moneys going to farmers.
The motion today is asking for another large sum of money. By the way, I support the principle and the spirit of the motion, whatever the amount of money, whether it is $400 million or $600 million.
However we have to start educating urban people. The issue is about food sovereignty. Would an average family of four be willing to spend $1 per person per week, or $4 a week, for a year to maintain the family farm system of Canada? Would that average family spend $200 a year to have a safe and secure supply of food and to maintain food sovereignty?
Canadians should understand that this is the cost to them on an individual basis, approximately $50 per person per year. They should link to the issue on a personal basis and understand what it means to them in terms of added cost. If so, the energy and the reason behind rebuilding the agriculture and agri-food sector would be greatly enhanced.
Let me say to all farmers listening that I have no doubt about their need for the dollars put on the table. In fact, as a city MP I could never understand how this number was arrived at.
On March 13 I received a fantastic letter from Mr. Brian Doidge from Ridgetown College, University of Guelph. I would be happy to share it with anyone who is interested. He did the calculation of gap in income support payments from government for grain and oilseed farms in Ontario versus those in the U.S. He did a brilliant calculation.
Essentially the calculation showed that if we gave Canadian farmers the $63 per acre over the 4.83 billion acres planted in grain and oilseed crops, we would arrive at the $1.5 billion and the 60:40 split. However, it would only be half the subsidy American farmers would receive. Even at half we are not totally in the game with our American friends.
We have to bring the debate to city people. We have to ask city people if they want a food sovereign country. We never seem to challenge the profits of retailers, restaurants, food services, food processors and hospitality industry. We never challenge those sectors because we understand the number of jobs they create.
I say humbly that if the Minister of Finance took a look at all the revenue through personal income taxes which those jobs and those corporations created, maybe he has to take a little less from the food processing and food retailing sector. He may have to distribute some of what he is taking from those sectors to farmers who make sure the quality and secure supply of food ultimately serves all Canadians.
Supply March 20th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take constructively the comments from the member with one exception, and I would ask you to rule on it. The member used the word deception and I believe that is inappropriate language because it would suggest that it was a deception, a lie or a trick. Those words to me are very close, and I would ask him to withdraw.
Standing Orders February 27th, 2001
Sounds like a Liberal.