Bev Oda

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

He is talking about voluntary and mandatory, but obviously what we all want is meaningful change to better our environment.

The department's memos indicate that Kyoto has serious problems and design weaknesses, namely, that it would not stop or even slow down global warming and fails to provide proper incentives for technologies that may transform the energy sector over the long term. We are not just talking about our environment in Canada. We understand that the auto industry is an international industry and marketplace, et cetera, but our air, water and environment also cross borders.

I would like to know what the motion being proposed would do to deal with the fact that there is nothing in the Kyoto accord that obligates developing countries to improve their environments. Only 32% of the global emissions are currently covered under Kyoto. What does this motion do to address the other 68%?

[Supply, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the availability and quality of child care across the country varies not only from province to province but from region to region, and even in my riding which has a mix of urban and rural settings. Most of my riding's urban settings are closer to the lake and the 401. However, in the northern part of my riding there are smaller towns and villages that are separated by miles. Although each of these communities has newer subdivisions going up each month, it will be years before many of them reach the critical mass needed to support larger well resourced day care centres.

In large ridings such as mine, distances become a challenge and consequently transportation to and from centres is and will continue to be a major hindrance. Also, 25% of my riding's population base is in the rural area. To serve the unique needs of this community, for example, local families in Uxbridge have had to organize a program specifically to meet the needs of the rural settings.

Durham Farm and Rural Family Resources has been offering child care for farm families since 1988. The programs are specially designed to meet the needs of part time care needed in the peak farming seasons. This means the children do not have to be taken from the home but can still stay on the family farm.

For the most part many of these rural families have been caring for their children within the family or extended family with the help of neighbours, friends and family. Generations have grown and thrived in a child centred way of life.

I also know that many families in more urban centres have chosen to sacrifice the additional income and have one parent stay at home to raise their children. A national child care program directed at out of the home day care centres does not necessarily meet these families' needs. If we take all of the dollars that the Liberal government plans to set aside for day care and make them directly available to parents, these moms and dads could then choose what is best for their children and families in whatever settings they choose to live.

I am wondering if the member could address the special needs of the smaller rural communities and the farm families.

[Bowl for Kids' Sake, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Big Brothers and Sisters of Clarington has been making a difference in the lives of young people for over 28 years. Big Brothers and Sisters delivers high quality volunteer based programs to children and youth, creating positive relationships.

The Clarington Big Brothers and Sisters in my riding has recently expanded its in school mentoring program. This means the benefits of this valuable program will now be available to more families in Clarington.

Each year more than 1,000 volunteers, families and businesses take part in the Bowl for Kids' Sake fundraiser. I encourage everyone to put together a team and bowl for the kids' sake. It is not about how well one bowls, but how one makes a difference in a child's life.

I also wish much success to the members of Team Oda who will be bowling on February 21 at the Liberty Bowl.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last week CBC reduced Ukrainian programming on Radio Canada International from three and a half hours per week to one hour.

Ukrainians deserve to have a reliable source of programming from a Canadian perspective and Canadians want our voices and values broadcast abroad. After playing a leading role in supporting millions in the lead-up to their elections and after, turning our backs on Ukrainians now is inexcusable. What will this government do to restore programs and ensure that Ukrainians do not lose any service on RCI?

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate this. The reason we have to keep coming back year after year, week after week, day after day and ask the government to respond is because the Liberals have reached the maximum on their capabilities of responding.

The Liberals came to the House and said that they recognized a crisis in agriculture. They put forward some proposals. Subsequent to that, they have to come before the House and fixed this and fixed that. There has been a whole bunch of tinkering and we still have not helped the farmers.

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this party has asked more questions about agriculture in this House because repeatedly we get the same one answer over and over again.

We have heard other members refer to the movie Groundhog Day where people keep reliving the same day over and over. Again, the same answer comes from the government about what it is doing for agriculture.

Consequently, my party has had to repeatedly ask more and more questions and make more and more references to circumstances in individual ridings that are deteriorating each day as we go along.

The farmers in this country are now going into a season where they will have to make some very critical decisions. If we do not get some answers we will continue asking more questions of the government to make sure that farmers get the relief and the remedy that they need right now.

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

“Scugog Farmers are calling for help” was the headline in the Port Perry Star , a local newspaper in my riding of Durham, last week. The farmers in Canada are calling for help from the government.

Yesterday I spoke about a meeting in my riding where, despite a winter storm, hundreds of farmers, not only from Durham, but from York, Victoria, Simcoe and Essex counties, gathered to express their frustrations and to consider how to be heard by governments in this country.

As Geri Kamenz, vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, has said:

Ontario farmers are running out of alternatives to keep their farms in production. They have called on their organizations to lobby government, but government ignores them. They have conducted tractor rallies and highway blockades, but government ignores them. They have staged orderly demonstrations, but government ignores them.

Today, representatives of over 28 agricultural organizations and boards are meeting in Guelph to come together to create one voice for all the cultural industries in Ontario because they are not being heard and they need help.

Well, this side of the House has listened and is speaking and has spoken for this industry throughout this session of Parliament.

As our leader has said, we are the voice of rural Canada in Ottawa.

We demanded a debate on the BSE crisis in the first weeks of this session. We forced a full day debate on the expropriation of farmlands at Mirabel. Our leader has called for a cull cow program. Our agricultural critic has pressured the government over and over to meet the real needs of farmers in Canada. In fact, we have asked more questions on agriculture in this House than all other parties put together.

Today I am proud to stand and speak to the motion before this House.

As Joe Hickson, from Lindsay, has said:

It doesn't matter if you're in cattle, dairy, grain, corn...the whole industry is going backwards and if we don't put the brakes on it, we're going to be so far behind the ball that we won't be able to dig ourselves out .

The government's response has been consistently to point to the CAIS program as its answer to the current crisis.

The CAIS program does not work. It was never designed to be an emergency fund program and the government knows that. The CAIS program does not address trade injury and the government knows that. It was told that in the George Morris Centre report when the CAIS program was set up.

Therefore, when the U.S. border closed, the CAIS program, as it was, would not serve Canada's beef industry.

The CAIS program does not work for the grain and oilseeds sector in its current deteriorating circumstances. CAIS needs to be changed.

First, we must eliminate the deposit requirement and not penalize those who need the money to pay the bills and to pay suppliers. They must have access to the money now and without being penalized for three years after.

The program needs much greater transparency in calculations and formulae so that the producer-accountant payment projections are bankable numbers with much higher probability of realization when payments are actually made.

The appeal process needs to be clarified and clearly communicated.

The modified accrual accounting treatment of inventory valuation must be addressed. This Enron type of accounting distorts the support provided by CAIS.

I have only made reference to a few ways in which the CAIS program can be improved to really serve the farmers in Canada. The farmers in Ontario, I am convinced, will be coming to Ottawa with one voice to ask for these and other remedies to the CAIS program. They deserve to know how the government plans to respond to the EU's decision to reinstate export subsidies on wheat. This decision clearly violates the spirit of the WTO negotiations. As long as Canada fails in its responsibilities to play a leadership role in this matter, Canadian farmers will continue to suffer.

Today the government is failing our agricultural community. Agriculture and the auto industry are the two industries that drive the economy in my province of Ontario. The farm community in Ontario is calling for help. I believe they deserve to be heard. I challenge the government to answer their call for help.

Today I am pleased to stand here on their behalf and ask that they not be ignored once again. I am proud to stand with my party and support this motion for the immediate removal of the CAIS support program deposit requirement. This is now a cash flow issue for farmers and the other sectors affected by the current state of the industry.

I ask all members to support the motion and to support the agricultural community in Canada.

[Agriculture, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in January I was pleased to attend a meeting of the Region 4 Chapter of the Ontario Corn Producers Association in Durham. The annual meeting was followed by a grassroots meeting to discuss the real challenges faced by my farmers day after day as they move into another season.

Thanks to Joe Hickson and Dale Mountjoy, over 300 farmers attended this session, representing the cattle, dairy, feather farms, suppliers and banking institutions, all an indication of the significance of their challenges.

What is clear to me is the government's support programs are not working. Simply working to open the border is not enough.

This industry can no longer afford a reactionary issue by issue agriculture strategy that the government has given it for the past decade. What the farmers in my riding and what farmers across the country need are programs that work for them, a domestic agricultural and agrifood policy.

[Telefilm Canada Act, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Telefilm Canada Act is a technical bill, an exercise in housekeeping for this agency.

Telefilm was created as the Canadian Film Development Corporation in 1967. Its mandate was to foster and promote the development of a feature film industry in Canada. Originally, it was given $10 million to invest in the film industry as a loan fund. In 1984 it was renamed Telefilm Canada.

Over the years it has nurtured creative minds in Canada who wanted to be part of our country's legacy in the field of film. The government's investment into this organization has grown from $10 million to $19 million in 1977, to $165 million in 1980, and to today's allocation of $250 million.

From its first years its attempts to create a viable film industry have been valiant and we have seen many successes. However, today, as over past decades, many films made by Canadians are unseen by Canadians. I look forward to a review of the Canadian film industry to be undertaken by the heritage committee in the new year.

Although government support for feature film development has increased over the years, it does not represent the major portion of the $250 million of Telefilm's budget. Over the years as technology evolved Telefilm has been assigned new responsibilities not by mandate nor legislative reform but by convention. These responsibilities are in other film related fields but fields not mandated through legislation to this agency. In fact, these activities are being done without a legal mandate, in some cases for over 20 years.

As its activities expanded the government directed more and more funds toward these non-legislated activities and not until the Auditor General identified these technical inconsistencies has the government acted to legalize these activities.

As the government stated earlier, through the parliamentary secretary, Bill C-18 simply places in law what it has been doing out of the legislative framework. Why does the government consistently disregard their responsibility for accountability in the use of taxpayers' dollars? The bill finally provides the legislative authority to expand Telefilm's mandate from only feature film into television programming, new media and sound recording.

Today we have an amendment to the act in response to the Auditor General's remarks, but this bill is only a first step. The ministry cannot plan to replace a real dialogue on the future of the film industry in Canada with only this exercise in housekeeping.

If the government were serious about governing and not only addressing inconsistencies when it is caught, this legislation would be bringing forward a new vision for Telefilm and not simply correcting the past. This bill should be part of a greater process. It should be part of the process of ensuring that Telefilm is relevant for the next 35 years, not simply catching up for the past 35 years.

Although Bill C-18 is better than the status quo, it is a housekeeping bill which I believe should lead to a bigger process, a process that we have been demanding in so many of the broadcasting and cultural areas.

As the parliamentary secretary stated, a review is called for, if only the government would determine its priorities. If Bill C-18 is bringing into the legislative framework activities the government has allowed it to carry on, we wonder what other activities the government is allowing to be carried on outside of the legislative framework.

What will happen to Telefilm in the future? What will happen to Telefilm Canada if its television production support program is now moved to the Canadian Television Fund to address the challenges faced by that fund? Will Telefilm's recent policy changes, to increase box office share by making movies with broader appeal, be maintained by its new executive director Wayne Clarkson?

In its annual report for 2003-04 the board of Telefilm itself also asks for a revision of the Telefilm Canada Act in order to modernize its framework and financial mechanism. Bill C-18 responds to that request. This bill is adequate for what it is, a first step. However, support for this bill should not imply that the challenges ahead have been met. There is more work to be done.

Now that Telefilm has been given a mandate that matches its activities, Canadians would like to be assured that Telefilm is not only acting in a way that is accountable to the Canadian, but that it is successful in meeting its mandate as well. The government is responsible for taking a leadership role. What Canadians need from our federal government is a vision and the courage to take hold of the future and to ensure that Canadian creators have a significant part to play in that future. I look forward to working on the future together with the creative and production community in Canada.

The audio visual industries are critical to Canada and each sector deserves the needed support through effective and meaningful programs. I find it interesting that the government has asked the opposition parties for support to convince the finance minister to ensure there is funding for the cultural communities. Support for the cultural communities was referred to in the throne speech. We would like to be convinced that not only are the cultural industries being supported by the minister and the parliamentary secretary, but by the entire government as well.

[Broadcasting Industry, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said she could not interfere and hid behind the independence of the CRTC when Canadians wanted Rai television and CHOI radio, yet she feels free to meddle with CBC programming.

Why is it necessary for a Liberal appointed president of CBC to ask the minister to stop interfering?