Diane Finley

[Intergenerational Transfer of Farms, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to speak to the motion that seeks to make the intergenerational transfer of farms easier for everyone.

The statistics do not lie. In the past decade the number of farms has drastically declined. This is not because farm couples are not having children. It is because increasingly it is financially impossible for those couples to pass the farm on to their children.

For many families, the farm assets are the only savings they have. They do not have a pension plan. They do not have RRSPs. Their life savings are tied up in the farm. In order to retire, as most Canadians do and deserve to do, sadly, they must sell the farm and its assets to an outside party.

This motion addresses only one of the many challenges that face rural Canada. These challenges are only made worse by the Liberal urban-minded government. Ordinary goods and services that urban Canadians do not think about twice have become luxuries for too many rural Canadians. I am speaking of the availability of such things as health care, postal services, infrastructure and protection from crime.

Our rural communities are finding it tough to attract doctors and even tougher to attract specialists, especially when we do not have the sophisticated diagnostic tools to which these doctors have ready access in the big cities.

Postal service is something that most Canadians do not think twice about. This is not the case in my riding however where I am fighting to maintain or restore rural postal service in not one but three of our communities. Despite the government's pledge in 1994 not to close rural post offices, 50 of them have been closed in the last four years.

The minister responsible for Canada Post tried to convince the House on February 23 of this year that there was no such plan to close 750 rural post offices. However, as we know, they are being closed in Atlantic Canada, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and they are being closed in Haldimand--Norfolk.

We should not be fooled. The same minister has been quoted defending the closures, the ones he says are not happening, because, as he sees it, “even grandmothers send birthday messages electronically”. Perhaps it is difficult for that urban member to understand that there are many homes in Canada that do not even have access to the Internet much less the skills to use it.

The government claims that there is a moratorium on post office closures while Canada Post says that it is in fact closing them. I am not going to stand by and believe the Liberal government when it says that something is not happening and it is in fact happening right before my very eyes.

It is no wonder that our farm families are having a hard time convincing their children to take over the farm. Aside from the fact that they cannot afford to, the quality of life in many of these communities is being degraded to the point where we have to wonder if the government is doing it on purpose.

When we talk about defending rural Canada, I am not talking just about the sustainability of individual farms and the succession of those farms to future generations. I am talking about the sustainability of the communities of which these farms are part. It is a task that the federal government must be willing to take on, one that a Conservative government will make a priority and achieve.

Rural Canadians deserve basics and necessities just like any other Canadian. They deserve infrastructure, safe communities and a healthy way of life. Anything less is a sign of inequality in this country and, in effect, is an insult to all Canadians.

Good roads are something that we see everywhere in the cities. They are, however, becoming a luxury in my neck of the woods. My rural riding of Haldimand--Norfolk is home to hard-working, innovative entrepreneurs but they need roads. They need four lane highways that will allow companies to bring in materials for manufacture or processing. They need those roads to ship out their finished goods. They need communications networks and adequate hydro transmission lines.

My constituents need an environment that is friendly toward business, not one that forces them to close up shop and move to Mexico, as my area is about to face with the withdrawal from this country of Imperial Tobacco.

Jobs are being lost and this is only the tip of the iceberg. The real challenge for my constituents will be the loss of the farms that this closure by Imperial Tobacco will result in and the negative spinoffs that will be created.

The tobacco farmers of Haldimand—Norfolk have only one more harvest assured to them and then they may be left without a buyer. Canadian smokers will not be smoking Canadian cigarettes. They will be smoking offshore tobacco with who knows what chemicals in it. Canadian tobacco farmers will be left with nothing but non-transferrable, heavily financed equipment.

There are crops that can be grown in this sandy soil but there is no assistance for these producers to transition into specialty crops or to transfer their farms to the children so that they may do so. For this reason and for other farmers across Canada facing similar challenges, I welcome this motion today and I support the goal it intends to achieve.

The average age of farmers is increasing and our young people cannot afford to get into this business. Many of them are having to leave the farm and our rural communities. Existing large farms and farming corporations are in much better financial positions to purchase the farm assets and quotas of retiring farmers.

Do not get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with efficiency resulting from large economies of scale, but I do have some concerns about this bill. It is the family farm, not the corporate one, that will preserve traditions and values. It is the family farm, not the corporate one, that will participate in our communities and improve them for future generations.

While technology improves the efficiency of our farms, it is still a very labour intensive industry in many cases. Regardless of the size or ownership of a farm, our communities need the basics that I have talked about to sustain the workers needed to produce our food. After all, without our farmers who is going to feed us? Who in the world would Canadians trust to feed us if not our farmers, and I mean our farmers. We must do everything we can to help our farmers stay in business, especially our family farms.

Today's motion seeks to make the transfer of farm assets more affordable for our farm families. The Conservative Party of Canada supports some of the specifics of this motion. We recognize the need for the federal government to take concrete steps to promote the intergenerational transfer of farms. However, that being said, any actions taken by the federal government in this regard must be fiscally responsible and within the federal government's capacity.

I would now like to address the issue of RRSPs and farmers. It is known that most farmers do not have RRSPs for, as I mentioned earlier, the bulk of their savings are tied up on the farm. However there are some producers who do.

The Canadian home buyers' plan provides an option of using RRSPs to purchase a house if it is a first time buy. However farmers cannot use their RRSPs to acquire ownership of a residence on a farm because the residence is considered to be a farm asset and is part of an agricultural business.

This motion today seeks to give farmers the same option that other Canadians have, that is, using the capital that they have invested in their RRSPs to acquire a home that is now classified as a farm asset. This is only fair. For those producers who do not have RRSPs, the establishment of an agricultural savings plan is a novel idea, a tax friendly concept that a Conservative government would welcome discussion on.

Enabling farmers to accumulate tax sheltered retirement funds could have the greatest effect on farm successions. By promoting the accumulation of farmers' retirement savings in a fund that is independent of farm capital, farmers may have the ability to accumulate enough savings to retire.This would allow them to enter into more favourable financial arrangements with potential young successors without compromising their own financial security.

In regard to transferring funds to the provinces to promote the transfer of farms, we in the Conservative Party understand that agriculture is a shared jurisdiction of the federal government and the provinces. This section may require an amendment to the agricultural policy framework. Such amendments require the agreement of two-thirds of the provinces representing 50% of Canadian agricultural production.

I close by assuring all of Canada's hard-working resilient farm families that their next government, a Conservative government, will welcome discussion with the provinces to improve rural Canada and its way of life.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard of trade distortion, but that was a classic example that really set a new record.

What I said in July in the letter was perfectly consistent. I do not understand how the hon. member across the way would pretend to defend supply management if he were to walk away from the table, which is what he is suggesting I should do. If we are going to protect people in negotiations, we have to be at the table. We cannot defend them by walking away, because who would be there to defend their interests? No one. It is in everybody's best interests to remain at the table and continue with the negotiations, not to take a hard-line position, throw a hissy fit and walk out. That will not accomplish anything for anyone. For the hon. member to suggest otherwise indicates that he does not understand the sophistication of this process.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure that we have all the details and that we do not just look at one aspect of the negotiations.

I had the opportunity to be involved in a number of different negotiations in my career prior to entering this House. We must always keep the perspective of the big picture. We must pay attention to the details but look at the whole picture. If we talk about one issue like this in isolation, we are not considering the broader picture. We have to make sure that we look at the whole picture; otherwise, we would just be chiselling away at ourselves. This is just common sense in any negotiation.

To discuss any one particular phase, as the hon. member is asking me to do, would be irresponsible without looking at what else is happening in terms of market access that is being granted to us and what our counterparts in Europe and the U.S. would be doing. Already over the last 12 years we have accelerated the decrease in our tariffs whereas they have not kept up. We have to make sure that Europe and the U.S. accelerate their timelines to catch up with us.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I wish to advise the House that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Macleod.

I rise today to speak to an issue that concerns all agricultural producers in our country. That is the critical importance of positive outcomes from the current Doha round of negotiations at the WTO. All sectors of our agricultural community are anxiously awaiting the results of this current round of talks. Enough cannot be said about how much is on the line for all sectors of agriculture in this round. In fact, all sectors of agriculture in the country deserve our support, and I mean every one of them.

I am pleased to be part of a caucus that is determined and committed to supporting and defending all Canadian farmers.

Why are we here today? The WTO negotiations are underway and producers in all sectors should feel secure that their concerns and priorities are being kept in mind by their government. For the record, I wish to make clear what the Conservative Party position is in this round of negotiations.

The Conservative Party of Canada supports the goals of the Doha round, those being substantial improvements in market access, the phasing out of export subsidies and substantial reductions in trade distorting domestic support. This position is affirmed in the Conservative Party's international trade policy, which reads:

In future rounds of trade negotiations, a Conservative Government will vigorously pursue reduction of international trade barriers and tariffs. A Conservative Government will pursue the elimination of trade-distorting government export subsidies within clearly established time limits. A Conservative Government will seek a clear definition of what constitutes an export subsidy.

The Conservative Party is also strongly in support of supply management. This support is reflected in our party policy, which states:

The Conservative Party of Canada believes it is in the best interest of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. A Conservative government will support the goal of supply management to deliver a high quality product to consumers for a fair price with a reasonable return to the producer.

Furthermore, our leader, the member for Calgary Southwest, has expressed his strong support for supply management by signing a declaration in support of this system.

Producers under supply management should know that the Conservative Party will continue to stand by dairy, poultry and egg producers. Further to that, we also passed a resolution at our convention in Montreal that forms our party's guiding principles when dealing with agricultural issues. It forms the foundation for how we will deal with agriculture in the future. It states:

The Conservative Party views the agriculture industry to be a key strategic economic sector of Canada. We recognize that various regions of Canada and sectors of the industry hold competitive advantages in agricultural production. National agricultural policy will reflect our belief that one size does not fit all.

When it comes to that last bit about one size does not fit all, I will explain that. I am sure at some point or another members have been in one of the fancy hotels where they provide nice fluffy robes. Unfortunately, no matter whether it is the member and his or her spouse who check in, the hotel only provides one robe, but it says that one size fits all. On average, it probably does fit, but it may be too small for the member and too big for the spouse. Really it suits no one but on average it fits everyone.

This is our approach to Conservative agricultural policy. One size, one solution will not fit all. We have to recognize that as we develop solutions, they must be tailored to the needs of the various sectors of the agricultural industry. We will recognize that when we form government.

Canada's agriculture sectors are as diverse as Canada itself, and I believe our policy reflects that. It is in light of this diversity that we wish to work, and are trying to work, with our Bloc colleagues on an amendment to the motion that would reflect the wide diversity of agricultural interests in Canada and in Quebec.

The amendment we will be seeking is intended to protect producers under supply management, while seeking the enhancement of agricultural exports that are so needed by so many sectors in our country. I am not talking just about the grains and oilseeds, or the corn producers, or cattle producers or any others, I also am talking about those producers who operate under supply management.

In my riding of Haldimand--Norfolk I have been approached by many producers, many dairy farmers, who were very frustrated by the closure of the border to the U.S. as a result of BSE. Even though they are supply managed, they depend heavily on exports of their replacement heifers. There also is the issue of several other products from supply management that these producers want to export to increase their production and therefore their profitability.

When we talk about supporting the export-oriented agricultural producers, we include the dairy and the poultry producers, all those under supply management, in this category.

We know no one agricultural sector wants to profit at the expense of another and regardless of the sector, agricultural or other, Canadians deserve to be treated with respect by their government. They should have confidence that their representatives will stand tall for them and stay true to their commitments.

We will not be drawn into a discussion of the merits of one sector over another, but this whole thing boils down to accountability. The biggest challenge that supply management faces is the international pressure to reduce tariffs on all agricultural commodities. Without tariffs, Canada's supply managed industries are unable to predict the amount of imports and the whole system is disturbed. Predictability is a key component of supply management and that is managed through the board of controls, one of the three pillars of supply management.

During this round of talks at WTO, the Prime Minister and his Liberals are once again promising to protect supply management. Frankly, based on the record of the Liberals and their complete lack of accountability, as demonstrated most glaringly by the sponsorship scandal, I have to wonder if Canadian dairy, poultry and egg producers can trust them.

The last time around, Liberals sold out Canada's farmers by signing away article XI which protected the industry with quantitative import restrictions. These were replaced with tariffs which have proven to be a failure in protecting Canadian producers from international competition. A case in point is we are witnessing substitute products designed to get around the tariffs, displacing Canadian dairy products in the production of ice cream.

Again, I cannot reiterate the critical importance of ensuring that all Canadian agricultural producers are fairly represented at the WTO so as to ensure that their best interests are looked after.

My concern is, having spoken with a number of producers in Haldimand--Norfolk, they are very frustrated. It is true that they need more access, but our supply managed farmers have seen over the last 12 years various components in protection measurements of supply management chiseled away at, like water eroding a rock. It does not happen overnight, but a lot of damage can be done over time. They recognize now it is not a coincidence that this erosion has taken place over 12 years, the same amount of time the Liberal government has been in power. That is too much of a coincidence.

The Liberal government has been at the negotiations, conducting the negotiations and selling supply management out at those negotiations. It is one more example of the low regard with which the Liberal government holds agriculture across this country. We have seen it in many ways. We have seen them poke the U.S. in the eye with a stick on one issue and then ask for a favour on the BSE.

We were scheduled to have a debate this evening on the very real crisis in farm incomes, but it had to be cancelled at the request of the Liberal government.

These negotiations in the Doha round are important to all Canadians, not just our farmers. One in eight Canadian jobs is a result of agricultural production. That is how important this is.

[Agriculture, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is the promises that are at a record high level. The Liberals do not deliver.

On Monday the government of Alberta announced changes to the CAIS program that will allow producers in that province a choice of how to calculate the reference margin. Will the minister commit today in the House to follow Alberta's lead and offer the same choice in the six provinces where the program is administered by the federal government? If not, why not?

[Agriculture, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, true to form, this government abandoned farmers in its mini-budget. Yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food referred to the money that he promised farmers. However, the reality is that farmers are facing an annual shortfall of $2 billion.

The minister is giving himself an “A” for his announcement. Will he admit that he deserves a “D” when it comes to distributing the money?

[Agriculture, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Liberal campaign platform proves that the government has abandoned agriculture. This third budget of the year does not mention agriculture, not even once. The Liberals want to spend $40 billion, but not one penny of it will help anyone trying to scratch out a living by feeding our nation.

Our farmers are in terrible straits and they need help now, but the mini-budget is just an insult. Why has the government ignored farmers in its last two mini-budgets?

[Question No. 160, November 14th, 2005]

With regard to the funding of the 19 federal agricultural research stations in Canada: ( a ) for each fiscal year, between 1995 and 2005: (i) what was the total amount of research funding transferred by the government to each of the 19 agriculture research stations, (ii) what was the total level of staffing and the composition of the staffing (i.e. the numbers of scientists, researchers, support staff and other staff) at each of the 19 agricultural research stations, (iii) what specific research projects were funded at the 19 agricultural research stations in Canada, (iv) how much of the research funds were dedicated to each of the research projects, (v) what percentage of the research funding to each of the 19 agricultural research stations was dedicated to resource research, plant research, animal research, and food and value-added research; and ( b ) for each fiscal year, between 1995 and 2005, what percentage of the research funding to each of the 19 agricultural research stations was dedicated to other categories of agricultural and/or agri-food research?

(Return tabled)

[Justice, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government is responsible for crime being exported from the big cities to our nation's rural communities.

We now have marijuana grow-ops, even in Haldimand--Norfolk. Why? Because the government's lax laws and weak sentences have taught criminals that it is worthwhile to target small towns.

The Liberals naturally try to escape responsibility for their own misdeeds, and now they are also allowing the gangs and drug dealers who are ruining communities and killing Canadians to escape justice. Canadians want mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug dealers, gunmen and the perpetrators of serious violent crimes. They do not want a justice minister promising social programs.

Canadians will hold the government accountable for the Liberal use of home jail and house arrest for repeat and violent offenders.

[Spirit Drinks Trade Act, November 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I heard some very interesting points in the hon. member's speech. He has referred to bottle labeling. There is already pressure on behalf of clear labelling of the alcohol content of wines and spirits. The hon. member has called for more information on the label. I would like to ask him what else he wants on there?