James Bezan

[Petitions, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions to the House today. The first petition has over 380 signatures on it.

The petitioners call upon the government to enact legislation to eliminate the goods and services tax charged on the federal excise tax on fuel and all other provincial and federal taxes in fuel costs and ensure that the charge on the GST be limited to only 85¢ a litre.

The second petition is signed by over 520 farmers and fishermen.

The petitioners call upon the government to enact legislation to eliminate the federal excise tax on diesel fuel and gasoline used in farming operations and commercial fisheries.

[Excise Tax Act, November 28th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-458, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (no excise tax on fuel for farmers and fishermen).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to introduce my private member's bill to eliminate the federal excise tax charged on fuel used in farming and in the fishing industry.

Farmers are in dire straits right now. If we can deliver a tax break on one of the largest farm inputs, it would help restore profits in the farming industry. Public policy has long dictated that tax should not be built into the cost of food to consumers, who enjoy high quality food products at affordable prices. Fishers in my riding of Selkirk--Interlake and across the country would benefit from the tax reduction on their inputs as well.

The bill would eliminate the 10¢ excise tax on gasoline and the 4¢ tax on diesel fuel used by fishermen and farmers. This would help lower the input cost to farmers who are currently selling many commodities at below the cost of production while absorbing years of losses caused by BSE, trade disputes, droughts, early frosts and flooding.

As the WTO tries to move toward greater liberalization of trade in agriculture, it is important that we develop policy that is viewed as WTO-green. This tax break would fit in perfectly. This initiative would allow farmers and fishermen to keep those dollars in their pockets.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the advocacy that my hon. colleague from across the way has constantly brought forward in the House in serious debates on agriculture, and also at the agriculture committee. She has been extremely knowledgeable. Often on issues of agriculture, her views were opposite to the beliefs of people in her party. She always advocated what she felt was best for the producers in Canada and in her riding.

The member went on in detail about how important these trade talks were. In her riding she has many producers who are involved in the grains, oilseeds and livestock sectors. Does the member believe the possibility exists that the WTO will bring forward a resolution that will benefit 100% of agriculture in the ongoing talks that have been taking place over the last few months and with the stonewalling of the European Union the last few weeks?

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I know you are not involved in egg production, coming from B.C., but I know that the parliamentary secretary has been involved in egg production. I just want to know if he feels that the Liberal government has addressed the issue of protecting supply management in the WTO talks.

Why does he feel that there is so much concern being raised here today? The Bloc motion is addressing the considered shortfall that is going to occur because supply management access to market here in Canada is being given away. I want to make sure that the parliamentary understands this. He has a vested interest in the supply management industry. I would ask whether or not the government has defended his family's interests on the family farm.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade is an egg farmer who has been involved in the supply management industry for quite some time. We are hearing here today that supply managed industries do not feel that the government has done enough in protecting their interests.

You sit in the Liberal caucus, so I am just wondering if you--

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that farmers have felt abandoned over the last number of years.

We have had three budgets brought forward in the last eight months and not one gave any more money to agriculture. The last two did not even mention it. We have a situation where farmers feel that they have been completely forgotten. They wonder why there is not any support coming. They wonder why there is not any leadership at the WTO.

As the third largest agriculture player in the world, we should be sitting at the table on those mini-ministerials laying out our position, advocating for farmers, and ensuring that we have a position where they are adequately protected and represented. That is not happening. Instead, we want to go behind closed doors and have little private discussions.

We cannot expect the Europeans, Americans, Brazilians, or Indians to say that Canada wants this and that they should bring that forward. That is not going to happen. If we are not at the table negotiating and advocating for our farmers, we will never have the opportunity again. We are abandoning our farmers by not being more active, more aggressive, and ensuring that we have a position where we are going to get the best for our producers.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that my hon. colleague is a great contributor to our agriculture committee and that she brings her farming background and experience to the committee's work at all times. I want to read what the Conservative Party passed as a resolution that came out of our meeting. It states:

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

We are 100% behind supply management. We have definitely benefited from the quality food products that are brought forward. I know, from experience, that the product price in the marketplace in Canada versus the United States is very similar. It has done a great job in ensuring that consumers are receiving a quality product at a reasonable and fair market value.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Central Nova.

Just to bring some clarity back into the discussion, I want to reiterate that the Conservative Party has 24 members here who are farmers or who have been involved in farming. I am one of those individuals who knows that having a successful WTO is going to be vital to the success of my family farm operation.

I also have experience in the dairy industry. I used to be a cattle buyer and used to buy cattle out of dairy farms. I saw how well the dairy industry succeeded because of supply management. We want to ensure that it continues, but there is no doubt that we have to have a successful conclusion to the World Trade Organization talks in Hong Kong. Talks may slide into next year, but we have to see this come to a successful resolution.

What we are saying here today is that Canada has to be a leader in this issue. We are the third largest agricultural exporter in the world and yet we are not sitting at the table. The mini-ministerials, the countries directing this discussion, are actually made up of five countries: the U.S.A., the European Union, Australia, Brazil and India. Canada is absent.

We are not there advocating for our farmers. We need to be there advocating that we need sensitive commodities protected where supply management fits in, and that we have to have a successful sensitive commodity definition. We have to have a successful guideline set out as to what percentage of commodities in any given country are allowed to be filed that way and we are not advocating that. We are doing it all through back doors, but we are not being up front and open about it.

We also have to talk about our grains and oilseed producers, our ranchers and hog producers, who need to have increased opportunities from the World Trade Organization. As we heard here in the House today, and we talked about it often throughout this session, the farm income crisis is the worst in history.

The reason that the minister can stand up and say that the government has delivered so much money into farm hands over the last two years is because the crisis is so bad. Even with the money that has been coming out as support payments, we are still in negative margins. Farmers are not making any money.

We have to have a World Trade Organization result that will address the trade and production distorting subsidies that exist in other countries. That is why we have to be at the table with the European and the Americans to ensure that their trade distorting subsidies are removed.

We have to bring down their domestic support to a level that is comparable to what we have here in Canada. We have to ensure that their export subsidies are eliminated, that food aid is only used for actual food aid and not used to dump commodities into other markets like we see around the world and hold back development in those countries.

More important than anything else, we have to have market access. We have to ensure that our producers can access markets that are more profitable, so that we can sell commodities that we grow here and can export. Unfortunately, the motion does not address it. I would love to see the motion amended, so that not only are we committed to supply management but to all of agriculture.

As we stated earlier, only 10% of agriculture in Canada is dependent upon supply management and 90% is dependent upon access to foreign markets. We are exporters of 90% of what we produce, whether it is corn, wheat, barley, beef, pork or bison, we have to have those open markets. We have to ensure we have a successful WTO negotiation.

That is why we have to ensure that we provide direction to our negotiators, have an official Canadian position, and that the position should be that, first, we are supportive of supply management and we want to see it protected under sensitive commodity. Second, we are going to open markets, reduce subsidies and tariffs, and ensure that the rest of agriculture succeeds.

With that type of motion, 100% of agriculture would be taken care of and we would be addressing the entire issue that we want to see as a successful conclusion to the Doha round.

One thing we need to be concerned about, and this was reported today in the Ontario Farmer, is that back in July 2004, during WTO negotiations, there was already an agreement signed by the government that threatened overall supply management in egg, dairy and poultry producers. It committed Canada to reducing tariffs in proportion to reductions made by other countries.

What is said in the Ontario Farmer is that a 10% quota cut is coming down, which is essentially 10% more market access. Combine that with the 12% that we have already lost in imports because of poorly defined definitions out there in things like butter oils and caseinates. We are losing market share in those industries all the time. We have already lost 10% plus 12%, so it is already at 20% access to the supply managed industries. We need to find the tipping point.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from the Bloc, the agriculture critic, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, for his motion today, giving us this chance to again talk about a desperate situation that we have in agriculture and, really, the future of Canadian agriculture as it relates to the World Trade Organization.

As I mentioned earlier in the debate today, the huge concern that we have is that there has not been a Canadian position advocated for Canadian farmers. We do not what our position is regarding supply management. We do not know what our position is for our grain and oilseed producers and our livestock producers, whether hogs, cattle or bison. We are not sure where we are at when we are sitting around the table in Hong Kong, Geneva, Doha, Cancun, or Seattle. We have actually been just sitting in a quagmire of rhetoric, not knowing the true position.

We want more than just verbal support, and that is what we have been getting out of the government. We want real action and a real position advocated. The Liberal government had an opportunity to represent that at ministerials that were held throughout the last few years. Just as an example, back in March, there was a mini-ministerial that took place in Kenya and the government did not even bother showing up. Why? Because Liberals were holding their convention at that time.

I would like to state, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Central Nova, who will pick up after question period.

The real key here is that we have to ensure we have a firm Canadian position, so that the industry knows where the government is headed. We want to know what the negotiators are working from as their base when they go into negotiations. We have to remember that the WTO is a negotiation. It is a poker game and there will be give and take, but we want to ensure that the parameters are laid out. That is essentially what we are asking for here, that the parameters are set.

Agriculture has been an integral part of rural Canada. It is an integral part of urban Canada, as well. Spinoff jobs occur in grocery stores, food processing, packing plants, refrigeration companies, and trucking companies. These are all tied to agriculture. Jobs in mills, distilleries and ethanol plants are all based upon agriculture. We have to ensure that we have these opportunities to hold government to account when we start talking about a trade relationship.

I will continue this discussion after question period, so that we can more formalize the discussion around the World Trade Organization talks.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for her intervention in today's debate. It is a very important debate about how important agriculture is in Canada.

All parties in the House have reiterated time and time again that we are committed to the supply managed sector, that we want to support and strengthen our dairy industry, egg industry, chicken and turkey industries, and ensure that those industries remain viable for a long, long time.

The one problem I have with the motion is that it is forgetting about the rest of the agriculture industry. About 90% of agriculture in Canada is based upon free trade. It is based upon industries like grain and oilseed producers, hog farmers, cow-calf operators, feedlot operators and ranchers right across this country.

Some 60% of farmers in Quebec depend upon non-supply managed commodities like grains and oilseeds. I would like to ask the hon. member from the Bloc, is she prepared to take a look at a negotiating stance that also supports those producers who so desperately need a strong position to be taken by the government in the negotiations in Hong Kong that are coming up in December?