36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 30
CONTENTS
Monday, November 29, 1999
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| GLOBALIZATION OF ECONOMIES
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Motion
|
1105
1110
1115
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1120
1125
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1130
1135
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1140
1145
| Mr. André Bachand |
1150
1155
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1200
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
|
| Bill C-13. Second reading
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1205
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1210
1215
1220
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1225
1230
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1235
1240
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1245
1250
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1255
1300
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1305
1310
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1315
1320
| Mr. Ted White |
1325
1330
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1335
1340
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1345
1350
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NATURAL DISASTERS
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| NISGA'A TREATY
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| ROYAL CANADIAN ARMY CADETS
|
| Mr. George Proud |
1400
| VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| LAVAL UNIVERSITY ROUGE ET OR
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| LAVAL UNIVERSITY ROUGE ET OR
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1405
| CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| TEAM LIBERAL
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| THE GREY CUP
|
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1410
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| CULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| LAVAL UNIVERSITY ROUGE ET OR
|
| Mr. David Price |
1415
| NEW MEMBERS
|
| The Speaker |
| NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal)
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer)
|
| Mrs. Judy Sgro (York West)
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar)
|
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1420
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1445
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1450
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1455
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1500
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1505
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| PRISONS
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CANADIAN HEALTH NETWORK
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
1510
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TOBACCO
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| TREATIES RATIFIED IN 1989 AND 1990
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1515
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-387. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| The Family
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Equality
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| The Constitution
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Globalization
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1520
| Rights of the Child
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
|
| Bill C-13. Second reading
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1525
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1530
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1535
1540
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1545
1550
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1555
1600
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1620
1625
| Mr. David Chatters |
1630
1635
1640
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1645
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1650
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1655
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1715
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1720
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1725
1730
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1750
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1755
| Mr. John Bryden |
1800
1805
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1810
1815
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1820
1825
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
1830
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1835
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 30
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 29, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[Translation]
GLOBALIZATION OF ECONOMIES
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That this House strike a special parliamentary committee with
the specific objective of considering the repercussions of the
globalization of economies on governments' autonomy in
preserving social cohesiveness.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am most anxious to have an opportunity
to speak to day. I have alerted my colleagues to the fact that,
at the end of this hour of debate, they will have to reach a
decision, one that I consider quite important.
1105
I would remind my colleagues that during the debate I will be
providing them with a copy of the letter I sent to them last
Wednesday explaining the situation. The topic of today's debate
is of such importance to me that, on April 20, 1998, I took the
risk of laying my position as an MP on the line, in order to
make the public aware of the need for a public debate on the
issue addressed in today's motion.
When I carried my chair away with me, hon. members will recall
that I did so in order to provoke a debate on society's ability
to reduce the gap between rich and poor within a context of
global markets. Hon. members are aware, moreover, that this
situation seems to be getting worse.
Poverty is quietly but constantly increasing, while at the same
time the economy is growing without seeming to have any impact
on society.
My concern about this widening gap between rich and poor is
based on the threat this represents to social cohesion. I would
remind hon. members that social cohesion is the feeling of
solidarity that unifies all people regardless of their social
and economic status.
Last Wednesday, we celebrated—although celebrated hardly seems to be
the appropriate term—the tenth anniversary of parliament's choice
to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. After a decade,
after ten whole years, what has become of this? Poverty has not
even remained at the same level; it has increased.
Is it a matter of political will? I hope not, since the House
has said it wanted to eliminate this poverty. Is it a matter of
political power? That is the question. Are there certain
phenomena that take away governments' autonomy? The question
needs to be asked.
With political power being national, and the laws we pass here
being national, it is high time we realized that we are living
in a period of great change, as the economy is becoming a global
one. This is to be expected since in recent decades, thanks to
technological developments, access to transportation and
telecommunications is improved, thus reducing distances and
opening the door to incredible possibilities, including that of
trading with the rest of the world, which is now accessible to
us.
Trade and the economy are being globalized and the production of
wealth is increasing. These new approaches are not, however,
without consequence. There are positive aspects as well as more
negative ones. Would it, for example, be realistic to think
that national tax rules established by national governments are
increasingly difficult to apply in a global economy? I am not
the only one to think so, since the former secretary general of
the OECD, Kimon Valaskakis, said the following in La Presse on
October 29:
The principle of redistribution is at the very heart of ordinary
social policy in a country and is expressed in fiscal terms.
But since globalization, redistribution is much more difficult
to put into practice. On the national level, it imposes a
fairly high social cost.
The need to compete forces governments to reduce their payroll
taxes and thus their capacity to redistribute wealth, which in
turn increases inequities rather than reducing them.
There is another vital issue and that is the fact that we have
gone from an industrial economy to an economy 90% of which is
controlled by speculation, distorting to some degree the global
financial market as in the cases of the recent financial crises
in Mexico, Asia, Brazil and Russia. There seem to be economic
problems in terms of redistribution, but not in terms of the
creation of wealth. Are international authorities continuing to
respond to the needs of the people in these instances? Does
parliament, our national authority, continue to meet the needs
of the people?
In short, a lot of questions and issues remain to be analyzed,
since, whether we want it or not, globalization is here and
growing. And, whether we like it or we do not, we cannot ignore
it.
1110
This is why it is important to understand in order to act. Right
now certain things are becoming global, while others are not,
and this creates an imbalance.
Globalization may be unavoidable, but the way to achieve it is
not. It is still, I hope, under the control of democracies. It
is up to us to shape it, and this is why we must hold a public
debate to help everyone, particularly us parliamentarians, get a
better grasp of what is going on.
This is why I am in favour of establishing a process to consult
civil society, a means of thinking about this whole issue. With
a committee, we will have the benefit of the public's views.
I am not alone in this belief. This idea does have support. Over
50,000 people across the country—and not all from my
riding—signed the petition asking that a committee be struck,
asking that their elected representatives simply look at certain
issues. These 50,000 people are not asking for extraordinary tax
measures or for new legislation.
They are asking us their elected representatives to do our job.
They are asking us to reflect on the changes that we are
currently experiencing. This idea is also supported by over 200
organizations across the country and also, and perhaps more
importantly, by one third of the members of this House.
Indeed, 100 members of parliament signed this document, asking
that the request be treated as a priority item in Private
Members Business.
If the signature of these members still means something in this
House, it would make sense to deal with this issue in a serious
fashion. I should also point out that these 100 members of
parliament represent all the parties in this House.
This issue should be treated as a priority. As I said, I am not
the only one who holds that view. I am not pro-Senate, like some
of my colleagues, but during its study on social cohesiveness,
the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and
Technology acknowledged that part of the difficulty in
addressing this issue is that much basic analytical and
empirical work on the consequences of globalization remains to
be done.
The committee has concluded that one of the next steps for
political leaders is to begin to give some objective
consideration to new ways of thinking and doing.
Some members will probably say that there is enough talk about
globalization. I admit that it comes up frequently; in fact, at
the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade, which dealt with the World Trade
Organization, we discussed globalization, except that we came at
it strictly from the point of view of trade and economic
competitiveness.
So, yes, I think it is a good idea to discuss it from this
angle. In fact, I congratulate the committee, which was
relatively open to all points of view. However, in the long
run, such a study must be accompanied by a more in-depth
examination of the social impacts of globalization.
In my view, there cannot be one without the other. They go hand
in hand. We are on the eve of a very important day, the
beginning of what I would describe as another step towards
globalization—the WTO talks. And yet, many people throughout the
world right now, including people in Montreal, seem inclined to
oppose the talks and to call for a moratorium.
I do not know who is right, but what I do know is that there is
a widening gap between our political positions and what society
in general thinks and, therefore, striking such a committee
would be a useful means of engaging in a collective dialogue, so
that we will all be on the same wavelength.
We must take this opportunity and show leadership
internationally, because the possible solutions suggested by
such a committee could eventually be implemented worldwide.
1115
Besides, would the Minister of Finance, as the chairman of the
new G-20, not profit from the establishment of this parliamentary
committee, since he could benefit from the expertise provided by
the representatives of the civil society who would come before
the committee to be heard? This form of consultation is in
direct agreement with the goals of the G-20 countries which, I
remind the hon. members, are committed to making every effort
needed to turn the benefits of globalization into increased
incomes and better opportunities for their peoples.
We have a problem here today. In spite of the obvious support
from the population and the parliamentarians, in spite of the
fact that the motion and the issue have never been more topical,
and in spite of the fact that the motion meets all the criteria
for the selection of votable items, because of outdated,
anachronistic, outmoded and ill adapted parliamentary
procedures, Motion M-41 was not selected as a votable item on
account of prerogatives related to quotas and random draw.
Clearly, if we cannot vote on the motion, it will automatically
be dropped from the Order Paper. This would be like throwing it
in the trash can. I do not want to put the parliamentary system
on trial today, but I do know that a good many members realize
that a reform of this institution would be a good thing. But
this is not the issue.
What is important is that, even now, members present in the
House have the opportunity to reverse this decision. We have the
opportunity to correct this technical incident simply by
supporting my request for unanimous consent.
I will first listen what my colleagues present here have to say.
Meanwhile, I will send them a copy of the letter that I sent
them last Wednesday, on the 10th anniversary of the motion on
poverty. If, because of a translation problem, they were unable
to understand everything I said, I hope they will read it.
During the last five minutes, when I avail myself of my right to
reply, I will try to answer my colleagues and I will also ask
for the unanimous consent of the House to allow two more hours
of debate on this motion, because it deserves further
examination.
I will ask that it be deemed votable, so we can, as members of
parliament, do our duty, which is to make decisions. It is sad
that members of parliament sometimes deprive themselves of the
power to make decisions and to vote.
In short, my goal today is not to condemn the parliamentary
system. I have other colleagues, especially the member for
Longueuil, who are considering that issue.
What is important is to be aware of the social changes we are
experiencing. I am not the only one to say this. The Senate
report says this. Petitioners say this. Parliamentarians and
experts from all over say this. I could go on for another hour
about all the people who have expressed support for this motion.
I want the House to prove to me that we can save face in this
parliament. Prove to me that there is still democracy in this
country. I want the House to prove to me that this authority,
the parliament, can still respond to the current expectations
and the expectations of the citizens. It is as if everyone in an
olympic stadium were asking us to take an issue into
consideration.
I will listen to what my colleagues have to say and then I will
ask them a question.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to thank the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean for raising this
issue, which is of the utmost importance to all Canadians.
Increasingly, the world's economy is becoming a global one.
International trade is increasing in a phenomenal manner.
Never in the history of the world has foreign investment been so
important, nor has it ever moved as quickly as during the 1990s.
Canada being a small country with an open economy, a
significant percentage of which is trade-related, it is obviously
affected by this economic and financial change.
[English]
Globalization poses many challenges, one of which the hon.
member rightly knows, and that is the government's capacity to
promote social cohesion. Social cohesion has been a research
priority of the government for some time, consistent with the
need to understand well the changing world around us.
1120
A great deal of research on this issue has already been
published by the policy research initiative, PRI, a network of
government departments and Canadian academics established by the
government in 1996 to identify and address issues likely to
affect Canadian society in the near future.
Globalization offers great opportunities for growth and
prosperity for smaller economies like Canada's. They will be
given access to domestic markets much larger than their own,
providing a level of prosperity through export that is not
attainable without trade. At the same time consumers gain access
to goods and services from around the world at a lower cost than
would otherwise be possible. Canada is a leader in international
trade and prospers because of it. Our outward orientation as
measured by two way trade and investment flows has risen
dramatically.
In addition, Canada exports as well as imports large amounts of
capital. For instance, in 1998 the inward and outward foreign
direct investment stocks accounted for 24.2% and 26.8% of
Canadian GDP respectively, a significant increase from levels
only 10 years earlier. Canadians benefit from this increased
capital movement as capital exports allow Canadians to get the
highest returns on their investments while capital imports
provide employment and fuller use of our resources.
In particular, our trade and economic integration with the
United States, our largest trading partner by far, has increased
dramatically. Net exports to the United States have made a very
important contribution to the near 3% average annual real output
growth and the over 1.3 million jobs created in Canada in the
last five years. Furthermore, our continued strong trade
performance is one reason the International Monetary Fund expects
Canada to lead in employment growth and to have the second
fastest output growth in the G-7 in 1999 and 2000.
[Translation]
Yet at the same time the rapidity of technological change is
bringing people from all parts of the globe closer together, so
much so that the competition for markets, for material and human
resources and for activities relating to innovation and
technology will be more and more keen.
Consequently, in order to reap the potential benefits of these
new technologies and of trade in general, businesses and
governments will need to be extremely competitive and to handle
the challenges of the intense international competition and the
pressures in favour of structural adjustment in the right way.
[English]
International harmonization of trade related policies is a key
element in facilitating fair competition and promoting highly
competitive and well managed firms. It underpins economic
integration and helps to establish the framework needed for
expanding economic relations and increased commercial
opportunities.
Harmonization of policies that affect trade can be of great
benefit to Canada as it promotes fairer competition and
contributes to increased competitiveness in industry and greater
access to foreign markets. However, pressure to harmonize
policies in these areas also raises concerns about government
autonomy in areas of social policy. Or, stated another way,
there are some who fear that the only way we can remain
competitive with countries such as the U.S. is to accept U.S.
style social policies and inequalities.
Canada has continued to maintain social policies that are
substantially different from those of our largest trading
partner. Canada has invested more than a century in building a
social infrastructure that today is considered among the best in
the world. The system of social support includes universal
medicare, more generous safety nets and job training support than
those available in the U.S.
By protecting and improving our social programs we may attract
foreign investment, not drive it away. The relatively lower cost
of the Canadian medicare system in particular and features of the
unemployment insurance system, together with Canada's supportive
system of social services and well run cities and municipalities,
have historically been a locational competitive advantage for
Canada. Thus, if pressure to harmonize social policies exist, it
may be on other countries to match those of Canada.
This is not to say that Canada does not face some serious
structural challenges. However, it does suggest that if we
approach these challenges with imagination and vision we can
ensure that global economic integration does not mean sacrificing
what it means to be Canadian. Developing this vision is a
responsibility that the government takes very seriously.
1125
That is why the policy research initiative, PRI, was launched in
1996 by the government. The initiative brings together over 30
federal departments and agencies, as well as a number of leading
Canadian academics.
[Translation]
As a result, the PRI has provided parliament and Canadians in
general with informed advice on a large number of multi-faceted
questions, in detailed reports, public reports and minutes of
meetings, all of which are available to the public via the
Internet, as well as to all hon. members of this House.
[English]
Two key issues the PRI is currently looking at relating to
globalization and social cohesion are what will be the effects of
pressures toward regulatory convergence over time, specifically
how will this affect such issues as tax and environmental policy,
health care and pensions, and how the FTA and NAFTA has affected
Canadian autonomy and sovereignty in particular with respect to
policy making capacity.
The analysis of the impact of globalization on social cohesion
has been further strengthened by the work of the social cohesion
network, one of four networks established under the PRI umbrella.
This virtual network of electronically linked researchers was set
up to assess the state of social cohesion in Canada. This social
cohesion network has found that a certain measure of social
cohesion is conducive to investment, both foreign and domestic.
It has also found that social cohesion can increase productivity.
[Translation]
The PRI has therefore established that the combined effects of
globalization and our social cohesion might have a somewhat
positive impact on Canada.
[English]
The PRI work is shedding light on how government can support
social cohesion. In the context of the global knowledge based
economy, government increasingly must make a strong effort to
explain its new role as facilitator and as an enabling partner
with other sectors of society and to act as a non-financial
broker of ideas and unifying national projects.
Based on the evidence to date and with the continuing work, I do
not believe that a standing committee on globalization,
government autonomy and social cohesion is required at this time.
The all party parliamentary business committee, the subcommittee
of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs,
determined that this motion should be non-votable.
I applaud the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
[Translation]
He was elected at the same time I was. I congratulate him on
his motion.
[English]
It is because of the reasons I have stated. Although this
initiative is very important and I congratulate him, I would ask
that the House not support this motion being votable.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean. His motion deals with the repercussions of
globalization on economies of the world and certainly the concept
of preserving social cohesiveness in the countries so affected.
The hon. member does not seem to be entirely in favour of
globalization in his motion. He uses as his example the motion
passed in parliament in 1989 regarding the eradication of child
poverty. The Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives have
both been in government since that date. I note that child
poverty has been raised in the House and is now considered to be
a more serious issue than it was even at that time.
The problem solving of those two governments has ended with them
blaming others and now blaming globalization for the failure of
their domestic policies on child poverty. I would hope that in
the future that we will have another debate on child poverty. The
Reform way of dealing with major issues like that one and social
issues which have a domestic solution to them is to set out clear
and concise steps that can be taken, are measurable and will
result in a solution.
Many people are throwing around the term globalization. I think
there is an unclear concept of what is globalization. Special
interest groups, for instance the Council of Canadians, have a
very closed concept of what globalization should mean.
To them it seems like globalization means that Canada should have
rules in the world for other nations to follow, that Canada
should be able to protect its national interest and be relatively
isolationist if it cannot dictate rules to other people. That
way Canada would be able to protect its civil society and its
concept of how the world should be run. It is the concept of
government knows best, which is a detraction from free trade in
the world.
1130
My definition of globalization is simply that it is the
interaction of people of different nations in all aspects of the
human existence, which would include trade as one of the major
components.
Globalization is neither inherently good nor bad. It is simply
a fact. Globalization has been with us since the beginning of
man in Africa many millions of years ago. Globalization is, as I
said, most obvious in the trade of goods and services between
nations. The most successful nations of the world have always
been those which are successful in trading with their neighbours.
Since the second world war there have been eight rounds of
world trade talks. The talks which are beginning in Seattle
represent the ninth round. We can only hope that those talks
will be successful.
The first half of this century saw two world wars. At that time
trade and empires were built on the foundation of force. The
second half of this century has seen no world wars. This is no
doubt due in large part to the interaction of nations on an
economic level through trade as opposed to the isolationist and
self-sufficient concept which many nations have.
North Korea is the best example of the danger to the stability
of a region, and ultimately to the whole world, due to its
socialistic and isolationist policies. It tried very hard to be
self-sufficient without trading. We saw the disaster that has
had, not only on the country but on its neighbours, as it felt
the need to have missiles instead of trade agreements settle
disputes.
I would now like to speak specifically about the agricultural
component of our trade talks that are starting in Seattle. Supply
management is an important part of Canadian agriculture. Prior to
the 1993 conclusion of the Uruguay round, supply management was
clearly a domestic industry, not participating in the world
trading scene through the use of highly restrictive import
quotas. The Progressive Conservatives began the process of
trading away the status quo of supply management when they
negotiated the changes to import tariffs, designed to be reduced
ultimately to zero. The Liberals were part of the final
negotiations, and on being elected in 1993, signed the agreement.
Both parties have tried to put forth the conception that they
will defend supply management to the end. The Liberals in
particular have stated this concept. I do not know if farmers
really believe that the government's promises will be kept. The
Reform Party supports supply management and is unequivocal in
telling the government that it is not to reduce our tariffs at a
rate faster than the U.S. and the EU reduce their protectionist
measures of the supply management sector, in particular the dairy
sector.
I note that this motion seems to have two components. I think
that one part of the motion certainly has some merit in the idea
that a committee should be struck to look at the impacts of the
fur trade, for example, and the whole globalization issue and the
interaction of peoples around the world. I think it would be
good for parliament to have such a committee.
However, I am concerned that the real purpose of this motion is
to block further gains at the next round of World Trade
Organization talks. We can only look at what is happening in
Seattle at this very moment. Apparently there are in the
neighbourhood of 50,000 protesters at the talks who have the
stated goal of disrupting and ending the talks.
Certainly the David Suzuki-type environmentalists are there. The
Council of Canadians with its socialist activities is going to
have it its way or no way. I think the world should simply look
at these groups and say “You folks have had your say, but you
are not going to have your way and impose your concept of trade
on the whole world”. I am sure that is where it will end and
that saner heads will prevail.
1135
It has been stated many times in the past that Canada is a
trading nation. Statistics tell us that 43% of Canada's gross
domestic product is earned from trade exports. In the U.S. the
percentage of trade is 12% of its gross domestic product. This
means that we in Canada rely to a greater extent on trade than
many other nations. As a result, the Seattle talks of the World
Trade Organization are of great importance.
I am certainly pleased to see that China has agreed to become
part of the world trade talks and that other countries have
welcomed it. As I stated earlier, the danger of not having every
country involved in these talks is great.
Our farmers are currently in the middle of an income crisis.
The primary cause of this crisis is the subsidies of the European
Union and the United States which cause the overproduction of
many commodities. European wheat farmers, for example, receive
56% of their income from government and in the U.S. it is around
38%.
Reform's position on agriculture in the next round of WTO talks,
to put it succinctly, is that we want to allow Canadian farmers
and the Canadian food industry to reach their full potential. We
will vigorously seek to free entry of Canadian products into
foreign markets. That is what we are pressing the government to
do. We should accept nothing less than having subsidies in other
countries reduced. That will have the effect of lowering
production around the world of certain commodities, in particular
export grains. With that lower production prices will go up and
our farmers will have the level playing field that is so
important to our economic well-being.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I cannot tell you how thrilled I am to
participate in the debate today. As we debate the issues of
globalization here in the House of Commons, trade meetings are
being held on the west coast of North America. We are at a very
historic point in the evolution of our economy, our culture and
our history.
Let us acknowledge what the WTO is. It is a group of faceless
bureaucrats, meeting in secret, carving up the future of our
country with no input from the people of Canada.
My good friend from the Reform Party laments the fact that there
are 50,000 Canadians in Seattle because they know that the best
interests of the people of Canada are not being represented at
the table.
Why do we know that? Because we have in the back of our minds
as we participate in today's debate the MAI. Right up until the
11th hour, faceless bureaucrats meeting in Europe, in secret,
were about to rip apart the sovereignty of our country, along
with every other country, until the people stood and said “What
on earth is going on over there? Are we as a people, through our
government, going to have our hands tied behind our backs when it
comes to making future decisions to protect the rights and
welfare of Canadians?”
The answer to that was “Absolutely”. There was a massive
public reaction across the country. People who identified the
issues of the MAI for the first time came out and said “We have
got to get off this mad train”.
Governments of the world were forced to back off. It was not led
by our government, it was led by France, which said that it would
not participate any further in the talks if culture was on the
table. Canada never said that. At least I did not hear it.
1140
Faceless bureaucrats damn near dealt away the future of our
country in Europe just a few months ago. The people of Canada
and others across the country rose up in opposition and the
politicians, who can hear ballots dropping thousands of miles
away, said “Hold it. We have to do a better PR exercise on
this”. They backed off and they said “We will be back”, and
they will be back in Seattle as of tomorrow morning with the same
sort of mentality that the people rejected under the MAI.
Let us face it, when we talk about globalization we are also
talking about the impact of the NAFTA. We are extending the
provisions of the NAFTA to more than 100 nations. Where do the
people of Canada stand on the NAFTA? Do they support the NAFTA?
They opposed it under the Mulroney government. They opposed it
under the Liberal government. Whenever the people of Canada have
had an opportunity to register their view of the North American
free trade agreement they have rejected it. Here we are, the
NAFTA cheerleaders again, after the government said to the people
of Canada that if it was elected it would not proceed with the
NAFTA as it was currently written, and it did. The government is
saying that the NAFTA deal is so good that it will include all
nations of the world.
As we sit here, Sun Belt Water Inc. of southern California is
suing the Canadian government for up to $10 billion because we
are not interested in exporting our water to the United States.
They are suing us because we agreed under the provisions of the
NAFTA to such a stupid clause. Is that clause going to be in the
next round of the WTO? I do not hear our minister saying that
they will get rid of that clause, that they are not going to
stand back and let foreign corporations sue the people of Canada
because we pass legislation in their best interests.
Where is our trade minister? I know he will be anxious at the
WTO to export our health care and education programs. If we
export our education programs and our health care, that means we
will have to open our borders to foreigners and watch their
initiatives in our country. What is fair for the goose is fair
for the gander. That is what our trade minister is telling us on
the eve of these negotiations.
We have demonstrators from coast to coast to coast saying “We
do not want to export our water”. Do we see legislation from
the government to close Canada's borders to the export of our
fresh water? Not a word.
What about our cultural industries? We have a long list
concerning what the government has not done to protect our
cultural sector.
Mr. Roy Cullen: What are they?
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friend asks “What are they?” If he
had the courage to ask a single person in a cultural industry,
and there are hundreds of thousands, how the government has let
down cultural industries, he would be listening for hours to the
concerns that legitimate people have.
Our friends in the Bloc say that we have to set up a committee
to look into this. It is almost too late, but let us at least go
along with that notion. We will support the idea of setting up a
committee to look into the impact of globalization. I say to my
friends opposite, what evidence do we have of the impact of
globalization? Is the world becoming a better place for most
people? The answer is no. The gap between those who have and
those who have not is drastically expanding, not only around the
world but in our own country as well. Never before has the gap
between rich and poor in Canada and the United States been
greater.
Is this protecting the 1.5 million children living in poverty?
The figures are increasing. There are a litany of issues. My
friends opposite represent the Government of Canada, which
represents the people of Canada. They represent the people of
Canada in every nook and cranny of the country. Madam Speaker,
that is why we are here, to represent the people of Canada. When
we listen to what the people of Canada are telling us today, are
they saying “Rush into the World Trade Organization, go to
Seattle and hold secret meetings about our future”? They are
not saying that at all, but there are some people who are saying
that. The elite of the country are saying that. For large
corporations, this is their day.
So far they are only stuck with Mexico, Canada and the United
States. Now they have the opportunity of involving 100-plus
other countries in the same deal to enable priorities to take
priority over the people of those countries.
1145
Somebody has to be on the side of people. Who is representing
the people of Canada? Who is representing the citizens of Canada
at these talks, because our government sure as heck is not. I
say that because the Liberals are such enthusiastic cheerleaders
when it comes to NAFTA. They now want NAFTA to include all of
North America and South America. They want to make this a
hemispherical deal because it is so good. So good for whom, for
the people or for the average citizen?
As we arrived at work on Parliament Hill this morning, we heard
on the news that corporations now want to come in and start
running private educational facilities. Americans want to come
in and start opening up our universities. They are saying that
if we subsidize the university and college system in this
country, they will consider this to be a major trade barrier.
They want us to back off the support for public education. Can
anyone imagine that they would want us to back off supporting our
colleges, universities and technical and vocational schools
across the country.
Somebody has to speak up for the people in the country. I heard
members on the other side of the House mumbling about trade this
and trade that. My friend in the Reform Party says that we are a
great trading nation. Of course we are a great trading nation.
We are one of the greatest trading nations in the world. We have
been for many decades.
I get so infuriated with the Reform Party. The Reform Party
says that we have to have two things. We either have to bow down
and pray on the steps of the North America trade agreement or the
WTO, or we have to get down on our hands and knees and say that
whatever they want they should get. The other one says that we
have to build some kind of a wall around Canada.
There is a compromise. We have to protect the human rights of
the people of Canada. We have to protect the environment of our
government. Why would we not want to do that? Why would we not
want to have decent labour laws? My friends in the Reform Party
are cheerleaders for child labour if they support this deal. They
are supporters of child labour because that is part of the
trading situation in the world.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. While I am sure all of Canada is enjoying the
theatrics of the member from Kamloops, he is absolutely
misrepresenting-
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid we are
falling into debate right now.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, they call this passionate
feeling for the people of Canada theatrics because they do not
have any bloody passion in their caucus. They could not care
less about the people of the country. They will sell them out,
as will, make no mistake, my friends across the way.
These are the crazy guys. The other people are sort of the
sheep in wolves' clothing. They say that they are concerned
about education, health care and the environment, but their
actions betray them. They are not. They could not care less.
Somebody in the House has to say that we have to look closely at
this whole issue of globalization. What will it do to the future
of our country? What will it do to our sovereignty? What will
it do to the average man, woman and child in the country? We have
to ask these questions.
My friend in the Bloc says that we should form a committee and
look into this. I hear others saying that they are not
interested in that. I know why they are not interested. It is
because they know damn well that if the people of Canada find out
what the WTO will actually do to the average person in the
country it will not be supported. They did not support the free
trade agreement. They did not support NAFTA and they do not
support the way the WTO is being introduced. I do not apologize
for speaking passionately in favour of supporting the people of
this great country.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, I
have discussed with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, and I find
it unfortunate that we are not always talking about this motion
as he has moved it. People are using the conference this week in
Seattle as a pretext to talk about the pros and cons of
globalization.
The important thing is not whether we are for or against
globalization, but that we look at the impact of globalization.
That is the whole point in the motion of the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean.
Globalization is a very important phenomenon, and it is having
major impacts on the lives of all Canadians and on all
businesses in Canada.
1150
The importance of that phenomenon cannot be overstated. The
positive impact, and certainly the negative impact also, is in
the tens of billions of dollars. Can we have a standing
committee to assess this impact on an ongoing basis?
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade suggested greater openness as well as public
consultations. So, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean went around
with his form to get members to sign. He collected 100
signatures, including some from the other side. Liberal members
are signing, saying “No problem. We want to encourage young
people who have good ideas”. But when the time comes to seek
unanimous consent, we will see what their signatures are worth.
They are not worth a cent, not even a Canadian cent.
And it is worth even less than an American cent.
They are saying “We want to support the young member who left
with his chair last year. It is important”. But among those who
signed the request from the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, not one
will rise. These Liberals are not even making good their own
signature. It does not look good for Seattle.
What we are saying is that people should be involved. We are in
favour of globalization. Everybody is in favour of opening up
Canada, but there are ways to go about it. Free trade with the
United States was, for the most part, a good thing. But it had
negative as well as positive effects. Do we know what they were?
Are able to find solutions?
Changes were made to employment insurance.
We said “Let us create a transitional job creation fund because
to counteract of the negative effects of the EI reform”. Could
the same be done for globalization? We are in favour of that.
The NDP member spoke about water exports. Maybe we should ask
ourselves questions. Wars are waged on this planet for control
over drinking water. In the negotiations, could our political
sovereignty here in Canada be maintained?
We are in favour of opening up Canada to the world. We cannot
live in complete isolation. It is impossible. When we are asking
for openness and consultation with what is commonly referred to
as civil society, we have examples.
Canada has just signed a trade agreement with China. Not with
any little place in the world, but with China. Nobody in the
House knows what was negotiated.
We have just signed an agreement with China, the most densely
populated country in the world. China needs the support of a
certain number of countries to be able to join the WTO. This
issue has never been debated in this House.
I asked the Minister for International Trade “Why do you not
take this opportunity to talk about the environment and human
rights?” He answered “No, no, no, this is a trade issue”. If
trade can help to promote human rights, that would be
acceptable.
There are examples like these that we find very disturbing, even
though we are open to the world. No other party is more open to
the world than our own. Quebecers are also very open minded.
Quebec is one of the provinces most open to the world. Canada is
one of the countries that is most open to the world. But we must
not be dense and compromise on all kinds of issues. We have to
know what is going on.
If a lot of Canadians take part in demonstrations in Seattle, it
means something. It means that there is no way to show the other
side of the coin in the Parliament of Canada. There is no
permanent process to do so. Could it be done?
At stake are hundreds of billions of dollars in economic
spinoffs everywhere. Could we have a committee? That would not
cost too much, I am sure. Could we have one?
There are things that can be negotiated or settled in Seattle.
Let me give an example. One of the first countries to join the
WTO or GATT was Cuba. Is there free trade between Cuba and the
United States? Of course not. Canadian corporations are
penalized if they do business with Cuba. Some positive measures
could be taken for Canada, Cuba and the United States.
We could use that forum to this end.
Right now, agriculture is on the table and it is, of course, a
very important issue. We have to settle this problem. At the
same time, while we are open to negotiations, we should also
share the information with the people we represent.
I am not talking about strategy here. On both sides of the
House, there are very capable people who can deal with strategy,
and that is a good thing. Perfect. But right now, we have no
idea where we are headed.
1155
Did the House get a single official report on the preliminary
negotiations in Geneva? People have been arguing for three
months now and have been unable to reach an agreement on the
agenda for their meeting in Seattle this week.
Three months of work. How many times were we, as
parliamentarians, briefed? How many times? Not once. So,
members should not be surprised if some people are rather angry.
And that is why they are say that they will go to Seattle and
voice their disapproval of some points of view and especially of
the negotiation process.
They are right, because last Friday, to give the example I
mentioned earlier, the minister signed an agreement with China.
Absolutely nobody here knew that an agreement was in the works.
Just imagine what we will end up with in Seattle. It is not with
one briefing in the morning, in Seattle, and another in the
evening that we will be well informed. Certainly not.
But what will happen after Seattle? Could we put strike this
committee? That would show people we represent that we take
globalization very seriously. I submit that it would be easy to
strike a standing committee and that it would not cost much.
What the hon. member from Lac-Saint-Jean is asking for is
unanimous consent to make the motion votable. That is all.
So, may our Liberals buddies on the other side sign on and
honour their commitment for once, and we on this side of the
House do the same, so that there will be a vote. This is what
the member for Lac-Saint-Jean is asking. After that, we will see
where people stand on it.
But, what message is the government sending the people of
Quebec, of Ontario, and of Canada if it refuses to consider the
matter through a vote or even rejects the creation of a standing
committee on globalization and its effects?
It is not because they are afraid, but what message are they
sending people? Either that globalization is perfect and its
effects are purely positive or that the government is so afraid
of having its cage rattled by the people in this country it is
supposed to represent that the Liberals are saying “No, we do
not want to touch that”.
It is time to act, because Canada is becoming increasingly
globalized internationally. It is also time to change the
committees of this House and strike a standing committee that
will examine this issue routinely.
So I invite everyone to give their unanimous support to Motion
M-41 by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, is it
not wonderful to see how this simple issue is generating a
rather heated debate in which various opinions are being
expressed? This is good, in my opinion, because what I am
proposing is a non-partisan review committee.
When I left with my seat, I did not tell my party what I was
going to do, because I wanted to show members of this House that
this was a non-partisan issue. We are fortunate to have here five
political parties with various ideologies. Could we not benefit
from that situation and get opinions and views from all these
sources?
I am the youngest member in this House.
Many here know that I wonder what kind of society we will have
in 20 or 30 years, when I will be the same age as most members
now in this House. I think we have to think about that or, at
least, have a vote—this is all I am asking—because we would learn
from it. In any case, we will have to think about it, perhaps a
few years, but for now we must support this idea.
The issue is not whether we are for or against globalization.
The issue is that we must understand it, to be able to act, play
a role in the world, propose solutions at the international
level. This parliament could exercise such leadership, and it
would be fantastic.
This is why no member of this House should go against the will
of 50,000 citizens, and possibly many more, because there are
many more—
This is why I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House
to make Motion M-41 a votable item.
1200
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is asking
for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion
votable. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the item is dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
The House resumed from November 25 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of
Health Research, to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and
to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill
C-13, an act to establish the Canadian institutes of health
research and to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.
It is not very often in the House when I compliment the
government on its direction, but I must compliment the government
in recognizing the need for Canadian medical and science
researchers to be supported financially. It is the hope of the
official opposition that the new institutes of health research
will be accountable to the Canadian taxpayers who will be
providing the financial resources in order for the research to
take place.
Research and development has had very strange support from
governments. I remember the former Conservative government made
lots of promises to the people of British Columbia, particularly
to the University of British Columbia with the Kaon project but
it became very apparent that it was only a vote-getting promise.
Other promises have been made across the country by governments
maintaining that they recognize the need for research and
development, but when the time comes the financial support is
never there.
We are very supportive of research and development because that
is how Canada will lead the way. That is how the Canadian economy
will be able to compete with other nations of the world. So
often and for so long we have watched our best and our brightest
go elsewhere because the financial support has not been available
in our country to develop and fund research projects and to put
those research projects into a viable market.
We are very pleased that the government at least is recognizing
the need to put financial resources into research and
development, but even more so the need to be accountable to the
taxpayers for that money, not only with this direction on
research and development, but certainly with other government
programs. What has happened is that money has gone into an area
and the taxpayers have had no idea where it has gone, if the
money has been well spent or if there is any benefit from that
money being put there. It is quite clear that the government
recognizes the need to hold these new institutes accountable to
the taxpayer.
The amount of dollars will be divided between the institute
development fund, which will get 20% of the earmarked dollars,
and the strategic initiative fund, which will get 80% of the
total budget. Both will be overseen by a body. Although the
director may be appointed by the government, the other members
who will be sitting on the committee will be appointed or
nominated by their peers.
That is a very important step forward. There will not be more
patronage positions for the government to fill. Rather, the
people who will be showing leadership and who will be determining
which project will be prioritized, that determination will be
made by the peers of the scientific community and the medical
research community. They understand and will be able to weigh
the importance of the projects. They will be able to prioritize
them in such a way that the taxpayers' funds will be well spent.
It is also important to note that the government is not
interested in creating a new bureaucracy. The government is not
interested in long term appointments to government paid salaried
positions.
The individuals who will serve as an advisory board will not be
paid a salary. They will be paid a per diem fee for the amount
of time spent in committees or the number of committee meetings
they attend. Instead of having somebody on a salary of $80,000
to $125,000, we are talking about a per diem fee with expenses
being covered.
1205
I think we will get people who really want to serve the
scientific community and the Canadian people. They will not be
out for their own personal benefit, they will be out for the good
of the whole. That is a very important step for our government to
take.
It is important not to create an establishment where the
majority of the dollars goes to support the bureaucracy itself.
I understand that only 4% to 5% of the total funds will go toward
administration. I think Canadians will uphold the government's
decision. Hopefully we will see in the long run that taxpayers'
dollars do not go toward an increasingly huge bureaucracy or, as
we sometimes hear people call them, these little kingdoms that
develop, but rather that the money will actually go into research
and development.
We are very pleased the government is going in this direction.
We hope in the end these appointments will prove that the system
is right and that this model of an agency can be used in other
areas.
The head of the institution will be appointed by the governor in
council and the other members will be appointed by their peers.
The names of individuals from the scientific community will be
given to the individual who will be appointed to run the
institute. He or she will select from the names. It is an
interesting direction for the government to be going in.
We understand the agencies will be reporting twice annually.
Their spending can be watched by the Canadian people. Over the
years we will be able to assess whether or not they are doing the
best they can, whether they are using the money wisely through
the reporting process that has been put in the act.
It is important to acknowledge that the scientific community has
been hard done by in years past. Most of the money which has
gone into scientific research has been used for administrative
purposes or for supporting bureaucracies. I think the scientists
themselves are looking to the new act to free up dollars for
actual research projects and that the money will go into
research.
Hopefully at the end of the day not only will Canadian taxpayers
be pleased with the results, but those in the scientific and
medical research community will also be pleased. This will mean
more money will go into research than into the bureaucracy. The
appointment of members and the overseeing body will be done in an
open and democratic manner which will be accountable to the
people with a reporting process involved.
Years from now we look forward to seeing a strong scientific and
medical research community which will lead the way
internationally. Hopefully this will stop the serious brain
drain of our best and our brightest.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, it
is, of course, with interest that I rise to speak to Bill C-13,
at the request of our health critic, the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
1210
For the benefit of our viewers, Bill C-13 is a bill to establish
institutes of health research, which will replace the Medical
Research Council.
I will provide a little background. The federal government,
through the Minister of Finance, plans to allocate a surplus of
$65 million for the year 2000-01, plus $240 million for 2001-02, for
a grand total of approximately half a billion dollars, because
it includes the 2001-02 budgets already earmarked for the Medical
Research Council.
The fact that the federal government, through the Minister of
Finance, is investing an additional $65 million next year, and
$240 million on top of that in the second year, obviously
requires a very broad consensus here in the House of Commons.
The member for Chicoutimi has just told me that the Progressive
Conservative Party will be supporting Bill C-13. The Reform
Party member just gave me her backing. Last week, the NDP
health critic also came on board. This means that, with the
Bloc Quebecois, support for Bill C-13 will, to all intents and
purposes, be unanimous.
However, Bloc Quebecois members will be introducing a few
amendments to make sure of two things: first, that Quebec will
receive its fair share, and not get the short end of the stick,
as it did with the automobile plants.
Nineteen out of twenty in Ontario, and only one out of twenty in
Quebec, and every six months, somebody talks about closing it.
Quebec should get its share of this $500 million budget.
We will recall that, in research and development, Ontario
traditionally gets between 50% and 60% of the overall federal R
and D budget, while Quebec, with 25% of the Canadian population,
only gets some 14%.
We will also have to make sure that the federal government, the
government of the Prime Minister and member from Shawinigan, is
not slipping us a lump of coal, that he is not firing up its
steamroller and once again invading areas of provincial
jurisdiction. We will keep a close eye on that.
We know that the Canadian institutes of health research will
deal primarily with organizing, co-ordinating and financing. I
want to focus on research co-ordination here in Canada. Our
researchers should not be competing against one another, neither
should our institutes, and findings that, if shared, could speed
things along and benefit our ageing population should not be
hidden. To this end, we quickly emphasize research into
cardiovascular disease, arthritis, cancer, heart disease,
Alzheimer and, of course, respiratory disease. The Bloc
Quebecois is in favour of the general thrust of Bill C-13. It is
a necessity.
I should recall that, last Friday, I was invited by the
president of the volunteers of the old Thetford Mines hospital,
Lucien Roy, and Treasurer Remi Vachon to join a group of
hospital volunteers for a social diner. On this occasion, those
patients who could be “taken out”—in the words of Lucien
Roy—gathered in the chapel for dinner. I had an opportunity to
talk with about 30 patients, and all of them asked that more
money be put into health care.
1215
What does not impress me, but surprises me, is that this same
government has made $3.4 billion worth of cuts since 1993. The
same finance minister and the same health minister, who have cut
$3.4 billion over less than six years in Quebec alone, now want
to put $65 million into research. It certainly takes a lot of
nerve.
One day, during question period, Jean Charest, when he sat in
this House, at the far right, close to your chair, Madam
Speaker, put a question to the Prime Minister, stating that, if
Quebec had problems in the health care sector, he was primarily
responsible for it. He was referring to the Prime Minister of
Canada and member for Saint-Maurice.
Today, the same government is bragging about putting $65 million
more into research. In Quebec alone, the shortfall for the year
1999-2000 totals $1.7 billion. For health alone, the total is
$850 million for the current fiscal year. It is a lot of money.
Quebec is not the only province to experience heath care
problems. Problems exist across Canada.
Unfortunately, it is the finance minister's doing.
This is why hundreds and thousands of protesters rallied in Hull
yesterday to speak out against what this government has done in
the area of health care and social services. It has made cuts
almost everywhere, including in social housing, and it did it
unilaterally.
Today, to ease its conscience, it is planning to include in next
year's budget a meagre $65 million more for health research. The
Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice really does have
nerve. He is a Quebecer willing to sacrifice Quebec to increase
his popularity in the rest of Canada.
He is the one who, as you will recall, when he was the justice
minister in 1982, with 74 members of his political formation,
had orchestrated with Pierre Trudeau the unilateral patriation
of the Constitution. He had organised all that despite all the
opposition from Quebecers, including Claude Ryan, who was the
leader of the Quebec Liberal Party at the time.
Fortunately, he was prevented just in time from playing this
dirty trick on us when the National Assembly, where all parties
were against him, and all Quebec newspaper editorials, including
La Presse and Le Soleil—which are not fundamentally separatist
papers—condemned the Prime Minister's plans.
It is not surprising that ministers from Quebec, including this
minister here, who is the President of the Treasury Board,
distanced themselves from him. I am happy to say that she
distanced herself from her leader, which could only be to her
credit.
She is one of the few in Cabinet. Sure, there is also the
Minister of Finances, but he can talk for ten minutes without
saying anything.
That is what he did. Fifty per cent plus one will do it for him.
That is what international law and democracy demand. Will the
vote of Raymond Setlakwe, in Thetford, count for 1.2, while that
of the member for Frontenac will count for just one? In
democracy, it is one woman one vote and one man one vote. That
is what I want to remind the House.
1220
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to address Bill C-13, an
act to establish the Canadian institutes of health research and
to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.
At the outset of my brief remarks I rise in qualified support of
the legislation. My arguments in support of the bill are focused
on improving the health of Canadians through research. Who could
possibly be opposed to that premise?
My problems with the bill are based on the difference between
the fundamental beliefs of the Liberal government and my beliefs
as a Reform member of parliament. While our goals are the same,
to improve and lengthen quality of life for all Canadians, the
differences lie in how to obtain this goal.
I note that we are coming at this from two different directions.
The government's approach certainly appears to be how to
perpetuate and protect the existing health care industry. In
other words it views it as the system. It believes that we have
to hold on to and stand fast with the Canada Health Act, not look at
making any changes, even though the government fully recognizes
and is in agreement with opposition parties that the health care
system is rapidly deteriorating. Its present form is failing
Canadians and failing to address their needs in the area of
health care.
In contrast to that the official opposition has said that we
have to change the focus from the system and from the industry of
health care to that of the patient. We have to broaden our
research and the way in which we look at the whole issue of
health care, with the intention of focusing on the individual, on
the patient, and what is best for him or her, not on what
necessarily is best for our so-called universal health care
system.
When it comes to health care, currently the provinces are paying
almost 90% of health care costs. Yet Ottawa continues to defend
the Canada Health Act to the extent that it should dictate the
terms, the levies and fines to provinces which are trying to
accommodate the ongoing legacy of the government cutting billions
of dollars from health over the last number of years. In the
last year or two, once the government achieved a balanced budget
and started to run surpluses, it put back a few billion dollars,
a mere fraction of the billions that it cut from the Canada
health and social transfer.
The government expects some applause from Canadians for doing
that at a time when Canadians are suffering under the weight of a
taxation system which has seen them as the most heavily taxed we
have ever been as a society, as a country and as Canadian
taxpayers in our history.
What a legacy for the Prime Minister. What a situation for
Canadians to find themselves in as they go into the next
millennium. We will turn that corner in about a month's time and
will find that we are the most heavily taxed we have ever been in
our history. At the same time Canadians are an aging population
which has to rely more and more on health care and faces the
reality that the health care system is failing and is
deteriorating.
I welcome the opportunity to speak to the bill today. I want to
broaden the context of it. There is no point in trying to have a
debate when we agree with something. What we have to do is try
to focus on what we do not agree with. I have already laid out
the difference in the approach of the official opposition to that
of the government. I also want to talk about the so-called two
tiered health care and the fearmongering on the part of the
government every time the official opposition, the Reform Party
of Canada, brings forward new or innovative ideas about health
care and how to address the needs of Canadians in the whole area
of health care.
We are immediately bombarded with the comments that we want to
change it, that we want to destroy the universality of the
Canadian health care system.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but unfortunately that
gets lost in the very heated and emotional debate we face every
time we try to bring forward ideas.
1225
I note that some of the most innovative thinking in the last
while has been by the provinces. As I said earlier in my
comments today, they are struggling under the weight of the cuts
the government has instituted and the cuts they have had to face
in administering health care to Canadians, to provincial
taxpayers, their citizens.
Certainly much to the disappointment of the official opposition,
when a premier or provincial health minister comes up with an
innovative plan on how to address the needs of Canadians in the
area of health care, instead of some co-operation from the
government we see that it attacks the provinces and the
individual who brings forward some innovative and new thinking on
the issue.
We are all in agreement that we need more funding and more focus
on research in the area of health care. We could go down a long
list of debilitating and life threatening diseases that require
some urgency in the area of research. I draw the attention of
the House to the fact that we should be concerned about
priorities and how scarce tax dollars are spent.
The solicitor general announced the other day that he would
institute under tremendous pressure from the official opposition
a research facility at the cost of $2 million to $2.5 million to
look at the whole area of drug addiction, how it relates to
prisons and the prison system, how it relates to crime and
recidivism rates, and why people do what they do in the area of
crime if they are under the influence of drugs.
Certainly we have been pushing for a national drug strategy. We
have been drawing the attention of Canadians to the fact that
drugs are more rampant and readily available in prison than they
are outside prison. I have to question the sanity that would go
into announcing supposedly never ending research into this issue
and having it headquartered in Prince Edward Island, in the
minister's riding.
Why take a vitally important issue to Canadian society and
denigrate it by making it into a patronage issue? He has
announced that he will temporarily house the research facility
until such time as a new federal building can be built, which
will just happen to be in his riding, to house the 20 permanent
staff members he envisions to look into the drug issue.
Unfortunately I am almost out of time. All of us, especially my
colleagues in the Reform Party, in the official opposition, could
go on at great length talking about the issue of priorities, how
the government spends scarce tax dollars, and our concerns in
that regard. I only had time to briefly highlight one issue.
With all the empty federal buildings across the country, I am
sure the government could have found one, heaven knows, in areas
that have serious drug problems in prisons such as the lower
mainland of Vancouver or in and around Toronto. That might be a
better location for a facility such as this one.
I sum up by stating that the Reform Party prime health care
objective is to improve the quality and length of life of all
Canadians. For that reason my Reform colleagues and I support
the legislation, as I said. I must state unequivocally that we
in the Reform Party do not support the government's irresponsible
approach to managing Canada's health care system. The government
has gutted funding for health care, yet it has increased taxes
every year since coming to power. If Canadians are sick of
anything, they are sick of paying more and getting less.
The bill will provide increased moneys for medical research, but
will Canadians get their money's worth? I do not think so.
Canada has some of the world's best research and development.
However, our incredibly high level of taxation leaves Canadian
companies little or no money left for research, and a substantial
tax cut for Canadians, including Canadian businesses, will
improve the lives of Canadians, create jobs and keep our kids at
home. We often hear about the brain drain.
1230
I believe this is in line with the wishes of Canadians who want
to pay less and get more from their government, instead of the
current Liberal system which is exactly the opposite; paying the
highest taxes in history while facing a deteriorating national
health care system. What a legacy for the Prime Minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to speak on Bill C-13, the Canadian Institutes of
Health Research Act.
First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague from New
Brunswick, the member for New Brunswick Southwest, for his
excellent work at the Standing Committee on Health. I also want
to point out to the House that this is the first significant
bill dealing with health care that has come before us during
this parliament. It is incredible that this is the first bill
dealing with a matter of such significance.
This reminds us of the fact that the present government is the
laziest of this century. It is absolutely incredible that,
today, the government is putting an emphasis on health. The
Prime Minister recently reopened the constitutional debate. To
him, it seems more important to debate constitutional matters
than to discuss the priorities of Canadians regarding health,
education and employment. This is absolutely incredible.
Mr. John Bryden: The question must be clear.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Yes, the question must be clear and specific. I
would like the government side of the House to answer clear and
specific questions.
Since it took office, this government cut $17 billion from
health care. It is absolutely incredible because, meanwhile, the
demand for health care is increasing.
We all know that the ageing of the population is increasing the
demand for health care and yet the government cut some $17
billion in health care.
In the last budget, the Minister of Finance gave back some of
that money, in transfers for health care, but that simply
brought us back to where we were ten years ago. To have such a
government in this day and age is absolutely incredible.
Canadians are furious at the Prime Minister for having revived
the constitutional debate. Given the government's record in the
House right now, I can assure members that Canadians want
change. I can hardly wait for the next election, because then
the people will have the opportunity to say exactly what they
think about this government.
Let us consider the problems in the health field. During the
past year, I had the privilege of being a member of the
Conservative Party's committee that toured Canada to study
poverty. The government has nothing to brag about when it comes
to poverty, which is growing in Canada. We have seen much
evidence of this. I had the opportunity to meet some university
students during the tour and, believe it or not, I discovered
there are soup kitchens in Canadian universities. It is
absolutely incredible that there should be soup kitchens our
Canadian universities.
We wonder why health costs are so high. It is because of the
constant stress Canadians are under. In some regions, Canadians
are looking for jobs, they are having a hard time making ends
meet and they are under heavy stress as a result. And where
does stress lead? Stress gets people into the hospital,
sometimes for long periods of time.
We also know that stress has an impact on the cardiovascular
system.
1235
I think all the hon. members in the House know only too well
what this causes and what it costs. We should be focusing our
efforts on this, to reduce health costs.
I totally support Bill C-13, but I think we should examine the
origin of the problem and the causes of skyrocketing health
costs. Again, we have an aging population in Canada. Nowadays in
Canada, young families are like mine, with two young children
aged six and two; there are no more families of six and more; we
do not see that anymore.
So, we have an aging population, which has an impact on taxes
collected. We will have to pay attention to this. We have
serious problems, and we really have to focus our attention on
the causes of health problems.
I want to go back to what I said a few minutes ago. I was saying
that I was deeply disappointed with the government's work during
this session. I honestly think this is one of the laziest
governments we have seen.
[English]
It has to be the laziest government in this century. It is
totally unbelievable. We are going on to the constitutional
debate again when Canadians really want to hear us talk about
health care. I know I want to talk about health care and I think
most of the people in here want to talk about health care. I am
sure most of the people on the government side want to talk about
health care as well.
Unfortunately, today and for the past week in the House everyone
knows what we have been talking about. Who initiated all this?
I think it was our friend across the way, the Prime Minister of
Canada.
It is totally unbelievable to throw gas on the fire like that.
It is ironic because our party, the Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada, believes in a united Canada. This was
demonstrated when Jean Charest left our party to head the
federalist party in Quebec. He seems to be doing a good job
there trying to bring up the popularity of federalist troops in
Quebec. We saw in a poll about two weeks ago that the federalist
forces in Quebec were on their way up. I think it was at 57% and
the Lucien Bouchard troops were down to 30%.
We should keep an eye on the polls in the coming weeks to see
what happens in Quebec. I am sure we will see a change in the
polls.
Members of parliament were debating clear issues that people
were concerned about. We were talking about jobs and health
care. We must be getting close to an election because it seems
to me that every time there is an election in the country we talk
about the constitution. Believe me, we should be talking about
much different things.
When I say that it has to be the laziest government in this
century, I think that is why the PM is trying to hook onto this.
Let us look at what we did as a Conservative government and at
the balanced budget today. Why do we have a balanced budget
today? Let us take a look at what free trade did to the country.
Free trade was brought in by this government. It is one of the
biggest pieces of legislation this country has had in this
century. That was a proactive government taking care of
business.
[Translation]
What free trade has done for us in Canada is to raise our
exports from $90 billion to $230 billion over five or six years.
That is absolutely incredible. These are very fine figures
indeed and I believe the government is very proud of them today.
Had the Liberal government had it its way, free trade would not
be what it is today. However, the Minister of Finance must be
very pleased with that $230 billion figure today. The Liberals
are patting themselves on the back now about having a balanced
budget. But why is it that they have that balanced budget?
I think the $230 billion certainly has something to do with the
fact that there is a balanced budget. Let us be realistic.
1240
As for the GST, I was not much in favour of that as a
businessman, and many people in Canada were also opposed. We
saw what happened in 1993. Looking a little further, we can see
that the GST will bring in $24 billion in revenues to the
Government of Canada this year.
Looking at what we did as a government and what the present
government has done, it is evident that the employment insurance
cuts have hurt the poor, particularly women.
It can be seen from last week's Statistics Canada report that
the poor are the ones most affected by employment insurance
reform.
I am pleased to take part in this debate, and we are going to
support Bill C-13.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-13, an act to establish
the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and to repeal the
Medical Research Council Act.
For those who are reading through Hansard or watching on
television, I will repeat that the official opposition supports
the bill, which I think is taking medical research in Canada in
the right direction. It is more of an arm's-length relationship
between the government and the medical research business in
Canada. It is very important research that I think all Canadians
support. It is the type of thing we have long advocated as a
necessary role for government to be involved in.
There are many things governments should not be involved with
but medical research is certainly a good use of dollars. It
benefits all of society and it benefits people around the world.
It is a good use of our tax dollars. And I do support the bill.
I want to talk about a theme I developed the last time I was on
my feet here, which was that when governments choose to head in a
certain direction they basically have chosen one priority over
another because almost always the bills and acts that we discuss
here in parliament involve the expenditure of tax dollars.
When the government chooses to spend money on a research
facility with hundreds of millions of dollars involved, it means
that there is some money that cannot be spent on something else,
assuming there is a finite amount of money involved. That means
something else has dropped to the bottom of the priority list,
which is as it has to be. Governments have to make choices. I
would urge them to be a little more stringent in their choices. I
would urge them to drop a few more things off their very full
plate to allow for some tax relief and tax breaks for Canadian
businesses and families. Be that as it may, it always involves a
priority.
I draw to the attention of the House today another research
facility I just became aware of this weekend that was announced
by the government last week. The research facility is sort of
health related. It has to do with developing research into the
use of drugs in prisons, the impact they have, how they affect
crime rates and all those sorts of things. It is not a bad idea
to study that, although it is so rampant and so widespread I am
not sure what exactly they will discover is new.
I bring this up because the announcement was made by the
solicitor general that this research facility, sort of health
related, sort of crime related but interrelated, would be put in
his own riding in Prince Edward Island. There are a couple of
million dollars involved. It is a priority of the minister to
spend the money, not just on the research but on building a
facility in Prince Edward Island to house it.
I asked our solicitor general critic how many federal
institutions of incarceration there were in Prince Edward Island.
There are no maximum or medium security facilities there. So I
asked why this was put in the solicitor general's riding. What
is the scoop?
Why has he decided that this has to be the place?
1245
For example, I think of the lower mainland of British Columbia
which obviously is the area I am most familiar with. In the
immediate area in and around my riding there is Kent maximum
security prison, Mountain medium security prison, and the
regional psychiatric or Matsqui prison, which does the
assessments of all people who are incarcerated in the federal
system for British Columbia. In other words, everybody goes
through this system which is in my riding. The Sumas centre, the
Elbow Lake institution and six or seven provincial institutions
all are within 20 or 30 kilometres of my part of the Fraser
Valley.
In addition there is the entirely vacant CFB Chilliwack base and
facilities. It has been vacant since the government moved
everybody out of there to Edmonton to the justice minister's
riding. She enjoys that in her part of the world. The buildings
sit empty. The buildings on this site are available for any
federal department to use. Some of the buildings are so new that
they were still being built when the place was shut down. They
are brand new state of the art buildings which were built for the
Canadian forces as a training facility. They are classroom type
facilities and are fully wired and computer sensitive.
If I wanted to get a handle on researching drug use in prisons
there would be a couple of things I would do if I were the
government. This is part of the prioritization of spending. I
would investigate actual prisons. I would not just conceptualize
it, I would access the minimum, medium and maximum security
prisons. I would want access to all the prisoners in the federal
system, in other words like those at the Matsqui institution. I
would check up on them following discharge to see how they were
doing in the real world and see the rate of recidivism, which is
alarming when drugs are involved. I would want to be aware of
where those people were.
I would want to do a follow up and be close to other medical
research facilities such as those at UBC. It has world class
medical research facilities and is about a one hour drive from my
place. I would want the facilities in a place that would cost
the taxpayers the least amount of money. I would want good
facilities and good use of them. As far as the drug problem is
concerned, I would want to be where the action was and at the
lowest cost possible to the taxpayer.
One of those places would be in the lower mainland which would
meet all those criteria. The buildings and the facilities are
there. If we did not like CFB Chilliwack, how about CFB
Aldergrove which has also been shut down. It has facilities and
land and is in the middle of all of these prisons. There is the
ability to study these individuals.
The solicitor general did not bother to do that. Instead, he is
going to build a brand new place in his home province because
what the heck, it is a couple of million bucks for back home. I
cannot think of a single other reason why he is doing this. There
are no prisons or medical research facilities or a building
there. There is no inmate population to study. There is no
reason to build it there except for one. It is the home province
of the solicitor general.
That is very unfortunate. It shows Canadians that priorities
are being made based on political considerations and not on the
best interests of medical research or the use of tax dollars.
Neither one of those is the paramount consideration. The
partisan use of tax dollars has taken precedence over the good
and judicious use of limited tax dollars. That is a shame.
Every time I see a bill, like Bill C-13, that involves medical
research, I am happy to support it. I think of how important the
work of medical researchers is and how difficult it is for them
to get funds. When I see other money being wasted, as I
described, for partisan political reasons and not being given to
a new and improved research facility, I wonder why that choice of
priority, instead of the priority which is in the best interests
of taxpayers, drug users, drug abusers and so on. We are trying
to fix a problem in our penitentiary system.
I do not believe that long term facility in Prince Edward Island
is strategically located or will be a good use of tax dollars.
1250
That means something else has to give. Some other priority has
to come in below that. The millions of dollars that will be
spent on it will not be available for other things such as
medical research and community housing. It will not be available
because it is being spent for political reasons.
In closing, I would like to say again that the official
opposition is happy to support Bill C-13. Medical research is
important to our country. I hope the government will not only
encourage medical researchers to do the hard research that they
must do, but that the government itself will move away from being
the protector of the system and toward the protector of the
health of individual Canadians.
That does not mean we throw out the Canada Health Act. It does
not mean there is not a lot of good, obviously, in our Canadian
public health system. However, as we move into the new millennium
we have to encourage people to think outside the box on medical
research, the medical system and the delivery of medical services
so that all Canadians are cared for the best.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak on Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research, to repeal the Medical Research
Council Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
This legislation stems from an announcement made initially in
the budget of last February, when the health minister mentioned
plans to establish a virtual network of research institutes.
Then, the latest federal budget announced that an initial amount
of $65 million would be earmarked for fiscal year 2000-2001, to be
followed by an additional $175 million.
If we add all these figures to the existing budgets for the
Medical Research Council, we can see that the government's
objective is to raise the total amount to close to $500 million.
The act also provides for the establishment of all that is
required to manage these health research institutes, so that
these facilities can be operational the beginning of April 2000.
The act includes several parts. Some clauses state the objects
of the CIHRs. Others, such as clauses 6 to 11, deal with the
organization of the CIHRs. Others still deal with the governing
council, including its establishment. A series of other clauses
include transitional measures or consequential amendments to
other acts.
Of course, no one can be opposed to the idea of allocating money
for research. Everyone agrees that it is extremely important to
conduct health research.
Various subjects have already been proposed as being worthy of
study, such as aging, research into arthritis, musculoskeletal
development, cancer, muscle biology, heart disease and so on.
An hon. member: The flu.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Unfortunately, there is nothing yet for the
flu.
There are things that will lead to discoveries, other research,
other discoveries in the medical field, and that is important.
An aside. I had the opportunity to accompany, together with the
Minister of National Revenue, who is also responsible for the
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions in Quebec,
a group of Quebec businesses that recently took part in a trade
fair called Salon Medica, where the greatest discoveries in the
field of medicine were displayed.
These were medical equipment manufacturers.
We saw extraordinary things. It is not clear how we will be
able to provide all these services, because the technologies are
obviously extremely expensive. They will have to be made more
affordable. The more they are used, the more marketing will
bring the prices down.
1255
It is incredible to see what is available to provide support for
or treat various diseases, increasingly advanced discoveries,
and increasingly sophisticated rehabilitation equipment. What
is clear is that humans are moved by a desire to push ever
further back the inevitable appointment with death or disease,
and to attenuate their effect.
We are all in favour, but there are operational efficiency
constraints facing the government in its efforts to make sure
the public gets the best medical service possible.
Obviously, this is a problem for several areas in Canada, and it
involves health as well. In the case that concerns us in
Quebec, there are two levels of government involved in the
delivery of health care, in addition to various institutions,
regional boards and hospitals.
The Government of Quebec, whose jurisdiction it is, must run
this system and come up with the money to pay the entire
workforce involved, as well as operating costs. In the
meantime, the federal government agrees that this is a
provincial jurisdiction, but is stepping up its interference.
It has always been present in research but, with its various
foundations, is becoming more so.
I could name the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and a host
of other foundations, financial tools created by the federal
government that encroach on the health care system in various
areas, which is easier for the federal government because it
does not have to shoulder all the recurrent costs, all the more
complex side of the health system, or negotiate labour
agreements and whatnot.
But it interferes wherever it can come out looking good, looking
like it is really concerned, such as in health care.
The big problem is that, when we arrived here, in 1993-1994,
this same government made real, not virtual, transfer payments
of almost $17 billion in hard cash under three provincial
transfer payment programs—in health, education and social
assistance. Now, those payments are closer to of $12 billion.
There have been various cuts, which annually amount to about $6
billion in direct funding that the provinces used for health
care delivery.
By reducing this funding, which is used to pay for the system,
where costs are not going down, the federal government is
putting tremendous pressure on the health care system in view of
all the new discoveries, the new medical solutions, the level of
care required, an informed population demanding more and more
services, the increased availability and high cost of drugs, and
all the rest.
Provincial governments have seen their budget reduced
drastically due to cuts in transfer payments, and smaller
contributions from the federal government while it is
increasingly interfering with important initiatives in areas
such as research where it can get more visibility without being
involved in the mechanics, while providing less support to the
funding of the whole system than it did in the past.
This is quite deplorable. How can provincial governments
successfully plan and orchestrate health care services when they
have no control over the level of financing coming from the
federal government? The cuts that are being made or were made
were unilateral. One fine morning the federal government said “I
am withdrawing from this area”.
Yet it is introducing initiatives, saying as usual it is going
to co-operate with the provinces. However, when we see how little
it recognizes the role of the provinces in this bill, which puts
them on the same footing as all the other players, we know it
does not want to recognize the crucial role provincial
governments must play, namely to properly plan for the
management and organization of health care services.
The level of federal funding is beyond the control of the
provinces and nowadays, with the budget surpluses which are
accumulating in Ottawa and which are not virtual, but quite
real—the federal government mentioned something in the order of
$90 billion over the next five years—there is a very strong
desire to interfere more and more in numerous areas.
1300
It is difficult to have plan properly in our health system, when
the left hand does not know what the right hand is going to do.
There is an obvious lack of co-operation here.
The federal government wants to play an ever larger role and it
has no intention of increasing transfers to the provinces to
provide them with some relief, to help them absorb regular costs
and have the required flexibility in their own budgets to fund
necessary initiatives in research and so on.
The federal government wants to take full control over this area
and the best way to do so was to reduce funding for the
provinces so much that they now barely have the means to pay the
regular operational costs of the health system.
I am convinced that this was well planned and thought out by the
federal government and that it is no coincidence. Considering
that the government now has annual surpluses in excess of $10
billion to $15 billion, why is it unable to reinvest the $4
billion to $5 billion that were once used in transfer payments
to directly fund services to citizens?
It is all fine and well to do medical research, but we must also
ensure that the public has access to existing basic traditional
services.
Health professionals are very good, but the problem often has to
do with access, with the time required before we can see certain
specialists.
So, it is definitely not by just funding initiatives relating to
research, development or government visibility that we will
achieve the necessary balance to have a good health system.
The bill includes many interesting things, but we will have to
make some important cautionary remarks when it is debated in
committee. We agree with the bill's principle to allocate more
money for research, but we are very concerned about how the
government is defining its role in relation to that of the
provinces as regards the management and delivery of services to
the public.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, as my colleagues who have spoken before me have
indicated, the Reform Party will support Bill C-13.
Canada has a long and honourable tradition of medical research.
However, it is ironic that in the land of Frederick Banting and
Charles Best we have seen a long, slow decline in the level, if
not the quality, of our research. I do not know the causes for
that, but I suspect they may have something to do with internal
bureaucracies or perhaps bureaucracy emanating off of the Hill.
There is no question that we need an accountable, well
administered health research institute. That appears to be what
is going to come out of this legislation, at least that is our
fond hope. The projected 4% to 5% administrative cost is
certainly commendable. I hope that goal can be reached because
there are not too many organizations that can operate within
parameters of that nature.
I am very pleased that this institute will operate at arm's
length from government, from the politicians and the bureaucracy.
It will be run basically by the people directly concerned, the
researchers, and in this respect it should be as useful as many
other professional organizations which have existed in this
country for decades without direct government interference.
I would like to diverge a bit, since I have already stated that
I support the legislation, and talk about the gradual long term
decline, not just of medical research, but of the entire health
care system which, to a great extent, is tied to the research
establishment.
I want to talk about the lack of reasonable distribution of the
fruits of medical research within this country. We hear talk
across the way about the danger of Canada slipping into a two
tiered medical system. I wonder where these folks have been
living for the last 15 or 20 years. We probably have a
multi-tiered medical system, but for a rural person like myself,
boy, do we ever have a two tiered system.
1305
If people try to access modern, state of the art medical
technology in my riding, I wish them luck, because we simply do
not have it. If people want decent medical attention they either
have to go to one of the major centres in Canada or,
unfortunately, sometimes for efficiency and for expeditious
treatment, they head south to the United States. There is a bit
of an epidemic, a good medical term perhaps, in the flight to
seek better medical care.
I would like to give members an example of the sort of thing I
am talking about. Magnetic resonance imagery units are
ubiquitous in the United States. Any small or medium sized city
in the United States will have one or two of them. In Canada we
have to go to a major medical centre and wait in line sometimes
for months, depending on the seriousness of our need, to have
access to one of these machines.
I do not understand why we have to live in the past with our
medical facilities. I say that I do not understand it, but
actually I do understand it to a point. The problem is that the
government has gutted the medical system. It has taken billions
and billions of dollars out of it and thrown the responsibility
to the provinces to maintain the level of service. Therefore, we
do not have access to the good stuff. By the way, MRI units are
not really state of the art now. They have been around for quite
a while, but we have not caught up.
I do not see any reason, other than the bloody mindedness of the
government, for which we could not have state of the art medical
treatment all over the country, instead of a two-tiered system
which gives it to the urban areas, and the devil take the rural
folks.
We cannot blame the provinces. Under the Canada Health Act we
started with a 50:50 sharing of the cost of medical care. It is
now about 85:15. The provinces are digging and scratching. That
is simply unfair. It is indecent. The federal government made a
deal 30 years ago. If it made a deal it should stick to it.
This will have historical ramifications.
By all means, let us have a better developed medical research
organization in this country. Let us encourage research. Let us
fund research. That is something which really has not been
mentioned much in this debate, but we cannot do medical research
without something in our jeans to pay the bills. We have to fund
this research. We have to encourage it. We certainly should
encourage the new organization.
There are a few problems in the bill with respect to how the
organization will work. There are a lot of details that have to
be worked out, which can be managed in committee. That is what
committees are for. I am hopeful that in this instance, since
there is no debate about the desirability of the bill, perhaps
the government will allow the committee to function as committees
were designed to function and let it actually have some real
input into the legislation, instead of having the whip sneak over
to make sure that the good little boys and girls do not stray. I
hope the committee will actually be able to do a bit of
thoughtful work. I think this is a great opportunity.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for being so patient and not cutting
me off when I diverged.
I hope the people out there in TV land will take note of the
fact that there are some people in Ottawa who realize what is
going on with health care, and we are those people.
1310
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam
Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise today to speak to
Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research, to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts.
I am particularly interested in this bill because I am the
critic for seniors and seniors organizations. As they are
sometimes very prone to health problems, health is an issue of
concern to them.
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of increasing research funding,
particularly for health.
The Bloc Quebecois therefore supports the principle of
establishing these institutes. However, Quebec must receive its
fair share of federal R and D funding.
But the CIHRs involve much more than research. The federal
government must not designate any CIHRs in Quebec without the
approval of the provincial government.
Investment in R and D is necessary. The hospital and university
research community badly need funding. We all know that Quebec
has received the short end of the stick when it comes to
funding. The federal government must rectify this through
additional funding to researchers and the university community
so that they can carry on their research.
A recent article in Le Devoir about the health of seniors in
Quebec described the situation facing the province's beleaguered
Department of Health and Social Services:
This time, the association of CLSCs and long term care
facilities is calling for funding. Today, with the need for
services going up, but not the funding, long term care
facilities can meet only two-thirds of the demand. The problem
is the widening gap between the needs of seniors and the ability
of facilities to meet those needs.
By not giving Quebec its fair share, particularly in the health
sector, the federal government is responsible for this state of
affairs.
Of course we are not opposed to an increase in research and
development budgets for the creation of virtual institutes.
Quebec is not getting its fair share of federal research and
development funding. We know that, historically, Quebec has
received only 14% of federal spending on research. The
Government of Quebec will table, at the beginning of next year,
a report on scientific policy. Quebec is in favour of biomedical
research and has made commitments to support it.
I mentioned that, as spokesman for senior citizens'
organizations, I think health research is essential,
particularly for seniors, who represent one of the fastest
growing segments of the Canadian population.
In 1998, the estimated number of Canadians 65 years of age and
over was 3.7 million, a 57% increase over the 1981 count of 2.4
million. With this tendency, the percentage of seniors within
the Canadian population has increased over the last few years.
In 1998, seniors accounted for 12% of the total population,
compared to 10% in 1981 and 8% in 1971.
1315
The number of older persons should keep growing in the decades
to come, especially with the baby boomers, born between 1946 and
1965, starting to turn 65 years of age early on in the second
decade of the next century.
Therefore, about 1 out of 10 Canadians is 85 years old and over,
compared to 1 out of 20 Canadians at the beginning of the
century. As we approach the millennium, we do have to consider
the health of our people.
I remind the House that the UN declared 1999 the International
Year of the Older Persons.
The purpose of the IYOP is to improve understanding, harmony and
mutual support between the generations and to better recognize
the contribution of the elderly to their communities.
I have often stood up in this House to defend the rights of the
elderly. The federal government has tried to hold the seniors
hostage and make them pay for the deficit.
The federal government did not succeed because our senior
citizens are no fools and made their opposition known. Life
expectancy for older Canadians has increased quite a bit since
the beginning of the century. By 1996, life expectancy for a 65
year old Canadian had increased by around 18.4 years, six months
more than it was in 1991, three years more than in 1971 and five
years more than in 1921.
Heart disease and cancer are the main causes of death among
senior citizens in Canada.
In 1996, 30% of all deaths among people aged 65 or over were
from heart disease and 26% from cancer. Hon. members will
understand that medical research is very important to an ageing
population.
Take, for example, Alzheimer's disease, which is affecting
increasing numbers of seniors. In 1999, 78% of all people aged
65 or over with this disease lived in an institution. In that
same year, people with Alzheimer's or some other type of
dementia made up 35% of the total population in such
institutions.
In general, though, seniors are involved in numerous activities
and take advantage of the freedom offered by their retirement
years. Many seniors are physically active. They travel far
more than in the past, as well, making an average of 3.2 trips
within Canada and 1 out of the country in 1994-95.
Overall, Canada's seniors are in fairly good health. Most live
at home with family members, consider themselves in good health,
and keep relatively active.
The Bloc Quebecois is not, therefore, opposed to Bill C-13, but
it is opposed to the potential for direct interference in an
area of provincial jurisdiction, population health, without any
consultation whatsoever with the provinces.
The federal government is creating parallel structures rather
than supporting actions undertaken by the provinces. It is
vital to point out that, with the creation of the research
institutes, the Canadian government is clearly giving itself the
power to impose its priorities and convictions in the health
field.
The federal government must respect the specific characteristics
of researchers in the various regions of Quebec, and not go
ahead with the designation of any health research institute in
Quebec without the agreement of the Quebec government.
It is, therefore, essential to ensure that, if there is
interference with provincial jurisdiction with the Canadian
institutes for health research, Quebec will play an integral
part in the process of selecting and administering the
institutes.
In closing, we are in favour of Bill C-13 in principle, but
respect of Quebec's jurisdiction must be a priority.
1320
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
rise to speak today to Bill C-13, an act to establish the
Canadian institutes of health research and to repeal the Medical
Research Council Act. I have to first say that I always have a
concern when I look at these new government bodies that they are
actually being set up as creations of the government for the
purpose of providing jobs for the Prime Minister's friends.
I am well aware a consultation process is built into the bill
that will supposedly base grants upon the information from
leading experts in every conceivable field. I certainly hope
that is effective. Otherwise the bureaucrats appointed there by
the Prime Minister, presumably for life, will have control of the
system and the process will break down just the way it has in the
previous organization.
In having high hopes for some rational decisions by the peers
reviewing the various applications, I hope that they provide some
priority to prostate cancer research as they begin to look at the
grants that come across their desks.
Many members of the House will know my interest in prostate
cancer research and my work with prostate cancer information
groups across the country. Unfortunately it is one of those
diseases that has been overlooked for a long time. Men, for one
reason or another, did not talk about it or did not even know
that it was a common disease that they should be talking about.
It has been left now in a situation where although it is as
common as breast cancer is in women it receives one-eighth to
one-tenth of the research funding that breast cancer receives.
That is certainly not to detract from the money that breast
cancer gets. Nobody would want to deprive that worthy cause of
getting research funds, but it is certainly time to bring
prostate cancer up so that it is more in line with what is being
spent on a similar type of hormonally driven disease.
In addition, prostate cancer receives only about one-fiftieth of
the research funding that AIDS research receives. Yet it kills
about 10 times as many men. It is completely out of proportion
and needs to be rectified fairly quickly. If there is one thing
I would hope this new body does, it would be to correct the
imbalance out there right now.
One of the other aims of the legislation according to the
drafters is to take care of the brain drain of researchers and
qualified people down to the United States, which of course the
Prime Minister claimed does not exist but which this act
recognizes.
I would argue that most of that is actually caused by the tax
regime in this country. If we talk with anybody who has moved to
the United States, it is very clear that the salaries and the
amount of disposable income after taxation are so much more
attractive in the United States that it is no wonder people move
down there.
Certainly it would be nice if some of the research funding draws
some of those people back, but I think we have to address the
taxation issue as well. If we do not address the taxation issue,
I am afraid we will end up giving grants every year to people who
are not actually very competent. We will be left with the people
in Canada who do not want to move to the United States or are
incapable of getting a position in the United States. I would
not want that to happen.
Certainly passage of the bill and implementing its provisions
would have to be done in conjunction with some sort of meaningful
income tax reduction to help researchers and scientists who need
to be spending their time in Canada.
As I mentioned, for prostate cancer certainly Vancouver is a
centre of excellence in this research. There are many skilled
people there who are well recognized. In fact, the Vancouver
Island Prostate Cancer Network recently produced two videotapes
on early stage prostate cancer and late stage prostate cancer
which won an international award in New York about two months
ago. Those educational tapes are recognized world wide as being
some of the best in the whole world.
I have some copies of those tapes in my office. I will shortly
be notifying all members that those are available for loan from
my office, because I would truly like them to become well aware
of the effects of the disease.
When I look at the bill I see that there is peer review of the
applications for grants. I certainly feel it is a shame that we
did not have some peer review of the Nisga'a agreement when it
was introduced. If the government had bothered to do a little
peer review it would have found, for example, the Gitkanyow
calling it an act of aggression. Lawyers all over the country
are rubbing their hands together in glee at the thought of all
the cases that will brought before the courts as a result of that
agreement.
1325
A Queen's counsel, Mr. Bill Irving, in Vancouver on Friday said
it would not matter to him whether he was on the side that
supported the Nisga'a bill or on the side that was against it. He
could live for the rest of his days off the court cases that will
be started on constitutional grounds against the bill. The only
certainty that the Nisga'a bill will bring is certainty of income
for the lawyers.
What worries me about Bill C-13 is that it will slip gradually
into certainty of income for researchers who produce maybe
questionable or indifferent results. I can think of an example
in the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Professor
Tremblay has managed to extract about $18,000 a year since 1983
out of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to
send questionnaires to members of parliament every year.
My rough calculation is that she has managed to extract about
$270,000 out of taxpayers for this exercise. She sends out the
questionnaires every year to members of parliament asking us to
suggest ways that there might be more women represented in the
House of Commons. They are questions that completely ignore the
fact that it is voters who elect members of parliament and not
members of parliament who elect members of parliament.
After doing this since 1983 it seems that nothing useful has
come out the other end of that exercise at all. I questioned
Professor Tremblay about the issue and pointed out that having a
proportional system of electing people to the House would do a
lot more to help women get in here than just about anything else.
She was unwilling to admit that would be the case. She would
rather stick to her surveys and collect her $18,000 a year.
That is what worries me about this bill which sets up another
quasi-government body that has a bunch of the same people, these
peers, every year reviewing applications that are identical to
the year before. If we look at Professor Tremblay's applications
they are identical every year. They have the same wording. They
are renewed every year, over and over again. It becomes like an
old boys club or an old girls club where they just keep giving
the same grants to the same people over and over.
I certainly have professors in my riding who have never had
grants from places like the Medical Research Council or the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. They approach
with stories about some of their colleagues who use these grants
to travel all over the world. They treat them like vacations.
There was a very well publicized one recently from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council where a researcher
received a grant of $60,000 for three years to go to Vanuatu, a
small island in the Pacific which is a tax haven. I think there
was an unfortunate earthquake there over the weekend. The
researcher was going to this tax haven for three years to study
tax havens and how people lived, the housing in Vanuatu. What a
complete waste of Canadian taxpayer money for that sort of thing
to be going on.
These examples are just pouring out the doors of the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council one after another. I
saw another one from someone in my riding who managed to extract
a grant to study English poetry from the 1400s, or something
along those lines. I really have to ask what value my
constituents got from that extraction of their tax dollars to
support somebody's hobby.
When I look at Bill C-13 and the provisions in it for peer
review and increasing budgets year after year, I worry about
where that money will go. One can bet that I will be watching
very carefully to see where the money goes.
There is another example of foolish giveaways under these
programs. The millennium fund has been widely touted by the
government. They are celebrating the millennium. It is even in
the wrong year. The new millennium does not start until January
1, 2001. Even the Canadian Mint, which is selling 1999 quarters
and claiming they are millennium quarters, admits on its own
website under frequently asked questions that it is not even the
last year of the millennium. They are actually selling them
falsely, but it says in the frequently asked questions that we
are not to worry, that it will be issuing year 2000 quarters
which will be the correct quarters for the last year of the
millennium.
We waste tremendous amounts of money doing foolish things. The
millennium fund gave $278,000 to a group in my riding to produce
a program called “Visions of the North Shore”. What a waste. I
certainly hope that medical research institutes do not turn out
like that.
1330
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, just like all
my other colleagues, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13, an act
to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to
repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts.
I have been listening with a good deal on interest to the speech
by my colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, a very articulate man
who dealt with the principles of this bill, a bill he and the
Bloc Quebecois think must be supported, despite its lack of
emphasis on consultative federalism.
The government is making decisions all by itself, and is
imposing its own position. Research will be oriented in this
sector or that, without much consultation with the provinces, if
any. This is cause for concern for Bloc members and also for
members from other provinces.
I believe that scientific research must not be determined by
chance discoveries or the whims of researchers or visionaries,
but that it should be channelled. In the case at hand, this does
not seem to be what is going on, with the leeway the government
is giving to the so-called transitional council. I am convinced
that my colleagues, the hon. member for Frontenac and the hon.
member for Laval, agree that indications should be given as to
the direction in which research ought to go.
Here is an example.
A few years ago, in 1996, Bill C-46 was introduced and read a
first time on June 14, 1996. This bill was entitled an act
respecting human reproductive technologies and commercial
transactions relating to human reproduction.
This bill attracted a lot of interest from the population and
members of parliament who saw in it an opportunity for the
government to set its priorities and orientations in the area of
medical research on human reproduction, and the commercial
transactions that could arise from it.
As I said, the Bloc Quebecois supports the bill before us today,
despite the fact it lacks clear direction and does not provide
for consultations with the provinces and various stakeholders.
It will result in some $65 million more being invested in
research. I hope Quebec will get its share of research dollars
and that it will not be as it has always been when it comes to
research and development: 50% goes to Ontario and the rest is to
be shared between the other provinces and territories.
I hope
that—contrary to its habit—the federal government will show some
fairness and will give a little bit more, or at the very least
their fair share to Quebec and other provinces where research is
being carried out.
This bill is not about building offices. As the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said, there is no concrete, no wood, no
glass structure.
It is about building a network, which we are very happy about.
For instance, researchers at the University of Alberta, who are
working on a particular gene, and who might be isolated—in terms
of their research—will be connected through a network to a
researcher in Chicoutimi, Montreal, Halifax or elsewhere. These
people will finally be able to speak to one another thanks to
this famous network which is being planned. This is good.
1335
However, specific indications have to be given to the
transitional committee made up of 34 members, including several
prominent persons in the medical as well as the psychological
sectors.
I am happy to see that this bill is about research. It is not
limited strictly to pharmaceutical or medical research. Many
sectors of social activity are included in the word “research”.
Reference is made of course to fundamental biomedical research
and to molecular isolation for marketing purposes. Reference is
made also to clinical research, which of course has to follow
the primary stage of molecule identification and find an
application likely to be of benefit to the human being.
As for research respecting health services, my colleague, the
member for Argenteuil, referred earlier to seniors. Perhaps I
should talk now—and I would not want to upset him—about the
very elderly, since there is talk of an increasing life
expectancy, set at close to 83 years for women and a little less
for men. Life expectancy has considerably increased since the
1950s.
Over half a century, average life expectancy for men has gone
from 50 years or so to 76 or 77 years. Within 19 years, from
1980 to 1999, life expectancy increased by about three or four
years for men, and by five years for women. All that is due to
scientific and medical research.
There is a fourth aspect.
I mentioned the first three, which are basic biomedical
research, clinical research and research respecting health
services. The fourth one is health of populations and the
societal and cultural dimensions of health. That could include
psychology, psychiatry and many other things. However, the main
thrust of the research must, in all cases, be human health,
increased longevity or assistance for reproduction.
On that subject, I must say that I am extremely disturbed by the
fact that Bill C-47, on reproductive technologies and the
commercial operations surrounding them, of which I spoke
earlier, died on the Order Paper last summer. That bill had been
rewritten by the committee that studied it before sending it
back to the House.
Of course, it was not perfect, but at least it gave direction.
Let me give one example of medical research leading to weird
situations.
I know that right now, in Montreal, there is a doctor barred
from practicing in England because of the nature of his
research. His speciality involves taking ova from female
foetuses, which are really unborn children. It seems that a
female foetus, no matter how small it is, possesses the complete
feminine genitalia. The ova taken are cultivated in laboratory
and once developed, they are used for insemination. That means
that a child could be born from a woman who was never born.
England banned this technique for ethical reasons.
The doctor in question came over here,. He now works at McGill
University and does research in this area. This type of
research is dangerous. For example, we can say the discovery of
the atomic bomb was a great discovery but, knowing its very
tragic impact on humanity, can we really say it was a good
discovery?
1340
We must not go down that road; it often leads nowhere and augurs
ill for humans and human dignity.
That is why I am sorry this bill does not set any parameters or
give any direction for research or the type of research we would
like to see done in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased to have the privilege to enter into the debate in the
House on a very important issue to Canadians.
I know there are a lot of people who will be directly and
indirectly affected by the outcome of the legislation. First of
all, there will be the people who are involved directly in
research in the country. I hope the passage and perhaps some
proposed amendments to the bill will have a positive impact on
the ability of Canadians to participate in worthwhile,
meaningful, efficient research in the area of health care in
Canada.
Hopefully there will be thousands and maybe millions of not only
Canadians but people around the world whose lives will be made
more enjoyable and, in some cases, whose lives will be made
possible because of the research that will come out of this
particular initiative.
In case the people listening, either in the House, in the
galleries or on television, are not aware, we are debating Bill
C-13 today. It is one of those cases where the government is
saying that it will end one organization and put in place a
replacement organization. We are talking about the old Medical
Research Council, which will be phased out with Bill C-13 and
replaced with this new organization called the Canadian
institutes of health research. It is a very noble sounding title
with very noble objectives by this particular group.
I am one who firmly supports the funding and promotion of
research in the medical field. I am not at all convinced that it
should all be done by direct research grants funded by
governments. I said that I support funding, but I am not sure
that having a government bureaucracy involved is the most
efficient. As a matter of fact, even before I get into some of
the details of my discussion, I will put forward an idea for
people to think about.
Perhaps what we ought to do is shift governments out of this
more and more and allow private companies and individuals to
receive a greater benefit in the tax regime so that they can
directly support those particular areas which they support.
I know of many individuals who, because of involvements in their
families with certain diseases, are very prone to supporting
funding for research in order to find a cure, help to ease the
problems of living with a particular disease and perhaps even in
the preventative end. They would be very willing to support a
research project in this area or that area. Many of our large
corporations in Canada would support it.
I think that if we had that we would have a better allocation
into areas of need than we do now when government bureaucracies
and politicians, being subject to the vocal lobby groups, tend to
respond to that. I think we are all aware of the fact that there
are a number of groups that get a lot more money than the
statistics would show are warranted simply because they make the
most noise on Parliament Hill. I am thinking of a couple of
specific organizations in different areas of research.
I had the privilege this morning of meeting with Barbara
Nathan-Marcus.
She is a volunteer. She is a diabetic who has learned to cope
with the disease.
1345
I have had several friends in my lifetime who have coped with
diabetes. It is a very difficult disease. I do not know if
members are aware of this fact, but there are some really
interesting statistics in the brochure that I got from them which
surprised even me. One statistic shows that the economic burden
of diabetes alone is estimated to cost the Canadian economy in
excess of $3 billion a year. I was also amazed to find out that
there are approximately 2.25 million Canadians affected by this
disease and many of them are not even aware of it. We have
approximately 60,000 new cases every year. It is the leading
cause of blindness. In fact, Barbara, with whom I met this
morning, is very, shall I say, sight challenged. I cannot tell
by looking at her. She copes very well but has great difficulty
seeing.
One of my friends at university, a wonderful man, was stricken
with diabetes. He was a very active, a helpful and kind person,
who unfortunately lost his eyesight due to his diabetes. He died
at a very young age as a direct result of it.
Do I wish that we had more funding and more research for
diabetes so that my friend and millions of others like him could
have their symptoms relieved and we could continue searching for
a cure and for a way of preventing the disease? Absolutely. If
there is anything Canadians can address themselves to as a
country it is in this area.
I think of the area of cancer. I do not think there is a family
or a person who has not had a close friend or a member of the
family affected by this disease. We have seen it in our family.
Very frankly, we need to do all that we can to find the cause, to
search for a cure and to find a way to prevent the disease.
I think of Alzheimer's disease. My goodness, think of the
people we know today who are totally able to communicate, to
engage in discussions and debates and who several years down the
road find their brain suddenly ceases to function and are
stricken with a disease that causes lack of recognition of even
their closest family members. How dreadful. How great it would
be if, as a result of this bill, we could increase the research
into Alzheimer's and look for and find something that would
prevent the disease from occurring or to arrest it when it comes.
I think of Parkinson's disease. I have several friends who have
Parkinson's. One of my friends who had this disease passed away
not long ago. I have another friend younger than I, who I have
mentioned in the House before, who had an early onslaught of
Parkinson's disease. Today he sits in his wheelchair day after
day. When people ask me if I would want to see a cure, a way of
preventing Parkinson's, a way of curing it, I say “absolutely”.
We in this country need to do all that we can.
I think of strokes and heart disease. One of my closest
friends, younger than I, had a serious stroke. He will probably
have to live with the marginal ability to get around and
communicate for the rest of his life. Yes, let us find a cure.
Let us find a prevention.
1350
I think of multiple sclerosis, MS as it is called. I also have a
number of friends with MS. I think what I am saying is true for
all of us. Every one of us can think of someone in our families
or a close friend who has been stricken with these different
diseases.
I am not saying that Bill C-13 and the new organization of
health care research is the final answer and will solve all of
these problems, but I am encouraging all of us to work together
to provide research so that these diseases can be tackled and
solutions, cures and preventative measures can be identified,
found and implemented. It would do Canada a great service and
all Canadians would benefit. It would give us a mark in the
world as being on the leading edge of needed health care
research.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a privilege to stand in the House to speak on Bill C-13, an
act to establish Canadian Institutes of Health Research and an
act to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.
It was very interesting to hear my colleague from Elk Island
talk about his friends who were afflicted with various diseases,
in particular diabetes and how widespread that can be. Not only
does it affect the way one's body metabolizes sugar but, as my
colleague pointed out, it also affects one's eyesight,
circulation and even the heart.
Many of the people I have known who have had severe diabetes
have had their feet or another limb amputated just simply because
their circulation was so bad. Because they were not able to
maintain the circulation to keep those limbs alive, the limbs had
to be amputated to save the person's life. That is a very
traumatic thing.
We need to think back to the discoverers of insulin, the people
who isolated and reproduced insulin and got it to the place where
we could replace the insulin which was not produced in our bodies
in order to break down the sugar.
Research in Canada has always been in the forefront. There are
very significant contributions that have been made by Canadians,
contributions that we should be extremely proud of.
In the medical area, I have already mentioned Doctors Banting
and Best for their isolation and production of insulin. There
are other areas that we should also be very proud of, and that is
the production of the Avro Arrow for instance when we were able
to develop a supersonic aircraft that was significantly ahead of
its time and the sort of thing that would have been the envy of
all the world. Even today, technology is just catching up to
where the Avro Arrow was.
Whenever I think about research, whether it is medical,
technological or in other areas, I think about the problem that
we have in the country of maintaining our most inquisitive and
best trained minds. There has been a great deal written and said
with regard to the brain drain. It was not very long ago that
the Prime Minister said that there was no problem, that there was
no brain drain. Perhaps he might think that but there are all
kinds of evidence to the contrary. We do have a problem with
young people taking their skills south of the border in
particular.
Some of the reasons they would do that is because there is more
opportunity for them there.
There is a less oppressive tax regime. They can keep more of the
money they earn. They are also working for one hundred cent
dollars. I know that is a rather novel approach but a dollar in
the United States is still worth one hundred cents.
1355
As a result of the tax regime in this country, we find that our
tax freedom day comes around July 1. I do not know if it is
particularly significant that we celebrate Canada Day on July 1.
Maybe we could get a little funding for that so we could
celebrate tax freedom and Canada Day all in one. Maybe we could
save some costs on the celebration. Ideally, I would like to see
the tax freedom day moved backwards to June or May or, heaven
forbid, maybe even April.
One of the main reasons we have such tremendous difficulty
keeping active, young, inquisitive minds here is that they are
having a very difficult time making a go of it. I will give an
example of what I am talking about.
Adam is the father of three boys. His wife chooses to stay home
and look after the children because they think they can do a
better job of raising their children than the state. Adam earns
almost $53,000 a year, which amounts to about $4,412 a month.
That is not a bad salary, but we must consider that five people
have to live on that after $1,130 is taken out for income tax,
$110 per month for unemployment insurance and $140 per month for
the Canada pension plan. After that he has to pay his mortgage,
his insurance and all of those other things.
The reason I particularly mentioned the Canada pension plan is
because Adam has said that he has given up on the idea of ever
having the Canada pension plan. Part of the reason, he says, is
that so many of our—
The Speaker: The hon. member still has four minutes
remaining, but in view of the fact
that we will be welcoming new colleagues today I thought we
might begin our Statements by Members a little sooner.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATURAL DISASTERS
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one month ago, on October 29, a cyclone believed to be
the century's worst to hit India killed tens of thousands, left
millions homeless and virtually wiped away the eastern Indian
state of Orissa's infrastructure.
The Canadian Red Cross, Care Canada and the Canadian Lutheran
World Relief Fund are leading the efforts in assisting CIDA in
bringing aid to the victims of this disaster. I am happy to
provide Canadians with the telephone number of the Red Cross
cyclone relief effort that have been organized in Canada.
Donations can be made by phoning 1-800-418-1111.
I encourage all Canadians to once again show their solidarity,
generosity and to contribute to the relief efforts for the
victims of this tragic natural disaster.
* * *
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, British Columbians have been demeaned again.
The Prime Minister said here in this place “There is a
legislative assembly in British Columbia which voted on the
Nisga'a agreement expressing the view of the people of British
Columbia. This parliament will vote on this issue. This is the
way we do democracy in Canada”.
What arrogance. What contempt for British Columbians. What
utter disregard for the democratic process.
This government killed second reading debate on Nisga'a,
shutting out dozens of speakers. It then sent a committee out to
B.C. on a wild goose chase to see, hear and do nothing for
British Columbians.
Democracy? British Columbians are actively ignored by this
government. Strong opposition to the Nisga'a agreement by the
people of B.C. has done nothing to make this government care
about them. What should British Columbians do to express their
discontent with the Nisga'a agreement, and also about trade
policies, immigration policies and fisheries policies that are
not in the interest of British Columbia?
These are questions that are being seriously considered by
British Columbians.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN ARMY CADETS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday marked the 120th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Army
Cadets.
Over the last 120 years, the Canadian cadet movement has helped
youth understand the values of active citizenship, leadership and
physical fitness.
1400
Through the Royal Canadian Army Cadets we are investing in
Canadian youth and meeting our mandate to develop leaders for the
next century.
By contributing to their communities and by acting as
ambassadors for their country in the eyes of the world, cadets
live up to the expectations of Canadians.
Ex-army cadets have contributed greatly to our war efforts. By
1918 there were 64,000 cadets enrolled. Of these, upward of
40,000 ex-army cadets voluntarily enlisted to serve in World War
I.
It is to be noted also that of the 64 Victoria Crosses awarded
during World War I, 25 were won by ex-cadets.
On the 120th anniversary I extend my thanks to the young men and
women and the numerous volunteers who continue to make the Royal
Canadian Army Cadets a success.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December
6, Canada's national day of remembrance and action on violence
against women will mark the 10th anniversary of the tragic death
of 14 young women at the École Polytechnique in Montreal. At
this time Canadians will not only remember the loss of these
women, but will also remember women who are killed as a result of
deliberate acts of violence and those women who live with
violence every day.
Violence against women touches every Canadian community.
Statistics Canada research reveals that at least 51% of all
Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of physical
or sexual violence since the age of 16 and that sexual assault
accounts for almost one in ten violent crimes.
Ending violence against women requires the efforts of all
members of society. Together we can eliminate systemic violence
against women and children in the home, workplace and the
streets.
* * *
[Translation]
LAVAL UNIVERSITY ROUGE ET OR
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great
pleasure that I pay tribute today to the Laval University
football team, the Rouge et Or, winners of the Vanier Cup, the
symbol of dominance in Canadian intercollegiate football.
Remarkably, this victory was won by a team that has been in
existence a mere four years over a traditional gridiron power,
St. Mary's University of Halifax. I would like to commend the
other team as well for their performance in the finals.
There was heavy fan support for the entire team led by star
quarterback Mathieu Bertrand and receiver Stéphane Lefebvre, who
was named most valued player, as well as ball carrier Jessé
Gagné from Beauce.
I am sure that all hon. members will join with me in
congratulating head coach Jacques Chapdelaine and all of the
team on this great victory.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last Monday 27 farmers were found guilty of illegally
exporting grain by a Regina court. These farmers received
thousands of dollars in fines.
In September an aboriginal farmer from Lethbridge, Alberta was
found guilty of illegally exporting grain, but instead of
receiving fines he was given an absolute discharge because the
justice presiding over the case said that he only did it to
challenge the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing authority.
We have two different standards in this country. This group of
27 farmers was also challenging the Canadian Wheat Board's
marketing authority, yet it received huge fines. Even Provincial
Court Judge Bruce Henning said the farmers were only testing the
law. He said “I accept that they were sincere in believing they
were not breaking the law because they believed it was invalid”.
The courts are playing favourites. In the meantime our
government does nothing. It is time the government ended this
unfair treatment of the people who feed this country.
When will the government end its autocratic rule over western
Canadian farmers?
* * *
ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I welcome eight members
of the Ontario Legislative Internship Program to Ottawa, a
program in which I participated during the early 1980s. Similar
in nature to our own program, the Ontario interns, who are
recruited in a competitive process, provide valuable assistance
to members of the Ontario legislature.
An integral part of their program is the unique opportunity to
visit Canada's federal and provincial legislatures to strengthen
their understanding of the parliamentary system at both levels of
government.
During their stay in Ottawa they will attend several conferences
on the parliamentary system and meet with many members of
different political parties.
I encourage all members of parliament to join with me in
recognizing the importance of such internship programs in shaping
our political future and our community leaders. Please, if
members see them wandering the halls, stop and say hello.
* * *
[Translation]
LAVAL UNIVERSITY ROUGE ET OR
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Saturday,
the Laval University Rouge et Or clinched the Canadian
university championship with a hard-won victory, 14-10, over the
St. Mary's Huskies of Halifax.
1405
This is the first time a team from a francophone university has
won the prestigious Vanier Cup, and the Rouge et Or did so with
a valiant team effort right until the final seconds of a tough
game.
This past Saturday, there were many fans watching who had
dreamed of this very thing back in the days they attended that
same university and watched their team's rapid ascent in the
league.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to congratulate all of the players,
coaches and others who contributed to this great victory.
* * *
CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister's provocative approach to Quebec serves simply to
muddle English Canada and to slow the advances in the polls of
the Right Honourable Joe Clark.
Yes, people are tired of the constitutional debate, but they
certainly need a break from the provocation carried on for the
past 30 years by the leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada, who
must see that their strategy has increased the sovereignist vote
from 20% to 49% in 20 years. Does the Prime Minister of Canada
want to carry on into the next century?
Fed up with inflated taxes, the sabotage of our health care
system, the departure of our young people and the increase in
poverty, Canadians want a practical political agenda from their
Prime Minister.
Enough of the constitutional bear trap for our English-speaking
fellow citizens.
* * *
[English]
TEAM LIBERAL
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as player-coach of team Liberal, I want to say how
proud I am of our hockey players.
Last Thursday night we played in the second annual parliamentary
hockey championships. I must point out that the only reason the
opposition finally found winning conditions was because of
outside help. Just as its members rely on the media to provide
ammunition for question period, they relied on two reporters who
made a big impact, although little Jimmy Munson needed a booster
seat to see the game. Their goalie, also not an MP, was the real
ringer. He was more acrobatic than Patrick Roy.
Team Liberal, made up entirely of MPs, showcased two impressive
rookies. The member for Pickering-Ajax—Uxbridge shared goal
tending duties with the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, and
the member for Vaughan—King—Aurora scored a goal.
It was a great game for a great cause, the Children's Hospital
of Eastern Ontario. I extend special thanks to the Corel Centre
for donating the ice.
Mr. Speaker, the puck stops here. In the millennium rubber match
we will fill the opposition net with these pucks.
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members not to use props.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the lobster fishery opens today in Nova Scotia. A cloud
hangs over the usual excitement and expectations of opening day,
a cloud largely created by the Liberal government's fishery
policy, a policy which seeks to displace currently licensed
fishermen with aboriginal fishermen.
It appears that the fisheries minister has proposed a plan to
his cabinet colleagues which would allow for the purchase of
three-quarters of the commercial licences in some areas, at a
cost of $300 million to $500 million. The impact on coastal
communities is something this minister seems to have forgotten
with his hare-brained scheme.
Taking three-quarters of the licences will cut the heart out of
these vibrant communities. Without the income from lobster, the
need for many businesses would vanish. The communities would
lose their reason for being. Welfare would replace wages. Out
migration would be the order of the day. Killing one community
in a misguided effort to inject life into another is not good
policy.
* * *
THE GREY CUP
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with regret that I report that Canadians yesterday witnessed the
last Grey Cup game of the 20th century, and the Hamilton Tiger
Cats were the champions, having soundly defeated the Calgary
Stampeders 32 to 21 in Vancouver.
Following the game, 12,000 emotional fans crowded on to King
Street in downtown Hamilton to celebrate. To their credit, there
was not a single problem. Police laid no charges.
Hamiltonians have much to be proud of. In fact, Canadians have
much to be proud of. The Grey Cup and the Canadian football
league help to define us as a nation. They are a big part of who
we are.
It is the eighth Grey Cup victory for Hamilton since the old
Ticats and Wildcats merged just before the start of the 1950
season.
On behalf of my constituents and Ticat fans nationwide, I say
“Oskee Wee Wee, Oskee Wah Wah, Holy Macinaw, the Ticats ate them
raw”.
* * *
1410
TRADE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as
the federal government continues the sellout of Canada in the
millennium round of the WTO in Seattle, thousands of Canadians
are hitting the streets to say no: no to a market ideology and
trade liberalization that would give more power to corporate
elites; no to the commodification of health care, education,
culture and human services; no to the multinational corporations
which want to trade, exploit and profit from public services; and
no to the Liberal government's secretive agenda that undermines
democracy.
The auto pact, farm income support, magazines and the fisheries
have already fallen at the WTO altar. Canadians are not going to
stand by and see more of their precious resources—now, for the
first time, education and health care—thrown to the WTO to
control.
The NDP opposed the creation of the WTO in 1994 because, like
the NAFTA, it elevates the rights of multinational corporations
at the expense of public needs. We say to the Liberal government
today “Stand for Canadians, stand for our public services and
defeat the WTO agenda”.
* * *
[Translation]
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last weekend,
at the biennial Liberal Party of Canada convention in Hull,
members representing all regions of Quebec rejected all the
proposals calling on the federal government to take a hard line
against Quebec.
Despite these calls for moderation from his own membership, the
Prime Minister continued his barely veiled threats against
democracy in Quebec. The province has never given in to this
sort of blackmail. Once again, Quebec will not bow to the
undemocratic threats of the federal government.
Rather than pushing ahead plan B every way they can, the Prime
Minister and his professor minister should come up with a true
constitutional vision. In fact, according to a survey
commissioned by the Privy Council, 52% of respondents consider
that, since the 1995 referendum, the Government of Canada has
shown no clear indication of goodwill.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the last convention of the Quebec wing of the
Liberal Party of Canada, the Prime Minister offered a truce to
the Premier of Quebec, proposing to stop talking about a
referendum if the premier was prepared to give up his plans to
separate Quebec from the rest of Canada.
The Prime Minister truly reached out to the sovereignists.
We are asking the sovereignists to take this proposal seriously,
in the interest of Quebec's stability and political future, and
to ensure a better economic and social future to all Quebecers.
The reason for this invitation is simple: Quebecers no longer
want to hear about referendums and independence.
* * *
[English]
CULTURALISM
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during
the past several months Canada's heritage minister has been
building an international alliance to strengthen national
cultures.
Under her leadership, Canada was entrusted with housing a
permanent liaison office for the contact group of the
International Network on Cultural Policy.
Canada will also host the first world summit on arts and
cultural institutions in December 2000.
Recently the minister presided over a round table on culture and
creativity in the face of globalization. These efforts are
increasing international awareness of the need to protect and
enhance Canadian and other world cultures.
I urge the minister to keep this momentum going and to continue
to defend cultural diversity in this era of globalization.
* * *
[Translation]
LAVAL UNIVERSITY ROUGE ET OR
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday, November 27, Laval University's football team, the
Rouge et Or, won the Canadian university football championship,
the Vanier Cup.
Laval has had a football team for just four years. This success
shows the tenacity and determination displayed by the team to
achieve that level of excellence.
It takes an extraordinary staff to build such a team. Coach
Jacques Chapdelaine gained his experience with the famous Bishop
University Gaiters.
Mr. Chapdelaine is a native of the Eastern Townships and a former
resident of Compton—Stanstead.
[English]
Compton—Stanstead is also home to the bag balm, a product
recently made famous by the soft and satiny Shania Twain.
[Translation]
Congratulations to Jacques and his team, the Rouge et Or.
[English]
Congratulations to Eric Smith and his bag balm.
The Speaker: Colleagues, today is a special day for us in
the House, as we will welcome four new colleagues into our midst.
* * *
1415
NEW MEMBERS
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral
Officer certificates of the election and return of the following
members:
Mr. Irwin Cotler, for the electoral district of Mount Royal
Mr. Marcel Proulx, for the electoral district of Hull—Aylmer
Mrs. Judy Sgro, for the electoral district of York West
Mr. Dennis Gruending, for the electoral district of
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar
* * *
NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED
Irwin Cotler, member for the electoral district of Mount Royal,
introduced by the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien and the Hon. Alfonso
Gagliano.
Marcel Proulx, member for the electoral district of
Hull—Aylmer, introduced by the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien and the
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano.
Judy Sgro, member for the electoral district of York West,
introduced by the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien and the Hon. Alfonso
Gagliano.
Dennis Gruending, member for the electoral district of
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, introduced by Ms. Alexa McDonough
and Mr. Dick Proctor.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1420
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations to each of the
new members and welcome them to the daily circus.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, my friends have lost
their sense of humour. The official opposition supports clarity
on the question of the majority required on Quebec's separation.
We have said this for five years and are glad that the Prime
Minister has finally seen the light. However the Prime Minister
gives clarity a bad name. He is not clear on what constitutes a
majority. He is not even clear on what constitutes a clear
question.
1425
Our question would be: Should Quebec separate from Canada and
become an independent country with no special legal ties with
Canada? Yes or no. Does the Prime Minister agree with that
formulation of the question?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to welcome the four new members as well. I do
not think it is a circus here. I think it is the most serious
place in the land.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: I can understand the Leader of
the Opposition feeling like that when he has done such a
flip-flop over three days. That is part of the circus he is
developing himself.
The question will not be asked by this parliament. The question
has to be asked by the legislative assembly in Quebec, but if
they want negotiation after the vote the question has to respect
all the conditions of the judgment of the Supreme Court of
Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer the question and he is
equally unclear on his view of democracy. He says he wants a
clear majority but he is unable to tell Canadians precisely what
that is.
The federal government accepted 50% plus one in two previous
Quebec referenda and 50% plus one was the rule in the
Charlottetown referendum. Why will the Prime Minister not
clarify his definition of what constitutes a clear majority?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had been listening
before the last referendum, I said at least a dozen times in the
House that 50% plus one was not a sufficient majority to break up
the nation. I know that the leader of the Reform Party said that
was enough. For me, it is not enough.
I would just like to say today, as I said on Sunday, that I hope
I will not have to proceed. I made a very serious offer to Mr.
Bouchard, and if he tells the nation that there will be no
referendum I will not proceed at all.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, he does not like 50%
plus one but you will notice he did not say what he does like.
That is not clarifying the situation. That is muddying it up.
We are democrats and we believe that Canadians are democrats
too. We believe that a democratic majority on a clear question
would have to be acknowledged and accepted in good faith by the
federal government as grounds for negotiation however undesirable
that outcome might be.
The Prime Minister says he wants to bring clarity to this
situation. In the interest of clarity would the Prime Minister
tell the House in what possible way he could enforce any other
outcome?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada was very clear when it used
the word clarity 25 times in its judgment. In the summary of
its judgment it used it another 10 times, all the time referring
to the nature of the question and to the majority.
I said that all the judgments would be respected. We will take
the means to make sure that they will be respected. Otherwise
there will be no negotiation.
I do not want to proceed with that. As I said very seriously on
Sunday, the people do not want to hear about it. They want us to
deal with other problems, and I am delighted Mr. Bouchard is
taking the time to reflect on the very serious offer I made to
him on Sunday morning.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
the Prime Minister did not think it should be discussed right
now, why in the world did he bring it up? That would be a
question he should think about.
The finance minister is responsible for the federal government's
fiscal policy. He knows that a yes vote in Quebec would send the
economy into a period of serious uncertainty, but the rejection
of the will of a democratic majority on a clear question would
create even more chaos.
1430
Has the finance minister developed a contingency plan to support
the Prime Minister's rejection of the will of a democratic
majority of Quebecers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope that the hon. member will read the judgment of
the supreme court. The supreme court said that a simple majority
was not enough, that the will of the people had to be very
clearly expressed, that there had to be a large consensus to
bring about such a very important statement.
As I said in my speech on Sunday, the leader of the Conservative
Party felt that 66% was not enough for him to hold on to his
leadership. Mr. Bouchard felt that 76% was needed for him to
reflect before deciding to stay. In 1980 when the no side had 60%
of the votes, it was not enough for the Parti Quebecois to
respect democracy.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here we go waxing on about clarity, but if that was clarity, it
is pathetic. This is getting thicker and foggier every time the
Prime Minister opens his mouth.
Whether the finance minister likes it or not, the rejection of
the democratic will of Quebecers would create even more confusion
and uncertainty, especially in the international financial
markets.
Does the Prime Minister believe that the international markets
would support the Prime Minister's rejection of the democratic
outcome of a democratic question? Yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not undemocratic at all. Most of the big
countries in the world do not even permit a vote on separation.
Let us look at other markets. In the United States they do not
have permission to separate a state from the United States. In
France the constitution is very clear that no part of France can
quit France. We are more democratic in Canada than most of the
countries of the world.
It is why I say that the Minister of Finance does not have to
work on the plan. The Minister of Finance, like this Prime
Minister and this party will do everything to make sure that we
succeed in keeping all of the provinces in a united Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
weekend, the Prime Minister told the Liberal rank and file that
he was tired of talking about the constitution and that, if we
were to quit talking about it, the problem would go away.
Are we to understand that the Prime Minister is now resorting to
magical thinking and that all we have to do is stop talking
about the constitution for a solution to be found?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what I said was that people were tired of hearing about the
referendum and winning conditions. People know that, every
week, the Parti Quebecois talks about laying the groundwork for
winning conditions. Every month, Mr. Bouchard says he is going
to hold a referendum, when 72% of Quebecers do not want one.
If they want to talk about democracy, let them respect the will
of 72% of Quebecers, who do not want a referendum. Then
everyone will be happy and we can deal with real problems.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
people also know that the Prime Minister is the one responsible
for the unilateral patriation of the constitution, the failure
of the Meech Lake agreement, a social union agreement that does
not have Quebec's signature, and unprecedented interference in
Quebec's jurisdiction. The Prime Minister's name is associated
with all these attacks on Quebec.
After 35 years in political life, is the Prime Minister not
afraid of going down in history as the man who painted us into a
corner?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in December 1995, for the first time in the history of
parliament, we introduced a resolution to recognize Quebec as a
distinct society, and the Bloc Quebecois voted against.
1435
In this House, we voted for a bill giving Quebec, Ontario and
British Columbia a veto. Once again, the Bloc Quebecois voted
against.
We made another promise. We said that we would transfer
responsibility for manpower training to the Province of Quebec,
and what a mess Mr. Bouchard's government made of that.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over
the weekend, the Prime Minister added to his government's
anti-democratic intentions by reaffirming before the party
faithful that he had to intervene to set the rules for the next
referendum in Quebec.
Can the Prime Minister tell us how he intends to question the
most sacred rule in democracy, the rule of 50% plus one, the
only rule that ensures the equality of all votes?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will never call my hon. colleague a poor democrat.
I believe simply that they have not given sufficient thought to
the problems of reconciling their project and democracy. We
would need to have a high level debate among democrats without
pointless insults.
Second, if the rule of 50% plus one is sacred in all
circumstances, why does the Government of Quebec not honour it
in the case of its municipal referendums?
Democracy is expressed in different ways. There is a rule in
democracy, which I did not invent, that the more serious and
irreversible a decision, the higher the approval threshold must
be.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
remind the minister and the Prime Minister that, in 1980 and
1995, the federal government accepted the rule of 50% plus one,
since it was clear then that no one intended to question this
universally recognized rule.
In trying to change the rule today, does the Prime Minister
realize that he will go down in history as the man who wanted to
derail democracy in Canada and Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have said dozens of times in this House that we would never
agree to the rule of 50% plus one. I said so before the
referendum, during the referendum and after the referendum.
If it takes two thirds of the National Assembly to appoint the
auditor general, the director general of elections and the
ombudsman, and if it takes a two thirds majority to expel a
union from the CSN, there is no question of breaking up a
country after a judicial recount because there is one vote in
favour of breaking up the country, because that person may have
left their glasses at home.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too
would like to welcome the newest members of parliament and wish
them well as they assume their solemn duties and responsibilities
to make this parliament work better, to make Canada work better,
to make democracy work better for all Canadians. That includes
matters of trade. Trade is good.
As the WTO huddles in Seattle, a growing worldwide movement of
citizens is calling for fundamental change in our approach to
trade. They are calling for trade to be about improving the
human condition and improving human lives. On Friday in Toronto
the Chinese trade representative stated “This is the WTO. This
is a trade agreement. It will have nothing to do with human
rights”.
Does Canada stand with China, or does Canada stand with citizens
who insist that trade agreements must be about human rights?
1440
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they are very serious negotiations. All the countries
of the world are there.
It is very important that we defend the interests of Canadian
products and Canadian programs and make sure that there is more
trade around the world. If there is more trade around the world,
there is more wealth around the world which will help more people
to have a decent way of living. It is the objective of the WTO
to stop protectionism and make sure that the industrialized
countries for example buy goods and services from the poorest
countries of the world.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we
agree that trade agreements can be beneficial, but it depends on
what we put in them. For example, on Friday Canada signed a new
deal with China. It gives Canadian banks access to Chinese
markets but it ignores child labour. The government had an
opportunity to put a human face, a child's face on trade, but it
chose not to.
Why will the government not stand up to those who would put
profits ahead of the interests of people?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our agenda for the
world trade talks is to get access to those markets and at the
same time to make sure that our social programs are protected.
At the same time, the hon. member knows there are other avenues
in which Canada takes a leading role in making sure that human
rights are protected. In fact, the Prime Minister, the Minister
for International Trade, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs on
many occasions have stood up internationally to make sure that
child labour and human rights issues are at the forefront of the
agenda.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Saturday night at midnight, InterCanadian, the only carrier
servicing Charlo, New Brunswick and a number of other Canadian
airports, shut down its operations with neither notice or
explanation.
Can the Minister of Transport tell us whether he was aware of
this situation and if he has any immediate plans for restoring
air service to Charlo and other affected Canadian airports?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is regrettable that InterCanadian shut down its
operations Saturday night without notifying the Canadian
government or other airlines, or its passengers.
I am told that InterCanadian will be releasing a statement at
5 p.m. today to explain the situation. In the meantime, Air
Canada, Canadian Airlines International, Air Nova, Air Alliance
and even VIA Rail will honour the tickets of InterCanadian
passengers.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
contrary to the minister's answer, the president of InterCanadien
Airlines wrote the minister two days ago and said, “This is to
inform you that InterCanadien has now reached the final desperate
condition that we have been openly warning you about for many
months”. He went on to say “InterCanadien considers that its
current condition and its anticipated closure are direct and
predicted consequences of the actions and omissions of the
federal government ministry's agency”.
It is very clear that the government's lack of policy and
direction is part of the problem. Will the minister take
responsibility, act as a facilitator, bring all the parties
together and get InterCanadian flying again?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to blame this unfortunate incident on the
government's restructuring process using section 47 is like
blaming the doctor for the illness.
We have never contested that there is a serious problem with the
airline industry in Canada. That is why we took the actions we
did. These matters are under discussion. There are talks
between parties. Air Canada is involved with Canadian Airlines.
American Airlines is involved in discussions.
We hope that in the next few weeks there will be a resolution of
this issue. In the meantime, ticket holders on InterCanadien are
being respected by the other carriers and that will minimize any
disruption. In the meantime, all efforts are being made to bring
air services back to normal.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
court documents show that in the last election the Minister for
International Trade received a donation of $10,000 in cash plus
other services that he failed to claim as required under the
Canada Elections Act. In return, the donor's wife received an
appointment to the National Parole Board worth $90,000 a year.
Will the government immediately launch an investigation into
these very serious matters?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is an officer of
the House. He knows as well as I do that if there is an
accusation that he or anyone else is making regarding electoral
contributions, the proper way to make it is through the
commissioner of elections.
The commissioner is then free to investigate it as he so wishes.
He is an independent officer and is free to refer it to the
police if he deems that to be appropriate.
1445
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
court document I am referring to is an affidavit that was placed
before the court detailing the $10,000 donation and the other
donations that were not claimed in the elections act. Surely that
is enough evidence for the minister to at least start an
investigation. The RCMP have tapes that apparently detail the
conversations between this parole board appointee and the
government minister.
I think the minister should immediately launch an investigation
to clear this cloud that now hangs over the head of the Minister
for International Trade.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to repeat what I said
previously—and the hon. member across knows better—these
investigations are not launched by the government, nor are they
not launched by the leader of the government responsible for the
elections act. They are launched by the commissioner of
Elections Canada.
If he feels he has a legitimate complaint, and obviously he must
since he has now asked two questions about it, let him report it
to the commissioner and the commissioner will do his
investigation as he does in a normal course under the law passed
by this parliament.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
close to one thousand people have lost their jobs or are on the
verge of losing their jobs.
Thousands are stranded in airports.
Some regions of Quebec find themselves isolated. These are the
immediate consequences of the situation in which InterCanadian
airlines finds itself.
Since this situation is the outcome of the Minister of
Transport's inability to come up with a true airline policy for
Canada, what does he intend to do now, in light of the urgency
of this situation? We do not want platitudes, but concrete
action.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been since
August 13. The reason we introduced section 47 was because we
realized there was a very serious problem. On August 13 we laid
out a plan of action that we have followed throughout this fall.
Admittedly, this has caused some consternation to many. However,
as I said earlier, this matter is being dealt with by the air
carriers. It was very unfortunate what happened to
Inter-Canadien's passengers but we have insisted that their
tickets be honoured. We look forward to getting further details
this afternoon so we can clarify the situation.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
can the minister make a commitment not to issue any new licences
to regional carriers, such as the new one Air Canada wants to
set up in Hamilton, before the unfortunate situation with
InterCanadian is settled?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, since he is a member of
the transport committee, the entire matter of transportation
policy and air policy is being worked on by the committee and by
the government. Discussions are going on between the airlines to
resolve the situation.
In the meantime, there is a particular problem involving
Inter-Canadien. It is a serious problem and hopefully in the
next few days there will be a resolution to that issue.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister for International Trade denies having received an
unreported $10,000 in cash along with transportation services for
his election campaign in return for appointing a supporter to the
parole board. However, his official agent has already admitted
that transportation services were received from a company in
Montreal and not reported.
The House leader for the government knows that a complaint
cannot be launched with the commissioner 18 months after the
election. So who is going to take the fall for contravening the
elections act, the minister or his official agent?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question of taking a
fall or any such nonsense. This is far more serious than to say
something like that, and the hon. member knows it. The
information given to me as late as an hour ago is that the
official agent had no such information as the hon. member across
alleges.
In any case, as I said previously, if the hon. member feels that
he has a legitimate complaint, and he probably feels that he does
because this is the third question that has been asked—and if
the hon. member from Edmonton would listen, perhaps she too would
want to inform herself—they should inform the commissioner of
elections if they feel they have a complaint.
1450
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, any
minister found guilty of improperly reporting campaign expenses
automatically loses his seat in the House and cannot accept any
patronage appointment from the Prime Minister for seven years.
That is a tough situation for a Liberal.
Will the government do the right thing and arrange for the
release of the taped telephone conversations between the minister
and his Parole Board appointee so that the air can be cleared and
we can find out the minister's involvement in this case?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no person is appointed to the Parole
Board unless they are qualified, have related experience and go
through a screening process. That is exactly what took place.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is alleged that, during the 1997 election campaign, the
Minister for International Trade, through his chief organizer,
Jacques Lamoureux, accepted $10,000 in cash and the use of a
chauffeur driven car, which do not appear on his election
report, as prescribed by the Canada Elections Act.
Members may remember that Marcel Masse had to leave cabinet in
1985 under similar circumstances.
Does the Prime Minister not consider that the Minister for
International Trade is now finding himself in a similar
situation and should therefore resign?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to an
allegation made elsewhere. He knows the context in which it was
made.
If the hon. member feels that the allegation is founded, I would
urge him to file a complaint with the Commissioner of Canada
Elections, who will take whatever measures are required. This
includes, of course, if he deems it appropriate, calling on the
police.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we should be concerned that the government does not seem to
think that these are serious allegations.
Under the circumstances, would it not be proper for the minister
to temporarily leave cabinet, while an investigation is
conducted into this matter?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, no investigation has been
initiated. Second, the allegation may not be founded.
The hon. member, who is a practising lawyer, is well aware that,
when an allegation is made, it definitely does not mean that the
person is guilty.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has stated that reductions in agriculture
subsidies will be a priority in the WTO millennium round of trade
negotiations. However, these talks will take up to five years to
complete. Farmers cannot wait for five years for these talks to
be successful. Foreign subsidies are driving them into
bankruptcy today.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to launch a team Canada
mission to Europe and Washington aimed at reducing agriculture
subsidies immediately?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government
is on record as saying that one of our first priorities is to
reduce international trade subsidies and domestic subsidies. That
is what we are doing in Seattle today and what we will continue
to do.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals seem to think that the millennium round
means that they have a thousand years to negotiate. Farmers will
not survive on Liberal promises.
The Prime Minister has had since 1993 to negotiate reductions in
foreign farm subsidies. He has not even tried. Why is the Prime
Minister willing to sacrifice thousands of farmers by waiting
another five to ten years hoping for subsidy reductions?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in my capacity as Minister responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board, what the hon. gentleman should know is that the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister for
International Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself
have raised this issue with the Europeans repeatedly, including
commissioner Fischler, and with the United States, including the
trade representative Charlene Barshefsky and secretary Glickman.
We have also raised it with the Argentinians, the Brazilians and
the Australians at the OECD.
If the hon. gentleman wants an all out assault by Canada on the
subsidies of foreign countries, that began a long time ago and we
will continue until we win.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
September 25, 1985, upon learning that he was being investigated
for services rendered by Lavallin but not declared in his
election expenses return, former minister Marcel Masse resigned,
stating as follows “The possibility that I might be charged
casts doubt on my honesty, which would reflect on the
government”.
1455
My question is for the Prime Minister. How can the Prime
Minister tolerate standards of honesty that are not just as high
for his Minister for International Trade as they were back then
for Marcel Masse?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the standard
of honesty is much higher among Liberals than among Progressive
Conservatives. I am sure the member opposite knows this, given
the caucus to which she once belonged.
Now, on a much more serious note, with respect to the allegation
made by the member in the House, if she believes it to be well
founded, she can of course inform the Commissioner of Canada
Elections. That gentlemen may, if he wishes, conduct an
investigation and, should he feel the matter to be a serious
one, request the assistance of the authorities, if he deems it
necessary.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
This past summer, four ships packed with illegal migrants landed
in B.C. What measure is the minister taking to ensure that the
B.C. coast is properly patrolled in an effort to deter future
human smuggling?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the men and women of the Canadian forces
are patrolling the shores and waters around our country daily.
In fact, our country has more water around it than any other
country in the world. We do have a very effective patrolling
system using naval vessels and Aurora surveillance aircraft. All
of these were used to assist the department of immigration with
respect to this matter of the smuggling of immigrants.
Furthermore, we used our facilities in Esquimalt to house these
people when they arrived in Canada.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the $95 billion projected tax surplus
clearly shows just how far the finance minister is prepared to go
with his insatiable tax appetite.
It clearly shows just how much financial harm he is prepared to
inflict on Canadian workers and their families in his insatiable
tax grab as he continues his six year pillage of their
paycheques. The Vikings had nothing on the finance minister.
Considering that the finance minister has more money than he
needs right now, when will he give a tax break to Canadians? When
will he give it?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have cut
taxes consistently. Reform has called for $52 billion tax and
debt reduction measures in the third year out. Eleven of
Canada's top economists on the other hand have said that surplus
will only be $13 billion. Reform is 400% off target. It does
not take political opponents to marginalize the members of the
Reform Party, they do it to themselves.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, $13 billion? Well there must be some new
spending programs we have not found out about yet, but we thank
the minister for his little warning.
Gerald's recent paycheque of $4,300 was deducted by $2,100, 48%
by the finance minister as he continues building his tax surplus
on the backs of Canadian workers.
How can the finance minister stand in the House and talk about
tax cuts when his record of six years of tax increases stares
everybody in the country in the face?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, why does the
hon. member not go out and talk to Raymond, Elise, Mary, William,
Wayne and the 1.7 million other Canadians who did not, but do
today thanks to our sound economic policies, have pay stubs.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the government's efforts to get the European and
American governments to reduce their agricultural subsidies so
far have failed.
On the eve of the Seattle meeting of the WTO, it has become
clear that European governments are in no mood to take any action
on subsidies.
1500
My question is for the Minister responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board. Will the government let farmers pay the price by
themselves during a waiting game on European subsidies, or will
the government provide the real support Canadian farmers need now
to get through the winter?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy first of all to welcome the hon. gentleman to
the House and congratulate him on his election victory in
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
Second, let me confirm that the government has a multifaceted
approach to this problem. It is a serious problem that all of us
should treat seriously. In part the answer lies in the aggressive
fight that we are fighting and have fought previously in the
world trade circles to ensure that the trade-distorting subsidies
of other countries are brought down as rapidly as possible.
In the meantime we need to keep working on strengthening our
farm income safety nets. We have put in a long term way, $1
billion into those safety nets. Another $1 billion—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his kind words.
The facts remain that the government has slashed agriculture
supports more deeply than required under past trade agreements.
In fact it cut 40% more deeply than it had to.
Now we see that the Europeans will not budge from their position
of keeping subsidies in place. The government has a clear
responsibility to give our farmers a level of support that is
perfectly legal under trade rules and absolutely necessary to
save thousands of Canadian family farms.
Will the government take up its responsibilities to Canadian
farming communities with a meaningful package of emergency
assistance, or will it continue to let farmers hang out to dry in
the chill wind of the trade fight over agricultural subsidies?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I was beginning to say at the end of the previous
answer, first, we have put together a safety net package with the
provinces that totals $1 billion a year ongoing. On top of that,
in 1998 and 1999 we have added more than $1 billion more to
strengthen that safety net program.
In addition, in provinces like Saskatchewan we have topped up
the NISA program by $75 million. We have triggered available
payments of about $435 million. If the emergency program is
fully participated in by the provincial government, $585 million
more will be made available to Saskatchewan farmers.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, first, on behalf of the Conservative Party I would
also like to welcome the new members to the House.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The
southwest Nova Scotia lobster fishery is under way and with it
further recognition of the government's continuing incompetence
to deal with the fallout from the Marshall decision. The minister
has been saying for months that consultations are under way, yet
his chief negotiator is a bust. Today the Acadia band has called
off its self-imposed agreement for a six boat limit because of
the DFO agreement.
This is a clear question for the minister. Will the minister
ensure that his DFO officers will enforce the regulations,
seasons and conservation measures for all commercial fishermen?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member does not
have his facts right.
I was encouraged by the community based solution where the
commercial fishermen and the Acadia band had agreed to the
fishing limits and the six units. Unfortunately, I understand
now that the Acadia band felt there was a misunderstanding and
they want more access to the fishery. I will certainly be looking
into the situation. We have a federal representative who is out
talking. It is unfortunate, but the fact is the courts have
confirmed that as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I can and will
regulate the fishery to make sure we have an orderly fishery.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the confusion arises out of the minister's own
department. It is clear that those parties involved have no
faith whatsoever in the federal negotiator.
There is a simmering crisis on the east coast. The Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans muses publicly about spending as much as
$500 million over the next five years to buy out licences, yet
there is no faith in the federal negotiator or in the minister
who ignored earlier efforts by natives to try to settle this
matter.
How many months will the fishermen be expected to wait while the
government embarks on token consultations and stall tactics?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite wrong.
There is tremendous support for the federal representative, Mr.
MacKenzie. He is doing a tremendous job. He is out talking and
the talks are going very well.
The Conservative Party's only solution to this whole problem was
to use the notwithstanding clause.
That is the only solution it has come up with. That shows it is
bankrupt of ideas. That party will go back to two seats if it
does not come up with constructive solutions.
* * *
1505
TRADE
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week in Seattle,
Washington ministers of the 135 member nations of the World Trade
Organization will launch the next round of trade talks on
agriculture.
WTO critics complain that the WTO favours big business interests
and undermines the survival of the family farm which is very
important to all of us. What are these talks going to do for the
Canadian family farm?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
agricultural industry, especially western Canada's agricultural
industry, depends on international trade rules that all countries
abide by. Canada is in Seattle to put those agreements in place
so our farmers will be competing against farmers, not against
foreign treasuries.
* * *
PRISONS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Corrections Canada has no prisons in Price Edward Island. The
government and Corrections Canada have over 100 facilities in the
country in which to research drugs. The commissioner of
corrections a few weeks ago told me personally that drugs in
prisons were not as big a problem as I make it out to be.
Why is the solicitor general going to build a $2.5 million
facility in his riding to research drugs in prisons?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated from the time I was
appointed solicitor general, I intend to fight drugs and alcohol
in penal institutions across the country. With today's
technology, institutions can be created anywhere in the country.
When the director of Correctional Service Canada indicated he
would like to build it in Price Edward Island, I certainly
agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN HEALTH NETWORK
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health has announced the creation of the Canadian
Health Network.
This is an Internet-based information service focussed on
prevention. We are told that it will have three operations
centres: Vancouver for the west, Toronto for central Canada, and
Halifax for the maritime provinces.
Can the Minister of Health confirm that the Canadian Health
Network will not have any operations centre in Quebec and that,
incredible as it may seem, the web server for Quebec will be in
Toronto?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Health
Canada has a number of partners in Quebec. We are providing
reliable information to Quebecers and to all Canadians.
We have a complete network of reliable information that is
available every day. The services are available in English and
in French everywhere in Canada.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government assault on
commercial lobster fishermen continues and continues and
continues. First it introduced a carapace size. Nobody in the
area wanted a carapace size increase. They have been V-notching
the lobsters for the last two years and the lobster catches have
been increasing so there is no agreement at all to the extra
carapace size.
Now DFO refuses to negotiate the agreement or implement the
agreement on district 34 and district 33 of the lobster fishing
areas as well as the Acadia band.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Instead
of sending in the B team to Nova Scotia, why does he
himself not go down there and negotiate these agreements and
bring some money to settle these—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not have a B team. We
are all A team on this side.
As the hon. member knows, at the Acadia first nation this was a
community based agreement that was agreed to by the local
community. We were supportive of that. We certainly are
supportive of it now as well. We expect the parties to come
together on the original agreement that was agreed upon by both
parties.
Certainly I want to make it perfectly clear that on how we
regulate the fisheries, the courts have confirmed once again our
position and reaffirmed what the government is doing. The federal
representative is out talking to all the groups.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Has he read the 1998 supreme court decision? That is my first
question.
Second, if so, could he tell the House the paragraph he is
referring to when he talks of the role of the federal
government?
1510
What legal and political support is there in the supreme court
decision for the federal government's power to act before the
Quebec referendum process has begun?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the supreme court referred to the country's political actors. I
imagine that the Prime Minister of Canada is one of this
country's political actors.
* * *
[English]
TOBACCO
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently 17 young Canadians representing all regions of our
country were selected to form a youth advisory committee on
tobacco issues. They met over the weekend to discuss the
government's tobacco strategy as it relates to youth.
Would the Secretary of State for Children and Youth tell the
House what the youth advisory committee can contribute to address
the serious risk of smoking among young Canadians?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was proud to meet and speak
with these young people over the weekend. They are most
impressive with their knowledge regarding tobacco reduction in
general, but specifically how to deal with commitment and
dedication regarding the youth, their tobacco use and their
desire to educate their peers on the harm of tobacco products.
The committee reported to me that they had established a mission
statement and were in the process of producing four preliminary
reports concerning high risk groups, communications strategies,
cessation programs and reduction of youth access to tobacco
products. I look forward to accepting their work in the near
future.
This initiative promotes a youth to youth approach whereby the
government interacts with young people and does not just tell
them what it thinks.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
TREATIES RATIFIED IN 1989 AND 1990
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2), I am pleased to table in the House, in both official
languages, 44 treaties that came into force in 1989 and 43
treaties that came into force in 1990, a list of which is also
tabled.
[English]
As was done previously, I am also providing the Library of
Parliament CD-ROMs that contain electronic versions of these
treaties in order to provide wide accessibility to the texts.
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in both official languages a number of order in
council appointments made recently by the government. Pursuant to
the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed
referred to the appropriate standing committees.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's responses to two
petitions.
* * *
1515
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-387, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act
(elimination of the waiting period in a natural disaster).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with the elimination of
the waiting period in a natural disaster.
I am of course referring here to the ice storm that severely hit
my region as well as Granby and Saint-Hyacinthe.
When people are left on their own and without a job because of a
natural disaster, it is important that we ensure that they are
not doubly penalized because of a waiting period. This is the
purpose of this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations among the House leaders and I believe you
would find support for the following motion:
That the House, pursuant to Standing Order 119.1(1), authorize
the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities to televise its meetings
November 30 and December 2, 1999, in accordance with the
guidelines pertaining to televising committee proceedings.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
from a number of Canadians in my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society. The petitioners also suggest that the Income Tax
Act discriminates against families who provide direct parental
care to preschool children. The petitioners therefore call upon
parliament to examine and to pursue initiatives which would
eliminate discrimination against families who choose to provide
direct parental care to preschool children.
EQUALITY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
take great pride in presenting a petition put forth by 1,799
concerned Canadians, mostly from the province of Quebec.
The petitioners ask the government to affirm that all Canadians
are equal under all circumstances and without exception in the
province of Quebec and throughout Canada. They wish to remind
the government only to enact legislation that affirms the
equality of each and every individual under the laws of Canada.
THE CONSTITUTION
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present several petitions
signed by hundreds of constituents of Windsor West.
The petitioners call upon parliament to uphold the present
wording of the constitution and the principle of recognizing the
supremacy of God and the rule of law.
[Translation]
GLOBALIZATION
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present to the House several hundreds of petitions
from people asking the House to strike a committee to look into
the impact of globalization.
A debate has to take place. A debate will in fact take place
even if the House rejected the idea this morning, because I will
set up a consultation process with the civil society, with or
without the parliamentarians,. I encourage all the
parliamentarians who want to participate to do so.
Members will see that people from Lac-Saint-Jean do not give up
that easily.
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present
a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, from a number of
constituents who are once again calling for the abolition of the
undemocratic Senate.
I will not take the time of the House of Commons to go through
all of their reasons, as there are many.
1520
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to
take whatever steps are necessary in the House of Commons to
abolish the Senate of Canada once and for all.
RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of my
constituents who request parliament to reassure Canadian families
that concerns that the convention on the rights of the child
undermines the role of parents are unwarranted and that concerns
that the government intends to remove section 43 from the
criminal code are unwarranted.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36,
from 45 people in my constituency.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that
they are horrified by pornography which depicts children. They
pray that parliament take all the necessary steps to ensure that
possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal
offence and that federal police forces be directed to give
priority to enforcing this law for the protection of children.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, an
act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to
repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the
time we broke for question period I was explaining why the
gentleman with a family of five was having such a difficult time.
This man has to put some money aside for his retirement. He is
required to pay $140 a month to the Canada pension plan.
However, he has no faith that he will be able to collect enough
from the Canada pension plan to make ends meet in his old age.
Therefore, he puts away an extra $175 a month into a registered
retirement savings plan.
I bring this up under a bill dealing with health research
because I want to demonstrate to the House that there is a
problem with the brain drain in this country. It is evidenced by
the fact that this gentleman is not confident that the Canada
pension plan will sustain itself. Many young people are leaving
the country, resulting in a reduced number of people paying into
the Canada pension plan. The burden, therefore, falls harder and
harder on the people who are trying to pay their taxes and still
put a little away for their retirement. This is one of the major
reasons people are leaving Canada. They simply feel that it is
too difficult to get ahead. Things are getting worse and worse.
As I pointed out, Canada Day and tax freedom day fall at about
the same time, July 1. By the time we have paid all of our
taxes, we have worked half of the year for the taxman and half of
the year to sustain ourselves. This includes building up some
kind of retirement package, paying for our homes, educating our
children, feeding ourselves and transporting ourselves on a day
to day basis.
Is it any wonder that people look for greener pastures. When
greener pastures are only across the 49th parallel, where tax
freedom day comes in May instead of July, I do not think we can
blame people for leaving.
I am pleased that the government is going to put more money into
medical research. One of the things my friend from Elk Island
stated was that he did not believe it was entirely up to the
taxpayer to fund research. I know that he, as do many members of
the House, including myself, make regular contributions to
medical research of various types.
I do not think there is anything wrong with that. I do not think
that all medical research money should come directly from the
taxpayer.
1525
I have covered all of the points which I intended to make and I
look forward to further debate on this subject.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to speak to Bill C-13, the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research Act. We cannot oppose the principle of creating health
research institutes in various target areas of public health.
Therefore, today my remarks will focus on Bill C-13 as introduced
by the government, but I will also talk about the problems in
the bill.
I would first like to remind the House of a few facts. Last
February, the government announced in its budget new money to
establish virtual institutes of health research. Following this
announcement, the Minister of Health, Allan Rock, set up a
transitional council to give advise on the establishment of
these institutes.
For the most part, the bill before us today is based on the
recommendations made by this council. The council, which was
made up of 34 members representing the scientific and academic
communities, spend several weeks looking into the definition and
operation of health research institutes in Canada.
Simply put for the benefit of our listeners, CHIRs will replace
the Medical Research Council, commonly known as MRC, and will
have a broad research mandate.
According to the federal government, they will allow development
of new ways of doing research on biomedical issues, but also on
issues more directly affecting social sciences.
These institutes will not be centralized basic facilities; they
will be virtual, since they will first and foremost serve to
communicate information and to link, through electronic data
processing, researchers in universities, hospitals and other
research centres in Canada.
Decisions have not yet been made concerning the institutes that
will be created, but the task force has given some examples of
themes around which the institutes could be established, for
instance, aging, cancer, children and mothers' health, heart
disease, etc.
The Minister of Finance's budget of February 1999 provided for
investments of $65 million for the fiscal year 2000-01 and an
extra amount of $175 million for the following year, for the
purpose of creating 10 to 15 Canadian institutes of health
research. With the basic budgets already provided to the MRC,
the government now expects more specifically that it will double
its funding over three years and that funds for the CIHR will
reach $500 million in 2001-02.
To summarize, Bill C-13 is essentially aimed at creating Canadian
institutes of health research to organize, co-ordinate and fund
health research at the federal level. It repeals the Medical
Research Council Act and establishes the structure, the role and
the mandate of the institutes.
Let me touch on some problem areas in Bill C-13.
In the preamble, unfortunately, instead of recognizing the
provinces' exclusive jurisdiction over health care services, the
government recognizes only that they have some sort of a role to
play.
The second whereas reads as follows, and I quote:
It should have provided, however, that the provinces are
responsible for managing the health services within their
borders and that their agreement is necessary in the event of
encroachment on their jurisdiction.
Instead, clause 14 provides that the governing council is
responsible for managing the CIHRs as a whole. The provinces do
not even have the power to select the CIHRs.
In actual fact, therefore, nothing permits the Government of
Quebec to ensure that the CIHRs meet its health care priorities.
In addition, it is important to point out that throughout the
bill, there is no reference to health research but to the more
general expression health related issues.
1530
So the creation of the institutes themselves is not the problem,
but rather the fact that once again there is the possibility of
direct encroachment on provincial jurisdiction in the area of
public health care without any solid consultation of the
provinces first. The government is setting up parallel
structures rather than support the work done by the provinces.
The Bloc Quebecois supports increased investment in research,
and in health in particular. This is why we support the
principle of creating these institutes.
Nonetheless, it is important that Quebec receive its fair share
of federal R&D; funding, all the more so because Quebec has
historically received only 14% of such funding, as we know.
I would also like to remind the federal government that it must
not designate any CIHRs in Quebec without the agreement of the
provincial government. While the multidisciplinary vision of
Bill C-13 is to be commended, it is unacceptable that the
provinces have not been given a key role.
In closing, I wish to point out that, through its Canada health
and social transfer introduced in 1993, the government has
unilaterally and irresponsibly pulled out of the health sector.
It is to be commended for now investing more in research, but it
must not lose sight of the need to restore provincial transfer
payments. The CIHRs, as they are called, must not be a way for
the federal government to interfere in provincial jurisdiction,
while overlooking the fact that it is itself largely responsible
for the massive cuts and difficult situations the provinces are
facing with respect to health care.
The wonderful achievements of the Liberals opposite in recent
years can be summed up as follows. Transfer payments have been
cut by $6.3 billion since 1994. Quebec has absorbed almost 30%
of these cuts, or $1.8 billion of the $6.3 billion shortfall.
Over half of federal cuts affected the health sector.
And finally, I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois supports the bill
in principle. However, I am certain that we will continually
have to remind the government opposite to keep Quebec's
jurisdiction clearly in mind. Amendments will definitely be in
order.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Bill C-13. It is a very interesting bill
in the light of the government's position on health care in
Canada. There are some very positive aspects to the bill that I
find quite supportable, but we have to take a look at it within
the context of the government's attitude toward health care
spending.
I note that the creation of the CIHR is a direct response by the
federal government to the views of health research leaders in
Canada who took part in the 1998 national task force on health
research. The health minister introduced Bill C-13 and it was
given first reading on November 4 of this year. It is to create
this institution by April 1 of next year.
As I mentioned there are some good parts to the bill, but I do
want to put it into the context of where the government is coming
from as far as its commitment to health care spending in Canada.
I note that the federal government has allocated a $374 million
budget for the first year of operation, that is the year 2000-01.
By the end of the second year federal funding will increase to
$500 million. I also note a good part is that the estimated
administrative cost for the CIHR will consume approximately 4% to
5% of the total budget. The remaining budget will be used
directly toward scientific and health research, which is all very
commendable within the bill.
However taking a look at it within the context of what the
government has done with respect to health care funding, as
commendable as the bill is, certainly the government cannot be
commended for its actions with respect to supporting health care
in Canada.
1535
It loves to throw down the gauntlet for the provinces. The
provinces have responsibility under the British North American
Act to deliver health care services. They look for ways to get
around the billions and billions of dollars in funding cuts that
have been imposed on them by the federal government. It throws
down the gauntlet in challenge, saying can you not do better than
that when in fact it has reduced the amount it contributes to the
delivery of health care services in Canada to only 11% of all
health care costs. The rest of the costs are borne by the
provinces and, to an ever increasing amount, by Canadian
citizens.
The fact that the government has reduced its funding of health
care in Canada to only 11% of the total health care costs does
not seem to stop it from taking a holier than thou approach to
the provinces when they are scrambling to try to get around the
terrible cuts that have been imposed on them by the federal
government.
Going back quite a few years, there was an agreement between the
federal government and the provinces under the Canada Health Act
that called for a 50:50 split and a sharing of jurisdiction and
decision making. It is very interesting, as has been said many
times, that the 50:50 split which has reduced down to 11% should
by rights reduce the amount of say the government has in it but,
no, it continues to carry on as if it were a legitimate funding
partner, or at least one prepared to follow through on the
commitment to the 50:50 split it made many years ago.
The 1999 budget promised to restore $11.5 billion over the next
five years. That was rather interesting. We have talked about
$11.5 billion, which is a lot of money, but when we take a look
at the fact that it is over the next five years and when we look
at the number of Canadians who will be served by the approximate
$2.5 billion a year, we see that the numbers the government is
now putting back is small peanuts after having gouged and cut
$21.5 billion out of that spending envelope since 1993. The
$11.5 billion is still $10 billion short of what it has already
ripped out of health care.
There are 187,000 Canadians awaiting surgery. The average
waiting time is 12 weeks. I think of a close personal friend of
mine who suffered two successive industrial accidents at his
workplace. He ended up badly tearing the cartilage in both of
his knees. First, he tore the cartilage in one knee. Then,
being a very conscientious worker, he went back to work perhaps
before he should have. He ended up slipping again in a second
accident and he could not recover because of the injury to his
first knee and darned if he did not rip out his second knee.
My friend has to get around on canes. After six months he is
still waiting for proper diagnosis. MRI diagnosis is available
to him but he has had to wait six months. My friend is in
constant pain when he tries to get up from his chair to come to
the door to let me in. It is a major effort for him. The
government has a direct responsibility over the fact that he,
along with many other people, is having to wait that length of
time for simple diagnoses.
The next thing that will happen is that following the diagnosis
he will have to wait for whatever procedure is recommended by his
physician. It is wait and wait as a result of draconian cuts by
the federal government to the transfers that should have by
rights gone to the provinces.
1540
Coming back to Bill C-13, while it appears on the surface to be
another bureaucratic creation it does have some very strong
redeeming values. One of the strongest redeeming values is that
it gives an opportunity for young, bright, Canadian researchers
to continue to be employed in Canada. Perhaps even more of them
can be employed in Canada. This speaks to the issue of what our
party has consistently been referring to as the brain drain from
Canada.
The bill goes in its own positive direction relative to slowing
down the flow of the brain drain, but because of the overbloated
bureaucracy in Canada and a lack of spending on the part of the
government relative to health care these people have been
squeezed. It also has an awful lot to do with the taxes young,
bright researchers will have to pay.
As I was flying in this morning I was interested in chatting
with a Canadian citizen formerly living in the Niagara area. She
is an engineer who is now working in Detroit. She wants to be as
close to Canada as she can be because her family still resides
here. She had to go to Detroit not only to get a job but once
she got there she found the difference in her after tax income to
be so profound she did not feel there was any way she could now
come back to Canada in spite of the fact that she wanted to come
back.
The Liberals are sending a kind of mixed message. Whether we are
talking about the amount of money they have ripped out of health
care spending, about the amount of money they are continuing to
spend on bureaucracies, or about the tax issue, people feel they
have to end up leaving Canada.
There are some very redeeming parts to Bill C-13. There are
some concerns such as the fact they have budgeted only 4% to 5%
of the total budget to be spent on administrative costs. However,
given the wide scope of the mandate, will they be able to stay
within that 4% to 5% range?
This is one time when I suppose we need to have some faith in
the government that the arm's length relationship which will be
set up within this new function will work. In the long term,
rather than working within this good envelope it has to take a
far broader perspective and a far broader look at the way it is
killing health care in Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to speak to Bill C-13. We know that this legislation will
have an impact on every community and that it is about our
quality of life.
Bill C-13 defines what the research institutes are and how they
work, and states that they will replace the Medical Research
Council. Some say that these institutes will have a broad
research mandate and that it will reposition research in
general. It will promote a new way of conducting research on
biomedical projects, new ways of conducting research in social
sciences. I believe it is an interesting opportunity for social
sciences and health.
Some say that these institutes will not be centralized basic
institutions. We know full well that the government tends to
centralize a lot, but these institutes will not be centralized.
Rather, they will be virtual, so that researchers, scholars,
hospitals and research centres will be able to communicate with
each other and to share information by computer. In other words,
a centre in a particular region conducting research on a
specific subject will be able to communicate the progress made
in its research to all the other centres across Canada and even
internationally.
1545
We can only be glad that the data will be made available to all
researchers in Canada and around the world. People's health
should be one of our major concerns.
It is also important to know what is going on in the various
fields of research. Let us take research on multiple sclerosis
as an example. We know that various fields of research are
involved with this disease, including neurology and psychology.
It is good to have different perspectives on this awful illness.
No decision has yet been taken about the institutes to be
created. Several themes have been mentioned.
Those include ageing, arthritis, musculoskeletal development,
cancer, molecular biology, the health of children and their
mothers, clinical assessments, technology assessments, heart
disease and strokes, peripheral vascular diseases and
respiratory illnesses.
Funding proposals have been submitted for 150 research projects.
We can only be pleased by the variety of projects that could get
financial support from the government. These projects could
start as early as the year 2000 and budgets could be tripled by
the year 2001.
The institutes of health research could be set up, co-ordinated
and funded by the federal government, in order to provide some
help to the provinces. Provinces have sustained cuts of
$7 billion in health care. It is important that we support each
and every element of health care.
We have one criticism to make of the federal government. We know
that the federal government has been dragging its feet for years
with regard to funding for research. Quebec was always neglected
when the time came to choose places for the establishment of
research infrastructures. We know where the government chose to
set up such institutions. Ontario was greatly favoured in the
past and Quebec was often neglected in that regard.
The new bill will repeal the Medical Research Council Act and
will set out the structure, mandate and operation of the
institutes. The objective of these institutes may raise some
ethical issues.
This is interesting, since we know that there could be a lot of
debate in our society on the application of certain medical
practices.
There are no institutes at the present time. The permanent
governing council will be free to choose which type of
institutes will be established. We, in the Bloc Quebecois,
deplore the fact that a permanent governing council will have
the freedom to make these kinds of decisions with regard to the
type of institutes that will be established in various provinces
and various regions of Canada and Quebec.
We know all about the centralizing vision of the federal
government. The fact that the responsibility for establishing
the various research networks will be given to the permanent
governing council is cause for concern. The provinces have
exclusive jurisdiction over health care and the federal
government took or, should I say, stole $7 billion from them to
build up its much talked about surplus, which the Prime Minister
is so proud of.
I hope the provinces' different priorities with regard to health
care and research will be taken into account.
1550
I hope it is not another example of the federal government's bad
habit of steamrolling the provinces. One need only think of the
millennium scholarship fund. There are two opposite ways of
seeing things, the federal government's way and the Government
of Quebec's way.
We are happy to see that the research institutes will probably
lead to an increased life expectancy. As we know, a man who does
not smoke and lives a relatively healthy life will live to the
age of 73, and a woman can expect to live to the age of 83. The
new technologies are complex. The stakes are high. This bill
deals with people's lives.
The Bloc Quebecois has always asked for more investment in
research. This is why we are happy with the increased funds that
will be made available in the area of research.
We know that Canada has often lagged behind relative to the
financing of research. The OECD has often criticised the federal
government for its lack of support to research. It can also be
said that the fact that the federal government has slashed $7
billion in the health system has also contributed to a budget
shortfall, which plays a major role in the provinces' ability to
support the whole health care system.
The provinces were not involved in appointing the members of the
governing council, which is said to be temporary and will become
permanent. This council will take very important decisions. It
will choose the fields of research for which health institutes
will be created.
Apparently, four fields of research will be favoured, four
fields that are of special interest to Quebec. There is a lot at
stake.
For example, 60% of the biomedical research is done in
Quebec through research firms. Research on patent drugs is very
specific to Quebec. The second field would be clinical research.
The third would be research on health services and the fourth,
research on a health and culture society.
As we know, we are not all born equal. This last field is of
particular interest. There is also early childhood, from age
zero to age six years, in terms of the impact of stimuli on
personal growth.
I would make one cautionary note on all those aspects, since we
know, for example, that we are unable to fund them within the
health network in any of the provinces and in Quebec.
It is certainly a step in the right direction to support
researchers in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada so that there can
be exchange of ideas.
However, we hope that the Canadian government will be able to
reinvest in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada the billions of
dollars it has cut since the Liberals came to power in 1993.
This is of paramount importance. We must fund not only research
but also direct patient care so to apply the results of
research. If the health network is insufficiently funded, things
will really go badly.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today to speak to
Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research and to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.
I will begin by congratulating our member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca who has done so much work on the health portfolio of recent,
doing battle against the Liberal government which continues to
cut funding to the provinces. It is a difficult job to actually
look for other alternatives within not only provincial
initiatives but here federally to help fix the medicare problems
that the government has put on the country. I would like to just
take a moment to congratulate our member for all his hard work.
1555
As was mentioned, the CIHR will replace the Medical Research
Council and will provide a more direct and systematic approach to
research in Canada. The CIHR will provide an annual report
detailing the workplan and budgetary expenses of its scientific
grants.
If the goal of this particular bill and the new Canadian
institutes of health research will be to help direct funding more
equally and more effectively to various medical research
endeavours across the country, that is obviously a good thing.
I would also point out that the establishment of the Canadian
institutes of health research will be a vast improvement on the
current system of non-accountability administered by the Medical
Research Council. This will in fact create a quasi-independent
council that will be able to operate independent of the
government and make its first priority research funding.
When looking at this particular effort by the government, even
though it is headed in the direction that we in the opposition
would say is the right direction, there are some red flags that
are thrown up, especially when it comes to the issue of budget.
When I look at the CIHR, I see that it will strive to ensure
that only 4% to 5% of its total budget will be spent on
administrative costs. A new institute will require a
bureaucratic infrastructure to perform the necessary functions.
Can the CIHR avoid the trend of having a huge part of its budget
administered for bureaucracy and not have sufficient funds to
administer the actual research which is dictated under its
mandate? That is the question we have to focus on here today.
Even though the official opposition will give its support to the
bill, will the budget, which is outlined at 4% or 5% toward the
administrative costs, remain within that fraction?
I have had the pleasure in the past of talking to various people
involved in medical research around the country, mainly in my
riding of Edmonton—Strathcona at the University of Alberta. I
know you, Mr. Speaker, have travelled across the country and have
been to the University of Alberta Hospital. I know you are aware
of the wonderful research it does, especially the wonderful
research it does with the limited resources it is given.
This is where that red flag has to be thrown up. We have to
consider the fact that we know the track record of this
government. We know that when it can, it spends, spends, spends
and continues to raise taxes to exorbitant levels.
Unfortunately, it does not prioritize its spending effectively as
we here in the opposition have outlined time and time again in
the House, where we would like the government to focus its
resources more effectively but that does not happen.
As I mentioned, if there is a total budget of 4% or 5% strictly
toward administrative costs, we in the opposition hope that the
government will continue to live within that means of spending
for bureaucracy and that the spending put toward medical research
will go toward medical research.
I mentioned the experience of talking with people involved in
medical research at the University of Alberta. I think they
would generally agree that the government is heading in the right
direction because they would like to see funds more effectively
used within medical research.
However, in my past discussions with people at the University of
Alberta, it was brought to my attention—and I do not have the
figures off-hand—that Canada does lag quite far behind when
compared with some of the other industrialized countries,
especially in medical research funding. This makes it very
difficult for many of these institutions, such as the University
of Alberta, to meet their requirements of really excelling in
research and continuing to be leaders across the country.
One of the issues they continue to bring up with this lack of
funding are the problems that do arise. For instance, one issue
the advisory board will hopefully address and something the
official opposition continues to raise in the House, is the issue
of the brain drain that currently exists in Canada regardless of
what the government does or does not want to say on the topic.
Many of the people I have spoken with at the University of
Alberta and other research facilities have told me that it is
difficult to retain the proper talent, attract professionals and
continue to build solid research foundations within the country
because of the lack of funding in research and the lack of
funding that comes from the federal government because of its
inability to prioritize.
1600
One of our biggest problems in actually keeping people here is
that funding is not available in many cases. Institutions are
trying to make ends meet with whatever little funding they have.
Some of the biggest research organizations south of the border
continue to recruit the talent that exists in this country. They
bring them down to the U.S. to work there, pay them well, and
obviously give them the research budgets they require to do their
research.
That provides an enormous amount of burden with regard to
current research budgets within the University of Alberta, for
example, that are difficult to meet. As well we have to factor
in the element of competition. Nowadays people tell me all the
time, especially as I said with respect to the University of
Alberta, that they have to deal with bigger institutions, bigger
research budgets and the biggest competitors to the south of us.
It is very difficult to retain people in this country.
I met with the dean of science at the University of Alberta. I
remember specifically his telling me that with the increased
research funding outlined in the new advisory board there needs
to be a level of tax relief. That was very interesting, coming
from the academic community. The official opposition continues
to try to convince the government that there has to be a balance
in tax relief in the equation of increased spending.
It was fascinating that even the academic community, along with
increasing areas of research funding, identified the fact that
keeping taxes at a competitive level or keeping taxes lower would
actually help to retain many of the talented people leaving to go
south of the border. When identifying the issue of brain drain,
especially in medical research, the dean mentioned that on
occasion he had recruited potential students in his office when
dealing with budget issues.
One student had been at the University of Alberta for only two
years. The issue of research funding was not the only issue, but
when the student came into the office to talk to Dean Peter he
produced two forms of budgets and two forms of balance sheets.
One dealt with what he would end up at the end of the day in
Canada and the other with what he would end up if he went to the
U.S. He balanced the issue of how much money the particular
institution had to do its research, but because of high taxes,
because of the exchange rate and because of many other factors
which unfortunately make us less competitive in this country, it
was much more enticing for him, as much as he wanted to stay in
this country, to go elsewhere, and unfortunately south of the
border was where he was looking.
Even a member of the academic community called me to say we in
the House have a responsibility not only to look at increasing
funding research in this country but at balancing it with tax
relief.
There are potential benefits to the particular legislation and
establishing the CIHR. There are many good parts to the bill. It
appears to be an excellent model of an institute which will
remain at arm's length of the federal government and conduct
research independent of the government. I think that is very
important.
The consultation process for appointments will draw leading
experts from conceivable fields of expertise. This should reduce
the influence of high ranking government officials and people who
are actually suited to do the job. However, these and all the
details I mentioned can be addressed before committee when the
bill reaches that stage. There is a strong need to consult the
scientific and health communities for input on the direction of
the CIHR.
Even though we are supporting the legislation we hope that it
will be given the right attention in committee where we can make
further suggestions on how to make it a useful institution.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak to this very important bill. We are
talking today about medical research. We would all agree there
is very little that is more important in the country than medical
research and other things that lead to better health and good
health care.
1605
Every one of us could probably draw on personal experience to
point to examples of families that have needed good health care.
Every one of us could probably point to a family member who has
died because the research had not been done which could make
progress, make changes and advance medical capability to a point
where it could save lives.
This is a very serious subject. It touches every one of us. It
touches our families. For that reason the Reform Party takes it
as a very serious issue. We do generally support the bill
although we do have some proposals for change.
I will talk a bit on what the bill is about. Many past speakers
have spoken to very important aspects of the bill but have not
really explained what the bill is about. The bill will establish
the Canadian institutes of health research. Its purpose is to
put in place a medical research body which will excel according
to internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence.
This is an important point.
We have some concern about whether it will work in the way it is
intended to work, but funds will be targeted based on standards
of scientific excellence. That is a very important factor. Let
us look at legislation passed in the House. We can point to
several different pieces of legislation. Too often the
government puts forth legislation which does not consider sound
science as a basis.
I could certainly point to the gun bill. In spite of the sound
science presented when the bill was being debated, the government
pushed ahead, ignored the science and put in place a bill which
was flawed right from the fundamental concept. No one would
argue that the process of registering guns is in a state of
disaster right now. Part of the reason is that the bill ignored
the sound science presented from the start. At least the
government is presenting a bill which will consider sound
standards of science in allocating funds. The importance of this
cannot be overstated.
The second purpose of the bill as stated by the government is to
provide more effective health services and products in a
strengthened Canadian health care system. I will speak a bit
more about that in a couple of minutes.
The third stated objective of the bill is important as well. It
will provide a more direct and systematic approach to research in
Canada. I have heard calls for this approach, particularly by
people in the area of research.
There is something that I am not convinced is in the bill and I
have heard criticism in this regard. I want people in research
fields to be assured, if they are doing research in a very
important area which has been targeted for funds, that their
funds will be allocated in the long term rather than just year to
year. Researchers spend more of their time trying to justify
getting the funds for next year than actually ensuring that they
will do highly successful research which will lead to better
health care.
This stated objective or reason for the bill is honourable. I
am looking for it to be put in practice. I am not convinced it
will be the case, but I am certainly hoping from the bottom of my
heart that it will be the case.
I also want to talk briefly about the financial cost allocated
to the bill: for the first year, $374 million and for the second
year, $500 million. That is a lot of money. When I think of
other ways the government spends $500 million I cannot help but
think that it sounds like an awful paltry sum.
When we look at the heritage department and the way it blows
hundreds of millions of dollars every year, the $500 million
allocated to research sounds like a small amount of money.
1610
When we look at the amount of money being allocated to the CBC
as a partially publicly funded network, we realize it is a
billion dollars a year, or twice the amount that will be
allocated to medical research under the bill in the second year
and almost three times the amount that will be allocated in the
first year.
Then we wonder about priorities, especially when I believe the
CBC could be a very profitable TV network if it were to become a
network which operated in the business world without public
funding. Many would argue that is long overdue. When we look at
the billion dollars of public funds put into the CBC and the $374
million to be allocated to research under this bill, the amount
of funding is questionable. It is a matter of government
priorities.
The priorities do not seem to be well thought out. There is a
lot of wasted spending. The government proposed new programs
which I believe will not benefit families in a significant way.
In fact they will be harmful in some cases and will cost billions
of dollars a year. Yet $374 million have been allocated to
research. Where is the balance? Where are the priorities? Who
is setting these priorities? It can be demonstrated very clearly
that the government is not doing a very good job of that at all.
Government members did speak to the bill, but I note they are
not speaking to it any more. Many of them talked about the high
priority of health care for the government. They pointed to the
fact that they would increase spending between the first year and
the second year under this program from $374 million to $500
million.
I remind Canadians that this is the same government that reduced
spending for health care by about $5 billion a year when it
reduced transfers to the provinces for health care. Then it put
$374 million, a small portion of that amount, into the proposed
program. We have to ask what kind of commitment the government
has made to health care. The answer is obvious that it has not
made a reasonable commitment at all, Mr. Speaker. I see you
agreeing with me on these points. I really appreciate that.
We can take it back another step, back 30 years to when the
health care act was signed or medicare was put in place. At that
time the federal government was absolutely committed to funding
half of the public health care program. Is the federal
government still funding half as it did in that first year? No.
In fact its portion of funding is now down to about 11% rather
than the 50% it committed to, and it has been a Liberal
government over most of this time. That is the kind of
commitment it has to health care.
It giveth a bit of taxpayer money with one hand and then it
taketh away from us on the other hand. It spends the money that
should be designated to health care on what many Canadians and I
would consider to be wasted spending. Clearly the government is
not doing a good job of setting spending priorities. Clearly it
is not committed to health care funding.
I will touch on the brain drain. I acknowledge up front that
most of the brain drain is happening because of high taxes. Most
of us could look to our families and see a family member who has
left the country. I am referring to doctors or other
professionals, for example. My brother is a doctor, an emergency
specialist.
He and three other doctors set up the emergency services at the
Red Deer hospital about 15 years ago. He had to leave this year
because he had a certain retirement expectation. Because of high
tax levels, because the government was taking 70% of what he
earned, he felt that in order to retire at the level he expected
he would have to work in another country. We are supposed to
have a maximum rate of 50%, but the government was taking 70%
from him.
1615
He and many of his friends are now working in Saudi Arabia where
they are taxed at the level of 5%. He is no longer a resident of
Canada. He is not proud of that. He is not happy with that. He
is committed to Canada. He wants to be a Canadian citizen, and
he is, but he cannot live in Canada because of the high tax
levels.
As well as taxes, the poor funding of research has led to the
brain drain. That has to be acknowledged. This will help in a
small way, and I want to acknowledge that.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows:
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Agriculture.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am particularly keen to participate in
the debate on Bill C-13.
I have listened carefully to the debate as it has unfolded
today. It has been a thoughtful debate. There are some clear
differences being stated among the political parties.
I will begin my few remarks today by reminding members of
parliament that between 1994 and 1997 the government continuously
cut its investment in health research. I remember at the time
that the health care sector was appalled that the government
would cut research funding.
Once a research program is stopped, we cannot simply add a few
dollars and start it again. There are professional researchers
and scientists who often invest their entire lives in projects.
It is not simply a matter of turning on the taps and returning to
the research project. Long term preparation is carried out by
the people who do this research.
The cuts that came between 1994 and 1997 dealt a death blow to
much of the scientific research in the health care sector. My
doctor friend from Winnipeg would be only too sensitive to this
issue, but I think he would agree that those cuts were
lamentable. Today, with Bill C-13, we are admitting that there
were some really serious cuts, that those cuts were not just
minor skin wounds, that they amounted to major surgery in the
health care research system.
During these years per capita funding of health research fell
from $9.14 to $7.92. Canada, as a result, became less
competitive in its funding levels compared to most other
industrialized nations, including the United States, the United
Kingdom, France and others.
These cuts had several effects. They drove researchers,
including established professors, recent research graduates and
post-graduate students, across the border in search of
sustainable funding. My colleagues in the Reform Party, whose
views I always respect—I do not agree with them, but I respect
that they have a right to hold whatever view they want—are
concerned that it was the salaries provided to the researchers,
doctors and professors which drove them to leave Canada.
I would not deny that is a factor, but the scientists I have
met, the medical researchers I have spent time with, say that one
of the reasons they were leaving Canada, were contemplating
leaving Canada or had actually left Canada was not so much
because of the taxation system, but more because the facilities
available to them in these other jurisdictions would enable them
to do what they were professionally motivated to do. In other
words, if they were serious scientists and there were no decent
research labs, facilities and programs in Canada, they would
almost be forced to go elsewhere to carry out the research to
which they had dedicated their lives.
1620
Coupled with the large scale withdrawal of federal funding from
core social programs, the cuts in health research diminished the
capacity of our health care system to care for patients and
stifled the application of new research findings.
We can imagine the frustration that must have been felt and that
is still being felt by serious professionals in the health care
field who know that their patients should be receiving these
kinds of treatments, who know that their patients should be
benefiting from this kind of research, but because the research
is being developed in other jurisdictions it is often not
available to them because of the cuts which have been made to our
health care system.
The withdrawal of federal funding from post-secondary education
and cuts to health research drove many university administrations
to foster commercial research partnerships with industry. We
have to acknowledge that this has a whole set of concerns which
we ought to register.
These partnerships, in many cases, have decreased academic
freedom due to an emphasis on applied research, a trend in
self-censorship among university professors and the privatization
of research findings for the purpose of profit. All of this is
fine. We appreciate that there are various kinds of research,
but much of the kind of research which we see as being necessary,
particularly in the field of medical research, is not something
on which we can easily put a price tag. The benefits may be seen
many years into the future and may require pure scientific
research as opposed to applied scientific medical research. Once
we start with commercial research partnerships, naturally the
commercial sector will want to see some likelihood of profit in
the foreseeable future. These are very serious concerns.
We support the general thrust of this legislation. It is long
overdue. It is a step in the right direction and it is an
attempt to correct some of the past mistakes made by this and the
previous government. The government has endorsed this new model
of health research funding, the Canadian institutes of health
research. By and large, we welcome this as a replacement to the
Medical Research Council.
We support the new money that will be put into the system. By
doubling the 1997-98 levels of research funding to $500 million
in the year 2001-2002, Canada will regain some of the ground that
it lost to Liberal government cuts over the past six years.
Clearly this legislation, in its support for researchers and
academic programs, will go a long way in alleviating the problem
of the so-called brain drain in Canada, but the legislation, in
our judgment, needs to go even further.
We have a certain reservation that our funding levels under this
particular research program will remain disproportionate to
funding in the United States and other industrialized countries
which put a much higher premium on research and development.
Again, while this is a step in the right direction, let us not
say that it is adequate. Much more needs to be done if we are to
maintain and regain our rightful role in the world of scientific
research.
Let us face it, we have to accept our responsibility. We are a
major industrialized nation and people look to us to work with
them so that scientists and researchers from different parts of
the world can complement each other's work. Canada has been
letting go of its traditional leadership role that it could be
playing.
We want to suggest that a more likely figure for consideration
by the government would be $750 million annually or 1% of the
total annual health care expenditure. Surely there is no one in
the House who would say that spending 1% of the total health care
budget on research, which will improve the health of Canadians
now and in future generations, is an excessive amount when we
will be in a surplus situation with $90 billion over the next
five years. We would like to put that on the table for
consideration.
We are also rather enthusiastic about the nature of the research
which will take place in the social context. The
multidisciplinary, multisectoral and cross-regional approach of
the bill ideally will contextualize hard research, acknowledging
social, cultural and environmental influences on our health. Our
reservation is that this emphasis needs strengthening so that
there will be a central focus in the causation and prevention of
ill-health, in particular on social and environmental
determinants.
As a bit of an aside, this is why we are concerned about some of
the provisions of the NAFTA and of potential changes as a result
of the World Trade Organization talks, which may hinder us as
legislators in passing laws that would protect the health of
Canadians in the future.
1625
If we disrupt the profit flow of American research or drug
companies, or companies offering various aspects of health
prevention, we could possibly be liable to compensate them for
their lost profits as a result of the trade deal. We see once
again a mixing of the NAFTA and the WTO into something as
fundamentally important as medical research.
We also support the whole issue of applied research, in that the
goal of the legislation is to apply research and to connect
health researchers to health providers in a significant way.
Our reservation is that this initiative be more than an empty
gesture on the part of the government. Social transfers to the
provinces need to be restored. How will new research results be
applied without adequate health care funding, equipment and the
necessary staff?
In spite of our enthusiastic support for the major thrust of
this legislation, we are concerned about the commercialization
aspect. We are concerned about the governing council. My
colleague from Winnipeg indicated our concerns in that regard in
her last presentation.
There is the whole issue of ethics. The government has made
ethics explicit in Bill C-13, saying that health research should
take into consideration ethical issues. That sounds pretty wimpy
to me. We have to get a lot tougher than that and say that we
will either take ethical issues into consideration or not. We
should not sort of consider them. It is a little weak in the
wording. The words “consideration of ethics” are completely
inadequate.
This bill is a major step in the right direction. Our concern
is the level of funding provided for scientific health research.
In order to keep the balance appropriate we need to re-establish
those serious levels of transfer payments for health care to
complement the good work that ought to flow from this
legislation.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to add my voice to the concerns being expressed
on Bill C-13. I too, as the previous speaker suggested, welcome
this as at least a step in the right direction. It is a
turnaround from cutting money from medical research to at least
adding funds. However, I have some concerns. It is a bit ironic
because my concerns are very similar to those of the previous
speaker. He has sort of stolen my thunder on some of the issues.
It is fairly safe to assume that all members from all parties
only want what is in the best interests of the continued health
of Canadians. We are very fortunate, particularly in my part of
Canada, to have access to clean water, clean air, wide open
spaces and what traditionally has been considered one of the best
health care systems in the world, although that is up for debate
these days. While this bill addresses one side of what
constitutes the best health care system in the world, on the
other side, the delivery of health care, the federal government
has yet to address its responsibility in any meaningful way. We
hope that somewhere down the road it will do that.
Although we have access to the healthiest environment in the
world, we still have a responsibility to Canadians, as well as to
the rest of the world, to ensure that we have up to date research
to keep Canadians as healthy as possible.
It is in this light that the Canadian institutes of health
research must be considered, as the object of the CIHR is to
excel according to internationally accepted standards of
scientific excellence in the creation of new knowledge
and its Translation into improved health for Canadians.
It also intends to provide more effective health services and
products for a strengthened Canadian health care system. As I
said, this is only one prong of what constitutes a strengthened
health care system. Finally, the CIHR is to replace the Medical
Research Council and provide a more direct and systemic approach
to research in Canada.
1630
Canada has a long and proud history of excellence in medical
research. For example, in 1873 Sir William Osler demonstrated
that unidentified bodies in human blood were in fact a third kind
of blood corpuscles which were later named blood platelets. This
discovery was invaluable to future studies in areas such as
leukemia, cancer treatment, anemia and the treatment of virtually
any medical problem.
Another Canadian physician of note was Sir Frederick Banting,
who in 1921, along with Charles Best, was the first to extract
insulin from the pancreas. Injections of insulin proved to be
the first effective treatment for diabetes. For his discovery,
Banting was awarded a share of the 1923 Nobel prize for
physiology or medicine.
I bring up those two examples for a good reason. They were
enormous breakthroughs in medical research made by Canadians and
shared with the rest of the world at no cost to the rest of the
world's medical research community.
Knowing that I was going to address this subject today, while
flying back from my riding this morning I noted an article in the
National Post. Medical researchers in Britain announced
that they have completely decoded chromosome number 22.
Certainly that is a major, major breakthrough in medical
research. The decoding of not only chromosome 22 but of all the
23 chromosomes that make up the human cell is the key to
answering the dilemmas we have had in reaching cures for cancer
and particularly regarding chromosome 22, many of the hereditary
diseases that we face today. It has amazing possibilities.
The concern I had with the article was that both British and
U.S. medical researchers have been working on this project for a
long time in a race to be successful in mapping these genes and
chromosomes, not necessarily on a humane basis but rather on a
commercial basis. The intent at least of the U.S. organization
that is doing this research is to achieve success before the rest
of the world in order to patent the process and sell it on a
commercial basis.
It should be a real concern to everyone around the world if that
is the direction medical research is going in. With tremendous
breakthroughs like Banting or others in Canada have made, if that
knowledge, that ability to cure diseases becomes a commercial
entity to be sold around the world for the most money to the
highest bidder, that is probably quite a change in the
traditional direction in medical research. It certainly
concerns me.
As a cancer survivor myself, I very much look forward to the day
when research allows us to cure diseases like cancer at a
reasonable cost to those who suffer from these diseases. The
concern is that if we are going in the direction of
commercialization, the cost of treatment and cures will be out of
reach to ordinary Canadians. I wandered off my topic a little
bit, but that article caught my eye and was of concern to me.
1635
We support the concept behind the bill. The idea that we are
turning the direction, putting more money in to increasing
facilities and funding for health care and, as others before me
have suggested, addressing the brain drain issue and the need to
attract and retain Canada's youngest and brightest researchers is
certainly a worthwhile effort.
The CIHR would initiate a clear and concise strategic yearly
plan with the sole intention of promoting research in the fields
of health and science. The CIHR would make researchers
accountable for all budgetary expenditures and report on a yearly
basis to an overseeing committee of their peers to assess their
progress. That certainly is a laudable goal considering what the
history of funding for medical research has been in the country.
The creation of the CIHR would account for only a 4% to 5% total
administrative cost. The estimated yearly administrative costs
for the CIHR would also only account for 4% or 5% of the yearly
budget.
As far as accountability to parliament is concerned, an annual
review would be issued and the agency would be subject to an
independent audit through the auditor general's office. It is
encouraging to see that the government takes accountability and
reporting measures seriously for a change, particularly when we
compare these measures to the current system of
non-accountability administered by the Medical Research Council.
I do have some concerns however with this bill that I would like
to mention. With the time being short I will try to rush through
them.
One of the concerns is the intent of the CIHR to foster
scientific research and promote Canadian initiatives without
taking the time to consult various scientific communities to
receive input as to the scope and area of research. As any good
scientist knows, when conducting a scientific experiment one must
accumulate all related information and research before actually
beginning the experiment. To not investigate all aspects of a
hypothesis makes for foolhardy science. That would certainly be
a shame.
Because of the shortness of time, I will move on to my
conclusion. There are many goods parts to the bill. It appears
to be an excellent model of an institute that will remain at
arm's length from the federal government and conduct research
independent from the government. The consultation process for
appointments will draw on leading experts from every conceivable
field of expertise. This should reduce the influence of high
ranking government officials. That can only happen and be
successful if those appointments actually follow the process that
is spelled out in the bill which may not happen.
Before the bill passes, I would ask that the government consult
the scientific and health communities for input as to the
direction of the Canadian institutes of health research.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
address Bill C-13 as well. I am sure you cannot remember back 100 years ago.
My memory is quite limited when it comes to that as well, but it
is very interesting to read about what happened back in 1899.
One hundred years ago there were all kinds of predictions that
would—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member for Yorkton—Melville but I understand he has already
spoken on this bill and he is unable to speak again. The bill
has only been at one stage. I believe we are on second reading
of the bill and the hon. member is precluded from having the
floor.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Because of the subject matter, and I think you will find
it of great interest, could I get unanimous consent to have about
seven or eight minutes?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow
the hon. member to speak a second time on the bill for seven or
eight minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1640
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for recognizing me and providing me with the
opportunity to make a few comments.
Bill C-13 provides much of a positive nature for parliament to
consider. I listened to the debate and thought about what this
bills means and there are some serious concerns in my mind which
I would like to express to the House.
The intent of the CIHR is to foster scientific research and
promote Canadian initiatives. However, there has been little
time to consult various scientific communities and receive input
as to the scope and area of research. For this reason I would
like to ask where is this research centre going to be
established? I am concerned when I hear that it is to be in
Prince Edward Island. It is not because Prince Edward Island is
not a wonderful destination or that the people of Prince Edward
Island would not benefit from this.
I think of the difficulties that research facilities in Canada
have had. In major hospitals there is an accumulation of highly
practised medical researchers. By and large they have the needed
equipment, the vital mass of library facilities, the patients and
the technical requirements.
The flight of Canadian personnel, doctors and nurses, to other
jurisdictions, primarily to the United States, is because of
economic difficulties they have had and the lack of technology.
Many places do not have the money for the cutting edge
technology. People are leaving research centres in Canada to go
where the technology is available.
It is not only the technology, it is also the critical mass, the
mass of learning. There is the core of expertise and
opportunity. There are patients who have diseases and maladies
that doctors and scientists would look to. I cannot see these
being readily available by simply creating a research facility,
an institution, in Prince Edward Island and then expecting people
who have the expertise to leave where they are to go there.
It also does not make sense to build a facility from the ground
up in relative isolation from major medical centres across the
country. It would not be that attractive. Researchers not only
want jobs, they want to have an opportunity to study their areas
of interest. They want to add to the growth of knowledge and
benefit humankind by their work. They are dedicated and committed
individuals.
As I think about this bill, I wonder why the centre would be
established in Prince Edward Island and not in a major medical
facility or in a centre where so many advantages already exist.
It makes me question the seriousness of this initiative.
Goodness knows that this initiative is needed. Reform Party
members, including myself, have been on record for many years
about the need for technical and medical research across our
country. Our economy and our people depend on this research.
We have a grand tradition in Canada of being at the forefront of
invention and research and adding to the great knowledge of
humankind. We have the people who can do that but we have been
short of money for so long that programs have been stripped.
1645
I remember speaking to a high ranking medical researcher in
Vancouver who said that the opportunities for him in that city
were limited because of crowded space, lack of money and lack of
equipment. His ability to teach, to do research and add to the
knowledge of his speciality was so diminished that even though he
was at the peak of his own professional career, he was
questioning whether it was wise for him to stay in Canada when
the opportunities south of the Canadian border were so rich for
pressing his career forward.
These are some of the questions that arise in my mind as we
discuss the issue here today. I would like the government to
seriously consider whether the best use of this money is to have
a research facility such as this located where it is intended to
be located. Why do we not have broader consultation with the
scientists and the researchers to see where this critical mass
might be gathered and made best use of?
It is of great sadness to many of us, including myself, to hear
of the men and women in Regina, Saskatoon, Vancouver, Calgary and
Edmonton who have found that their opportunities over the past
years have become so limited that they have not only contemplated
but have taken steps to move. I think those who have persevered
and continued looking after their patients, and continued their
research under such enormous obstacles and financial cutbacks,
deserve congratulations.
I add these comments and these questions to the debate with the
understanding that I and my party will be supporting the bill.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had not intended to participate in the debate because
I wholly support the bill and I thought I would allow as many
members of the opposition to speak as possible.
However, after listening to the debate, I noted a few things and
thought, for greater clarification, I could contribute to the
debate. My thoughts will be more of a random nature on the
comments I heard and on which I would like to amplify.
When mention was made of the potential benefits, a step in the
right direction and the absence of consultation, I thought we
should have great confidence in the value of the Canadian
institutes for health research. There is no doubt whatsoever in
my mind that this is the thing to do as we enter the new
millennium. Scientists in all disciplines, whether medical,
biological or social, have been consulted. We see a consensus on
what would be best for Canada and for the world as we realize
that this institute will co-operate and be an integrated approach
to research and will encompass all aspects of research.
I heard someone say that this was about medical research. I
would like to emphasize that the bill is not only about medical
research. It is medical research and more. It is about all
disciplines, including the discipline of ethics. We have an
opportunity here to have a very comprehensive look at health
research.
Unique in the bill is that it contains a long preamble. One of
the provisions in the preamble speaks to the flexibility in the
mechanism. This will give us the opportunity to adjust to the
changing times and needs of the day.
1650
Let me just state for the record again that the ultimate
objective of the institute will be to develop excellence
according to internationally accepted standards. This excellence
will be applied both in the creation of new knowledge and its
application. Its application will encompass the delivery of
health services as well as the strengthening of the Canadian
health care system.
I was surprised when I heard it would be located in Prince
Edward Island. There is nothing in the bill that says it will be
located in Prince Edward Island. In fact, the head office is
about the only one that may be located in a place designated by
the governor in council, and even that has not been defined.
This is an excellent bill that reflects the commitment of the
government not only to excel but equally to budget for such
excellence in health research. The bill is worthy of the support
of every single member of the House because this is the type of
research, the scope of which is definitely very encompassing,
including such things as biomedical research, clinical research,
research respecting health systems, health services, as well as
studying all the other determinants of health, such as the
environment, cultural aspects and so on. It will engage all
types of researchers not only in the medical field but in other
fields of health as well.
I certainly urge all members of the House to support the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly the bill stands referred
to the Standing Committee on Health.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
The House resumed from November 26 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism
Commission, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are now
debating Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism
Commission.
In fact, the Canadian tourism commission already exists and it
has a number of employees, some of whom even work outside the
country, but Bill C-5 seeks to turn the existing commission into
a crown corporation.
Indeed, the basic objective of the bill is to make this
administrative but substantial change by taking the Canadian
tourism commission as it currently exists and turning it into a
crown corporation with all the changes that this involves.
Let me read the very short summary in which the objects of the
Canadian tourism commission are defined:
This enactment establishes a Crown corporation to be known as
the Canadian Tourism Commission. The Commission's objects are to
(a) sustain a vibrant and profitable Canadian tourism industry;
(b) market Canada as a desirable tourist destination;
(c) support a cooperative relationship between the private
sector and the governments of Canada, the provinces and the
territories with respect to Canadian tourism; and
(d) provide information about Canadian tourism to the private
sector and to the governments of Canada, the provinces and the
territories.
Later on in my speech I will get back to the last two objectives
and to some issues regarding tourism and the roles of other
players, including provincial governments.
1655
In Quebec there is major activity by the Quebec government in
market niches that could be different from those chosen by the
Canadian tourism commission.
We should not forget that the Canadian tourism commission as we
know it is relatively recent. It is a bit surprising that, in
such a short time span, it should become a crown corporation. I
have a hard time believing that this two step process was not
planned from the outset. The first step was to give the
commission its existing administrative structure, and the second
one is to say that the obvious choice is to turn it into a crown
corporation.
Right now, the commission's funding comes from the federal
government, but also from various players in the tourist
industry under special partnerships or in specific niches. We
have no intention of condemning the work being done by the
Canadian tourism commission. Our opposition to this bill stems
from the fact that the federal government could very well use
the commission, as it has other departments, to invade the
tourism jurisdiction.
The commission now reports to the Minister of Industry, but its
new status as a crown corporation will not stop the department
from having programs and taking action in the tourist industry.
I am thinking of the Economic Development Agency, which is
accountable to the Minister of Industry, in the final analysis.
Particularly as it applies to us in Quebec, the Canada Economic
Development Agency for the Regions in Quebec, formerly known as
Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec, has become
involved in the past—and still is—in certain niches, to support
tourism.
Nobody is against helping tourism, on the contrary. There is a
lot of money to be made in tourism, which is very useful for
economic development. We all want more visitors to come to
Canada, as opposed to Canadians going to other countries. We
want to reduce the tourism deficit in certain parts of the
country. We all want to improve that.
Let us recall the plans and objectives the government set not
that long ago, on February 27, 1996. We have to put things back
in their context.
At that time, we were at the beginning of the session following
the referendum, which took place in October 1995.
In the throne speech, the government addressed the issue of
tourism. I will read a few quotes from the throne speech
describing the federal government's position concerning its
approach to tourism development.
The speech included the following:
The Government is prepared to withdraw from its functions in
such areas as labour market training, forestry, mining, and
recreation, that are more appropriately the responsibility of
others, including provincial governments, local authorities or
the private sector.
In the following paragraph, we read:
The federal government will propose to the provinces a much
strengthened process to work in partnership, focussing on such
priorities as food inspection, environmental management, social
housing, tourism and freshwater fish habitat.
I will not talk about the failures in areas mentioned in that
paragraph, other than tourism. I am thinking of social housing,
in particular. No later than last weekend, we saw many people
demonstrating in front of the building where the Liberal Party
was holding its convention to protest against the attitude and
the role of the federal government in social housing.
Let us go back to tourism. The same government that said
that it wanted to give the provinces the greater role they
wanted did not do much to reach that goal. Instead, it became
less and less of a partner.
By creating a crown corporation which, we expect, will receive
more and more money and will be supported by other departments
like the one I mentioned, Canada Economic Development,
especially as Quebec is concerned, the federal government is
clearly showing that it wants to decide for itself how it will
be involved in tourism.
This brings to mind another motion adopted by parliament. The
Prime Minister alluded to it today. It was supposed to be a
major motion to recognize the distinct character of Quebec.
1700
It is strange to see how little of this motion is reflected in
the bills we pass, or even in the interpretation of existing
legislation.
To me, it is obvious that Quebec, with its distinct culture and
particular characteristics, is in the best position to sell its
tourism product. The cultural niche is a very interesting aspect
to develop in order to promote Quebec throughout the world and
to attract tourists.
As members know, several regions organize numerous festivals and
events that are the signs of great dynamism. With all great
international events that occur throughout the summer, Montreal
is in a very good position.
I know that my colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
will be speaking later. These events occur in his own
neighbourhood; he will mention them.
All summer long, Montreal is alive with a wide range of
activities that attract many tourists from all over the world.
The Quebec City summer festival is also growing in scale. The
tourism season is growing longer. The occupancy rate in the
hotels is constantly increasing.
So, things are going pretty well.
However, I think that Quebec is in the best position to do its
own marketing, to sell what it has to offer and to let its
organisers enhance the great talents that we have everywhere in
our province to promote these events, instead of relying more
and more on a Canadian tourism commission that will play an
increasingly significant role and that will decide which are the
best products to promote, from a Canadian perspective or under a
Canadian strategy to sell tourism.
Obviously, partnerships will have to be developed.
There are many partnerships that can be struck in the tourism
field between Quebec and Canada, Quebec and some of the other
provinces. It would, in my opinion, be wiser to let them define
their strategies and forge their own partnerships for joint
campaigns aimed at other countries, instead of having to fall in
line with an orientation in which the federal government will,
as always, be seeking to enhance its role and, ultimately, to
gain a higher profile.
I have enormous concerns about what the federal government might
be tempted to do in future, even if this is a crown corporation.
It might say “Well yes, it is, but it has considerable
independence”. It must be kept in mind, however, just how its
membership will be made up, the control the minister will
continue to have, if only through the appointments he will be
able to make.
The government does have a considerable amount of control.
Looking at existing crown corporations, and I am thinking of
Canada Post among others, and at the person it has at its head,
a former Minister of Foreign Affairs here, Mr. Ouellet, how
could one not conclude that there is considerable collusion with
government in certain directions Canada Post has taken, although
taken in an independent manner. When the friends of the regime
are put into such positions, there are reasons, rewards are due
and in certain cases political patronage. As well, in certain
cases, there is the desire to retain a degree of control, and
certain affinities, so the position goes to a member of the “old
boys' network”.
This allows de facto control to be retained while hiding behind
the theoretical independence of these corporations, so as not
have to answer to us here. They do, of course, have to report
to parliament.
Their officers will appear before the committee, but this is a
relatively simple exercise compared to a minister being
accountable to the House on a daily basis.
There is still a link, but I can already predict that, if any
problem occurs, in response to questions, the Minister of
Industry will say that the commission is operating at arm's
length, that it is a crown corporation and that the government
cannot get involved. But in real life, when it suits its
purpose, the government can get involved through indirect
channels. In this case, it will have every reason to say
“Listen, we cannot do that because of the commission's arm's
length relationship with the government”.
The Minister of Industry tends to take this position with
respect to CRTC rulings, a commission that makes fundamental
decisions regarding the future of several key sectors, such as
culture and telecommunications. The Minister of Canadian
Heritage and the Minister of Industry can hide behind the
independence of such organizations.
As for the commission per se, things are going relatively well
right now, but I am very concerned about the future. It is
difficult to trust the government, because it has been so
obsessed with visibility in taking any action.
1705
I am convinced that no department makes a decision now without
worrying about the federal government's visibility. It is very
clear that the Canadian Tourism Commission will meet the same
fate, with this sort of additional autonomy they will get along
with additional funding eventually, as is currently the case to
some extent anyway.
The bill also provides that the location of the head office may
be designated by cabinet through an order in council. The
commission will remain in the same premises, but since the bill
allows cabinet to choose the place, to group them where it will,
it is a safe bet that the day is not far off when the government
will say they have to be brought together in a single building,
separate from the department, because it is not healthy for a
Crown corporation to be located in premises belonging to the
Department of Industry.
The day is not far off when, as the government did patiently in
creating the commission and in making it a Crown corporation,
the next step will be to give it its own facilities and to
reward a riding or a specific region by sending this group of
people there.
There is nothing explicit in this sense, but mark my words. I
am convinced that one day there will be people wanting to take
this Crown corporation and arrange it in some other way or take
it some other place.
I come back to certain descriptions of the bill's contents. I
am thinking, among other things, of the powers of the
commission. The Canadian Tourism Commission is to be
established as a corporation with all the accompanying rights,
powers and privileges.
It could therefore acquire property, such as facilities for its
head office. However, the bill prevents the Canadian Tourism
Commission from financing or owning real property or facilities
related to tourism.
I would like to make an aside here. The mandate of the
commission is to promote tourism products. It is not its role
to finance infrastructure or to own it. But the government is
making other interventions to this end rather than collect fewer
taxes and leave the provinces that have to manage that a little
more tax room.
In most cases, there are tourism offices in the regions. There
are various players in the tourism sector.
Regional development boards can have a back-up role and provide
funding support, but government players can co-ordinate their
efforts and support a whole industry.
Nothing prevents the commission from broadening its mandate, if
it were tempted to do so in the future, but for the time being
it is not doing so. Rather, it leaves it to other branches of
the federal government, such as economic development agencies.
With regard to authority, it is obvious that, if the government
is providing for the ability to set up facilities elsewhere, the
day is not far off when it will happen.
With regard to the board of directors, it is supposed to have
increased decision making powers over administrative matters on
top of matters relating to activities and programs. The board
will have greater autonomy than it currently does.
With regard to agreements, the Canadian Tourism Commission will
have to authority to enter into agreements with one or several
provincial or territorial governments to carry out its objects.
With the approval of the governor in council, the corporation
may, either by itself or jointly with any person or the
government of a province or a territory, acquire shares in or
assets of a corporation.
With regard to human resources management, it will be
responsible for negotiating its employees working conditions.
So far, there does not seem to be any problem with unionized
employees who are going to join the crown corporation. It seems
to have been well negotiated; when the bill comes to the
committee, we will have the opportunity to look into the matter
closely to make sure the transition will go smoothly as far as
working conditions are concerned.
With regard to reporting, it is said that the president of the
Canadian Tourism Commission will present to the board of
directors an annual business plan, an annual report, and
performance reports whenever necessary.
The annual activity plan of the Canadian tourism commission will
be approved by the minister and Treasury Board. Each year, the
board of directors will report on the results obtained to the
minister, who will table them in the House. The chairperson will
no longer report on administrative issues and other matters to
the deputy minister”.
1710
Therefore, a lot of reports and other documents will be
submitted to the minister. But as I said earlier, chances are
that the minister will choose not to be so accountable to
parliament and hide behind the fact that we are dealing with a
crown corporation.
In theory, however, the minister is still responsible, and I
hope he or someone from his department will confirm it in
committee. I hope he will reassert his role and his
responsibilities towards the Canadian tourism commission,
because if there are problems, he will be held accountable. But
I do have a lot of concerns about this.
A number of things are also mentioned in the mandate. When this
bill goes to committee, I do hope that the Minister of Industry
will be among the witnesses heard and that the development
agencies will get the chance to explain their vision of what
they do for tourism and how it is in line with the strategies
mentioned in the 1996 throne speech. That speech was supposed to
highlight the main strategies of the government and deal, among
other things, with tourism.
That happened after the referendum, when the federal government
wanted to show that it could be a little more flexible.
However, they were quick to change their tune, especially last
week, when they showed how inflexible they are and unwilling to
accommodate Quebec within their system. They prefer to threaten
to change the rules and define the conditions if Quebec wants to
leave. They will set the rules, they say. They are getting
tougher than ever.
They no longer talk about accommodating our needs.
Even if the minister is saying that he is reaching out to the
Premier of Quebec and he is willing to co-operate and talk, in
reality, all the speeches and motions on the distinct society do
not contain anything substantial, and what they do contain are
not necessarily the most basic things.
In the tourism sector, it would not be complicated to leave the
money to the Quebec government and tell it to increase its
support for tourism or to improve its tourism infrastructure
since it has a distinct culture, even though the Prime Minister
himself does not recognize that fact. He said before that there
was no distinct culture in Quebec, but there are people around
him who must realize there is one. We should sell our cultural
products, sell what we are and what we do.
Unfortunately, this does not seem to be part of the spirit in
which the commission was established and in which it will be
refocused.
For these reasons, we cannot support this bill. However, we will
raise questions and give the government one more chance. We will
try to convince it to change its mind when we study this bill at
the committee stage and then at the report stage.
We want to know if the government will be able to accommodate us
and recognize the role of the Quebec government, among others,
in the promotion of the tourism industry, particularly from a
cultural point of view. We do not want empty promises, we do not
want idle talk about discussing and co-operating, and so on; we
want to see how the government will formally recognize this
role.
I will conclude by stressing the great concern we have because,
with all the money the federal government now has at its
disposal, it is very likely that, once again, it will totally
ignore the jurisdictions and priorities of the Quebec government
and set its own policies.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
wish to ask the Bloc member if those involved in trade and
tourism in Quebec agree with the orientation of this bill, more
specifically if they support the creation of a crown
corporation.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Madam Speaker, to be perfectly frank, we will
have the opportunity in committee to hear the opinions of
different groups, including the boards of trade.
There are two approaches now in Quebec. Some people say “They
will create the structure, and we will try to get our share of
the spinoffs from its mandate”.
1715
But some others are clearly worried that the federal government,
with the huge surpluses it now has, will launch all kinds of
initiatives, and invest a lot of money to improve a myriad of
programs.
Business people in particular, and I do not mean boards of trade
as such, but numerous business people—during the weekend I
attended a gala hosted by a board of trade in my riding—told me
“We are worried that the federal government, with the huge
surpluses it has announced, over $90 billion in the years ahead,
will decide to spend this money right, left and centre in the
form of all sorts of initiatives, which is what the Liberals
were so good at doing in the past rather than helping us lower
taxes. We will form partnerships ourselves, improve our own
ability to step in, and we will have more money to develop our
own projects, rather than let the government decide which
project it will support”.
Clearly, there is a very strong feeling in Quebec's business
community, and elsewhere, that what the federal government
should be doing right now is giving far greater attention to
lowering taxes, which are out of all proportion to the role and
responsibilities it assumes on a daily basis.
Many members of the business community would like to see it stop
throwing money around. They are also worried that a crown
corporation will want to spend a lot of money and that the
government will give it more and more funding, even if it is
capable of generating outside revenue. So, there are two schools
of thought.
As for the official positions of the boards of trade, we will
have an opportunity to ask them during committee study. But it
is clear that people are worried, but also cautious, because
these associations also include representatives of the tourism
industry, and they are going to want to allow their members to
go after as much funding as possible, once the programs are in
place.
But they would like more leeway to establish their own
priorities, instead of it always being the government that
decides what is and is not good for the development of the
tourist and other industries.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend
from Témiscamingue and must say that I support much of what he
said. I also acknowledge that some of the concerns he raised
were legitimate ones, particularly from his perspective.
Let us look forward with some vision in the next few years to a
commission where the federal government would take its
responsibility for introducing Canada to the world. I think we
all agree that as a country we have an attractive tourism
potential that is almost unique in the world. We are a country
with pristine landscapes from coast to coast that are vast, open
territories, to say nothing about a variety of enhanced cultural
benefits to the landscapes.
Would my friend from Témiscamingue say that there is a place for
the federal government to play a role in setting aside some large
perspectives in terms of attracting people to come to Canada for
a variety of purposes based primarily on tourism, that within
that context provincial governments would take up the challenge
to promote their provincial benefits to the tourism sector, and
that within the provinces, the regions and the various boards of
trade, chambers of commerce or tourism development companies
would take it upon themselves to promote their own sub-regions in
terms of tourist potential?
This would entail the Canadian government going out on a large,
national campaign, leaving it up to the provinces and territories
to do provincial and territorial campaigns and leaving it up to a
whole set of sub-regions to promote the benefits of their
particular areas. It would be the best parts of different levels
of governments working together. Of course all of this would
include the private sector in terms of the facilities for tourism
they would be providing.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien: Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's
question. It is clear that it would be good if partnerships were
established, either between provinces or between various
organizations and governments to promote tourism and say “Look
at all we have in Canada. There are different elements,
different things”.
It would be good for certain people to market their products
jointly under this banner. This is very true and I can also
understand that some Canadians will say “We want to market our
tourist attractions jointly”.
That could create some problems though. For example, if Quebec
were to decide for one reason or another to focus on one
particular form of tourism, cultural activities, summer
festivals, etc. Montreal and its international character, we
would of course want to promote those aspects.
1720
But if suddenly the Canadian tourism commission were to decide
that it is another product from Quebec it would like to promote,
we would then have two different orientations, two priorities.
When we want to sell or to market a particular product, we
cannot have two priorities. It is very difficult for the
industry to send a joint message on its priority.
The Canadian tourism commission could have priorities that
differ from the ones established by other organisations like
Tourisme Québec, which reports to the Quebec government. That
could create tension.
I would prefer it if the various organizations and the provinces
had a bigger budget and decided together which particular
projects they will pursue and how they will promote their
industry.
One must be realistic. When people come to see different things,
whether in Quebec or Canada, they come to see some specific
area. It is rare that anyone would visit a whole country. And in
this case, it is two countries in one.
The west is known for the Rockies and skiing. British Columbia
is a beautiful region. Quebec City is one of the most beautiful
cities in Quebec, even in North America. Montreal is a very
vibrant city where several cultures rub shoulders. Montreal is a
city with a French atmosphere, even if we would like it to be
more pronounced.
There are many things to see in the various regions of Quebec.
In my region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, there is so much to see. We
like people to come to see our various attractions, our wide
open spaces, our well organized events. These include the
trucking rodeo, the international regattas. We also offer
interesting cultural events and adventure tourism.
I would prefer to see our regional organizations with a bit more
power, to see the Government of Quebec with a bit more, and then
we will look at what we can do together, rather than the other
way around always, saying “since we want to sell other countries
on Canada, we will define it up at this level. Then later we
will see what the lower levels can do to get some of it back”.
I prefer initiatives to come from the bottom up, via natural and
obvious groupings. That is the base from which we will market
our tourist attractions.
I agree that there is a lot that exists. We can still do more
than in the past to sell all the sights and activities available
to tourists in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, and to improve
the financial share we have of tourism, one that is not always
to our advantage.
One thing has always been seen as a hindrance to tourism: our
winters. Many people like to go south in the winter.
There is a lot that can be done to sell the idea of winter
tourism. A number of things must be developed further, in this
regard. As well, investment must be made in the related
infrastructures. We are still relatively new to this on the
regional level.
Thinking of my own region, the oldest cities are barely 100
years old. Clearly there is still much to be done to develop
more structured infrastructures to welcome tourists, to give
more prominence to all the potential tourist attractions we
have. This is not just true in summer; there is much to do in
winter as well.
I do not in any way share the vision of my colleague.
I understand his concerns, his desire to see a Canadian label on
things. What I would like to see is for the Quebec label to be
in the international eye, for people to be told that we exist,
that Quebec exists. I want to see our own Quebec label, our own
emblem, on Quebec tourism products.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to speak to
Bill C-5, the Canadian tourism commission act, but I would be
telling an untruth if I did.
Given the grand scheme of the problems in the nation today such
as child poverty which my colleagues from the NDP have been
mentioning, homelessness that has come to the forefront today,
high tax rates, the problems of our businesses, the fact that
families are trying to make ends meet but cannot, and the
collapse of our health care system, what is the government
dealing with? What is on the agenda? It is an act to deal with
the Canadian tourism commission.
What else was on the agenda today? It was an act dealing with
the Canadian institutes for health research, an important issue
in the aspect of medicine, but it pales in comparison when we
consider how we could try to improve our health care system so
that people can obtain the health care they need.
Rather than dealing with the substantive problems in our nation
today we are dealing wuth fluff.
1725
Before I get to the substance of Bill C-5, I want to put into
perspective what we should be dealing with rather than what we
are dealing with today. I want to read a small vignette which I
got from a colleague of mine, an emergency room physician, very
recently. It shows what the House should be dealing with and
what the government should be dealing with rather than what we
are dealing with today.
He went to work yesterday at 7 o'clock in the morning to find
the overnight guy looking shattered. He had been on his own from
5 o'clock until seven o'clock in the morning, and 21 admitted
patients were in the department. There were no beds in the city.
The emergency medical services were on divert to other equally
overcrowded emergency rooms. The very good and kind charge
nurse, who desperately tried to keep her head above water and not
let anybody die in the waiting room because there was no bed in
the department, expressed her disgust at production line
medicine. She said there was little time for compassion. The
trauma room was full. The cardiac area was full. My friend was
worrying about the complaint letter that was sure to follow.
He remembered a good friend in a rare moment of insight saying
that we should never let the system take the compassion out of
us. The sick deserve better. That is exactly what is happening
today. We should do something before it becomes irreversible
like is already happening to many of his colleagues who are
retired, burnt out, angry and frustrated.
Australia wanted him. It made that clear and did everything it
could to get him. He said that it was nice to be wanted, even if
meant leaving his home. At least it meant that he would spend
more time with his wife and family whom he loves dearly. They
also deserve better.
That is a poignant, heart wrenching letter from an emergency
room colleague of mine who is leaving for Australia because he
cannot provide the care that Canadians deserve in the health care
system.
Rather than dealing with the important issue that Canadians are
suffering, we are dealing with Bill C-5, an act to establish the
Canadian tourism commission. I would only hope that one day the
government would wake up and decide to deal with something
substantive, something life threatening, so that people like this
gentleman and his wife, who is also a doctor, do not have to
leave to go to a far away land because they cannot provide the
care for patients that Canadians well deserve.
Our observations indicate that Bill C-5 moves in the right
direction. It moves toward having a more private involvement in
the way in which tourism is sold and, as my colleague from the
NDP mentioned very eloquently, how we can sell Canada abroad.
We will oppose the bill because it will make the commission a
crown corporation. We do not believe that crown corporations can
do a good job. We believe that the facility selling Canada
should be a private arm's length organization which can do a
better job and be more nimble, rather than have the long arm of
the government meddling in the affairs of the commission.
The particular commission will have a 26 member decision making
board, predominantly comprised of private sector companies that
direct an interest in establishing Canada as a preferred tourism
destination. Essentially it is paid for half by public and half
by private funds. We think that is moving in the right direction
but it is not going far enough.
That is why we will oppose it. We can only hope that the
government sees the wisdom in what the Reform Party is saying and
that we move toward privatizing this institution.
If we want to really sell Canada let us look at some ways in
which we could do that. Let us look at using our embassies as a
tool for selling Canada much more than what they do today. There
is a great capacity in our embassies all over the world. We
could use the fine people who work there as great ambassadors in
terms of selling Canada as a tourist destination.
We could also be more aggressive in how we develop private
partnerships such as with Canadian Airlines or Air Canada so they
too could be our representatives abroad in selling Canada. More
people would be able to choose Canada as a destination in which
to spend their foreign dollars.
1730
The chamber of commerce could also be used. It has spoken
eloquently on how we can improve our economy. It is an effective
body with great ideas. It can be a tremendous help to various
organizations around the country. It could tie them together to
be an aggressive, proactive force for tourism within Canada.
Those are things the government could do rather than tinkering
around the edges. It is taking little baby steps in moving the
commission to a crown corporation.
The government has not been very friendly to tourism. There are
things it should be doing but which it is not doing. In my
riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the government's actions last
year were devastating. For a purely political decision that
ultimately would have saved some fish, the government made
decisions on banning sports fishing that cost $20 million and up
to 200 jobs in my area. The ban was not done in the interests of
saving the fish. It was done on purely political grounds. It had
devastating effects in my riding and in all of south Vancouver
Island.
If the minister were truly interested in building a strong
sports fishing industry and a strong commercial fishing industry,
then the government would have taken a multifactorial approach in
dealing with overfishing and habitat control and renewal. It
would have determined ways in which we could have a sustainable
fishery by dividing up the pie responsibly and determining how
large the pie should be, rather than being very narrow minded and
taking a short term solution that eventually cost sports fishing
people in my area a lot of money and jobs. People are falling so
far behind the eight ball that they are not sure they will get
back on their feet in the future.
This has had a devastating effect on tourism in south Vancouver
Island. If the government were truly interested in doing the
right thing, it would look at how those decisions affect people
in the tourism industry. It would reverse them where they are
compatible with having a sustainable fishery that is congruent
with a strong environmental concern, as in this case.
The government could also do some constructive things to build
our economy. The reason people come to this country for tourism
is largely because of our low dollar. That is nothing to be
proud of. The low dollar is a double-edged sword. People come
to Canada to spend their money because our dollar is low. On the
other hand the low dollar has a devastating effect on our
exporters and companies that rely on importing goods from abroad
and which have to pay in a foreign currency. Furthermore it
affects Canadians when they buy products that are from abroad.
There are various things the government can and should do in
order to strengthen our economy. We have a strong tourism
potential but we must also ensure that we have high paying jobs
that are sustainable in the future.
Many ideas come from the Business Council on National Issues.
It has put forward some very constructive ideas on how to improve
our economy.
One deals with the level of public debt. The federal debt is
about $570 billion. When that is combined with the provincial
debt and other debts of crown corporations such as would be
created with Bill C-5, the debt level approaches $1 trillion
which every man, woman and child in the country has to pay back.
We are also losing a lot of skilled workers. This is not a
figment of our imagination as the Prime Minister alluded to in
one of his speeches. We only need to look at some of our
educational institutions. The University of Waterloo is the
backbone of our high tech industry with engineering, mathematics
and computer science graduates. Almost 100% of the people
graduating from co-op programs at Waterloo left the country.
This is the backbone of our country's future ability to be
internationally competitive. We are losing our best and brightest
people as a direct result of the poor economic performance and
poor tax structure in this country.
1735
For years Reform has been articulating strong, constructive
solutions to deal with the tax situation. Our finance critic and
other of my colleagues have put forth constructive solutions. We
have given the government a step by step plan on how to reduce
taxes pragmatically and effectively. It would strengthen our
social programs rather than compromise them. It would not
compromise the poor. It would create jobs, not remove them. It
would be a net benefit to Canadians.
We have given the government that plan yet a lot of games are
being played. There has been a lot of obfuscation and inaction.
That is not what Canadians want. Canadians want action now. We
need only ask any of the small business people who are trying to
make ends meet, and those who are making ends meet are just
making it.
There are some solutions in order to decrease taxes. We could
increase the basic spousal allowance amount. Reform has put this
forward many times. By increasing it, we would get the poorest
of the poor completely off the list. Reform's tax solutions would
take 200,000 of the poorest of the poor off the tax lists.
That would dramatically improve the situation for the homeless
and the poor. It would give them money to improve their standard
of living. It would also increase the money in the public
coffers. We know that by reducing taxes somewhat people will
spend more money and more money will go into the public coffers.
There would be more investment in Canada from abroad. That would
stimulate the economy. The more money that goes into the public
coffers, the more money there will be for the homeless, health
care and to strengthen our social programs.
High taxes are the enemy of the poor. High taxes are the enemy
of our social programs. To be fiscally irresponsible is also to
be socially irresponsible. Overspending kills jobs and social
programs and hurts the poor.
We could complete the elimination of the 3% general surtax that
began in the 1988 budget. That would stimulate companies
particularly those in the tourism industry. It would enable them
to be more effective sellers of Canada and Canadian goods.
We could decrease the EI premiums. Again, Reform spoke at length
about decreasing the EI premiums. It is a tax. It is a tax on
business and a tax on the people. It prevents businesses from
being competitive and it takes away their ability to provide
jobs.
We also dealt with decreasing the tax bracket. Increasing the
26% tax bracket threshold by $2,000 would eliminate or prevent
bracket creep at the lowest level. We could increase the 29% tax
bracket threshold by $4,000 which would reverse the bracket
creep. We could further reduce the rate from 26% to 21%.
A lot could be done to decrease the taxes. By decreasing taxes
our companies would be competitive nationally and
internationally.
As I mentioned before, it would reverse that trend of people who
are leaving. My colleague is leaving Canada because he cannot
provide the medical and health care for his patients because the
resources are not there. Nurses are following suit. It is very
interesting to note that in the next 11 years we will have a
deficit of 112,000 nurses.
Who is going to take care of us when we get old? Who will treat
us in the hospitals? There will not be enough people. If we
think it is bad now, wait until the future. Our population will
be older. Baby boomers will be retiring. Technology will be
more expensive. There will be fewer workers and less money in
the public purse. That money is essential in order to deal with
the challenges ahead in our health care system.
1740
We also have to deal with global and domestic risks. The issues
of Quebec separatism and treaty rights negotiations are causing
incredible uncertainty within our country. The Prime Minister
has opened a Pandora's box on separation. If the Prime Minister
truly wants to deal with the issue of secession, he needs to
afford all Canadians, including the people of Quebec, a plan on
federalism.
We need to get the resources to the people more effectively and
ensure that the provinces do what the provinces do best and that
the feds do what the feds do best. He needs to delineate the
responsibilities of both more clearly in order to reduce the
overlap and make sure there is a more efficient and wise use of
our dollars. It is not enough to merely throw money at a problem.
There has to be accountability and an effective plan of action.
One has to check up to make sure the plan is effective.
There is the issue of treaty negotiations in my province. The
government and the House are dealing with the issue of the
Nisga'a treaty. The Nisga'a treaty is the template for 50 other
treaties which will be looked at in B.C. and in combination with
the Delgamuukw decision will ensure that treaties signed in other
parts of the country east of the Rockies are opened up. That is
going to cause tremendous uncertainty. It is going to cost
Canadians money and jobs. It is going to cost dollars. It is
going to reduce our tax revenues. It is going to make it less
effective for companies to sell our country abroad, to say “Come
to Canada. We are a great country”.
We have to manage global risks too. In the last few years there
has been great uncertainty in the international financial
markets. The WTO is meeting in Seattle. It is hoped some
element of certainty will come out of that, an element of
fairness and rules for international trade.
We also have to look at international money markets. The rapid
transit of large amounts of capital has an incredibly
destabilizing effect on international currencies. We saw what it
did in southeast Asia. We saw the impact on the Canadian dollar.
We saw the impact on international markets. They plunged
downward because of the rapid movement of large amounts of
capital to various parts of the world. There has to be some
method, some rules based system of ensuring that rapid movement
cannot destabilize the system we have today.
As I said before, there is a need for the reduction of the debt.
The reduction of the debt remains a top priority for us. Every
$10 billion reduction in debt will reduce by $700 million the
amount of Canadians' money the government spends on interest
rates alone. That roughly $37 billion spent every single year by
the government using the taxpayers' money, money people work for,
is sent to the people who lent Canada the $570 billion that the
feds owe. We need to deal with that.
In closing, Bill C-5 in the grand scheme of things should be low
in the priorities of what the government is dealing with. The
government should be dealing with homelessness. It should be
dealing with taxes. It should be dealing with social program
renewal. It should be dealing with saving our health care
system. It should be dealing with the issues that are germane
and important to the lives of Canadians.
We in the Reform Party are going to continue to push the
government to deal with those important issues that can save
Canadian lives. If we cannot deal with that in the House, the
nation's prime legislating body, then where can we deal with it?
Our party will continue to put forward constructive solutions.
1745
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question and comment for my colleague. The
comment concerns a remark he made about the views of the hon.
member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys with respect
to selling Canada. I heard that member this morning make an
almost hysterical speech with regard to what he views as the
undesirability of selling Canada. I would love to correct that
point.
I wonder if my colleague has given any consideration to the
problems for tourism that are being created in this country
through the collapse of our infrastructure, particularly our
highway system which is an absolute national disgrace.
We have what is called a national highway system that is more
like the national goat path. People who want to drive from
Etobicoke to Banff jump in the car, hook the trailer on and away
they go. But where do they go? They certainly do not follow the
Trans-Canada highway. They go down through Michigan, cross
through the northern tier prairie states and then swing back up
as close to Banff as they can get without actually touching
Canadian soil. This is costing us millions of dollars in taxes.
It is not just tourists who are doing this. Even the commercial
truckers are doing it. They are abandoning Canada because the
roads are so bad. I wonder if the member would like to comment
on that problem.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has
spent a great deal of time as the former transport critic
articulating solutions to deal with the important issue of
improving our infrastructure. He was absolutely correct in
articulating the problems that we have in our infrastructure.
What exactly is that? It is a sign of the ultimate decrepitness
and decay taking place amongst things that the government ought
to be interested in. The government ought to be interested in
working with the provinces to ensure that we have a strong, safe
highway system. The government should also be interested in
having a competent railway system. It should also be interested
in ensuring that we have competent social programs. All of these
are things that the government should be interested in and should
be determining ways in which it can most effectively spend the
money available today.
My colleague mentioned that our highway system is falling apart.
It is falling apart because the government is unwise with where
it spends taxpayers' money. This is the central problem. The
government tends to go on about spending money. It thinks the
solution to a problem is defined by the amount of money it puts
toward a problem and the more zeros behind that one, the more
effective it must be in solving the problem. Wrong. That is not
what it is.
We need a plan and we need to determine how to spend the money
and how to spend it wisely. We must use existing experiences and
the best ideas we have to build the best plan possible. If we do
that we will have effective infrastructure. And some day my
colleague, I hope, will be the Minister of Transport and he can
enact his solutions.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my friend from
Esquimalt make his presentation. The Gods will strike me down,
but I actually agreed with a good part of it. There were some
parts I did not agree with but I do agree with his sentiment.
My hon. friend for Cypress Hills—Grasslands makes the case for
the need for highway infrastructure. Anybody with a brain would
acknowledge that we are the second largest country geographically
in the world. The cost of transportation is factored into
everything we purchase. Having a national highway grid system
ought to be a national priority. The federal government ought to
take some pride in building, establishing and maintaining a major
national grid system.
The reality is that although the federal government collects
volumes of money from gasoline and other fuel taxes, it puts
virtually no money into the highway system. The minister of
highways is not a stupid person. The government is not made up
of stupid people. It is made up of people with intelligence,
many with university degrees and sometimes many degrees.
Could my hon. friend explain to me why it is that intelligent
thoughtful people make such an obvious mistake?
1750
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the
NDP, the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, for
his very eloquent and pointed question. The real answer is to
get opposition members into government. We could then solve
these problems.
He is quite right. The problem is that the government right now
is in a state of inaction. All it feels it really needs to do is
keep the opposition fractured. What a sorry state of affairs we
are in. What a sad reflection on the House when all the
government has to do is behave like it is made of Teflon and try
to keep the opposition fractured. This actually keeps our
country far below what it can be. We should be doing much more
and Canadians deserve much more.
The member brings up a couple of very interesting points. I
know he has been working very hard for the people in his riding
and is very interested in infrastructure. I have a couple of
points to make on the issue of rail travel.
We should be doing more to encourage rail travel, which would
take the pressure off the roads and lessen the damaging effects
to the highways. We should also discuss the issue of subsidies
to VIA Rail. VIA Rail is a mess and needs to be cleaned from the
top down. It is a bureaucratic morass and needs desperately to
be restructured to make it more effective.
On the issue of gas and taxes, essentially the gas prices that
we see today are in large part a tax grab. The majority of the
money we pay at the pump is actually taxes that go to the
provinces and the feds. The feds are taking the bulk of that
money, putting it into their pocket and spending it on issues
that have nothing to do with the highways. Quite frankly, one
wonders where that money goes.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
one very quick question for the member.
We know that 14 cents is taken out of the gasoline price for the
provinces and about 14 cents for the federal government. That is
28 cents. The price of gas is about 60 cents. How is that the
majority? How does the member do his addition to get that into
a majority of the gasoline price being tax?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member
and I would disagree with our figures and with the absolute
numbers that exist. The member should actually look at the taxes
his government is taking away. The bulk of the money that we
spend at the pump is a tax grab by the government and we do not
know where that money goes. That is what the public should be
complaining about.
We also have the issues of collusion and monopoly that exist
between gas companies. There is no way that the price at every
gas pump in the entire city should go up simultaneously, within
minutes of each other, if there was no collusion.
What the Minister of Finance should be doing with his colleagues
is immediately putting forth an effective task force—and I
underline the word “effective” because most are not—to
determine the collusion that is going on today and enact
legislation as soon as possible. Members from all sides would
like to support legislation that prevents the collusion that is
occurring today so that the people at the pump are not paying the
price and gas companies will have a level playing field where
there will be fair competition.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed specifically to the area of
jurisdiction. Maybe my hon. colleague has a particular comment
to make on whether the province should be playing a larger role
specifically in the area of tourism. Obviously there needs to be
a combined effort. Our colleagues from the Bloc mentioned
earlier this idea of having a stronger role for the provinces.
Where does my hon. colleague feel that debate should go in
trying to strengthen tourism as well at the provincial level?
What jurisdiction should that play?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague
has spent a great deal of time in interprovincial relations and
has worked very hard on this issue for a long time.
The member speaks of greater co-operation between the provinces
and the feds. What we have not seen enough of, in my personal
view, on a wide variety of issues including tourism, is more
co-operation.
1755
The feds have an enormous leadership opportunity to bring
together their provincial counterparts to a round table and say
“Let us us work together. Let us find the best solutions,
looking at the international experience, to making Canada the
number one tourist destination in the world and to more
effectively sell Canada internationally”. By working
co-operatively, rather than in isolation, Canada and Canadians
will receive greater justice on the international stage.
[Translation]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to speak to this bill, and I want to comment on the
remarks made by the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Last Friday, the member said that the bill establishing the
Canadian Tourism Commission was some kind of government plot to
enhance federalism. The member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques said that
the bill had nothing to do with tourism but everything to
do with promoting federalism. It may be.
I am only a backbencher and I do not know if the government has
an non-avowed goal. On this matter, however, I think he might be
right, but he may be wrong too, for there are more forests, more
lakes and more pristine locations in the beautiful province of
Quebec than in Ontario. In fact, I think that Canada as a whole
is the most tolerant country in the world, and another non-avowed
goal of this bill is to promote the Canadian spirit around the
world, not only to collect money from the tourism industry but
also to selling the Canadian spirit all around the world.
In the summertime there are always many tourists on
Parliament Hill, taking pictures and making videos. They come
from Japan, France, Spain, and all over the world. I believe
they visit Canada to see not only to see the scenic beauty of
the countryside, but also a country that has achieved, in all
its regions, the greatest spirit of tolerant in the world.
I say this is what being Canadian is all about, and it goes for
people in British Columbia as well as for those in Ontario and
Quebec. I will give an example. This afternoon, during question
period, the Prime Minister answered questions from the Bloc.
1800
He said that Canada was unique as a country because its
Constitution contains no provision prohibiting separation. He
mentioned that the Constitution of the United States makes it
absolutely impossible to break up the country and that the same
is true of France. Under the French Constitution, that the
country cannot be tampered with, but here in Canada it possible
to have a debate in the House of Commons on sovereignty,
separatism, nationalism—
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to know what bill the member is speaking to. I
think he is making a speech on the Constitution, but that is not
the point of the exercise at the moment. With respect to the
rule of relevancy, he has been giving us a speech for seven
minutes now on the Constitution.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington, who has a lot of experience, would like to
debate the bill before the House. Perhaps his speech was fairly
long on another point, but he will come back to the bill before
us, I am sure.
Mr. John Bryden: I am speaking about a very important point.
I would like to say that many people around the world want to
visit Canada to see this country, which is an example of
extraordinary tolerance. Take the situation here in the House
of Commons, where there are sovereignists, good Canadians in my
view, separatists, also good Canadians in my view, and
supporters of independence, good Canadians as well, because here
in this country we can debate the most delicate of political
topics.
This sets an example for everyone, and I think that the Canadian
Tourism Commission is a good one, because, in my opinion, Canada
has a duty to promote a spirit of tolerance around the world. I
think that many people in the world want to visit Canada to see
not only the countryside, but also this parliament.
During the last referendum campaign, I saw the Prime Minister
and the Leader of the Opposition debate the separation of
Quebec. I think this was a very important episode in our
history. It was also a good example of the spirit of tolerance
of our country. The debate that took place in this House
reflected the true Canadian spirit of tolerance.
It is important to have a federal tourism commission, not just
to promote Canada's beauty around the world, but also its
spirit.
1805
It is true that there is Tourisme Québec and also a tourist
office in Ontario. But it is not the same when the idea is to
promote the best country in the world.
An hon. member: It is propaganda.
Mr. John Bryden: That is not true. The member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques says it is
propaganda. To tell the world that our country is the best one
is not propaganda.
What is going on in Quebec, the debate in this House on
nationalism and sovereignty is a good thing. But I want to
explain something to hon. members opposite.
The best view of Parliament Hill is from the other side of the
Ottawa River. This symbolizes the Canadian reality. I am saying
that because of this country's political tolerance the best view
of Canada is from Quebec.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while
I have great respect for our colleague, I almost asked the page
to take him a cold compress to restore his spirits and bring him
around to the matter he should have been addressing, the
Canadian tourism commission.
Although the member's outbursts have obviously left him
incoherent, they make him no less endearing. I have three
questions for him.
When he speaks of Canada and Canadian unity, when he speaks of
democracy, does he have in mind the actions of the Prime
Minister and his government at the APEC conference, the offhand,
repressive and practically fascist manner in which they dealt
with students who were within their rights to demonstrate
against a dictator who was on Canadian soil?
When he speaks of Canada's tradition of democracy, where does
the APEC affair and the Prime Minister's authoritarian attitude
fit in?
Second, with respect to Canadian democracy, does he have in mind
an incident the likes of which has never been seen in any other
industrialized nation, and I am thinking of a head of
government, such as the Prime Minister, behaving like a common
thug and grabbing the throat of an unemployed worker, who had
come to take part in a democratic protest, as we are permitted
to do under the charter—
The Deputy Speaker: I have considerable difficulty understanding
the relation between this question and the hon. member's speech.
Perhaps the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve would ask the
member for Wentworth—Burlington a question concerning his speech,
or the bill before the House.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for
your authority. You allowed the member to talk about these
issues, and I would have a hard time understanding partiality on
your part since you have always served the House so well.
For 20 minutes, you allowed the member to talk about these
issues and I think I should have the right to do the same. You
should have risen earlier or not have risen at all during my
speech.
The member showed bad faith. He talked about Canada's democratic
tradition, without referring to certain essential elements of
such democratic tradition.
1810
Yes, Canada has a democratic tradition, but there have been a
few blunders. I would have liked the member to recognize that,
if he wants to talk about Canada's democratic tradition, he must
talk about APEC and about the action taken by the Prime Minister
when he himself assaulted a protester here, on Parliament Hill.
I want to remind him that, if he wants to talk about democracy,
his government is poised to trample one of the most legitimate
rights of the National Assembly, which is to decide when it, as
the only real representative of francophones with regard to
their right to self-determination, will decide how Quebecers will
be consulted.
So I ask the member, where is democracy in the case of APEC,
where is democracy in the case of the action taken by the Prime
Minister, and will he distance himself from the government when
it gets ready to trample one of the National Assembly's most
legitimate rights? And, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to be impartial
because that is what is expected of the Chair.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, this is how separatists and
federalists speak to each other.
I was there when the Prime Minister ran into that demonstrator
in Hull. It was quite dreadful, because the Prime Minister and
the demonstrators exchanged words in front of school children.
For a brief moment, in an amusement park with ice sculptures, a
demonstrator shouted dreadful things. Then, the Prime Minister
left the stage and the demonstrator stepped in his way. Any
normal human being would have reacted the same way, and I saw
how the Prime Minister reacted.
In British Columbia, RCMP officers had to deal with students in
a very difficult situation.
I once was a reporter and I can tell the House that the media
have exploited the situation and ignored the facts.
Lastly, I think Reformers have created quite a stir with the
questions they chose to ask in the House of Commons about this
event, because I believed that Canadians for the most part
understand what happened when the students decided to confront
the RCMP in order to grab the headlines.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. This intervention began at five minutes to the hour. It
is now 20 minutes later. In the speech, the questions and the
comments I have not heard anything about the Canadian tourism
commission or Bill C-5. This is totally irrelevant to the topic
at hand, which is an important topic that deserves to be debated
and discussed.
I object to this harangue between the government member and the
Bloc member on a matter that is totally irrelevant.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has already expressed its
concern twice. I know that hon. members have a wide latitude and
I assume that they were suggesting that perhaps something to do
with the constitutional status of various provinces in Canada
might have something to do with the attractiveness of the country
as it concerns tourism. I do not know.
1815
However, I, like the hon. member, have been waiting and hoping
that we might get closer to the bill before the House. I know
the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington, as he moves to
conclude his remarks, will want to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have said all I wanted to say.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I too
was intrigued, in fact mesmerized, to see how the member for
Wentworth—Burlington could work the Prime Minister's Shawinigan
handshake into tourism.
If the member could do that, I think it is well worth the House
allowing him a little latitude in his speech because, as my
friend from Grasslands pointed out, this is an intriguing
subject. If somehow the Prime Minister choking some protester
could be worked into Canada's tourism, I would be intrigued to
know how the hon. member would suggest we do that.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question because it gives me an opportunity to conclude by
observing that what I was trying to say, and I do not know
whether I was successful or not, was that Canada is bigger than
just tourism. We are admired worldwide because of our spirit of
tolerance. There is no better example of it than the fact that
we can have a dialogue here, a real dialogue among Canadians who
do not share the same views of national unity.
I think that is something to celebrate. I think that when we
speak of tourism I want to brag about not just my lakes, forests
and mountains, but I want to brag about this parliament that
permits the kind of debate that we have here.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have mixed feelings
about this debate. We are debating at second reading Bill C-5,
an act to establish the Canadian tourism commission.
The bill states that the enactment will establish a crown
corporation to be known as the Canadian tourism commission.
Clause 5 states:
(a) sustain a vibrant and profitable Canadian tourism industry;
(b) market Canada as a desirable tourist destination;
(c) support a cooperative relationship between the private sector
and the governments of Canada, the provinces and the territories
with respect to Canadian tourism; and
(d) provide information about Canadian tourism to the private
sector and to the governments of Canada, the provinces and the
territories.
It is difficult for anyone who has an interest in the future of
tourism in our country to oppose this legislation. I appreciate
that there are other priorities that we should probably be
dealing with. I want to say that tourism is a significant
economic priority that ought to be pursued.
We know what is swirling around the countryside. We know that
this week delegates from more than 100 nations will meet in
Seattle to discuss the World Trade Organization's new round of
negotiations. Reports tell us that there are tens of thousands
of people in the streets opposing that initiative. I hear from
my friend from Esquimalt that he is concerned about other social
issues, like homelessness, the lack of affordable housing, the
aging population and the implications that that has for housing,
health care and other social programs. There are one and a half
million children living in poverty. We could look at the
pulverizing the Canadian cultural sector is taking, to say
nothing about agriculture, fisheries, forestry and the fact that
our water is being threatened in terms of exports. There are
huge national issues before us and today the government is saying
that it wants to discuss Bill C-5 to set up the Canadian tourism
commission.
It has to be seen in that context. I would just as soon be
talking about a lot of other things, but if this is all we have
to do for the rest of the day, then so be it, this is what I will
talk about and I will talk about it with some relish.
1820
My colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre gave a very
eloquent presentation the other day. I would encourage anyone
who was not here to see it, listen to it or watch that very
creative and thoughtful performance to read Hansard. I
would think it is probably the kind of speech in Hansard
that one would want to clip out and place on a placard in one's
bedroom.
Some of the details of Bill C-5 do not have to be covered. I
want to say that there are other aspects of tourism that we
should consider. At the top of the list, in my judgment, would
be to complement the work done by the commission. We should be
using more staff from our embassies, consulates and high
commissions. These Canadian men and women, and nationals from
the respective countries, represent Canada on extremely limited
budgets. They do the best they can to represent the Canadian
tourism sector and to encourage people to visit Canada.
I have visited half a dozen embassies and high commissions in
the last few years. I was always impressed with what individuals
have been able to accomplish on such small budgets. I cannot
help but think that for an extra few dollars and an extra few
staff persons to promote Canada, this would be an obvious thing
for us to be doing. I want to flag that as the number one
priority, that somebody, somewhere, perhaps even the commission
itself, should give consideration to using our overseas
representatives in a more creative and productive way when it
comes to tourism.
The other thing to recognize is that Canada is a vast country.
We are the second largest country in the world. When tourists
come, they visit all parts of the country. In many parts of the
country the attractions, the tourism infrastructure, are provided
by very small operators. Often these small operators have a very
difficult time accessing capital for tourism ventures because of
high risk, seasonality or because they are located in remote
areas.
Banks and other lending institutions like to lend money to very
secure investments in the big urban centres. When we start
talking about a ski hill in a remote location, a tourism
development in Cypress Hills, or tourism facilities in all parts
of the country, accessing capital is a major problem.
I suggest that we find some mechanism to assist those
entrepreneurs, those business representatives who are prepared to
risk their capital to build the necessary tourism infrastructure
in the rural parts of Canada, to access capital at a reasonable
rate and under reasonable terms.
When I say reasonable terms, I mean when an entrepreneur
establishes a tourism facility in a remote location in the high
Arctic, for example, or in the northern part of Saskatchewan,
British Columbia or elsewhere, often the return will take two or
three years before it really starts to make any significant
inroads in terms of being a profitable operation. That does not
make the banks and other lending institutions very happy. We
have to find more progressive ways to get capital into the hands
of those entrepreneurs.
I have a proposal that I would like to put on the table, and
that is that we consider the establishment of what I like to call
tourist bonds. They could be in the form of Canada savings
bonds. People could invest in the tourism sector, knowing that
the moneys generated by those particular bonds would be earmarked
and dedicated to developing tourism infrastructure in the more
remote parts of the country where people have difficulty
accessing capital.
I see my friend from Cariboo here. I think he would support
such a notion. If we could find some way to establish a source
of capital for entrepreneurs in the rural and distant parts of
the country, we would be doing people a real service. It is
something they would appreciate and make maximum use of.
The other area we have to consider is the whole issue of
transportation infrastructure. Let us face it, at the moment
Canada's two major international airlines do a lot of promotion
for Canada. Obviously they are promoting their services as well
as Canada, but Canadian Airlines and Air Canada, as well as VIA
Rail, attract visitors worldwide.
Once they are here then other agencies can take over and provide
the necessary promotion and information.
1825
If we are serious about the tourism sector, it is important to
enhance the tourism travelling infrastructure of the country: the
highway systems, the regional airlines and in particular the rail
systems.
Mr. John Solomon: The national agricultural policy.
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friend says “the national
agricultural policy”. He is always promoting agriculture, but I
suppose people want to come here to see agriculture, certain
kinds of exotic animals and new strains of wheat and barley. We
could get kind of carried away here. Watching wheat grow can be
quite an attraction, particularly for my friend from Regina.
In closing, we look forward to enhancing the tourism sector of
the country as a way of providing employment opportunities to
Canadians who are currently unemployed or underemployed and would
like to do something in an exciting field.
To do that I will simply propose that we as the national
parliament do whatever is necessary through this legislation and
through other initiatives to ensure that we go out and market
abroad the natural and cultural features of our great country to
attract people from around the world to visit Canada.
They are coming anyway, but we could enhance those numbers
significantly with a real marketing campaign at the national
level, to be complemented by campaigns at the provincial and
territorial levels. They would also invest in creative
initiatives to attract people once they arrive in Canada to spend
time, whether it is in Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Yukon
or British Columbia. For sure they could come and spend time
there.
Once they get into the provinces then it is up to the regional
boards, the regional organizations, the chambers of commerce, the
boards of trade and the tourism boards to attract people into
those areas to visit their points of interest.
Common to all this are the tourist operators themselves. Mainly
we are talking about small businesses. They are the main
providers of entertainment to visitors to our great country. With
those kinds of partnerships I can only imagine how successful we
could be. We are already reasonably successful, but we could be
really successful with that kind of co-operation.
I think Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction. When we have
a board of up to 26 people representing the industry from the
private sector, some bureaucrats and so on, we have to wonder if
it is the way to approach the situation. However, let us give it
the benefit of the doubt. Also, as the legislation goes through
committee, let us include an opportunity to evaluate the
legislation three years hence. Is the legislation effective? Is
the legislation doing what we set out to accomplish? Is it doing
what the government has said it could do?
Whatever legislation passes in the House costs taxpayers money.
It is important that a review is built into it so that it is
evaluated on a regular basis. With that protection I can speak
for my colleague for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre and the New
Democratic caucus and say that we will be supporting the
legislation with enthusiasm as a major step in the right
direction, but only a step.
Mr. Ken Epp: May I ask a question?
The Deputy Speaker: We are about to call it 6.30, but
there will be time for 10 minutes worth of questions and comments
for the hon. member from Kamloops the next time the bill comes
before the House and, as the hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre says, there is also that opportunity
in the lobby.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on November 3 last I asked the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food to admit that there was a real farm income crisis
in western Canada and to announce some real farm aid. All he
could talk about was that the Liberal government had done a great
job and that farmers should not be worried.
1830
Farmers are very worried. There are four major reasons the farm
income crisis is in its current position. The first one is a 60%
reduction in farm subsidies or supports for farm products.
In 1995 I attended the Council of Europe where members of
parliament from all European countries gather together on a
regular basis to discuss issues of importance. I attended a
meeting of the agriculture committee of the Council of Europe and
asked what they would do with their agriculture subsidies.
At that time European subsidies for farmers were about triple
what Canadian subsidies were before the Liberals eliminated the
transportation benefit for western grain farmers in 1995. We
were told by the Liberal government at that time that the
transportation subsidies had to be eliminated because of the
World Trade Organization.
We were told by the Liberal government that the subsidy was
being eliminated because of WTO regulations. I asked members of
that committee what they would do because the European subsidies
were greater than ours. They kind of laughed and said that I was
gravely mistaken if I believed for one moment that they would
eliminate agriculture subsidies because of the U.S.A. As well,
they had five years under the WTO to address the issue of
agricultural products and transportation subsidies. I was told
that I was gravely mistaken if I thought that after five years
they would sacrifice their farmers.
Here we are almost five years later and western grain farmers,
particularly in Saskatchewan, have sacrificed $340 million a year
in lost subsidies, which is a loss of about $1.5 billion in terms
of income. As well we have seen increases in costs for
transportation subsidies rise. In some cases they are triple of
what they were at that time. This is one of the major reasons
farmers are in trouble.
The second reason is that there was a 60% drop in commodity
prices as a result of European and American farmers continuing to
receive massive subsidies from their governments. This is really
costing our farmers a lot of grief and a lot of money.
The third reason there is a major tragedy in the farm income of
western grain farmers is the fact that input costs have risen
unfettered. The Liberal government refuses to watch how the
prices of fertilizers, fuel, and all kinds of chemical costs and
pesticides increase. Farmers have to pay those increased
prices. The taxes that are levied, the GST and other federal
taxes, are crippling these farmers. Farmers need a tax break
from the Liberal government, which they have not received in many
years.
The fourth and major reason why farmers are in this huge income
crisis is the Liberal government itself. It has lost touch. I
guess the best example of that is the byelection in
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar that was held on November 15.
The Liberals who were touting one of their heavy duty candidates
for election failed to address the issues of farm communities in
the Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar district. As a result they went
from a lead in the polls prior to the election call to finishing
a dismal third and almost losing their deposit. They got 15.4%
of the vote. That is all they got because they have lost touch
with western grain farmers.
This is why we now need emergency assistance for our farmers who
are very much up against it. Right now we are looking at about
40% of our farmers not being able to farm next spring and summer
if an emergency aid program is not provided as soon as possible.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to
the question posed by the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
I want to say that while overall the agriculture and agri-food
sector is strong and makes a significant contribution to the
Canadian economy, the government knows that the past year has not
been an easy one for many producers.
The updated projections released on November 2 were produced
jointly with the provinces. The Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food does not produce incorrect or misleading information.
The same people who predicted the minus $48 million were the same
people who revised the projections to $325 million.
The $325 million upward revision between the July and November
projections for 1999 is mainly the result of an increase in NISA
payments and cattle and durum wheat receipts, combined with the
decrease in operating costs, in particular pesticide and
fertilizer. Statistics Canada estimates of farm cash receipts
for January to September 1999 are in line with the October
forecast for the prairies of the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
1835
However, the farm income forecasts are not the most important
numbers. The numbers are fluid and changing. Whatever the
numbers turn out to be they are just that, numbers. The real
subject here is people, not income forecasts.
The government has introduced changes to the AIDA program that
will benefit many producers across the country. We will now be
covering a portion of negative margins, which occur when a farm
has a particularly bad year and the operation has insufficient
revenues to cover variable costs for fuel, machinery repair and
chemicals.
Farmers now have the option to make a one time choice in 1999 of
the reference period on which the claimant calculation for AIDA
is based. They will be able to choose either the previous three
years or three of the previous five when the high and low income
years are not counted.
In provinces where the federal government delivers the program
we are committed to having the processing of AIDA claims
completed by Christmas.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)