TABLE OF CONTENTS
Friday, September 23, 1994
Bill C-25. Report stage 6071
Motion for concurrence 6071
Motion for third reading 6071
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 6076
Bill C-49. Motion for second reading 6076
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6080
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6084
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6084
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6084
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 6084
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6085
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 6085
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6086
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 6086
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6087
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 6087
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6087
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 6088
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6088
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 6088
Bill C-53. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 6090
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6091
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6091
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 6091
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 6092
Bill C-49. Consideration resumed of motion. 6092
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 6104
6071
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, September 23, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, Captain Barry
Woods, the Canadian captain of Korean Air flight 2033 which
crashed August 10, and who as a result of his efforts saved all
152 passengers and eight crew, was being held by the South
Koreans. This morning it was announced that he has been
released and allowed to return to Canada to his wife and family.
On behalf of the family, I express our appreciation to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, not only for his personal efforts but
for the efforts of his department both here and in South Korea for
the extraordinary work that has made this reunion possible.
Again, on behalf of the family I say thank you very much to the
minister.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-25, an act
to amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Irwin moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this is a very
contentious bill. It has all-party support, therefore I will be
brief. It is more in the line of housekeeping than substantive
change to anything being done in that area. This is the member's
area. I remember that from the last round of speeches.
I would like to begin by thanking hon. members for
supporting this bill at second reading and at committee. The
support of members for the bill guarantees longer term benefits
and stability to dozens of individuals, families and businesses
associated with the Norman Wells project.
Bill C-25 will accomplish two basic objectives. First, it will
extend existing jobs, create new employment and business
opportunities. Second, it will ensure responsible management of
one of Canada's most important producing fields.
As hon. members are aware, Bill C-25 will allow production
from the massive Norman Wells oil fields to continue beyond
the year 2008 and possibly to the year 2020. Without this
extension the community of Norman Wells would suffer
economically since it is dependent on the oil industry to a
significant degree.
There is an important human element to this legislation. We
are talking about maintaining existing jobs, creating new jobs in
a region of Canada with few economic alternatives. We are
talking about continuing a way of life and a source of income for
families that have depended on the Norman Wells project for
many years.
Information gathered from prolonged production and
advanced technology demonstrates the extent of the field should
be redefined and the expiration date should be extended to
capture the full productive capability of the field.
The National Energy Board conducted an independent review
of Imperial Oil's assessment. It has corroborated the conclusion
that the fringe areas of the oil field extend beyond the 1944
boundaries as well as the corporation's projections on the
remaining production life beyond 2008.
(1005 )
It is incumbent upon the government as the steward of
northern resources on behalf of all Canadians to ensure that
Norman Wells field is fully developed. The extension and
expansion of the proven area agreement will accomplish this
strategic goal.
6072
All Canadians stand to win from the full development of the
Norman Wells field. The benefits will be most obvious in the
north and in Alberta where most of the money that supports the
production and operation is spent. Members will be happy to
know, Mr. Speaker, that the money is spent in your home
province.
Taxpayers across Canada will gain something from the return
on the government's one-third investment in Norman Wells.
This is expected to bring the government millions in additional
revenues after 2008. As well, the government will receive
millions of dollars in royalty payments as a result of the
extension. These two revenue sources will improve the
government's overall financial situation and ease some of the
burden on taxpayers.
I am pleased to note that a share of the royalties from Norman
Wells will also go to the aboriginal people of the area under the
terms of the land claim settlement agreements. This money will
be used by the aboriginal beneficiaries to improve conditions in
their communities, increase economic development initiatives
and generally to build a better future.
Finally, extending the production day for Norman Wells will
also revitalize industry interest in the north, particularly as land
claim settlements create certainty to open new areas for
exploration and development.
By approving Bill C-25 we will be sending a clear message
that the Canadian north is an attractive area for investment.
There are many arguments in favour of Bill C-25 and the
continued production of the Norman Wells oil field. As far as I
am aware there are no meaningful arguments against the project
and I think members of the House agree.
With this in mind I urge my hon. colleagues to once again
demonstrate their support for the bill so that it can be referred to
the other place and be quickly promulgated into law. I know that
the oil company involved has been waiting patiently for several
months for this bill to go through the House and the other place.
They are ready to keep on working. I do not think there is any
disagreement in the House on this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure today to speak on Bill C-25. Although this bill
represents only a minor change to the Norman Wells oilfield, it
is a change of no small consequence.
The purpose of this bill is to exclude the Norman Wells
Amending Agreement about to be signed from the application of
the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. In order to understand the
reason for this amendment, it is necessary to go back and
examine the history of this oil well. It was discovered in 1919
and drilling operations began in 1920.
The site's distance from markets and the economic crisis of
the 1930's were unfavourable to the development of the early
wells. Extraction and refining were limited to meeting local
needs. World War II led to renewed exploration and the
construction of a pipeline to Whitehorse. The end of the war in
1945 brought a halt to operations, which had grown from 100
barrels a day in 1940 to a production ranging from 1,500 to
25,800 barrels daily.
In 1944, the government of Canada signed an agreement with
Imperial Oil to ensure the development of the Norman Wells
field. In 1966, over 2,000 barrels of oil were being produced
daily, primarily for shipment to locations in the Mackenzie
Valley, the Arctic coast and DEW line radar stations.
(1010)
In 1974, with 54 producing wells, production was 2,738
barrels of oil daily and 4.9 million cubic feet of gas. In 1981,
Cabinet allowed Esso Canada to increase its production to
25,000 barrels of crude, which were sent by pipeline to Zama in
Alberta.
Since then, more than 200 injection and producing wells have
made Norman Wells the fourth largest producing oil field in
Canada. The first delivery to the south took place in April 1985
through a 868 kilometer pipeline, 65 years after the discovery of
the field.
The 1944 agreement gave exclusive drilling and mineral
prospecting rights and privileges for three 21-year periods. The
agreement also established the boundaries of the oil field. As I
said earlier, the agreement expires in the year 2008.
The Canadian government holds an interest in the project
equivalent to a third of the value of production, less a third of all
production and development costs, as well as management
costs. Esso also undertook to pay five per cent in annual
royalties on the other two thirds of its production.
In 1992, production rose to 12.1 million barrels of oil,
representing profits of 50 million for the government. The
drilling program undertaken in 1984 and new technologies have
made it possible to drill horizontal wells, and at the same time to
produce the oil located at the boundaries of the field
economically.
The new technologies have also revealed that it would be
possible to work this field until the year 2020 if its boundaries
were extended.
The National Energy Board has approved the expansion of the
field to include the outlying area for the purpose of oil recovery
in that area. This is when the Canada Petroleum Resources Act
comes into play. This act provides for submissions to be made
regarding issuance of production interests.
In view of the fact that the outlying area is of no use to other
producers, especially considering the associated costs, it be-
6073
comes necessary to amend the act to allow the extraction of
petroleum in that area not covered by the 1944 agreement.
It is important to consider at this point how other stakeholders
might view this expansion of the Norman Wells oil field.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers declared
itself in agreement with the proposed change to Norman Wells
boundaries because of the very special circumstances of the
case. However, the Association indicated this change was not to
be construed as a precedent with regard to future issuance of
interests.
As for the native people, they have given their consent to the
project in March 1994 on one condition: that the bill respecting
the Dene and Métis land claims settlement come into force
before the petroleum resources legislation be amended.
(1015)
This condition was met and the Bloc Quebecois is quite
pleased that the government respected the wishes of the natives
peoples on this issue. Such a departure from its old ways reflects
a new course that should be maintained in the future.
Exploring the new area covered in the Norman Wells
Amending Agreement to be signed in 1994 seems, on the face of
it, like it could benefit all the communities involved. For one
thing, it will allow Imperial to invest over $30 million in a
development program, $10 million of which will be spent
directly in that northern area. In addition, 65 direct jobs will be
created, 40 of these for northeners, as well as many indirect jobs
in the service industry and other areas.
The development project includes a $6 million contract for
drilling equipment. The drilling contract was awarded to a
profit-sharing company owned by the Dene and Métis and
Imperial. As new technologies will be developed regarding
horizontal wells, this company will acquire the necessary
expertise to participate in other drilling jobs. You are also
looking at some long term investments, particularly in the use of
enhanced oil recovery technologies.
We are talking about investments of up to $100 million,
depending on the exploratory period in that particular oil field.
This bill appears to accommodate both the oil industry and the
native communities that depend on it for their livelihood. It is
also important that the federal petroleum resources legislation
remain strong with regard to the future issuance of operating
interests. As the Official Opposition critic for natural resources,
and after discussion with my colleagues, I will not vote against
this bill and I do hope it will pay the dividends it seems to be
promising.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to this bill today, the first bill that I will be able to speak
to in my new capacity as Reform Party critic for oil and gas
within the Department of Natural Resources.
Bill C-25 addresses an issue in an area of Canada I am quite
familiar with, having been involved in the drilling of several
wildcat wells in the Norman Wells field fringe area. Bill C-25
contains a minor amendment to the Canadian Petroleum
Resources Act in order to exempt the Norman Wells amending
agreement which will now be expanded to include the additional
lands which are under the jurisdiction of that act.
Although this bill deals with a minor wording change it is
important that this bill pass in order to exclude the Norman
Wells agreement from the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act so
the governor in council can proceed with its action to extend the
boundaries.
At the risk of being repetitive I would like to talk briefly about
the history of this oil field, discuss the necessity for this bill and
talk about the positive actions the governor in council will be
taking to extend the life of this field.
There is a long history leading up to this current amendment.
The first oil well was drilled in Norman Wells in 1920. Since
then it has grown to be the fourth largest producing field in the
country. In 1944 Imperial Oil and Canada signed the Norman
Wells proven area agreement which included just under 3,300
hectares within its boundaries.
When the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act came into force
the Norman Wells proven area already covered by legislation
was exempted from the new act. Because of this bill before us
today subsequent renewals and expansions will be similarly
exempted.
Since the boundaries of the Norman Wells field will be
changing to include areas of new production some exemption
from the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act is necessary.
(1020 )
It is important to note that the original Norman Wells
agreement was signed before the Canadian Petroleum Resources
Act came into effect. The new land that will be included in the
boundary change to the Norman Wells field is the land that
would normally come under the Canadian Petroleum Resources
Act. This means that without an amendment exploration and
production licences on these new lands would have to go to an
open bidding process. This amendment is necessary to provide
security of tenure for Imperial Oil and allow for the renewed
investment and enhanced recovery techniques in this production
field.
This amendment will also provide for one-third ownership in
the production of these new areas for Canada.
6074
In addition to the expansion of the field this amendment
allows for another initiative to take place to extend the life of
this field. This is the decision by the governor in council to
extend the licence of Imperial Oil on the Norman Wells field
to the year 2020.
There have been advances in industry extraction techniques.
Imperial Oil in the Norman Wells field has pioneered and
perfected much of this new technology. It was here at Norman
Wells, because much of these reserves lay below the Mackenzie
River, that directional and later horizontal drilling have been
developed and are now used all over the world. The technology
of building islands in a water body that freezes and thaws in the
spring when the ice goes out was also developed here and later
used in the Mackenzie Delta and the Beaufort Sea.
Other techniques of well workover for production
enhancement such as water and gas flooding, formation
fracturing and acidization have also been developed in good
measure in this field. They have made Canada a world exporter
of petroleum production technology. They have allowed us over
the last 20 or 25 years to increase the recoverable reserves in
Canada's conventional oil fields by up to 15 per cent, preventing
the long predicted decline in conventional crude oil production.
Because of these advancements in technology they now
believe that the Norman Wells field will be productive well
beyond the original date. Therefore it is important that the
governor in council proceed with extending this licence so that
as much oil as possible can be extracted in a realistic timeframe.
With this bill allowing for the Norman Wells boundaries to be
extended and the order in council decision to extend Imperial
Oil's licence, Imperial Oil will be given the security of tenure it
needs for long term planning and control of overhead costs. This
will make this field economically viable for a much longer
period.
It has been assured that there is time to realize a return on
major investments in new technology. These investments are
essential to maximizing the production from this field.
With the extension of the boundaries and licences, Imperial
Oil will commence a $30 million drilling program. This drilling
program will be undertaken mostly in the expanded proven area;
more specifically, 12 new wells, four for water injection and
eight for production, drilled along the field limits of the new
boundaries. About one-third of the money, $10 million, will be
spent directly in the north. Most of the remaining $20 million
will be spent in my home province of Alberta.
I would hope this is an indication that this government
realizes the importance of providing our resource based
industries with predictability and stability in policy
environment. If this government starts sending signals to the
private sector that it is safe to make long term investment plans,
it will lead to economic growth and the creation of far more
permanent jobs than government can hope to achieve through
any temporary government initiated make work projects.
This amendment is good for Imperial Oil because it provides a
stable planning environment. It is good the Sahtu Dene and other
local residents because they can rely on employment
opportunities and a cash infusion into the local economy for
many more years. It is good for the Canadian people because it
will generate additional oil revenues and royalties.
From my perspective the only thing objectionable about this
bill is that in spite of the fact that no party could or did object to
this initiative, it has taken over two years to get this simple
initiative through this cumbersome, unresponsive process.
Let me and my party affirm our support for this bill and
encourage all other members of this House to do so as well.
(1025 )
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I want to join
with others in support of this bill, recognizing as the previous
speaker has indicated that this amendment will give recognition
for technological development by Imperial Oil. It will be good
for Imperial Oil. It will be good for the Sahtu Dene and Metis
land claims settlement act process.
The Dene in the area will benefit directly in terms of wealth,
particularly with the largest contract involved, $6 million, and a
conditional tender given to Shethah Drilling Ltd., a Dene, Metis
and Imperial Oil joint venture. This bodes well in terms of future
developments in the north and throughout Canada generally.
Also, as the previous speaker has indicated, the people of
Canada will benefit from this resource in two ways, through the
normal royalty process and also through profit sharing. It seems
to me this marries the federal government, the people of Canada,
Imperial Oil of Canada and the First Nations people of the north.
This is an excellent model on which further northern
development ought to be based.
I had a number of questions in terms of what this bill would
do. I want to indicate my appreciation to the minister who, with
his associates, clarified some of these. For example, I was not
certain whether the Sahtu Dene and Metis land claims
settlement act had been proclaimed. This was a condition that
they had for their support. I was told that has now taken place.
There was concern also because of the new technology
involved. The previous speaker indicated that new technology
has been developed in this part of Canada, particularly with
horizontal drilling to avoid sensitive and fragile ecological
areas. Quite frankly this is good technology that will help
development throughout other parts of northern Canada and
throughout similar environmentally and ecologically sensitive
parts of the world.
6075
The question was whether as a result of the increased oil flow
and the horizontal drilling technique this would influence the
royalty system. I have been assured by the minister it will not.
The second question was whether there will be ongoing
environmental studies watching this new process as a result of
the horizontal drilling that is going on. Again the minister
indicated that the National Energy Board and other agencies
will actually be monitoring this project in terms of
environmental concerns.
Also, I wanted to confirm again in terms of precedent setting
that this agreement will continue to give one-third of the profits
to the people of Canada. After all, we would appreciate that this
resource belongs to the people of Canada and they ought to share
directly in its development. Again, that has been confirmed.
This $30 million drilling program producing eight productive
wells will not only bring job opportunities to the residents of the
area which is certainly needed, but will benefit Canada in the
ways I have already mentioned.
I want to say on behalf of my colleagues that we will be
supporting this bill enthusiastically. I do want to share the
concern raised by the previous speaker that such a
straightforward piece of legislation would take so long. We have
been watching this inch its way through the parliamentary
process. It says something about the way we deal with business
here. Perhaps it will add to the changes that will expedite
business, particularly something which is so straightforward.
However, I suppose the quid pro quo would be the concern
with the Sahtu Dene and Metis land claims settlement act to get
their support on this. That took perhaps more time than we had
anticipated.
Overall I think the point was well taken. The process here is
cumbersome at best and something we must all strive to achieve
is expediting the passing of legislation in the future. The world
is changing quickly around us and we have yet to get this place
up to speed.
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to speak in favour of this important bill. While
it represents a small amendment, Bill C-25 will have important
ramifications for Norman Wells and other northern
communities. As my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development, has outlined, two important
objectives underlie this bill.
First, Bill C-25 will ensure the responsible management of an
important natural resource. We have heard in earlier debate how
this legislation offers sound resource management. I am sure
most members of this House will agree that such measures are
important to our resource base.
(1030)
Let us turn to the second objective of Bill C-25, the creation
of a stronger northern economy. Passage of this legislation
offers the sustainment and development of employment and
business opportunities. I believe that the realization of this
objective alone is impetus for this legislation.
A bit of history is necessary in order to fully appreciate the
economic benefits the Norman Wells oil field has brought to the
north and those it could yet bring with the passage of this
legislation.
In 1944 the Canadian government entered into an agreement
with Imperial Oil to develop the oil field at Norman Wells in the
Mackenzie Valley. The proven area agreement that was adopted
set boundaries and a production limit for the field.
At the time it was predicted that the field would be productive
until the year 2008 at the latest, but with today's more
sophisticated technology we know that the Norman Wells oil
field has a much longer productive life. In fact, it is expected to
remain productive until at least 2020.
Technological advances over the 50 years have also led to a
more advanced knowledge of the extent of the oil pool at the
Norman Wells area. However, it has been shown that a small part
of the pool lies outside the original proven area boundaries. As
hon. members know, Bill C-25 extends the proven area
boundaries to include all the proven reserves.
What does all this mean for the people of Norman Wells and
other northern communities? The bottom line is that it means
greater economic stability and growth. The Norman Wells
project injects millions of dollars into the northern economy
each year.
Over 50 companies in Norman Wells and other northern
communities receive a substantial amount of business directly
from the oil project. This says nothing of the spinoff business
generated for those and other companies.
For a better appreciation, consider for a moment how
businesses would be affected by reduced spending by Norman
Wells employees alone. Considering the project provides annual
wages to the northern residents in the range of $3.7 million, this
loss would most certainly have devastating economic effects on
small business.
Now consider the positive implications of increasing the size
and production life of Norman Wells. The passage of this
legislation paves the way for a $30 million drilling program
which will be undertaken by Imperial Oil, the operating
company of Norman Wells.
This project and the extension of the field's productive life in
general will increase short term employment and stabilize long
term employment in the Norman Wells area. It is estimated that
an additional 25 person-years of indirect employment will also
be created in the north.
6076
Northern businesses will also benefit from the opportunity
to learn up to date horizontal drilling technology. Future
business and employment opportunities will be enhanced for
these firms not only in the north, but also in Alberta and B.C.
where there is a shortage of such expertise.
The economic benefits of this small amendment to the Canada
Petroleum Resources Act do not end at the 60th parallel. Indeed,
all Canadians stand to benefit from the passage of this bill.
Not only will the Government of Canada's financial position
improve from the additional corporate and personal tax
revenues, the government's one-third investment in Norman
Wells is expected to bring in millions of extra dollars.
This project will also be an economic benefit to Albertans. At
a time when Canadians are looking for economic stimuli, this is
clearly a wonderful opportunity. I urge hon. members to lend
their support to this bill so economic renewal can continue.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
(1035)
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food) moved that Bill C-49, an act to amend the
Department of Agriculture Act and to amend or repeal certain
other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to begin the
debate on Bill C-49, an act to amend the Department of
Agriculture Act and to make related amendments to other acts.
In some ways this bill is a reflection of the kinds of changes
the Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry has undergone
in recent years and can anticipate in future years.
The amendments add the word ``agri-food'' to the
department's name, reflecting a recognition that the
department's mandate extends far beyond the farm gate. This
change also reflects a recognition that what happens on the farm
and beyond the farm gate are intimately linked together. The
strength of primary agriculture depends to a great extent on the
strength of all those downstream in the food chain who process
and use agricultural products.
The bill also defines more precisely the department's
responsibilities for research. The existing act only mentions
research indirectly through a reference to experimental farm
stations. This bill broadens the definition to cover research
related to agriculture and products derived from agriculture,
including the operation of experimental farm stations.
This clarification of the mandate of the department in no way
takes away from this government's commitment to Canadian
farmers as primary producers. In fact it strengthens it by
ensuring that the importance of maintaining and nurturing the
health and prosperity of the entire agriculture and agri-food
industry is upheld.
Farmers are and will always be at the centre of the agriculture
industry. As such the department will continue to devote a very
large amount of its resources to farmers. In addition, there is a
growing need to be aware of the products of Canadian agri-food
processors. More and more we must be aware that market
development is important not just for raw commodities but
increasingly for value added products.
There are opportunities for the agriculture industry to provide
ingredients for pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints and energy
products, in addition to food products. More and more we must
be assured that the systems are in place to produce those
products and to ensure they reach their market destinations.
Before that process even begins we must ensure that the kinds
of crops and livestock demanded by these markets are being
produced and we must ensure that the research and technology
are there to transform those crops and livestock into the
processed products in demand worldwide. That is where the
department's research function comes into play, both in
developing the commodities that form the basis of the industry
and in pioneering new uses for them.
The research branch of the department has been conducting
research to the benefit of both the primary and secondary
agriculture industries for many, many years and with great
distinction. The changes in this bill merely reflect that ongoing
work in the definition of the department's responsibilities for
research.
It is fitting to be talking about the mandate of the Department
of Agriculture and Agri-food at this time. As we approach the
beginning of a new century it is time to take a look at where we
would like Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry to be in
the years 2000, 2005 and 2010.
This industry is a very important one to this nation. It
represents 8 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product and
accounts for 1.8 million Canadian jobs. That is 15 per cent of all
of the employment in this country. Agricultural and agri-food
exports equal more than $13 billion annually. In 1992 farm
inputs valued at $10.5 billion translated into farm products
worth $20 billion. That translated into a further $44 billion
worth of processed food and beverage products.
6077
(1040)
The agriculture and agri-food sector enhances the quality of
life in both rural and urban Canada. It ensures a safe, high
quality food supply. Because of Canada's agriculture and
agri-food sector, in comparison to the rest of the world
Canadians spend the second lowest proportion of their
disposable incomes on food.
It is important to ensure that the success of this industry so
vital to all Canadians continues. Canada's agriculture and
agri-food industry must be able to compete in a rapidly
changing world. A common vision is needed, shared by
government and industry, to take the agriculture and agri-food
sector into the 21st century. In that way we will together be able
to make the kinds of decisions necessary to secure our future.
The world in which Canada's agriculture and agri-food
industry does business is not the same today as it was 25 years
ago or 10 years ago or even 5 years ago. For example, in the
grains and oilseeds sector alone markets for Canadian products
have changed dramatically. It was not all that long ago that we
depended upon traditional billion dollar bulk grain markets in
places like the former Soviet Union and China.
Many of those markets have been replaced by more varied and
somewhat smaller and more individual markets. Customers now
more and more are buying to exacting specifications. Our U.S.
market has grown to almost 60 per cent of agri-food exports so
far this year.
By the year 2010 rural population is expected to increase by
another two billion people. Over the next five years incomes in
regions like Asia and the Pacific are expected to rise by 6 per
cent to 12 per cent per year. Incomes are also expected to rise in
areas such as Africa, Latin America and the Middle East.
With these increases in income and the changes in the quality
of life that it brings, there will be a shift in global consumption
patterns to more animal protein products and more highly
processed food products than ever before. At the same time, key
export markets such as the United States remain crucial to the
continued growth and development of our industry here in
Canada.
On the domestic side we are also confronted with changing
marketplaces and fiscal constraints on federal and provincial
budgets. Is the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector ready
to respond to changing demands internationally? Is it ready to
respond to changing imperatives on the domestic front?
The industry is strong in a great many ways. The value of
agricultural output continues to increase by about 2 per cent
annually. Productivity growth rates are high by international
standards. Many processing firms are shifting to focus more and
more on world markets.
Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry has a solid basis
in abundant natural resources and sound environmental
practices, is productive in skilled human resources, has a well
developed infrastructure and institutions and a reasonably
stable operating environment. However, there are areas where
we must do better.
Right now Canada has higher processing and marketing costs
and less private sector research than many of our major
competitors. Although Canada is exporting more of our higher
valued agri-food products to the United States, our imports are
growing faster than our exports and we are missing
opportunities for marketing higher valued agri-food products.
There is little growth in our exports of higher valued products to
countries other than the United States, in particular to Asian
markets where standards of living and demand are growing
rapidly.
(1045)
In 1993 our agricultural private sector, supported by federal
and provincial ministers of agriculture, set a target for
agriculture and agri-food exports of $20 billion by the year
2000. To achieve that goal, industry and federal and provincial
governments will need to work harder to meet the challenges of
the global marketplace.
Right now our growth rate in agri-food exports is not
sufficient to meet that target of $20 billion by the year 2000.
Change is needed if the Canadian agriculture and agri-food
industry is to grow and prosper into the next century.
If we look at the grains and oilseeds sector as an example, it is
clear that change is beginning to take place. Farmers are
beginning to diversify out of traditional crops such as wheat and
into more new crops such as mustard seed, canary seed, lentils
and especially canola.
Acreage of specialty crops grew almost 130 per cent in the
period from 1988 to 1994. At the same time acreage of wheat fell
by about 15 per cent. With farmers beginning to diversify out of
traditional crops, new demands and challenges are being placed
on our grain handling and transportation system as these
different crops are moved into export position.
In the last crop year, as we all know, we experienced some
very serious problems with moving grains and oilseeds partly
due to a rail car shortage and a number of other factors that
conspired together at the same time. Those issues, as I have
discussed in the House on other occasions, are being dealt with
so that the kinds of problems experienced in the last crop year
can be avoided to the largest extent humanly possible in the
current crop year and into the future.
The whole experience with our grain handling and
transportation system brings into focus the question of whether
the system in Canada is sufficiently equipped to meet the
demands of a rapidly changing international marketplace.
6078
On another front we have to look at technology and we have
to ensure that Canada is not being left behind. For example,
non-food uses for grains, oilseeds and other agricultural
products are expected to rise dramatically in the years
immediately ahead. Forecasts in the United States and Europe
predict that up to 50 per cent of raw agricultural materials will
be used in the future for non-food industrial purposes.
Is Canada investing sufficiently in the kinds of research
required to develop new products from our grains, our oilseeds
and our other agricultural output?
There are many other issues on the agenda with respect to the
renewal of our supply management systems, with respect to our
red meat sector, with respect to horticulture issues and with
respect to challenges affecting the broad spectrum of Canadian
agriculture.
Clearly, as we face all the issues and challenges that provide
us at the same time with enormous opportunity, we must develop
a common vision to ensure the decisions taken today and the
initiatives undertaken in the future are part of a comprehensive
long term plan for a progressive, competitive and successful
agriculture and agri-food sector.
I believe such a vision for the future must include at least five
key elements. First it must be founded on economic reality. If
the base is artificial then the plan will soon collapse.
The fundamental reality is the marketplace. We must produce
what the world wants to buy. We must do it cost effectively. We
must diversify. We must be good managers and world class
marketers. We must build strategic alliances internally and
internationally. We must ensure that the benefits flow fairly
among all our regions and all the players in that complicated
food chain.
(1050 )
Second, our vision must recognize that rural Canada is not a
backwater. It can in fact be the location of wealth generation,
economic growth and new jobs.
Diversification on and off the farm, value added processing,
and niche marketing including exports, are all part of the
equation for rural Canada, as are research and development and
information technology to link the kitchen table in Sedley,
Saskatchewan, to Toronto and Vancouver and indeed Osaka and
Hong Kong.
A third requirement for our vision is financial security. I have
not met a farmer yet who tells me that he or she wants
subsidization. What they want is a decent marketplace with a
decent return.
Well managed farms should expect a reasonable rate of return
even though in some cases it may be supplemented by some
amount of off farm income. The weather and other production
and marketing risks will always necessitate a farm safety net
program, but federal and provincial tax dollars are scarce and
support in the form of safety nets must not distort production or
marketing signals.
Fourth, we must achieve resource and environmental
sustainability. We need a sensitive and sensible balance among
social, economic and environmental considerations founded on
enhancing our resource base, maintaining surrounding
ecosystems, and developing, adapting and marketing new
technologies to protect our environment. Our environmental
stewardship could become a unique new Canadian export
opportunity.
The fifth and final element in this vision that I would mention
at the moment is the maintenance of a safe and secure food
supply. That is really the foundation upon which everything else
rests. Food safety has been and must continue to be a priority in
and for Canada. Our reputation for safety and quality is vital to
our domestic consumers and is a critical advantage in the
international marketplace.
We must reduce our inspection costs while not impairing but
rather enhancing our inspection system overall. That can be
achieved by a national, non-duplicative system tuned to market
requirements and international standards with alternative
delivery options.
What I have mentioned in the last few moments is a
framework in which I believe we can structure a sound and solid
game plan for the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector. It
is not yet all inclusive and it is certainly not cast in stone, but I
think it is a basis upon which to begin.
We cannot foretell the future. Neither can we forestall it.
What we must do is define our best case scenario, where we
really want to get to, and set out the steps needed to make that
outcome most likely. I hope we can do it with the largest degree
of consensus and teamwork.
I close by saying I am extremely confident about Canada's
agri-food sector and I am very ambitious about its future. There
are no guarantees but as Wayne Gretzky once said, you will miss
100 per cent of the shots you never take. We need to start
shooting the puck at the net and we need to score. That is what
this vision for the future of Canadian agriculture is intended to
achieve.
With a strong market orientation and the careful use of scarce
tax dollars, with diversification, innovation and value added,
with thoughtful stewardship of our natural resources, with the
enhancement of our human resources, with a sharp focus on
rural Canada and local communities, with high international
standards and a cohesive team Canada attitude we can meet the
objectives outlined in our red book last year about growth, jobs
and security. Agriculture and agri-food can play a very large
role.
6079
(1055)
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-49, introduced
by the Minister of Agriculture to amend the act governing his
department.
Essentially, the bill changes the department's name to
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. As the minister
explained during his speech, the new name confirms that today
the government's agricultural responsibilities are not restricted
to helping farmers; their economic well-being and survival are
largely dependent on the need to process, market and distribute
their products.
I think a country has a responsibility to ensure the smooth
development of its agricultural sector, whose impact on the lives
of nations and peoples is well known.
In his speech, the minister identified his responsibilities with
respect to marketing. I think it is an important sector. In Quebec,
I heard about demands made by fine cheese producers, for
example, who saw their industry's problem as one of marketing.
I hope that this bill will enable the department, in cases like
these, to help our producers market their products.
Of course, in a modern state, the agriculture department's
responsibilities go beyond dealing with agricultural production
as such. I think a modern state's responsibilities extend to
marketing and to helping and supporting agricultural producers
and processors. With the globalization of markets, we must
export abroad.
I think, as the minister pointed out in his speech, that the time
for exporting raw commodities is over. We, for instance, used to
export enormous quantities of wheat to Russia. I think that we
must refine our policies in this area and take steps to process our
products right here, because agriculture-as the minister also
mentioned-is a major source of jobs in Canada. The
downstream sector in agriculture, the whole processing
industry, is very important in that respect.
It is therefore important that the Department of Agriculture
work to improve our competitiveness, our independence from
foreign countries, and to ensure the future of our agricultural
system, and that the department do its part to promote research.
The bill points out that the department has responsibilities in
this area.
I would like to point out how ironic it is that Bill C-50 on the
Canadian Wheat Board, proposing that checkoffs be made from
sales proceeds to support research, was tabled last Monday. I do
not know if, in the future, other agricultural sectors will be
asked to make the same effort. If not, one has to wonder whether
we are not asking wheat producers to subsidize agricultural
research twice through their taxes and the checkoffs? It remains
to be seen.
You can see from my remarks that the Bloc Quebecois
supports this bill, even though it does not address at all the
matter of overlap. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to clarify what I
mean after Question Period.
The Deputy Speaker: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements
by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
6079
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont): Mr. Speaker, I am proud
today to commend and congratulate the organizers and all the
volunteers who made possible the third Marathon of Montreal
Island, held last Sunday in the cities of Outremont, Mount Royal
and Saint-Laurent, and in which I myself had the honour to take
part.
This international sporting event provides direct economic
benefits estimated at several million dollars for the greater
Montreal region. Again this year, it drew more than 6,000
athletes, including many from all over the world. In short, the
September 18 marathon was a resounding success.
In closing, I wish to especially point out the participation of
1,200 volunteers who worked together to make this major
sporting event such a great success. I want to draw attention to
the excellent work they did and I thank them very sincerely for
it.
* * *
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister of Canada takes a
malicious pleasure in making Quebec pay for belonging to
Canada.
This prime minister has done everything to make Quebecers
like him. He was involved in the proclamation of the war
measures in 1970. He was responsible for the night of the long
knives. He is the one who thanked the Premier of
Newfoundland, Clyde Wells, for killing the Meech Lake
Accord.
Now he is acting like a bad debtor by refusing to pay Quebec
back for its contribution to the 1992 referendum, which was held
under Quebec law with the agreement of the federal government
then in power.
Mr. Prime Minister, you are being consistent only with
yourself when you show such contempt for the Quebec people,
who are able to judge you when they see who is defending
Quebec's interests in this House. You accuse us of being elected
under false representations; we reply to you that you are robbing
the Quebec people of pride and honour.
6080
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to bring to the attention of this House the need to
open B.C. land claims negotiations to the general public.
On September 20 Premier Mike Harcourt bowed to public
pressure and issued a statement claiming to bring a new
openness to the process. Steps have been taken to include local
municipal governments in treaty negotiations but more must be
done.
As the premier recently noted, closed doors negotiations and
mandatory confidentiality statements have undermined public
trust.
There is a mood of uncertainty and fear in affected
communities. Negotiations have been secretly carried out and
the average citizen is scared. Public policy is best decided in
open meetings, not behind closed doors. Let the people who
have to live with the decisions have a say in the decisions.
I call on the federal government to follow the premier's lead
and allow the average citizen to be a part of negotiations. This is
necessary to restore a mood of trust and public confidence to a
process long marred by unwarranted secrecy.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt): Mr.
Speaker, I have three topics, Saskatchewan, immigration and
birthdays.
My province of Saskatchewan joined Confederation in 1905.
It was another Liberal Prime Minister, Laurier, whose visionary
immigration policies opened the west to settlement by
immigrants from around the world.
Settlers came to a land that Saskatchewan's Connie Kaldor
describes as harsh and unforgiving. This land offered
independence and opportunity, treasures precious enough to be
worth a little dust and frostbite.
Next year marks Saskatchewan's 90th birthday, the 90th
anniversary of Laurier's western visit. In only 90 years, less
than one lifetime, Saskatchewan pioneers have taken us from
oxcarts to fax machines.
I think of Herbert S. Wright, born on this date in 1907. An
English immigrant, Stan and his wife Peggy raised three
children. Starting a family at the beginning of the great
depression was not easy, yet the Wrights faced the challenge,
prospered and were stronger for it.
Thanks to immigrants, pioneers we sometimes call them,
Canada is stronger too.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, August 21,
1994 was election day in Mexico. I, along with the member for
Louis-Hébert, was part of a nine member delegation for the
International Centre for Human Rights based in Montreal,
headed by Ed Broadbent and funded by the Canadian
government.
We were part of a group of a thousand foreign observers
invited by Action Civica, a non-partisan organization involving
tens of thousands of Mexicans who are fighting for fair elections
and a civil society in Mexico.
(1105 )
By all accounts the election outcome in Mexico, despite many
shortcomings, represented the will of the Mexican people.
Given our closer relationships with Mexico through NAFTA it is
of great interest to Canadians that Mexico continue on the road
to democratization and the building of a civil society.
Canada and Mexico can be strategic allies, ensuring that
NAFTA is fair to the three countries involved. I ask my
colleagues in the House to join with me in congratulating the
Mexican people and Action Civica in their quest.
I further call on this Parliament to work on strengthening our
ties with the Mexican government to promote the
democratization and the building of a civil society in Mexico.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, as a
Canadian and a politician, I have just spent a unique and
enlightening summer, and I would like to tell the House about it.
Given how much talk there is about the future of Quebec
within Canada, many Canadians discuss the issue and share their
views with one another. This is what I wanted to do in an active
way during the summer.
I went to Quebec several times to study French and to get in
contact with people and their milieu. I believe there are always
two sides to a coin and at least two perceptions of a problem and
its solution.
I wanted to go to the source to find out and to better
understand what people think. This is what I did during the
summer and I thank all those who helped me get that better
understanding of the situation.
6081
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, Quebecers have
long known that they should not take the federal government's
word. They are also used to being forced to fight to get the
millions of dollars owed to them. But what really hurts is to have
to put up with the mockery and sarcasm of all the Liberal MPs
when claiming the $26 million owed to Quebec taxpayers
following the referendum on the Charlottetown accord.
It hurts even more when this sarcasm comes from the Prime
Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister responsible
for Public Service Renewal. Some day, all government members
from Quebec will have to explain why they spurned with such
delight the justified claims of the Bloc Quebecois.
Given their chuckling and their sarcasm, must we conclude
that this is the price to pay to remain in the Canadian federation?
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
members of Parliament stand strong in their support of human
rights. We stand firm behind the principles of Bill C-41 which
include sexual orientation as a ground to be protected when an
aggravating factor in sentencing for criminal offences.
The Government of Canada stands firm behind this bill as it
stands firm in its belief that human rights acts and the charter
protect Canadians from all forms of discrimination.
Sexual orientation is one of those protected heads. We
promised in the red book to amend the federal Human Rights
Act. We look forward to the fulfilment of that promise to make
human rights the Canadian hallmark of true civilization.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians on both sides of the highly emotional, polarized gun
control debate must move from their extreme positions and
work to find common ground. Legitimate concerns of
responsible gun owners will be listened to.
We must not equate gun owners with criminals. However, we
must also work to prevent the abuse of firearms.
The shocking brutality of domestic violence must be
recognized and understood by all Canadians. In Canada 42 per
cent of women killed by husbands are shot, 80 per cent with
rifles and shotguns. The majority of these guns are legally
owned.
It is a privilege, not a right, to own a firearm. We must do
whatever possible to ensure our communities, homes and
children are safe.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre): Mr. Speaker, for
many years, federal employees working in the National Capital
Region have had to cope with upheavals that have changed their
lives. The Conservative government destroyed the morale of the
region's public servants, but it paid a price for its ill-advised
partisan policies.
All studies on decentralizing federal services should be
suspended immediately. We need a five-year moratorium on
transfer of public servants.
(1110)
Treasury Board should prepare specific guidelines that are
sensible, cost-conscious, and consider the impact on public
service morale and whether services will really be improved.
As members of the National Capital caucus, we intend to
defend our position and demonstrate that these plans are a big
mistake. Specific guidelines issued by Treasury Board would
prevent the party in power from transferring services for
political reasons.
* * *
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, how can we
trust a federal government that repudiates verbal agreements
made with the former Premier of Quebec and member of the
great Liberal family?
Everyone saw Mr. Bourassa say in the Quebec National
Assembly that there was an agreement on referendum costs. The
government's attitude is astonishing, when we consider that the
same federal government, on the basis of a commitment by an
unknown individual, approved a transaction that was totally
unacceptable, in the case of Ginn Publishing.
This government's double standard shows that many
Quebecers are right to distrust federal politicians who fail to
keep their word once they have won the election.
It is a sad reflection on democracy, and Quebecers will not
forget that in Canada, they must pay twice for the federal
referendum and that the word of a Quebecer who is Prime
Minister in Ottawa does not mean a thing.
6082
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to notify my fellow MPs that I intend to bring
forward a very important private member's bill that could likely
save the life of a firefighter or police officer in the near future.
The bill would require hospital officials to notify emergency
response personnel when they have inadvertently come into
contact with an infectious disease while carrying out their life
saving duties. This disclosure would be strictly private and
confidential.
In an age when contagious diseases ranging from HIV to
hepatitis are on the rise in Canada, protection for emergency
personnel is needed more than ever. Lives are at stake here.
I ask the government to give my bill its most serious
consideration once introduced. A formal symposium on this
issue will be held in Ottawa next week. I feel it would be a sign
of goodwill if all hon. members were to recognize the potential
danger our invaluable emergency service personnel now find
themselves in and pledge to resolve this dangerous situation.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, a
large number of legitimate gun owners gathered on Parliament
Hill yesterday to express their concerns about the government's
pending gun control legislation.
They listened to the assurances of the justice minister and, in
their turn, submitted a lengthy petition of many thousands of
names.
The time for the presentation of petitions yesterday had
passed. I wish them to know that their petition was promptly
given to the Clerk of the House to review it for possible
presentation in this Chamber or for formal delivery to the
Minister of Justice.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker,
during the summer months our country hosted the
Commonwealth Games. I am proud to say that Team Canada
turned in its best performance ever. Our team won a record 128
medals: 40 gold, 42 silver and 46 bronze.
I would like to congratulate all Canadians who participated in
the games. In particular, I would like to congratulate two of
Canada's athletes who hail from my riding of
Victoria-Haliburton in the province of Ontario. Nancy
Sweetnam of Lindsay won a silver medal in the 400 metre
individual medley and a bronze medal in the 200 metre
individual medley. Linda Szulga, who hails from Burnt River,
Ontario, won a bronze medal in the pairs smallbore rifle
competition.
These women represented Canada with a great deal of class
and sportsmanship during the games and sacrificed many hours
to train for their event.
Once again I salute their achievements and urge all members
to applaud the fine showing by Team Canada at Victoria in
August.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Speaker, this
government places a high priority on sustainable development,
the joint goals of achieving a clean environment and a strong,
internationally competitive economy.
That is why yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Industry
announced a new $57.5 million national strategy for the
Canadian environmental industry.
The environmental industry strategy was developed after
extensive consultations with the industry, with all levels of
government and with industry associations.
(1115 )
This strategy will improve the access of the environmental
industry to government programs and services, support cost
effective technology development and commercialization,
secure dominance in the growing Canadian market and increase
exports of environmental technology.
Canada's industry has an important role to play in helping
Canada achieve sustainable development, and the government is
firmly committed to strengthening this sector of our economy.
_____________________________________________
6082
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, in a powerful report, the Council on Social
Development expresses its concerns regarding the increasing
poverty in Canada. The council concludes that although we may
have to review our social programs they are still working. What
is not working however is the labour market.
My question is for the person speaking on behalf of the Prime
Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
An hon. member: Put your question.
6083
Mr. Duceppe: I am just about to do so. I was looking about
to see who could give me an answer, as there are not too many
people in here this morning.
Does the minister not agree than instead of reforming our
social programs, the government must put forward concrete job
creation measures since, as the council pointed out, it is not
social programs which are not working, but rather jobs which
are lacking?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points to make in
response to the hon. member's question on behalf of my
colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development.
It needs to be pointed out, as the minister did yesterday in
some remarks, that the report of the Canadian Council on Social
Development covered a period of time that ended in 1991.
Therefore some of its statistical information is more than three
years old.
To be fully accurate any report on poverty must take into
account the rapidly changing labour market, which I think is
implied in the hon. member's question, and the need to direct
young people into developing job sectors that have long term
potential.
I am sure the hon. member will have noted, not only in our red
book proposals from the election campaign of last year but also
in the throne speech, in the budget and in all the activities of the
Minister of Human Resources Development, that the entire
focus was upon the growth of the Canadian economy and the
creation of jobs for Canadians.
The statistics would show that in the first nine or ten months
of our administration a very substantial beginning has been
made. It is not nearly enough yet, but there has been very good
progress at the beginning of the term of the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, could the agriculture minister explain how he is able to
claim that a reform aimed at reducing costs by cutting social
programs can create jobs?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Human Resources
Development pointed out on many occasions in the House, the
objective of the reform process upon which he has embarked is
to transform the Canadian system into one that prepares
Canadians for the changing requirements of the job market.
Rather than acting just as a net to catch people when they need
special assistance, it is transformed into a system to help them
reintegrate into the workforce and be fully prepared for the job
opportunities that must exist in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, for a change in the social system , this is a real change
indeed! In Quebec alone, there are 22,000 unemployed workers
who are no longer eligible for UI benefits and the government
reform is going to add thousands more to that number, forcing
them onto welfare. In the past year, in Quebec alone, 20,000
more people have been added to the welfare roll. It is a real
change indeed, Mr. Speaker.
(1120)
Will the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Agriculture,
recognize that the government itself is adding to poverty by
making these unjustified and inhuman unemployment insurance
cuts?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, the government's entire objective is
to create economic growth and with that new jobs for Canadians.
It bears noting that since last November we have been
successful in assisting in the creation of 275,000 Canadian jobs,
including 79,000 in the province of Quebec.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The report of the Canadian Council on Social Development
identifies Montreal as the Canadian city with the highest
number of people living under the poverty line; 30 per cent of
the population, or 386,000 households, live under the poverty
line in Montreal. This is more than twice that of all the Atlantic
provinces combined.
Considering how serious the situation is in Montreal, will the
Prime Minister undertake to implement an economic recovery
strategy for that city, because the temporary infrastructure
program will clearly not be enough?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure program
commenced by the government in literally the first few hours
after we took office last November has been a remarkable
success story with the mayors, municipalities and provincial
governments virtually everywhere across the country.
6084
The minister responsible for infrastructure could add more
detail. However, as far as I know without exception it has been
heralded as a good and successful program. It is serving a very
good purpose in establishing jobs for Canadians in the short
term period while that program is in place over a span of about
two years.
More important, that program will renew and refurbish the
physical underpinning of infrastructure in every province and in
most communities from coast to coast in the country, giving us a
modern infrastructure base upon which to build economic
development for the future.
The benefit of the program is being felt in the city of
Montreal, just as it is in my home city of Regina and in all
communities in between. That was the first major initiative of
the government with respect to economic growth and job
creation for the future.
As the hon. member will know, we have many other plans in
the development process at the present time. I think he will find
as those plans come to fruition that communities such as the city
of Montreal and all others in Canada will be able to feel the
positive impact.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, does the Prime Minister intend to announce in the near
future assistance measures for defence industry conversion,
given that 10,000 jobs are in jeopardy in the Montreal area?
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Industry is doing
a whole range of activities that are relevant to the member's
question.
In terms of the defence industry productivity program, we
have undertaken a very aggressive review and restructuring of
the program so that we will be able to leverage the limited
resources we have in that fund and to assist defence industries in
converting so they will be much more in touch with knowledge
based industries that are emerging as a new job creation force.
We are also giving them added marketing in their conversion
to new industries. We must never forget the fact that as a
government we are leaning very hard on all financial institutions
of the country to become much more progressive in their lending
activities and their service activities for small and medium sized
entrepreneurs. As a government we believe that is where our
greatest hope for putting people back to work rests.
(1125 )
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I raise a
question today of major concern in the minds of millions of
Canadians. It is about their savings; it is about their retirement.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why is the
government considering taxing RRSPs?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing about new
taxes from the Reform Party. I do not hear the Minister of
Finance discussing new taxes.
First I heard of a carbon tax. Now I hear of a tax on RRSPs. All
these suggestions of new taxes come from members of the
Reform Party and not a single idea on a cut in spending comes
from them.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question for the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and now the
minister responsible for financial institutions have been
unclear, indefinite, and have not made a statement to the
Canadian people indicating that the government is not prepared
to tax RRSPs.
If the minister is so sure of himself, would he stand in his
place and say to the Canadian people that there will be no
taxation on RRSPs during the term of this Parliament?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you know
and as I am sure members of the Reform Party will find out with
their experience in Parliament, new taxes are announced in
budgets. The budget is coming down next February.
In the meantime we will put out a paper in the fall. It will be
referred to the finance committee and we will be able to listen to
all the ideas of the Reform Party in the finance committee about
taxation proposals.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I could only
conclude from the answer of the minister that the possibility of
new taxes for Canadians is there and that we have to be
concerned about it.
The minister recognizes that RRSPs are no different from
other pension plans. RRSPs were created so that self-employed
people in Canada could save for their retirement.
My question is for the minister. Is the government not only
considering taxing RRSPs but also considering taxing
government pension plans and private pension plans as well?
6085
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that I keep
hearing about new taxes only from the Reform Party. I hear
about taxes on RRSPs. Now I hear about taxes on pension plans,
on government pension plans, and I hear it from the Reform
Party.
All these ideas about new taxes are coming from members of
the Reform Party. Do they have a suggestion for cutting
spending? Please let us have some ideas on that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as
he was leaving the House of Commons, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs started his media scrum by stating:
``The federal government owes nothing to Quebec''. How
arrogant! As for the Prime Minister, he keeps saying that he
needs to get a bill before he can pay the Quebec taxpayers the
$26 million he owes them.
The minister knows full well that the people of Quebec paid
twice for the referendum, once for the referendum in Quebec
and again for the one held in the rest of Canada. Why then persist
obstinately in refusing to pay what they owe to Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, on October 26, 1992, two referendums were held in
Canada: one under the federal referendum act and another, under
Bill 150 and the Quebec referendum act. These are two different
acts. For example, the residency requirements are not the same
in the Quebec legislation as in the federal legislation. Therefore,
there is no legal basis for paying the government of Quebec for
holding a referendum under its own provincial legislation.
(1130)
The issue being raised could only be settled if we had in our
files a clear agreement to waive the application of the act. But
there is no evidence of such a document.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, is the
minister's response not proof in itself of this government's
failure to recognize that Quebec is different from the rest of
Canada? Is it not a tacit admission of the fact they are unable to
accept this fundamental difference for one thing? Now, I would
like to ask him: is the Premier of Quebec stating before the
Quebec National Assembly that there was an agreement not
sufficient proof of the existence of such an agreement? does the
minister doubt the word of the former Premier of Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, in response to the first part of the hon. member's
question, if Premier Bourassa decided to hold a referendum
under his own legislation, he obviously believed it was for the
best political advantage of both himself and the province to have
a separate referendum.
As for the second part of the question, I cannot help but
wonder: if an agreement did exist between Premier Bourassa
and Mr. Mulroney, and then Mrs. Kim Campbell, why then did
neither Mr. Mulroney nor Mrs. Campbell express their
agreement or pay a debt they presumably undertook to pay?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): The health minister has stated
that Canada's blood supply system does not need to have as
strict standards as those in the U.S. Frankly, that is hogwash.
Will the minister raise her standards so that all Canadians will
once again feel safe?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, our
system of blood collection is among the best in the world. What
is happening with the FDA, and I will repeat it again, is a
question of different regulations to meet different systems, one
system not being superior to the other.
That being said, we are working with the FDA to harmonize
those regulations, which would help us ship plasma to the
States. We are going to continue to look at any possible way that
we can improve the safety of our blood supply.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, that is actually the
first time I have heard the minister say that she is concerned
about an improvement to the system which she has continually
said is excellent and needs no changes. Frankly the patients, the
people of Canada, expect no more hidebound, old fashioned
statements. Rather, they would prefer to see changes that will
improve our system.
Will this minister stop making those old fashioned statements
that simply try to cover her tracks?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
have been very clear during this whole debate. We have taken
every step since I have been minister of health to ensure that we
are using everything we know to guarantee the safety of the
blood supply and we will continue to do that.
It bothers me a great deal to have responsible people
continuing to spread uncertainty when every day in every
hospital across this land our blood supply system saves lives.
Let us continue to encourage donors to move forward and donate
their blood to continue to give the gift of life.
6086
(1135)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
At the press conference announcing the appointment of Mr.
Manera as president of the CBC, the heritage minister said that
the government was committed to making no further cuts in the
CBC's government funding.
How can the minister, who claims to be a great friend of this
institution, justify his about-face and go back on his February 3
commitment by announcing that it would be hard for him not to
cut the CBC's budget?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to note our colleague's interest in the
CBC, this great federal institution which promotes our culture
from coast to coast.
If she is referring to decisions that have been made, I would
like to know what these decisions are. What was said earlier this
year has not changed, so I think she is indulging in speculations
she may have heard elsewhere. However, no changes or
decisions have been made that contradict what we said earlier.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite obvious that it has not been announced, as the
Minister of Canadian Heritage's colleague was saying. The
budget has not been announced yet, but there is no smoke
without fire. When we read in the newspaper that it will be
difficult to avoid cutting the CBC's budget by 5 per cent to 8 per
cent, it is a warning of things to come.
Only yesterday, the vice president, Mr. Pineau, clearly said to
the heritage committee that cuts were coming. So they should
stop treating us like fools. Does the minister confirm that these
cuts, if they are implemented, would mostly affect the services
offered to Canada's francophone and Acadian communities?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I think that our colleague is worrying about smoke. I
did not know she planned a career change from member of
Parliament to firefighter.
I think that if she wants to help this great institution, the
CBC-which she herself is working on as a member of the
parliamentary committee currently reviewing the CBC-she
should say frankly that she is happy that this institution is
working to promote Canadian unity and ask it to do even more.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, we
have heard reports of infighting within the Liberal cabinet over a
plan to uproot public servants and ship them to the east coast. On
the one hand the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services wants to move them to his hometown in Atlantic
Canada while opposing ministers of public renewal and industry
and others say, and I think the quote is: ``You do not move
departments around just for the fun of it''.
Will the minister of government renewal bring this dispute to
an end by stating categorically that there are no longer any plans
to ship parts of the civil service to the east coast?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
want to categorically assure you and members of this House that
there is no division on this issue within cabinet.
The administration of the federal government is complex. We
have hundreds of thousands of employees. Perhaps on a
supplementary my colleague the President of the Treasury
Board might address some of the more specific issues relating to
public servants.
As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has noted, we
are planning to reshape government and reorder our financial
priorities. This will be done in an orderly fashion. Certainly the
statements made by my colleague the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services are in no way at odds with government
policy.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I am
not sure if they are listening to their own reports. The Minister
of Public Works and Government Services has established a
committee with very specific instructions. The instructions are:
To develop an action plan to enhance the government presence
in Atlantic Canada. That is pretty much at odds with the plan that
says: ``We will reorganize the civil service on the basis of cost
effectiveness and efficiency''.
(1140 )
Will the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
fall into line with the latter, which is cost effectiveness, and state
today that he will disband this committee that is merely looking
to enhance his own political future?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, all of
the ministers in the government have been charged with looking
at their own departments, the administration and the saving of
money. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services
is doing what everyone else is doing. They are looking line by
line at the budget to see where savings can be made.
6087
We make no apologies. As a national government we are
proud that there are public servants across this country, not just
in Ottawa.
The hon. member should not read something into what is in
effect a legitimate task assigned by a government minister to
deal with a very difficult situation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
After deciding not to implement a real comprehensive policy
for the development of the French-speaking community, despite
the request of the Federation of Francophone and Acadian
Communities, the Minister of Heritage finally brought forth a
policy. The policy that emerged from his drawing board is
nothing more than an action plan to meet his own obligations
under part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Can the minister tell us how and in what way his action plan
will develop the francophone community?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I think that the hon. member should have talked more
to Francophones and Acadians across Canada. He would have
the answer, because they are the ones who called for the
application of the sections of the Official Languages Act. They
applauded it, when we decided to mobilize the Canadian
government in support of Francophones and Acadians
throughout the country.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, can
the minister tell us how he can boast about his action plan when
no funding has been provided and no new program has been set
up?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that the hon. member has understood nothing
about this action plan. Perhaps he should look at it a little more
closely and then he might understand that what we will do is
mobilize resources throughout the Canadian government to
support the development of official-language minority
communities. That is what he should understand.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of National Defence.
On Wednesday this House debated Canada's peacekeeping
role under the UN banner with a view to reaching a decision on
Canada's commitments. Will the minister please explain to this
House today if a decision has been made with regard to
peacekeeping in Bosnia-Hercegovina, the former Yugoslavia
and, if so, the reasons behind his decision?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member does note that we had a very good debate with
expressions of points of view on all sides. I think it is the general
consensus that Canada wishes to remain active in United
Nations peacekeeping engagements.
I have outlined in my speech that the resources of the
Department of National Defence have been considerably
strained over recent times. However, there is the capability
within the Canadian Armed Forces to take on a number of
engagements.
[Translation]
Yes, the government has decided that Canadian troops will
stay in the former Yugoslavia, Croatia and Bosnia for another
six months.
[English]
We have decided to renew for a further six months our
engagement in those two former republics of Yugoslavia.
I would like to put some words of caution here. We have made
this decision but it is subject to review if the situation on the
ground changes or if the political or military situation calls into
question the safety of Canadian troops or the usefulness of the
UNPROFOR mandate.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, in July 1992 the Security Intelligence Review
Committee issued a top secret section 54 report to the then
Solicitor General, Doug Lewis. The report was entitled:
``Domestic Terrorism Targets''.
Has the ministry reviewed this report and if so, can the
parliamentary secretary advise the House if there is any mention
of the Reform Party within this report?
(1145 )
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I guess members across the
way have been waiting for me to stand up for some time.
Responding in Canada's other official language to the
question, I am quite aware of what has happened recently. The
government is taking into account the report that will be
submitted by SIRC to the Solicitor General.
6088
There are also other investigations going on with the
Inspector General and we are looking in detail at what
happened. I am sure the Solicitor General will respond in due
course.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the parliamentary secretary
understood that this report has already been given. It is a section
54 report that went to the then Solicitor General, Doug Lewis.
Will the parliamentary secretary assure the House that unlike
its predecessors, this government will advise legitimate
political parties when CSIS learns that groups or individuals
deemed to be a threat to national security attempt to infiltrate
them?
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government
is that we do not condone any investigation of legitimate
political organizations. We have made that very clear.
We have also heard from the opposition allegations of all
kinds that the government is investigating various political
parties. There is none of that.
The Government of Canada and the Solicitor General will
make public certain parts of the report that will be handed down.
I can assure the hon. member that this Liberal government
would not tolerate such actions being taken by our secret
service.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health.
In March 1993, the Canadian government released its funding
plan for the second phase of the National AIDS Strategy. Ottawa
was to spend $211 million on the strategy over the next five
years or $42 million annually. Of those $42 million, $1.5 million
were not set aside for specific programs but were to be allocated,
at the discretion of the minister, to needs not covered by the
strategy.
Could the Minister of Health indicate whether according to
plan, in 1994-95, in addition to the $40.7 million for standard
programs, $1.5 million will be allocated by the minister to the
National AIDS Strategy, as discretionary funding?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, that is the case. We have established a criteria for the
$1.5 million, and we will try to follow those criteria. I may add
that we have already planned to spend $400,000 of the $1.5
million on a conference to be held in Vancouver at some time in
1996.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, as far as the remainder is concerned, could the minister
indicate the criteria for allocating these funds and which
agencies will benefit?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, at
this stage we have yet to select the agencies or projects, but they
must be projects that are not covered by other types of funding.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The CBC already receives more than $1 billion a year from
Canadian taxpayers and the government appears to be on the
move to tax even further.
The minister has in his possession a study by the Nordicity
Group which recommends new funding sources for the CBC but
he does not want the public to see it. The organization,
development and funding of the CBC has been behind closed
doors for too long now and has now become a matter of
accountability.
Will the minister make public or at least provide
parliamentarians with this study which recommends new
funding sources for the CBC?
(1150 )
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to have a chance to read the report before I
decide what I do with it.
As for transparency, we have provided all the members who
want to participate in the hearings of the standing committee on
heritage an opportunity to look at the CBC. The hearings started
yesterday and will go on for some months. There will be no
secrets there. I understand a number of questions have already
been put to the CBC through the standing committee.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I am
really quite surprised that the minister has not yet seen the
Nordicity study. I find that quite an unacceptable response.
In any event, the Liberals continue to be unaccountable to
Canadians. They are considering a tax on entertainment to
generate more money for the CBC. Canadians cannot afford this
any longer and they will not put up with any new taxes,
especially for the CBC.
Will the minister tell us categorically and right now that there
will be no new entertainment tax introduced in order to fund this
billion dollar boondoggle?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, this morning it seems that the Reform Party wants to
tax Canadians to death.
6089
We have not talked about taxes. This is an invention coming
from the other side. In due course we will see what the standing
committee on heritage will have to say on the question of
financing the CBC.
* * *
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister responsible for Infrastructure.
Many economic observers claim that Canada is coming out of
the recession and the job numbers are there to prove it. However
as far as my constituents are concerned, there are still too many
people out of work.
Can the minister please tell me how many jobs have been
created in Alberta so that I can reassure my constituents?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
there is a lot of interest in Alberta.
This program is moving very rapidly right across the country.
With the co-operation of the Government of Alberta it is
moving quite rapidly in that province as well with some 719
infrastructure projects investing over $422 million and creating
some 700,000 jobs in that province. This is only the beginning.
I am pleased to say that we have to this point in time allocated
more than two-thirds of the money under the $6 billion
infrastructure program. There are over 6,500 projects across the
country and so far we have put some 70,000 Canadians to work.
That is only the beginning.
There are more jobs to come in Alberta. There are more jobs
to come across the country. It is attracting additional investment
dollars in helping to do what this government wants to do, get
Canadians back to work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Prime Minister or the Acting Prime Minister.
After the Government of Quebec passed the Partition of the
Family Patrimony Act, the government tabled Bill C-55, which
received royal assent on September 29, 1992. Bill C-55 would
provide for seizing or dividing federal pension benefits. Nearly
two years after the bill was passed, the regulations have yet to be
approved by the federal government.
Would the Prime Minister or his substitute agree that after
waiting for two years, the federal cabinet should move quickly
to adopt the regulations so that Quebecers who have been
disadvantaged as a result of this situation can obtain the pension
share to which they are entitled?
(1155 )
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
have now signed and recommended to the Governor General the
Pension Benefits Division Act which helps to bring into effect
the very regulations that are of concern to the hon. member with
respect to implementing Bill C-55.
Bill C-55 was put into effect by the previous government. It
required a lot of detailed examination as to the regulations. We
moved as quickly as we could. We have already made changes
which I announced previously with respect to incorporating
part-time employees and marriage after retirement into the
pension provisions and the further regulations are about to come
into effect.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, can the minister
give specific reasons for this two-year delay, including nearly
one year under the Liberal government, and will he make a
formal commitment today that the regulations will be adopted
by Christmas?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, as
I said just a moment ago, when I came upon the regulation
requirements, not a lot of work had been done by the previous
government. We have expedited the matter and it is nearing
completion. A lot of work has been done in a very short period of
time because we are anxious to make sure that the provisions are
in place to better serve our retired employees and their
successors.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, earlier
this week the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
neglected to answer a very simple, very straightforward
question.
Dudley Vincent Forbes, who is accused of a shooting spree in
Toronto over the weekend in which two people died, was
deported not once but twice for breaking Canadian visa law.
My question is for the parliamentary secretary. Why was
someone who has flouted Canadian law twice, both criminal law
and immigration law and been deported twice, allowed to be
sponsored as a spouse and returned to Canada?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question.
6090
Indeed the minister did not fail to answer. As the minister
stated, when the gentleman came into Canada there was no
reason for officials to refuse his application at that time.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, again
from the minister's department we get the same mumbo jumbo,
political double talk and no real, clear answers in reference to
removal, deportation or whatever.
The minister is making a great to-do about his new
immigration reform package which is currently before the
House. Since nothing in this legislation would have prevented
someone like Forbes from returning to Canada, is the minister
willing to immediately undertake legislative changes to bar any
applicant for immigration who has previously been deported for
any reason?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to
understand. I am sorry that the hon. member did not feel my
previous answer was clear. I attempted to be clear.
I will be clear again with regard to his first question. At the
time there were no reasons for officials to bar the gentleman in
question.
As to his second question, the hon. member who participated
in the debate on Bill C-44, come next Tuesday when we vote on
this bill will be here on our side and will vote for just those kinds
of amendments that do the kind of thing the hon. member is
asking for. We look for his support and we expect it now.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of International Trade. On the issue
of lumber, first of all, the federal government failed to get
Quebec exempted from countervailing duties, although it does
not even subsidize exports from Quebec.
Second, the federal government has let itself be pushed
around by American lobby groups that came up with all sorts of
inventive ways of dragging things out. Third, having finally
won, the government is not even capable of making the United
States pay back the $500 million they owe us.
Is the minister in a position to announce in this House that an
agreement has been signed or will he just tell us again that
discussions are ongoing but still unsuccessful?
(1200)
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member on
behalf of the Minister of International Trade that the minister
and the government are looking at this whole issue with a great
deal of interest. The government is convinced that the monies
the hon. member is referring to will be recovered.
Unfortunately, for the time being, proceedings have been
initiated by American groups and we must let the judicial
process take its course. As the government of Canada, we are
making representations to ensure the Canadian taxpayers are
paid back.
_____________________________________________
6090
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-53, an act to establish the
Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal
certain other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by 22,000 Canadians asking for
the Parliament of Canada to retain section 241 of the Criminal
Code of Canada which forbids assisting in the commission of a
suicide.
This petition was circulated thanks to a quadriplegic, a
woman from Winnipeg by the name of Theresa Ducharme. I
want to publicly congratulate Mrs. Ducharme, given the
immense effort required on her part for having taken such an
initiative.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, last week,
I went to the Magdalen Islands. The people there gave me this
petition concerning the wreck of the
Irving Whale. The
petitioners ask that the leaks from the wreck be plugged as soon
as possible. They also ask that further public hearings be held.
Having seen and studied the reports on the Irving Whale, I
strongly support the Magdalen Islanders' requests and I submit
their petition.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I would like to present to the
House. The first one has 478 signatures. It is a request that
Parliament review and amend the Young Offenders Act to save
society from further harm committed by young offenders and to
discourage young people from committing crimes by increasing
penalties, releasing names for serious offenders and giving the
police more investigative powers.
6091
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of my
constituency urging Parliament not to repeal or amend section
241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the Supreme
Court of Canada's decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow
doctor assisted suicides.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by members of the Kaska Dena Council. These
members are from Fort Ware, British Columbia, Good Hope
Lake, Watson Lake, Yukon.
(1205 )
As members of the Kaska Dena Council they are calling on the
government as represented by the minister of Indian affairs not
to devolve jurisdiction and control over unsurrendered lands and
resources and to ensure that the land claims for the Kaska Dena
Council are resolved equitably before any lands are devolved.
I have the pleasure to present this petition and to support and
encourage the government to continue these land claims
negotiations with the Kaska Dena Council.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to present three petitions today on behalf of the
constituents of Scarborough Centre.
The first is signed by 74 people from across Scarborough and
urges the government to amend the laws to prohibit the
importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of serial killer
cards and to advise producers of these cards that their products if
destined for Canada will be seized and destroyed.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition is signed by 80 residents of Scarborough Centre
and calls on the government to extend protection to the unborn
child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to the unborn.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, my
third petition is signed by 115 residents of Scarborough Centre
who request that Parliament ensure that current provisions of the
Criminal Code prohibiting doctor assisted suicide be enforced
vigorously and Parliament enact no laws that would sanction or
allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have three
petitions from Simcoe Centre to present.
The first is a petition on the issue of abortion. The petitioners
request that Parliament reconsider amendments to the Criminal
Code.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is on the issue of euthanasia. The petitioners request
that current laws regarding active euthanasia be enforced.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, the third
petition requests that the Government of Canada not amend the
Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation.
The petitioners fear that such an inclusion would indicate a
societal approval of homosexual behaviour. The petitioners
believe that the government should not legitimize this behaviour
against the clear wishes of the majority.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in the House today to present petitions signed
by over 800 people in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin.
My constituents from many communities including McLeese
Lake, Alexis Creek, Anahim Lake, Quesnel, Williams Lake,
Tatla Lake, and 100 Mile House all call upon the government to
refrain from passing any legislation that results in additional
gun control laws.
I concur with these petitions.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour to rise in
the House to present two petitions duly certified by the Clerk of
Petitions on behalf of the constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands
and surrounding areas.
In both these petitions the petitioners humbly pray and call
upon Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide remain in
force.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition representing the
views of some of my constituents which I wish to present to the
House.
6092
The petition calls on the government to enforce the existing
provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide.
It also asks that no changes be made to those provisions that
would sanction or allow assisted suicide.
On behalf of these concerned constituents I am pleased to
table this petition in the House.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr Speaker, I have
two different petitions to present to the House today.
I have the honour to present a petition from the Netherlands
Reform Congregation in my riding regarding the subject of
euthanasia. Hundreds of Canadians are in this way sending a
message to parliamentarians that physicians in Canada should
be working to save lives, not to end them.
I heartily concur with their statement and I trust that the
Senate committee conducting hearings on this issue will listen
to our collective voices.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition I have the honour to present is from 89 of my
constituents who are concerned about enshrining the undefined
phrase sexual orientation in federal human rights legislation.
They say privileges that society accords to heterosexual
couples should not be extended to same sex relationships.
I concur with my constituents.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I hope there
might be consent to revert to presentation of reports by
interparliamentary delegations to permit the very distinguished
member for Ottawa-Vanier to present a report that he has on a
recent meeting of one of our interparliamentary organizations.
* * *
(1210)
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I was a little distracted; I was
here but not quite present.
Pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
section of the International Assembly of French-Speaking
Parliamentarians, concerning the 20th regular session held in
Paris from July 10 to 13.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 67 raised by the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve could be made an order for return,
that return would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that
Question No. 67 be made an order for return?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 67-Mr. Ménard:
With regard to the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIPP)
administered by the Department of Industry, (a) which companies have been
awarded financial assistance since January 1, 1994, (b) what type of financial
assistance (grants, repayable loans with or without royalties, tax benefits) did
these companies receive, (c) what was the amount of financial assistance that
each company received, and (d) what criteria did the companies receiving
assistance have to meet in connection with government requirements promoting
defence conversion?
(Return tabled.)
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: I move that the remaining questions stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6092
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion. That Bill
C-49, an act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act and to
amend or repeal certain other acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, I will now
continue the speech I started before Question Period. I may
recall that I was commenting on the bill introduced by the
Minister of Agriculture, which proposes to change the name of
the department and define certain powers, duties and functions
with respect to research on and processing of agri-food
products.
I indicated that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill, but I
note, after reading the bill and listening to the minister, who
explained the role played by his department in the agricultural
industry in this country, that there is considerable potential for
overlap.
If we look at what the Government of Quebec and the
Government of Canada are doing in the agricultural and agri--
6093
food sectors, there are many activities that are practically
identical. The Government of Quebec also supports farmers,
promotes market development, supports research and also
supports activities connected with the inspection of agricultural
products.
It is, more or less, what the federal government is going to do
as well. This is a typical example of overlap. And if we consider
that historically, federal spending on Quebec's agricultural
industry has always been less than Quebecers would consider
their fair share as part of the Canadian federation, this may be
yet another instance of Quebecers paying twice for the same
service. They pay for agricultural research and development
activities in their province and, since they pay federal taxes,
they also pay for what is being done elsewhere.
If federal spending in Quebec could be said to be more or less
on a per capita basis, we could say that we are not paying more to
get the same services or services that are almost identical to
what the federal government can offer. However, that is not the
case.
If I am not mistaken, federal spending on agriculture in
Quebec has never exceeded 20 per cent, and has often been
considerably less.
(1215)
I am not surprised, because this has been going on for quite
some time in Quebec, but I am surprised that the minister failed
to include in his bill a number of provisions to keep to a
minimum any overlap with activities in this sector that are
covered by the Government of Quebec.
I feel very much involved in this particular debate. As we
heard during Question Period and statements by members, in the
past three years, and especially during the 1992 referendum in
Quebec, Quebecers have paid for the referendum they held
under Quebec's legislation and also paid for the referendum held
in the rest of Canada. Since Quebecers pay taxes like everybody
else, part of the money spent by the federal government on the
referendum in Canada-Regina and Toronto and St. John's,
Newfoundland-came from taxes paid by Quebecers. They paid
for this referendum and they also paid for their own referendum.
This is an obvious case of overlap.
Quebecers understood their Premier had received assurances
from the Canadian Prime Minister that they would get the
money back. Quebecers believed Premier Bourassa. They did
not necessarily think Mr. Bourassa was lying. Mr. Bourassa
spoke from his seat in the National Assembly. Today, we are told
that the word of the Premier of Quebec is not enough to prove
that the federal government owes money to Quebec.
That is why I would have liked to see in the agriculture
minister's bill provisions stating that the Department of
Agriculture will consult with the Quebec Ministry of
Agriculture in order to avoid overlap, to ensure that there are no
cases where Quebecers will have to pay twice.
I would have liked to see that in the bill because I realize that
if it is not written in black and white before a witness and
recorded by a notary, when provisions are not perfectly clear,
nothing ever gets done. So we say that even if promises were
made by a prime minister, there is no guarantee if it is not in
writing.
That is why I would have liked to see in the minister's bill
clear indications that real efforts will be made to avoid overlap
so that Quebecers will not again-as in many other cases-have
to pay twice for the same service.
I will not keep the House any longer. Of course, the Bloc
Quebecois endorses the spirit of the bill. We will review it in
committee. In particular, we will ask that the matter of
inspectors be clarified. The definition of ``inspector'' in French
seems slightly different from that in English.
Bloc members will ask for clarifications in committee,
because it is very important to convince and assure Quebec
francophones that the French version of a bill says the same
thing as the English version.
I thank you for your attention and let me assure you that our
Bloc colleagues who sit on the agriculture committee will see to
it that this bill is improved in the interest of the people of
Quebec and Canada.
[English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, at first glance one would look at this bill and pass it off
merely as simple housekeeping. Certainly as a Reform member I
am in favour of any bill that would streamline and make this
department more efficient.
(1220)
However a couple of aspects of this legislation give me some
concern. First, there is a new section on inspection services. It
states: ``The minister may designate any person as an inspector
for the purpose of providing the inspection services that the
minister considers necessary for the enforcement of any act of
which the minister has any powers, duties or functions''.
I certainly have some questions about this. Does this create
another level of inspection police in Canada? For example, will
this give the minister, through an appointed inspector, the
latitude to enforce any laws in his jurisdiction of agriculture?
The second aspect is the repeal of section 6 which currently
states: ``The minister shall cause to be laid before each House of
Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of that House after
January 31 next, following the end of the fiscal year a report
showing the operations of the department for that fiscal year''.
The questions I have in that area are, first, how much will it
save? If it could save significant dollars I would be the first to
admit that I am in favour of that. Second, will the standing
committee be able to examine fully the report given by the
minister without it being laid on the table in the House?
6094
Forces in the world today may radically change the way
agri-business is carried on. New trade deals, safety nets, farm
debt, to name but a few, will drastically alter agri-business over
the next few years. We have a great opportunity here. Rather
than just do a facelift on the department by giving it a new
name, why does the government and the minister not sit down
and do a major overhaul from the ground up?
We are prepared to help in this process but not in the fashion
that has been suggested. Let all of us in the House, especially
including the minister, go back to square one and develop policy
that has been built from the grassroots.
I believe we must do more than just tinker with an agriculture
bill and change the department's name. We are facing a crucial
time of rapid change: on our farms, in our support business and
in both levels of government and their responsibilities regarding
agriculture. We are at a time of change, perhaps greater than the
dominion land settlement and the emergency action taken
during the great depression. We know what the current changes
are. They are global trade arrangements. They are new markets.
They are new biotechnology. They are less government money.
They are greater worldwide food demand. They are the need to
look after our environment.
In order to meet all these challenges we must do more than
just tinker. We must look at what I refer to as a reconfederation
of agriculture. This is our vision. I believe this vision should
have three components to it.
First, as Canadians we must encourage each other to
appreciate our safe and affordable food supply more. What is
more important to our daily lives than food? Yet we take our
abundance of supply so much for granted. Many people in other
parts of the world have had massive natural disasters or
destructive military conflicts that have created food shortages
and famines. Thankfully we have never suffered that in Canada.
We must appreciate our food supply more. Surely we should
not only see the agri-food department in terms of statistics and
figures. While the industry is only 8 per cent of GDP, what is
more important in our daily lives than our daily bread?
We as leaders should be talking to people about this. This is
what the minister of agriculture should be doing. I would like to
see him use this upcoming Thanksgiving season to give a speech
to Canadians on the blessings and the importance of a safe and
abundant food supply and then to encourage his fellow
legislators at all levels to make sure that we protect the resource
of farming and food production. This is the first element of a
vision statement.
Second, we must realize how important it is to have good
legislative policy for our farmers, those who produce and
process our food. The basic thing we must strive toward is to
make farming profitable again. Our policies must be geared
toward this.
(1225 )
It is discouraging to know that farmers' real net market
income in 1991 was only half of what it was in 1971. On top of
that farmers as well as other Canadians have faced tremendous
inflation in land prices, equipment prices, building prices, et
cetera. Personal income and property taxes have gone up
dramatically. How can farmers survive in this economic
climate? Support programs have had to compensate.
Farmers want an economic and fiscal environment in which
they can make an honest buck on their own. We do not want
handouts. We do not want government as a senior business
partner. Get out of our pockets and get off our backs, is what
farmers are saying.
Mr. Stinson: Right on.
Mr. Kerpan: This is the direction in which the government
should be going.
The third component of our vision is that we must redefine the
role of the federal government, the provinces and industry in
agriculture. There must be a more clear, more precise division of
responsibilities.
Our party went on record in May during debate in the House
on what we feel the new arrangements should be. We are doing
more work on this. Experts have told us that a brand new
arrangement could be made without any opening up of the
Constitution. We would need to talk to each other as players and
negotiate a new and better relationship but we must streamline
and stop the overlap and duplication.
We propose that the provinces have the regulatory
responsibility for the management of the physical resources;
land, water, crops, livestock and the training and education of
human resources, youth, farmers, processors, et cetera, all the
players in the system. The federal government would have
responsibility for trading relationships, fiscal and monetary
policy and support programs that will agree with our trading
agreements. The industry would be left alone to make the vast
majority of decisions related to production, processing,
marketing and transportation.
This arrangement needs to be fleshed out in a lot of detail.
However, I sense a real momentum and a desire building in the
country to get into this. I would suggest that we take the
agriculture sector and work in this direction.
I want to point out to the minister of agriculture that I
appreciated his opening comments and his remarks with regard
to this bill. He mentioned a five point vision. I talked about a
three point vision. In many ways both of those visions have a lot
of similarities.
6095
He talked about the cross-country consultation that is being
planned. I ask the question: How do you do this? How do you
go to the farmers in this country and get a reading of their
feelings and ask their direction? It is very difficult.
I want to encourage the minister today to become involved.
There is no other way that consultation like this can work
without the full co-operation and the full involvement of the
minister and his complete department.
The last thing that farmers need is another consultation
process with a report that gets put on someone's desk, never to
be looked at. In the last few months I have had the opportunity to
look at such reports. Many of them were very well done. Many
of them laid out plans and policies that should and could have
been implemented by all governments but they were never
looked at. We cannot afford that type of consultation process any
more.
The minister stated in his opening remarks that the industry
has changed in the last 25 years. I certainly agree with that. We
need, as the minister pointed out, a common vision for farmers
and consumers right across the country.
As a farmer I can remember many times my father telling me
that you must be prepared. You must be ready for any
eventuality and that you must leave your options open. It
reminds me of going out to do a day's field work with the tractor
and not having any fuel in the tractor. You may leave the yard
with the best intentions in the world of doing a full day's work,
but an hour later you run out of fuel and your mission cannot be
accomplished. It is simply impossible.
(1230)
We must drive into the next century and not be pulled into it
by other market forces. We must take the initiative as
government and as industry and drive ourselves into the next
century with good policies created and established at the
grassroots level.
In closing I go on record again as saying that the Reform Party
is most happy, most ready and most willing to co-operate with
the government to build that policy. Hopefully together we can
develop a policy that is good, that is right, and that is something
farmers want for the next century.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's presentation and I would
like him to elaborate on this: would rural development, in which
agriculture is surely a very important factor, not require a much
broader approach, which, as he mentioned when he talked about
co-operation between consumers and producers, would also
require a comprehensive approach?
As it is, much of what the federal government does hurts rural
communities now, for example with Canada Post and with
railways. In many cases, the left hand does not know what the
right hand is doing and I would like the hon. member to say
whether the federal government should take a different
approach. What should be done to ensure that what the
government does through these national corporations carries out
the desire for action expressed by the Minister of Agriculture,
instead of having a negative effect which destroys this good will
with an excessively centralizing approach that often wipes out
the efforts of local communities?
The Deputy Speaker: I apologize to the hon. member, I was
mistaken. There is no period for questions and comments after a
speaker for a party has spoken. It is all my fault. Can we take it
as a representation or is there unanimous consent to let the hon.
member ask this question?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that
question and I thank you for the time.
Very briefly, certainly we are in what I perceive to be a global
market. There is no question about it. The role of people at the
committee level is that we have to develop within our own
boundaries part of that policy. Certainly part of that planning
has to be a developmental policy that will lead us into an even
larger global economy than what we are now involved in.
It appears to me from where I sit as a member from
Saskatchewan and knowing most about my home province, that
farmers are telling me that without starting at square one, the
grassroots, we cannot develop the global policy.
The minister probably said it best. In his opening comments
he said that without a solid foundation everything else falls
down. In my experience that is in fact the case. One cannot build
a building with a poor foundation; it just will not stand.
It is my opinion that we have to look at an agricultural policy
as if there were none at this point in time. We have to start from
step one, build it within our borders, and then expand globally
and internationally.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a
pleasure to stand today to make some comments on Bill C-49.
I want to refresh everybody's memory on the purpose of the
bill. It is giving effect to a change in the title of the department.
At one time it was known as the department of agriculture or the
ministry of agriculture and now it will be known as the ministry
of agriculture and agri-food. That is one of the changes. Other
changes and amendments will have to be made in corresponding
6096
acts just to expand the act because of the role the department has
been playing for many years. We are just bringing it up to date.
(1235)
In response to some comments made by speakers in the
opposition, the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois,
concerning the allocation of spending, et cetera, they are not
covered in the bill. They are not for discussion in the bill. It is at
an administrative level in co-operation with the provinces and
the federal government. It is ongoing at all times and certainly
can and will continue.
In response to the member from the Reform Party suggesting
that the minister give a speech on Thanksgiving Day, if he
desires to do so he can certainly get a copy of a speech the
minister made on September 19 in Regina to the Chamber of
Commerce wherein he stressed the importance of agriculture
and the agri-food industry in Canada. He also made some
comments about what he saw as some of the issues that needed
to be addressed. As the member already knows, next Thursday
the minister will be attending a very detailed session on our
vision and projected concerns about the total industry with
members of the standing committee.
The bill makes other changes. At the present time it states that
the mandate is clarified in the bill to include not only primary
agriculture but products derived from agriculture. It is
necessary to do that. The bill enlarges the responsibility of the
minister by changing reference to experimental farm stations to
research related to agriculture and products derived from
agriculture, including the operation of experimental farm
stations across Canada.
We need these important amendments to bring the matter up
to date. They reflect the longstanding relationship between the
ministry and the agriculture and agri-food industry of Canada.
That relationship started changing a number of years ago when
the ministry was given the mandate to ensure the safety of the
Canadian food supply.
Our inspection services are still one of the most important
points of contact between the industry and the department. The
highest percentage of the employees in the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food are in the food inspection and
production branch.
As years have gone by the department has played an
increasingly important, necessary and continuing role in
research and market development assistance. Enforcing safety
rules is still important but the department sees itself as more of a
supervisor in inspection roles.
A key activity in the department now is partnership. We must
continue to rethink our working relationships with the industry
clients out there. It is important to re-emphasize that food safety
will always be our top priority but our priorities are in other
areas as well. A partnership, however, can only survive if there
is good communication among the department and the other
parties. I am certainly looking forward to the type of
communication and co-operation at the standing committee we
have always had since I came to Parliament in 1988.
I want to emphasize another partnership recognized in
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It was recognized for the
first time at the meeting of federal and provincial agriculture
ministers in Winnipeg back in early July. I am referring to the
important role farm women play in the agriculture and agri-food
industry. Not only do we look to them as the nourishers of the
nation, but they are playing ever increasing and ever more
important roles as business people, as individuals and as
partners with their spouses or in businesses. They can play and
will play even more roles. They bring to our attention in the
department that we have to be constantly aware of safety in
agriculture.
(1240)
In Ontario a number of years ago, I had the privilege to be on a
health and safety in agriculture task force for two years. At that
time the necessity of our role was certainly made clear by farm
women and other people involved in the industry.
We know, especially at the primary producer level, that days
and nights can be long, wet, muddy or whatever, that conditions
are not considered ideal. There are also bankers that would like
to get the crop in the bin or to the elevator because there are bills
to pay. We have to be very conscious of those concerns and the
safety of everybody involved in the industry.
The role of government is changing. Canada's food inspection
system is a good example. We cannot afford to have a full time
permanent inspector at every factory and every processing plant
for every minute. Therefore to a large extent we must rely on the
industry to police itself. It too is a net beneficiary of the very
high standards of food and produce quality in Canada. It has a
responsibility to ensure the products and the processes it takes
part in meeting the standards we set. There is also a facilitator
role for the department to play.
The industry understands the high quality of our Canadian
products is one of the biggest and best selling points for our
domestic consumers and those abroad, and we have many of
those. Our reputation for quality in Canada is money in the bank.
We must make sure we can continue that.
It is a shared responsibility that is expensive to maintain. We
spend a tremendous amount of money. I am not saying it is
money wasted in any way, shape or form, but cost sharing
arrangements are being discussed with the industry. They have
worked very well in other countries. They are working very well
in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Certainly those
countries have very good standards as well.
6097
We have to keep improving the inspection system and that
is not cheap. For its part the department is trying to harmonize
standards across the country. To our colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois who spoke earlier I want to point out that one area
in which we are making good progress and have co-operation
is in getting rid of duplication or overlap among provinces in
the Canadian food inspection system. We have a way to go yet.
We can and will get rid of the duplication.
That area is of net benefit to everyone and it is necessary to
continue that co-operation. We need to work more with the
industry as far as research is concerned as often the result of
scientific and technical breakthroughs are benefits to all
Canadians.
We have goals we must reach in trade. In his comments earlier
today the minister spoke about the goals we want to reach,
including $20 billion in agriculture and agri-food export trade
from Canada by the year 2000. We know if we are to reach that
goal, I say to my colleagues and to the industry, we will have to
get better at it than we are at the present time.
We need to capitalize on opportunities, new technologies,
changing markets and trading agreements such as GATT,
NAFTA and all the others we are involved in. That goal is there.
The market is there.
The Asia-Pacific market, for example, is one that really
beckons us. We know that 50 per cent of the increase in the
world's wealth between now and the year 2000 will take place in
the Asia-Pacific area. We also know that 50 per cent of the
increase in world trade between now and the year 2000 is going
to take place in that area. We know there is a booming increase
in trade opportunities in Latin America and South America and
we must be there. We as a department, collectively and
collaboratively, need to work with all of the stakeholders and all
the partners in the industry in order to take the best advantage of
that. The opportunities are there so we need to work very
closely.
(1245)
In our platform during the campaign last fall we promised the
creation of an agri-food council that would focus on
international competitiveness. Some of my colleagues across
the way will say yes, we put things in place but what are we
going to do? I can assure you that these groups of people will not
be put in place unless they are going to be given a mandate and
that mandate is listened to and we can draw on the resources of
those people.
We also said that we would be creating an agri-food trade
service. We are doing that in the markets and industry services
branch in order to provide a single window to get rid of
duplication and get rid of red tape. Therefore, when an industry
or someone in the industry wants to discuss access to federal
government programs or federal government support, whether
that be in research which we are encouraging as partnerships in
research, or whether that be in support as far as marketing
opportunities, they can do it at a single window.
Getting Ready to go Global is a $4 million program. Earlier
this week I had the opportunity to join with some constituents at
the Experimental Farm in Ottawa where the Indian agricultural
program is working with some support from the Getting Ready
to go Global program in the development of, and I hope I call it
by the proper name, white Indian corn to be made into corn
chips, et cetera.
The Getting Ready to go Global program is helping them to do
the things that are there. It is to improve management capability,
help people promote strategic alliances, apply technological
solutions and develop market intelligence. We are pleased to be
able to help there.
The agri-food industry marketing strategies is another one.
There is the export expansion fund. I will give an example of the
type of work of the agri-food industry marketing strategy. The
department is providing up to $475,000 to the Quebec
Agri-food Export Club in support of its international market
developments. This is a club with international sales, excluding
sales to the United States, of $25 million. It provides
information, advice and training to its members. It supports and
promotes co-operation among members in promotional
activities abroad.
The department also helps agri-food exporters by collecting
and disseminating trade intelligence. We have at the present
time, and we will continue to emphasize this, about 85
commissioners working either full time or part time in over 100
foreign markets around the world.
For too long the Canadian agri-food industry has been content
to just sell to the United States customer. Yes, it is our biggest,
our closest and our easiest. However, we cannot put all our eggs
in one basket, if I can use that well-worn phrase. We have to
continue to look at the other areas, and we are doing that. We
have to learn how to satisfy the appetites of the rest of the world.
As the minister said this morning, we in North America are
probably not too far away from the time when 50 per cent of the
production at the farm gate will be used in some way in our
society other than as a food product. There are increasing
requirements for that.
The minister said as well that we have to look at the
opportunities out there, whether they be domestic or abroad, and
we have to produce what we can sell. We can no longer be
successful trying to sell what we like to produce. We are all
guilty of that. When you are in farming you kind of get into
feeling that ``I have always done this and I have always done
that''. That is what you become familiar with, but you have to
roll with the punches.
6098
(1250 )
I want to confirm the goals that the changes in this bill
emphasize and offer as an opportunity. It is more than just a
recognition that we have been doing these things in the
department. We have been doing these things in the Government
of Canada. I want to stress that better research in agriculture and
agri-food will help us develop new products. Better
partnerships will help us keep our standards high. In better
partnerships, be that with farm women, industry, or the
stakeholders, there are a lot of links in this chain and they all
have to be strong and tight in order to pull.
Better partnerships will help us keep in touch with the needs
within the sector. Better intelligence will keep us on top of
market trends. Better promotion will increase the demand for
Canadian agri-food products not only domestically but abroad.
Better relations between the industry and the department will
ensure that the agri-food industry continues to be the engine of
prosperity for all Canadians.
In closing, I want to remind the House and everyone in
Canada that the agri-food industry from the primary producer to
the consumer, including the retail and the restaurant and hotel
industry, employs 15 per cent of Canadian workers. It employs
1.8 million Canadians and accounts for 8 per cent of our gross
domestic product. It is an important industry.
The government pledges to work even harder in order to make
it even more successful and we look forward to the support of all
the members in the House in doing so.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-49.
This bill deals with the management of the federal
Department of Agriculture. As you know, Mr. Speaker, anything
that impacts on agriculture is important to me as a farmer and is
also important to a great number of my constituents in
Kindersley-Lloydminster as agriculture is the leading industry
of the riding.
In my opinion and the opinion of my caucus this House does
not discuss agricultural issues nearly enough and government
action is even more rare. We did see a little bit of action when
cabinet was expanded the other day. We now have I believe a
minister of state with responsibilities for agriculture. I guess
that is well and good but the call I am hearing from the industry
is not that the cabinet be expanded but that some of the issues
that are near and dear to the industry be dealt with in a real,
sincere and effective manner.
I heard a rather humorous description of a man who was
adjusting his tie while his pants were on fire. I think that
application might apply to the current minister of agriculture
who gave a very eloquent speech. There was very little in it that
any of us could find fault with. We all want the best for our
industry. The fact is that there are a lot of problems in the
industry. Until we act, our eloquence is rather hollow and rather
empty.
Most reforms to the agriculture sector have one of two results.
Either money is taken out of the farmers' pockets through
program cuts or a department reshuffling is initiated, leading to
more bureaucracy and red tape. If anything, this bill seems to
fall into the second category.
Farmers have made it clear that they are ready for action on a
number of very important issues. Instead, the first bill that the
minister has brought to us in this session is one that opts to
perform some cosmetic changes to the department, shuffles
some chairs around and hires a few more inspectors. It would
seem that the minister is deliberately ignoring the issues of most
concern to the agri-food industry.
For instance there is widespread consensus across the prairie
provinces for a producer plebiscite on barley marketing.
Opinion polls, farm groups and surveys, including one that I did
in my constituency, show that a vast majority of farmers support
holding a producer plebiscite. In my constituency a survey
indicated that 93 per cent of Canadian Wheat Board permit
holders would support a plebiscite to determine how they
market their barley. The strength of these numbers indicate that
those on both sides of the issue are eager to resolve the question
in a democratic manner.
In fact the Prime Minister before the election called for a
plebiscite on this issue. Why is this minister not taking action
regarding this democratic initiative? He seems more interested
in rejigging his department than acting on issues of importance
to farmers.
(1255)
Another issue concerns the Canadian Wheat Board. All
farmers know that the current board is out of date and
unresponsive to the needs of producers. There are some
elements of the western Canadian press that are sounding the
demise of the wheat board. The Reformers believe that a vibrant
and responsive wheat board that gives farmers choices would be
preferable to eliminating the board.
Most farmers are calling for a democratized wheat board that
will listen to farmers, meet their needs and change with the
times. Again, this question was included in a survey in my
riding. In fact 96 per cent of Canadian Wheat Board permit
holders in the riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster in the survey
we conducted supported democratization of the Canadian Wheat
Board. In other words, take control of the wheat board out of the
hands of the politicians and give it to the producers as is the case
with most marketing institutions in Canada.
6099
It seems that the minister would rather introduce
housekeeping measures that have more to do with relabelling
bureaucrats than accomplishing anything for farmers.
There are some very constructive things that can be done to
reform the department of agriculture and will have positive
results for producers.
It is my contention and that of my Reform colleagues that the
purpose of funds earmarked for agriculture support should
primarily be to assist agriculture producers who, through no
fault of their own, find themselves financially disadvantaged.
I remind the minister of agriculture that at present there are a
total of 41 different agriculture programs at the federal level,
286 more provincial programs, and 22 joint federal-provincial
programs. That brings the total number to 349 separate support
programs for agriculture, each one administered and accounted
for separately.
The administrative cost of running so many different and
often overlapping and outdated programs is rather staggering.
Over $2 billion per year is spent by the minister of agriculture,
of which over $700 million is spent on operating and capital
costs alone. These figures do not include the $728 million spent
under the Western Grain Transportation Act. I believe those
figures are for the year 1992. They have been reduced somewhat
since.
This appallingly high level of overhead signals
mismanagement because of overmanagement. By consolidating
all those federal programs and initiatives into three or four the
government could save many millions of dollars and provide
better support to the industry as a result.
We must expose the myth that more money spent always
results in more effective programs. In the case of agriculture it is
not only possible to provide better support with fewer dollars
but it is essential to the long term sustainability of the industry
given the bad financial shape of the government.
The government has a moral obligation to the next generation
of farmers to ensure that whatever programs it has in place today
will remain economically viable for tomorrow. At present with a
$40 billion annual deficit this government is not living up to its
moral obligation.
Reform of agriculture programs is essential because we must
be able to defend the cost of agriculture support to taxpayers,
consumers and future generations. Support programs that
protect farmers and producers from situations beyond their
control are defensible and desirable for the maintenance of the
agricultural industry.
My colleagues in this House have proposed three major
programs that we support. I will not review those in their
entirety today but I will list them because we believe they are
defensible programs. They include an actuarially sound
federal-provincial producer funded crop insurance program.
They also include an income stabilization program that is a
whole farm program available to all sectors of the industry. The
third program that we suggest would be a trade distortion
adjustment program designed to compensate exporting
producers as a direct countermeasure to foreign subsidies.
My colleagues and I believe that if these improved programs
are targeted to those producers who need them there will be
many benefits.
A couple of them I might list are support dollars that are
strategically targeted to increase their effectiveness manifold.
Why are we just spending money in all directions where there is
not a quantifiable need? Also, by delivering support more
directly to the farmer rather than through a large bureaucracy the
money gets to where it is needed and it gets there faster.
(1300 )
These are just a few examples of how the minister can
increase his effectiveness and the effectiveness of his
department for those farmers in need of support and at the same
time reduce the burden to taxpayers. These are the kinds of
things the government should be doing. Simply making a few
internal housekeeping changes to the department is not going to
affect producers in any meaningful way.
Rather than making some of these reforms that move the
agricultural industry forward the minister is content to shuffle
his department around. The minister is adjusting his tie while
his pants are on fire. In other words, there are serious problems
in agriculture that need urgent attention and here we are in the
House today debating a recycled Tory reorganization bill.
If we look at the minister's record of action we can see why
farmers and producers from all across Canada are unhappy with
his performance. I will list a few of the minister's non
accomplishments. The minister signed the GATT agreement the
way that we forecast he would during the last election campaign.
He did not change a thing, contrary to the promises in the red ink
book.
We recognized the decision that had to be made while the
Liberals and other parties in this House were reticent to accept
the fact that Reform indicated the deal would be signed more or
less the way it was signed. The agriculture minister had to sign
the GATT deal more or less the way it had been negotiated in
spite of promises to the contrary.
Our agriculture minister bungled the grain transportation
system effectiveness last year which led to a disastrous year for
many producers. Producers are worried about the same thing
occurring this year because very little has been done to put
safeguards in the transportation system that would not allow a
reoccurrence of last year's paralyzed system.
6100
The agriculture minister is stalling on the issue of
backtracking of grain from Thunder Bay. The date has been set
back and we have not seen anything of substance that would
indicate he is even going to meet the targets he set.
Of even more concern is that the minister of agriculture has
caved in on his commitment to defend durum producers in
Canada by agreeing to export quotas to the United States when
all of the cards were in our deck and we were in the right and the
Americans were in the wrong. Yet we caved in and handicapped
our producers who were discovering a great export market for
their product where the customer had cash on the barrel head to
pay for the product.
Our agriculture minister has labelled Canadian farmers as
criminals for wanting to export their own grain to the United
States. Rather than rectifying the problem he has lashed out at
the producers he is supposed to represent. Our agriculture
minister has failed to reform the Canadian Wheat Board even
though most farmers are calling for it. Our minister of
agriculture has failed to consolidate support programs for the
agricultural industry, as I mentioned earlier in my speech. He
has failed to reduce the proportion of agriculture bureaucrats to
farmers. I believe at this time there is one bureaucrat for every
three to five farmers. It depends on where the figures come
from.
This minister talks about consulting with producers.
Certainly there is no one and no party more warm to the idea of
consulting with people than the Reform Party. As my colleague
from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre said, we have seen
consultations, we have seen studies, we have seen a lot of
producers and producer groups do an immeasurable amount of
work in putting forward proposals that once they have come to
the cabinet table get put on a shelf and nothing comes of it or the
final product is far removed from what was indicated through
the consultation process.
We would urge this minister to move beyond the consultation
process and move into the action mode where he either acts on
the judgment and wisdom of producers who have spoken in the
past or in a democratic fashion allows producers to make
decisions such as on the wheat board and the marketing of
barley.
The minister must get around to doing something. We cannot
consult forever until the industry wanes and becomes weakened
over time through inaction.
In his speech the minister talked briefly about Wayne
Gretzky. Of course being a hockey fan I perked up immediately
when he said Wayne Gretzky said he scored because he shot the
puck. My concern is that our agriculture minister is not even on
the ice. If he is on the ice he has not even gone over his blue line
yet. It is a concern that many producers share.
I hope the minister has listened to the suggestions that I have
put forward sharply. I admit I put them forward sharply because
I believe that action is required. However, they are in a spirit of
constructive criticism. My desire is that the government will
very soon stop putting forward administrative bills and finally
act to improve the agriculture industry.
(1305 )
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps I could remind the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster that the minister, wherever he is on
the ice, has such a slapshot that he can score from any position.
On his criticism of the minister with respect to the durum
quotas I wish to remind the hon. member that the cap that has
been agreed to is higher than the average of shipments to the
United States over the last number of years.
My question for this member is one with respect to the
Canadian Wheat Board and the criticism of the minister again as
to the shipping of grain into the United States. My question is
very simple. Does the member and his party support the
Canadian Wheat Board and the maintenance of the Canadian
Wheat Board?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's questions.
I want to speak briefly with regard to the durum cap that he
mentioned. It was either the minister of agriculture or his
parliamentary secretary who talked about the fast and rapid
changes in agriculture.
I agree. As I said, the minister of agriculture was very
eloquent in his presentation. Who could help but applaud
motherhood and apple pie? What we have seen with regard to
durum exports to the United States is a rather rapid increase in
those exports to the point in the last three or four years at which
we have seen a great market develop which our producers were
filling and being paid a good dollar for their product.
What the minister of agriculture has in effect done is cut those
exports in half in a growing market that could have expanded.
While the minister recognizes that there are rapid changes in
agriculture, he is stifling those very positive changes. One of the
few positive changes in agriculture he in effect axed and said we
will go back to the average, which is half of what producers
could have expected to export had the minister stood his ground,
stood up to the free trade agreement that was signed with the
Americans, which protected our producers and gave us access to
that American market.
That is an indefensible position. As the leader of the Reform
Party said, it was a cream puff move and we are appalled that the
minister would put our own producers at such a disadvantage
and allow or disallow them such a good market.
6101
With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, yes the Reform
Party is on record. We campaigned in support of the Canadian
Wheat Board. I have mentioned this in the House before. Times
are changing. When my father was a young man and delivered
his own grain he had to deliver it with horses and a wagon
20-some miles and when he got to the point of delivery, there
was only one person who would buy it. That person would offer
him a price in grade and dockage over which he had no
bargaining position whatsoever. If he did not like the deal he
had to harness his horses and drive them another day's drive
back to the farm, not a good use of time in those days when
one was really busy.
Today it is a different situation. It is 1994, with numerous
marketing options. Our concern is that the wheat board has been
hindered by politicians getting too involved. Producers are in
charge of their own marketing boards in most cases, the wheat
board is the odd man out.
Even the Ontario Wheat Board, which markets the wheat for
Ontario producers, is controlled by producers. It is only the
Canadian Wheat Board which is confined to the prairie region
that is controlled by government.
If producers control that board, they will make the right
decisions for producers and if they make a mistake, they will
correct it very quickly. If governments make a mistake-believe
me, it has made several-it will never own up to those mistakes
and will harm the producers it is supposed to be protecting.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciated the comments of the hon. member on how to better
enhance our agri-food industry.
Given the fact that Canada is rapidly becoming more
urbanized, perhaps he would comment on some of his proposals
on how a triple-E Senate would enhance farmers' representation
in Parliament.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is having a little difficulty
seeing how a triple-E Senate relates to the contents of the
member's speech but I am sure the hon. member can make it
relevant.
(1310 )
Mr. Hermanson: Actually I have no problem, Mr. Speaker,
responding to that question.
In the United States and even in Australia where there is a
triple-E senate the agricultural industry has much more clout in
decision making at a national or federal level.
If we look at states such as Iowa, Montana, South Dakota and
North Dakota where there are two elected senators representing
those states, the same number as Texas, New York and
California, we realize that our Senate which is appointed-and
we saw the type of appointments, always patronage
appointments with no responsibility to the people they are
supposed to represent-certainly is not likely to be very
interested in agriculture. It handicaps the more sparsely
populated regions of the country which tend to be agricultural
regions.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, thank you
for allowing me to speak on the debate on Bill C-49.
My colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of
agriculture, has spoken about the department's relationship in
the agri-industry. I would like to discuss another important
aspect of this bill, its recognition of agriculture and agri-food's
role in research and development.
When the department of agriculture was first established the
minister was given responsibility for experimental farm stations
whose research concentrated on crops and livestock. Since then
the role of the department has greatly expanded. The proposed
legislation simply reflects today's realities.
AAFC's research efforts are still involved with crops and
livestock but they have been taken far beyond the farm gate. The
department is now committed to helping not just farmers but
also the entire agri-food sector become more competitive here
and abroad.
The department is working on non-food uses in agricultural
products. For example, it is looking at new pharmaceuticals and
grain based fuels like ethanol. It is also trying to develop and
promote environmentally sustainable practices in agriculture
and the agri-food industry such as biological pest controls.
What does this mean for the average Canadian? Let me put it
in perspective. Many people do not realize that they owe their
daily bread quite literally to Agriculture Canada research.
Virtually all the varieties of wheat grown in this country were
developed by scientists employed by the federal government of
agriculture. They are constantly working to improve our plant
and animal varieties and because of their work we enjoy
plentiful, wholesome and certainly some of the least expensive
food in the world.
Perhaps the most spectacular success story for government
and universal research is that of rapeseed, known today as
canola. In World War II rapeseed oil was used as a marine
lubricant. Nobody thought of putting it on salad at that time.
Government scientists working with universities saw the
potential of rapeseed and worked to breed out the toxic elements
in rapeseed and create a new strain of nutritious properties.
Canola is now the most valuable single crop, worth one billion
dollars a year.
The department continues to do outstanding work in plant and
animal breeding. It is now exploiting some of the possibilities of
new techniques in genetic engineering and biotechnology.
We have all heard of the human genome project whose goal is
to identify and record every element in our DNA. On a some-
6102
what smaller scale, our agricultural scientists are trying to
decipher the DNA pattern of the common oat. AAFC's Ottawa
based plant research centre is working with Quaker Oats of
Canada and three American universities on this gene mapping
project. Once we know what the oats are made of we can make
even better ones.
In the agri-food sector innovative research is not a luxury. In
a world of rapidly evolving markets technology is giving
farmers and food companies new ways to meet their customers'
needs. New foods and food processing techniques could
stimulate economic growth and create many more jobs for
Canadians.
(1315 )
The Canadian agri-food industry must remain
technologically competitive. Continuing high quality research
is fundamental to keeping Canada a world leader in agriculture
and agri-food.
AAFC is managing to maintain a strong R and D capability
even in the face of budgetary restraint. Increasing the
government's budget for agri-food R and D may not be possible,
but at least we can keep what we have.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food has made it clear
that his strong commitment is to research. However, we need to
reallocate some of the funding. To do this, AAFC intends to
reduce costs and spend smarter. It will ensure that research
priorities are driven by market opportunities, in other words, by
doing research that pays.
A good example of this is sunola, a hardy miniature sunflower
developed by the Saskatoon Research Centre. Royalties from
certified seed sales will go back to the station's budget and it
will form more joint ventures with the private sector. The
department is working to ensure its research meets market
needs. Input from industry helps the research branch set its
priorities. Government scientists are encouraged to attend
market focus workshops. At one of these events last year
AAFC's research branch, eastern region, unveiled 13 potential
new technologies; of these 11 were judged to have great market
potential.
The agri-food industry has become an increasingly active
partner in research since Treasury Board allowed the department
to take outside money, including financial support, retention of
revenues and royalties. Industry investment in federal
government agri-food research has been moved up from $5
billion in 1989 to approximately $18 billion today.
During the past year the department has run a pilot project
called the matching investment initiative. The department
matched every dollar the private sector was willing to put into
agri-food research. Two million dollars in federal funding was
put into this pilot project this year and this amount could grow
substantially in coming years.
Obviously the industry would not make this kind of
investment unless it thought research well worth while. When
the results come in, the department does not have to waste its
time looking for a buyer, because the results are pre-sold. That
is why public-private joint ventures can turn theoretical
knowledge into practical applications, and much more quickly
and easily.
Agri-food research brings many kinds of benefits. Scientific
breakthroughs in our laboratories not only add to the store of
human knowledge but also help to raise our standard of living
both economically and environmentally.
Consider the case of ethanol. It could be a miracle fuel of the
21st century. It is based on a renewable resource, our surplus
grain stocks, and it is cleaner burning than conventional
gasoline thus less harmful to the environment. Ethanol and other
biomass fuels could be the nucleus of a whole new industry and a
tremendous economic boost for rural Canada. AAFC scientists
are helping to make this happen. Some day, thanks to them, we
may export both ethanol and ethanol technology to an energy
hungry world.
This is not a fantasy. There are promising projects in
biotechnology under way right now in AAFC's research labs
that would have been dismissed a few years back as science
fiction.
Would you believe that our molecule biologists are working
on a natural sweetener called stevioside that is 300 times more
powerful than sugar? That AAFC's scientists are using
discarded crab shells to create a truly biodegradable packing
material? Genetically engineered enzymes from the stomachs of
cows may be used some day instead of toxic chlorine for
bleaching fabrics and paper. Not to mention the custom-made
micro-organisms that AAFC is introducing for the use as natural
insecticides and fertilizers.
(1320)
Experience has shown that agriculture R and D is one of the
best investments we can make. A number of studies done in
Canada have shown that return on investment in agri-food
research can exceed 50 per cent. Findings in the U.S. show
similar high rates of return. It is an engine of growth in every
sense and we must take advantage of that opportunity.
With the help of our partners in the private sector we should
capitalize on many more such opportunities in the future.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I would love to ask a question about the Senate but I
will refrain.
The hon. member talked extensively about research and it is
an issue that is important to discuss. We also have to talk about
how to fund research. Quite often the check-off system is used
as a mechanism to garner funds for research.
6103
I would like to get the hon. member's opinion on whether
check-offs should be voluntary or whether they should be
involuntary. Does he support the concept of how the levels for
check-offs should be determined, and how they could enhance
the funding for research in agriculture?
Mr. Pickard: Mr. Speaker, it truly is important to realize how
research has affected the agricultural industry over the years.
Over the past 40 years every dollar spent on R and D has
returned many more dollars.
At the ag committee hearings just yesterday Professor
McEwen of the University of Guelph gave some really
interesting observations on research and development.
We have doubled the production per cow in the milk industry.
We produce about the same amount of milk that we did 40 years
ago with half the number of cows. In the pork industry we
produce 80 per cent more lean pork than 40 years ago using far
less feed. In the 1950s it required three kilograms of feed to
produce a dozen eggs. Today 1.5 kilograms can do the same job.
In Prince Edward Island 40 years ago an acre of land produced
some 200 bushels of potatoes. Today farmers would consider it
disastrous if they did not get 500 bushels per acre. That shows
the importance of R and D.
Where do we go with R and D expenditures and how do we
bring those forward? It was a very innovative and a very strong
move on behalf of the government to open the unique venture
between business and government in order to fund research and
development. In that way we can spend smart as was suggested
by the minister. We have to use joint ventures in order to
establish what the industry wishes to engage in, how they wish
to move along the research and development, and where we wish
to be in the future.
If industry sees research projects as very vital and worth while
it will be willing to fund part of that effort. Therefore the major
direction of funding in the future will be joint ventures between
government and industry in order to move our research and
development forward.
I really believe that new innovations, new initiatives in
research and development are very critical to our country.
Therefore in answering I would suggest that the way to fund
research and development and to move it forward is for industry
and government to move in the same direction with the same
agendas in trying to accomplish the same goals.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I did not
phrase my question clearly enough or perhaps the member was
not listening. Maybe I should have asked a question about the
Senate.
(1325 )
My question to the member on the other side was specifically
about raising funding for research through check-offs. Maybe
the member does not know what a check-off is. It is where you
take a percentage of the receipts of an agricultural product, such
as so many cents a tonne on wheat or so many cents a litre on
milk or whatever and you then designate that funding for
research.
My question was whether or not he supported the use of
check-offs to raise funding for research. If so, how should that
be administered? What should the levels be? Should those
check-offs be voluntary or involuntary? In other words, should
producers be required to participate in a check-off program or
should they have the option of participating?
Mr. Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to expand the
viewpoint of the House leader. He seems to be in a very narrow
position on research and development.
I would support a voluntary check-off system where the
industry puts in money. It has the opportunity to participate or
not in the check-off system. I do not have a problem with that.
However, it is very important to realize that research has a very
broad base and is certainly not just restricted to commodity
groups but also many other sources in the country in order to
develop science, technology, research or whatever in the future.
I tried to point out how far Canada has gone in research. We as
a nation should be very proud of where we have gone and where
we are today. Our research is certainly above and beyond that of
most countries of the world. We can sell that technology to other
countries. We have done very well. If we consider from where
we have come with wheat and the developments we have made,
we are a very fortunate nation.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is in a difficult position
because the member began speaking at 1.10 p.m, and clearly his
time would end at 1.30 p.m. I would like all members to be
aware of the fact that if questions go back and forth for another
three minutes the question will not be put today.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, just a
short question. If the member cannot answer the question about
check-offs, I wonder what his opinion is of the triple-E Senate
and how it would help the agricultural industry?
Mr. Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I think members of the Reform
Party have a major problem today in paying attention to what is
being debated. They seem intent on keeping the question of a
triple-E Senate in front of agriculture. It is really a questionable
approach to take in the House.
6104
However, I believe that the problem is not with the
government. The problem is with the opposition. Many times
I have seen the press point out how ineffective it is. That
ineffectiveness is showing right now.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
6104
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should regulate the testing,
under Sections 11(1) and (3) of the Immigration Act, of all applicants for
immigration to Canada for H.I.V., and that a positive result of an H.I.V. screening
be included, under the terms of Section 19(1) of the Immigration Act, as grounds
for the inadmissibility to Canada of the applicant for landing.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House and
address my hon. colleagues to argue this issue, although I do not
think there is much of an argument in this case.
This motion to require the regulation of HIV testing for all
applicants for immigration and the barring of those who test
positive for HIV and AIDS from immigration to Canada is really
only common sense. However, often common sense gets lost
where immigration is concerned.
Let me briefly provide some background on this issue so that
all members of this House can understand the importance of this
issue and the importance of passing this motion. I do not need to
tell anyone in this House that HIV and AIDS, and I use those
terms interchangeably for obvious reasons, is a plague whose
potential for death while having been intolerable and
heartbreaking has yet to reach its terrible potential.
Thousands of Canadians have been afflicted with this
condition. Thousands more may be. As tragic and devastating as
this disease has been in Canada, AIDS in Canada has not reached
the terrible scope that it has in many other nations, primarily
developing nations around the world. There are nations in Africa
where estimates put the rate of HIV infection at 20 per cent or
more. That is a statistic that should sadden and terrify us all.
There is no question that the prevention of AIDS has been a
priority for Canadians. We have engaged in education
campaigns, campaigns to clean up our blood supply, efforts to
prevent those with the disease from spreading it any further.
However, there is one area of control, an obvious area, that no
government has made an effort to enforce, in immigration.
The Immigration Act is clear on a couple of points. First, the
protection of Canadian health and safety must be the priority of
our policy. Second, anyone who suffers from a condition that
would place an excess demand on our social or health services
should be considered inadmissible to Canada. The language in
the Immigration Act is as simple and straightforward as that.
In order to fulfil the mandate of the Immigration Act the
immigration department conducts routine testing of all
immigrants and refugees who apply for landing in Canada. To
the credit of our immigration medical regulations it is a rigorous
test. Here are a few of the things that we currently test for:
tuberculosis, hepatitis, diabetes, debilitating physical
conditions and even syphilis. Sexually transmitted diseases are
currently tested for. Those who have them are screened out with
the exception of the most dangerous of all sexually transmitted
diseases, the one transmitted disease that is 100 per cent fatal,
AIDS.
Why? That is a good question. I have asked that question on
many occasions. Here are some of the answers I have received
from the department and from the minister. I have been told by
high ranking members of the immigration department that
HIV-AIDS is not a contagious disease.
I am not kidding. They have told me that AIDS is not
contagious. Of course they went on to explain that in their terms
contagious means something that you can catch in the air from
someone's breath or from a touch. Apparently you cannot
contract AIDS in those fashions but everyone knows that AIDS
is a highly communicable disease. To say that we need not test
immigrants for HIV because it is not contagious is either the
height of semantic stupidity or is political correctness that could
cost hundreds if not thousands of lives and untold millions of
dollars.
(1335 )
I have asked the minister if his government advocates the
testing of immigrants for AIDS. He told me that the discretion
for testing and recommending inadmissibility lies with the
doctors overseas.
He said that if doctors detect traces of AIDS then they can, if
they want to, recommend that someone not be allowed into
Canada. I am not sure what traces of AIDS means. I suspect that
the minister meant symptoms.
Needless to say, there are no symptoms of HIV. There is no
way other than through a quick, cheap and easy to administer
blood test to determine whether someone is infected. I said
cheap in my last statement because several people have
approached me asking how much this will cost. The answer is
not much, from what I understand.
6105
The AIDS test is one of the most routinely performed of all
blood screenings. Blood screenings are already performed on
all immigrants and the cost of including the HIV screening
would be negligible. Even if it were a significant cost, so what?
We are literally talking about life and death.
Should someone come to Canada infected with HIV, we the
taxpayers are looking at a minimum cost of $200,000. That is a
minimum cost to treat each patient until death. That is a cost we
cannot bear.
The risk of admitting immigrants with HIV who likely do not
even know that they are infected is one we cannot tolerate. I
have asked immigration officials who are currently working on a
new set of immigration medical inadmissability guidelines if
HIV infection will be reason enough to declare someone
inadmissible if we somehow find out that they have the disease.
The answer was no.
They told me the same sort of logic which only some
bureaucrats are capable of that the new guidelines use a five year
window of medical service consumption. If an immigrant is not
expected to use more than the average of medical services
within five years of coming to Canada, then they are admitted.
Thus, HIV is not on the list because someone with HIV could
remain relatively healthy for up to five years despite the fact that
after five years, whenever AIDS kicks in-it undoubtedly
will-the costs will be enormous and the risk before that time of
transmission is great.
Also, now that doctors around the world have recognized the
existence of HIV-2, a new strain of the disease that often takes
much longer than five years to develop into full blown AIDS,
there is even more reason to conclude that the five year cost
guidelines the ministry has come up with do not make sense, not
for this disease. That is precisely why we need the government
to take specific action on this specific disease.
Canada is currently not testing for HIV because one, it is not
contagious; two, doctors need to look for symptoms even though
there are not any; and three, it is not expensive to treat. That is
the logic coming out of the immigration system currently.
Clearly we need to jump start the immigration department
into exercising a little logic in looking after the best interests of
Canadians. This motion, when implemented into the
immigration regulations, will provide that jump start.
I simply do not understand why this government has held out
on the implementation of this measure but on my cynical days I
think there may be some special interests that have the ears of
this minister and previous ministers of immigration and that
have nixed this common sense measure.
In case my colleagues on either side of this House think that
voting for this motion would cost them votes or would raise the
ire of a significant number of people, let me reassure members
that it will not.
Let me also assure members that voting against this measure
would cost votes. Allow me to provide some evidence to back
this up. The immigration association conducted a poll over the
summer.
(1340 )
One of the questions that was asked of over 1,000 people
nationwide was whether they think people with incurable,
contagious diseases should be permitted to immigrate into
Canada. The result was 77 per cent of the respondents said they
should not. Anecdotally, a radio station poll was conducted in
Calgary just before the summer asking the same question. This
time it was dramatic, if unscientific. Ninety-four per cent said
that those with HIV should not be permitted to immigrate into
Canada.
When was the last time any issue received this kind of
consensus? That is the point. There is consensus on this issue.
Granted, I have received letters from one or two individuals with
a radical agenda who opposed my calls for HIV testing. That
means little when compared with these numbers.
I can assure my hon. colleagues this is a consensus issue.
Canadians were shocked when I brought to light the fact that
immigrants are not screened for AIDS. Now that they know, they
do support the necessary changes.
However, there is more to this than simply acting on the will
of the Canadian people. Of course, that is a significant reason in
itself for us to act. There is also the matter of doing what is best,
doing what is right and doing what makes sense.
Canadians, including the members of this House, want AIDS
eliminated in Canada. There is no one who does not want to see
this plague eliminated. Given that, why are we not taking the
most basic, the most proactive, the most obvious measure
possible to move ourselves down the road to doing away with
AIDS in Canada, preventing those who carry this disease from
coming into Canada?
It boggles the imagination. I do not know how many of my
constituents and citizens all over the country have written to me
or have personally asked me how we could as a nation be so
stupid as to not test immigrants for HIV and screen them out. My
answer has been that I do not know.
Why are we not doing it when virtually every other nation on
earth is doing it, when countries like the United States have gone
so far as to prevent those who admit to having the disease from
even entering the country as visitors?
Let me note this is not the intent of my motion. There is no
way to screen visitors for HIV. Nor would it be feasible to
6106
consider doing so. This motion would only affect those who
make an application either through the immigration or refugee
streams for permanent landing in Canada to become permanent
residents.
Let me speak a moment about the humanity of this motion. I
have been criticized by one or two of my colleagues on the
opposite side of the House for not being humanitarian, for not
being sympathetic to the cause of those who want to immigrate
into Canada and who carry HIV.
Refusing immigration to Canada to anyone for any reason is
not a pleasant task. Canada is the greatest nation on earth and
one of the most desired of destinations for those who seek a new
and better life in another land.
For these reasons Canada receives more applications for
immigration than we can accept, even though we are accepting
far too many. Canada must say no to some. There is no way
around that. We cannot take everyone who applies. Given this
fact, we as Canadians and as a government have some hard
choices to make.
We have to devise rules that will screen out some and allow
residency to others. In order to write good rules, in order to
devise a just and appropriate screening process we must
establish priorities.
In my mind the priority that should overshadow all others is
the protection of those who have already been admitted to
Canada, or were born in Canada. There is no other way. We
would be doing a grave injustice to our electorate if we were to
hold any priority above its protection and the protection of the
services that government administers for it.
(1345 )
When some people apply for immigration to Canada who have
a disease that not only threatens the safety of Canadians but is
guaranteed to place a burden on our already crumbling health
care system that is nothing short of massive, we have no choice
but to conclude that the acceptance in Canada of these people
poses a serious safety and cost threat to Canadians. Such
immigrants must be excluded so that a place can be opened up
for someone else.
Canada has no moral burden to accept everyone who applies
to come to the country. We only have a burden to provide a good
home for those whom we accept.
We as legislators have a duty to ensure that only the best, only
the most fit and only the most productive come to the country as
immigrants. We have a duty to protect our constituents. We have
a duty to enforce the preamble of the Immigration Act which
charges us to protect the health, safety and good order of
Canadian society.
Immigration policy of late has failed in that duty. People have
become disillusioned with immigration policy and with the
people who implement it. They do not think that the right people
are being allowed in and they see too many examples of good
people being excluded. That has to change.
The motion is a small step in restoring some legitimacy to the
immigration program in Canada. This is a small step toward
convincing Canadian people that their protection is really our
top priority. This is a small step toward making the immigration
program make sense.
Let us take that step. Let us pass the motion in a non-partisan
manner and improve immigration. In the process let us take
another step that is just as, if not more, important toward
preventing the spread of AIDS in Canada.
When implemented the motion would be a significant step in
the war on AIDS. No one loses. Everyone gains. The people of
Canada gain increased safety and a lowering of the burden on
our medical system. Legislators gain by voting yes on an
overwhelmingly popular initiative. The government gains by
being handed an order of the House to move on something that is
long overdue. Immigrants gain by having the status of their
health thoroughly checked.
It is a hard decision to bar someone on medical grounds from
coming to Canada as an immigrant, but so many people infected
with this disease do not know that they are infected with the
disease. While we will stop them from coming to Canada as
immigrants, at the same time we could very well be providing an
invaluable test and invaluable information to hundreds or
thousands of people who may not know they are infected.
We are not doing a disservice to those who are infected since
their fate, I am afraid, is certain. However we could
unintentionally be doing a service to those who are infected but
do not know it.
Finally, regulation is long overdue. It should be passed and it
must be passed. There is no good reason for it not to be passed. It
should not matter that the motion originated on this side of the
House. Just let it pass and we will know we have done our job for
the day and have taken a significant step forward in the
protection of our citizens and the rationalization of Canada's
embattled immigration program.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, it is clear from
our discussions that there are still a number of misconceptions
regarding persons who are HIV positive or have AIDS. Despite
extensive efforts at public education it is clear that prejudices
about this terrible disease and the virus associated with it remain
entrenched. The motion before us reflects somewhat this
unfortunate attitude.
Although I do not-and I want to make it very
clear-question my hon. colleague's intentions, I do wonder if
the motion is not based on certain mistaken and preconceived
ideas. I would like to point out that it is incorrectly assumed by
many that a positive result on an HIV test means that someone
has AIDS. It
6107
is also incorrectly assumed that AIDS can be transmitted by
simple contact. What is even worse, it is sometimes incorrectly
assumed that someone who is HIV positive has no further
contribution to make to society. We all know that these ideas are
false. Nevertheless they unfortunately continue to influence
certain public perceptions.
(1350)
Misperceptions about diseases, disabilities and afflictions are
not new to Canada. All we have to do to find evidence of this is
to examine the Immigration Act of 1952. If we examine it we
will see that the question of obligatory HIV screening of
immigration applicants has certain historical parallels.
Back in 1952 protecting public health and safety was a key
objective of legislators concerned with immigration to Canada
as it is today. This was before Canada adopted a system of
universal health insurance. The issue at hand was not a concern
over an excessive burden on the health care system.
Nevertheless the act listed various diseases and deficiencies that
in themselves constituted sufficient grounds to deny someone
admission to Canada.
The act is far from subtle. It reflected the common prejudices
of the time. It denied admission to Canada ``to idiots, imbeciles
and the feeble-minded, epileptics, lunatics and individuals who
are mute, blind or otherwise deficient from a physical point of
view''. It denied access to Canada of ``immigrants who are
dumb, blind or otherwise physically defective''. Attitudes about
disabilities were different back then.
In 1952 they did not consider an individual's capacity to live
normally with a medical condition. They did not consider the
possibility of calling on medical science to control a medical
condition.
Epilepsy, for example, was considered a ground for exclusion
even when it was controlled. When a new Immigration Act was
proclaimed in 1978 it offered, thank goodness, considerable
progress over the old act, especially with respect to medical
grounds for exclusion.
Two important changes were made. First, the criterion of
excessive demand was added. This measure was intended to
protect the universal health insurance system that had been
created nine years earlier. It was designed to protect the system
from becoming overrun by people who had not paid into the
system.
Second, the list of illnesses and deficiencies that
automatically made a person ineligible was eliminated.
Inadmissibility was now decided by medical officers. These
doctors now decided whether a person's condition represented a
threat to public health or whether their condition would present
an excessive demand on health or social services. For example,
people with epilepsy could now be admitted to Canada if their
condition was controllable.
We have made much progress since 1952 and I believe we
should continue to progress. Unfortunately it is my belief that
the motion before us today would take us back to the attitudes
that prevailed in 1952.
The motion before us would specifically make a positive HIV
test grounds for inadmissibility to Canada. This denies the
progress in attitude toward diseases that has been made over the
years. It denies the progress in medical attitudes and practice
that has also changed. Above all, it denies the progress in our
approach to AIDS that has also evolved.
Our laws and our institutions must reflect this progress. As
legislators we must take care to dispassionately analyse and
reflect on issues that are too often fraught with prejudice and
discrimination.
As dedicated legislators we must take pains to avoid imposing
our value judgments on others. We must take care to resist ill
informed and preconceived ideas. We must be very careful to
avoid being stampeded into adopting a policy that is more based
on fear than it is on fact.
I want to make our position very clear. The facts are
unambiguous. People who have tested positive for HIV can live
for many years without developing AIDS. AIDS is not a disease
that can be transmitted by simple contact. People who are HIV
positive can make a significant contribution to our society.
Many of us have worked relentlessly to destroy the myths
surrounding AIDS. Any decision that marks a step backward
threatens to compromise the considerable progress we have
made over the past few years.
Our decision on this important issue has the potential to
critically damage our international reputation for openness,
fairness and justice. We must avoid this at all cost.
(1355 )
At the same time I appreciate the concern expressed about not
imposing an excessive burden on our country's social and health
services. This is a priority for the department of immigration
and for the minister.
I am confident we can arrive at a decision that is both fair and
economical. That is why the government is reviewing the
extensive information we have on HIV. We will be announcing
our decision soon.
I am sure my hon. colleague agrees this issue deserves our
careful attention. The last time the medical provisions of the
Immigration Act were reviewed was in 1978. That is why we are
not about to rush into a hasty, ill conceived decision on this
matter. We are devoting considerable care and attention to
medical inadmissibility issues once again.
6108
I assure the hon. member that our decisions will
appropriately reflect the health care system, social justice and
economic matters that concern us today. I know the hon.
member, with his very great concern in this area, would not
want us to act hastily. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, the House and
the hon. member that we will not.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
participate in this debate on motion M-285 requesting
mandatory HIV screening for immigrants and prescribed classes
of visitors.
Section 11 of the Immigration Act states that every immigrant
and every visitor of a prescribed class shall undergo a medical
examination. The medical examination required under Section
11(1) is defined in Section 11 as including a mental
examination, a physical examination as well as a medical
assessment of records respecting the immigrant or visitor.
Section 19 lists the classes of inadmissible persons, from
terrorists and war criminals to persons convicted of an offence
committed in Canada or outside Canada and so on.
In its present form, the motion tabled by my colleague the
Reform Party member for Calgary Northeast therefore intends
to bar entry to immigrants and visitors who are HIV-positive or
have AIDS. In his opinion, this medical condition should be
listed in Section 19 of the Immigration Act.
The minister of immigration has already stated that it was
currently possible for Canada to disqualify applicants who are
H.I.V. positive or have AIDS. In 1993, 54 applications were
rejected on those grounds. A medical officer needs only suspect
such a condition for an AIDS test to be performed. If the
diagnosis is positive, then two medical officers must agree to
recommend that the application be rejected by government.
The minister told the press that the reason for refusing in such
cases is not the danger for public health but the financial burden
it would impose on Canada's health care system. This provision
would also be used to refuse admission to people with other
diseases that require very costly medical care, like some
cancers, kidney or heart diseases.
The minister himself also pointed out that it would be
important to ensure the reliability of tests in different countries
before making the tests compulsory. As for refugee claimants,
who must undergo a medical examination within 60 days of
arriving in Canada, the minister surely considers it a sensitive
issue, because he said that on one hand there are medical
considerations and on the other a real fear of persecution.
(1400)
This issue is also tied to human rights. The Department of
Justice should look at this aspect of the issue before making a
final decision on this.
Immigrant selection based on AIDS screening is a matter for
public debate. One of the arguments put forward in this debate is
that excluding HIV-positive immigrants would limit
transmission of the virus and reduce health-care costs
associated with the treatment of immigrants with AIDS.
To determine whether a specific minority of immigrants
constitutes a financial burden on the public health-care system,
we must look beyond the costs related to a particular disease.
The economic burden for a given disease must be compared with
that for other existing diseases on the basis of which immigrants
are selected or rejected. This, of course, for the purpose of
developing an immigration policy that is sensible, fair and,
above all, free from any hint of discrimination.
A group of researchers at the McGill Centre for Medicine,
Ethics and Law in Montreal recently published a study
comparing the cost of treating AIDS patients and the cost of
treating coronary disease. In their study, the researchers used a
model to project costs directly attributable to AIDS and
coronary disease over the ten-year period following the arrival
of immigrants who entered Canada in 1988.
The model has three components: first, estimating the cost of
screening immigrants for AIDS; second, estimating the cost of
treating immigrants with AIDS; and third, estimating the cost of
treating immigrants suffering from coronary disease.
The results of the study may come as a surprise to some
people. It is estimated that after ten years, the total direct cost of
HIV-related health care would be $18.5 million. Over the same
ten-year period, the total cost of treating immigrants suffering
from coronary disease would be $21.6 million.
[English]
There is no effective screening method for detecting an
increasing risk of developing clinical coronary heart disease.
However, excluding all immigrants over the age of 50 years old
would potentially save $14 million of the expected $21.6
million in cost attributable to coronary heart disease.
With regard to the reliability of the testing itself, we know it is
not 100 per cent sure. In fact, three consecutive tests are needed
to confirm positive HIV infection in a person. This process, time
consuming and costly, will fail to detect close to 10 per cent of
HIV carriers.
The study I am talking about assumed the testing to be done in
Canada so that the false results could be reduced. How could the
Canadian government possibly control the quality of testing in
other countries? A similar problem produced itself in 1981 when
6109
costly testing for intestinal parasites in prospective immigrants
were abolished partly because of the inability to control the
quality of testing in overseas laboratories.
All of these facts speak clearly against the introduction of
AIDS testing of prospective immigrants and refugees. I have not
even spoken about ethical considerations, which would seem
just as important in the discussion. After all, applying a criterion
for one disease and not for another is simply discriminatory.
Testing for AIDS would also reinforce stereotyping and
discrimination for prospective immigrants or refugees, whether
it be in this country or the country they would be forced to return
to.
(1405)
The spreading of AIDS must not be labelled as originating
from visitors or new residents to this country, but must rather be
seen in its global context. In other words, if the Canadian
government were to impose obligatory AIDS testing, how could
it justify not spending an equal amount of tax dollars on
educational programs aimed at preventing the spreading of this
disease? Prevention is the only way to control AIDS, which is
surely better than spending millions on a testing which gives
absolutely no concrete results.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will
vote against this motion.
[English]
For all these reasons the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this
motion.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for your kind consideration. I am pleased to debate the
private member's motion put forward by the member for
Calgary Northeast which in essence asks the government to
make it mandatory to test applicants for immigration to Canada
for the AIDS virus, also known as HIV.
Because of its severity, its infectious pandemic nature, the
lack of a preventive vaccine and an effective treatment, AIDS
had in the past engendered a great deal of fear among the general
public, employers, insurance companies, schools and even
health care workers.
Today the very mention of the term AIDS which once struck
fear into the hearts of almost all still frightens some. Fear can
elicit two opposite behaviours. It can compel one to take
preventive measures, which is laudable, or it can drive out the
compassion one would normally feel for those living with the
disease, which would be a tragedy.
Fear of AIDS was often based on misunderstanding or
misinformation. But as research adds to our knowledge and
understanding of HIV and as public education dispels the myths
which surround it, much of that fear has now subsided.
Compassion for the patients and the victims of the virus has
returned. I am therefore concerned that the motion before us and
the action it proposes play upon the unfounded fears of the past.
The motion could resurrect public misunderstanding about
HIV and cause undue panic and unnecessary suffering without
serving any public health good. This misunderstanding could be
directed toward immigrants even though immigrants now in
Canada are no more likely to test positive for HIV than are
Canadians born in this country.
I am concerned that we might unwittingly or wittingly stir up
resentment against immigrants without achieving any benefit to
public health and safety or to our health care system. We need to
keep things in perspective.
Medical experts do not consider HIV to be a threat to public
health or safety in the same way tuberculosis is or smallpox once
was. I have more reason to fear being in the same room with
someone who has a common cold virus than I do being near
someone who is HIV positive.
HIV cannot be transmitted through casual contact as a cold
can be. Even close contact as happens with health care workers
and their patients is a very low risk activity. I certainly will not
be infected by a chance contact with an immigrant or foreign
visitor who has HIV.
Canada's public education campaign has been successful. I
would like to think that the times when innocent children born
with HIV were barred from schools are far behind us.
The private member's motion now before us which calls for
mandatory testing of immigrants for HIV and the automatic
inadmissibility for those who test positive is truly a regressive
move. This motion would be a throwback to those dark days of
the early eighties when our understanding of AIDS was still in
its infancy.
(1410)
Does the action the member proposes make more sense than
barring those living with HIV from schools, from the workplace,
from public transportation? Does the action make more sense
than simply testing the 28 million citizens of Canada today? I
submit it does not.
If the entrance of HIV positive individuals into Canada would
pose a threat to Canadians, would the member then take the next
step and propose mandatory testing as part of the criteria for
obtaining a visitor's visa to the country? What of the open
border that separates the United States from Canada? Is the
member also proposing HIV testing at the United States-Canada
border starting today?
Is the member willing to go on record today as suggesting that
all those who enter Canada, including pilots on every return trip,
diplomats, tourists, returning Canadians, will need to obtain an
HIV clearance card first? Has the member considered the
6110
consequences of false positive screening tests in which healthy
individuals without the virus have been deemed possessing it?
Has the member imagined the emotional toll this would take on
those healthy individuals?
What about false negative tests in which actually infected
individuals show negative test results because of the lag period
it takes to develop the antibodies? Has the member imagined the
false sense of security that would result from this situation?
I wonder if the member has imagined the enormous cost it
would entail to test everyone. This is a member of the party that
pontificates daily in this House about cutting government costs.
Has the hon. member imagined the message we would be
sending our tourists and the international community if this
motion were to be adopted?
If the member's chief motive is to protect the health and
safety of Canadians his proposed course of action would fall flat
because it is not based on knowledge of how HIV is transmitted
from person to person. If the motive behind this motion is to
prevent unnecessary strain on our health care system, the hon.
member should recognize that this should be viewed in the light
of our overall medical admissibility criteria that already exists.
We would have to ask one fundamental question: Are people
carrying the AIDS virus but without the disease not different
from those suffering from the disease or any other chronic
health condition in relation to cost to the health care system?
There is a mountain of difference.
This government is not dismissing the concerns Canadians
have about AIDS, its virus or HIV testing of applicants for
immigration. It is addressing them in the most constructive and
progressive way possible, by conducting a thorough review of
all medical testing for applicants for immigration with the
benefit of the best expert advice and consultations. When that
review is complete the government will take whatever action is
necessary to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to
preserve the integrity of our health care system.
However, until the review is complete any action of the sort
proposed by the hon. member would be premature and
unwarranted. Unfounded debate and an uninformed decision by
this House would merely foster the kind of misunderstanding
and fear about HIV that we should be working to overcome. We
must refuse to assist wittingly or unwittingly in perpetrating the
myths and fears that too often harden people's hearts and make
outcasts of those who most need our human compassion and
understanding. We should formulate public policy based on fact
not fear, on evidence not speculation, on reason not political
propaganda.
I know the hon. member opposite who introduced this motion
would like to share the sentiment of this government and that of
this member for Winnipeg North.
In conclusion, I would request that the member in all sincerity
withdraw his motion until such time as we have all the scientific
evidence we need to make a reasoned public health policy that
Canadians want.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell this
House about one of my heroes. This hero is Joseph Lister. Joseph
Lister was the founder of antiseptic surgery and a pioneer in
preventive medicine. He was a surgeon of some note in
Edinburgh. Lister noted that in his surgical suite 50 per cent of
the people on whom he performed amputations died. They
passed on of an illness called sepsis. Sepsis was something that
Lister did not understand.
(1415)
Lister noted that carbolic acid seemed to make a difference in
the cleanliness of the wound after he was done. That carbolic
acid and Lister's thoughts about microbes, the brand new
microscope that was just available and Louis Pasteur's work on
pasteurization went together to form the basis of scientific
medicine.
In a very short period of time in his life, the mortality from
amputations went from 45 to 50 per cent down to 5 per cent. It is
very interesting that Lister had his thoughts and ideas
denigrated by much of the medical community when he first
presented them.
This surgeon who is now looked on as the benchmark of
surgical treatment was laughed at. During his lifetime he was
able to see matters change and he became the founder of modern
antiseptic surgery.
I also would like to say that modern medicine can be
criticized. Modern medicine has had an effect on another type of
mortality, infant mortality. Statistics show that in 1930 in
Canada 89 of 1,000 babies died. In 1991 but six of 1,000 babies
died.
The reason I brought this up is that modern medicine
undergoes evolution and change. Thought processes alter and
move. I have listened today to rather eloquent arguments for
how we should ignore medical information. I stand here to say
that we do so at our peril.
My good associate for Calgary Northeast believes that
immigrants with AIDS should be inadmissible to Canada. I want
to talk about the other medical reasons we do not admit
immigrants to Canada.
I am going to compare the diseases that we do not allow
people in for to HIV. One is venereal disease, which is
discovered by a blood test. It is not contagious. It is infectious
by sexual contact. It is treatable and is seldom fatal if treated. It
is
6111
not visible except in advanced stages. It is cheap to treat with
two medicines, amoxicyllin and probenecid. But you do not
come into Canada if you have VD.
Another disease is hepatitis. It is found by a blood test. It is
infectious by blood to blood contact. That is, the nurse who
happens to be pricked in the finger when she has taken blood
from a person with hepatitis can get hepatitis. It is not visible
unless the person is jaundiced or yellow. It can be fatal in some
cases. It is difficult to treat at moderate cost.
Another disease is tuberculosis. It is discovered by a Mantoux
test or a scratch on the skin. It is infectious. In the true sense of
word it is contagious by cough or sputum. It is treatable, rarely
fatal. It is fairly inexpensive to treat as well.
(1420 )
If an immigrant has any one of these diseases he or she is
inadmissible. I am sorry, they cannot be admitted to Canada.
What other diseases would cause denial of entry into Canada?
Parasites, leprosy, and the list goes on.
I would like to quote the parliamentary secretary to the
minister from Hansard some time ago. This is an interesting
quotation on the same subject. ``I also want to talk about
something the hon. member raised with regard to the fact that
people coming into Canada are not tested for HIV and that the
minister promised to do something about it four weeks ago. The
hon. member should know-I thought he knew, maybe he does
not know that the enabling legislation and regulation on medical
matters under this department's aegis has remained unchanged
for 40 years''. She went on to say: ``There should not be
precipitous moves on an issue like this. Be careful. Go at it
slowly. Do not move quickly''.
In my view if this member had not brought this issue forward
it probably would have been hidden under another 40 years of
deadwood and backwoods thinking.
Where is HIV if we compare it to the other illnesses that do
not allow people to enter Canada? How does it stack up in terms
of the criteria I mentioned before? It is found by a blood test. It
is contagious by blood to blood contact. Notice that I said blood
to blood contact. It is not visible except in very advanced cases.
It is fatal and has no cure. It is very expensive to treat. Various
comments have been made here today about the cost. The best
estimates I have are costs that range between $50,000 and
$250,000 for an individual who has the disease advanced enough
to require direct medical care.
How much does venereal disease cost to treat? About $25 for
the test, $50 for the medicine, $100 for a doctor's visit, $25 for a
retest, $50 for the clinic and the pharmacy, in total about $250.
TB is estimated at $1,105. Not a good comparison there.
Why is HIV different from other diseases? I want to be very
frank about this. HIV is different because the medical issue has
been pushed aside by the human rights issue. This disease is not
being treated strictly as a medical issue, it is being treated as a
human rights issue.
When the disease was first discovered medical people called
it gay men's disease. Why? Because it was discovered to be
primarily a disease of gay men. There was an outcry that would
not allow the medical profession to call it what it was. Change
the name. As the disease became better known and better
understood it was found to be more common in the Haitian
community. There was an outcry from the Haitian community.
``You cannot discriminate against the Haitian community
because it is more common in our citizens. You cannot mention
that''. But medical practitioners must mention that. How could
they hide their heads in the sand and say that it does not exist?
We know that intravenous drug users often end up with HIV.
We know that the sad and sorry hemophiliacs who must have
blood products given to them often end up with the disease. We
know that those poor unfortunates who contact it in surgery and
other blood to blood contact also get the disease.
Lister would have looked at this issue and thought that
Canadians had gone mad. We understand the source. We
understand the mechanism. We understand the diagnosis. We
know the cost and we know the risk.
(1425 )
I have treated people for illness all my adult life. Common
sense tells me to deny entrance to those who have the other
diseases. Common sense tells me to deny entrance to Canada for
those who have AIDS.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, the motion before the House today says that the
Immigration Act should require all prospective immigrants to
be tested for HIV and include a positive result as grounds for
inadmissibility.
The motion seems quite straightforward, but it raises a
multitude of questions, and as we analyze these questions, the
subject becomes very complex indeed. The first question is why
in some cases, as you know, we already screen prospective
immigrants for HIV, in accordance with existing guidelines.
Applicants who test positive may be considered inadmissible on
medical grounds. We must therefore ask ourselves why our
current practice is not acceptable, if such is the case.
At the very least, we should take a good look at the current
policy on inadmissibility on medical grounds. By law, all
immigrants and certain visitors shall produce their medical
records and undergo a medical examination. The legislation
does not list diseases that justify inadmissibility on medical
grounds. The simple fact of having a disease does not in itself
constitute grounds for refusal under the Act.
Grounds for refusal tend to be based on the consequences, that
admitting an individual would have on Canada, whatever the
nature of his medical problems.
6112
[English]
The act requires medical officers to determine inadmissible
those applicants who would likely pose a threat to public health
or safety or create excessive demands on Canada's health or
social services.
While there is much that we do not know or understand about
HIV, expert medical opinion does agree on one thing: A person
with HIV does not represent a threat to public health or safety
merely because of the infection. I would hope that most
Canadians understand by now that one does not get HIV or AIDS
just by being around someone who tests HIV positive.
Refusing admission to applicants with HIV would have to be
based on any excessive demand they might place on health or
social services. This requires a judgment to be made in each
individual case. It seems to me that the question of whether or
not a person with any specific illness could create an excessive
demand depends on many factors: the severity of the illness,
how far it has advanced, prognosis for recovery or deterioration,
the standard treatment, and so on. Making that kind of
assessment requires a great deal of expertise applied on a case
by case basis.
Members of this House should recognize that the motion we
are looking at today calls for a significant departure from
current policy and practice. It singles out a specific disease. It
asks that we name that disease in the act and it suggests that the
act should automatically exclude people with that disease
without any reference to an expert medical assessment of
consequences.
[Translation]
For the time being, I will not ask whether we know enough
about HIV to adopt such measures. I merely want to point out
that it would be unprecedented in the recent history of Canadian
immigration. This measure should not be adopted without
serious study and it should not be adopted until its potential
benefits, if any, can be properly evaluated.
The physician is not obliged to test for HIV, either by the Act
or the regulations, but he may do so if he has reason to believe
that the virus may be present.
If an applicant's medical records or a medical examination
point to the possibility of HIV infection or even a health
condition that causes the physician some concern, the latter may
order further testing to make a better assessment of the
individual's condition.
[English]
As things stand now, testing for HIV does take place when
there is reason to do so. Under current guidelines immigrant
applicants found to be HIV positive are usually considered to
represent an excessive demand on our health and social services.
They are deemed inadmissible.
The point I want to make is not to denigrate the motion. The
point is we do have an ability now to look at this and we should
examine whether our current legislation is satisfactory. If it is
not, we should examine this further.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 2.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)