37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 032
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 20, 2001
1000
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Member for Edmonton-Strathcona
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1005
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1010
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-14. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
| CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-305. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1015
| BROADCASTING ACT AND INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-306. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| PETITIONS
|
| Mining Industry
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Violence
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Transportation
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1020
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1025
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Agriculture
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1030
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1035
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1040
| The Speaker |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1045
1050
1055
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1100
1105
1110
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1115
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1120
1125
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1130
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
1135
1140
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1145
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1150
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1155
1200
1205
1210
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1215
1220
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
1225
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1230
1235
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1240
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1245
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. David Anderson |
1305
1310
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
1315
1320
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1325
1330
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1335
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
1340
1345
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1350
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| SPINAL CORD RESEARCH
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1400
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. James Moore |
| BASKETBALL
|
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| POTATO INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
| HOCKEY
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
1405
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| RADIO JEUNESSE
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
1410
| CANADA-FRANCE INTERPARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| AIRPORTS
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| CANADIAN POLICE ASSOCIATION
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| GREG GATENBY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1415
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1425
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| TRADE
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| LUMBER
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1435
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1440
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| LUMBER
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES COMMUNITIES
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1445
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1450
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| COLOMBIA
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
1455
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. David Anderson |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1500
| Mr. David Anderson |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Official Report
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| The Speaker |
1510
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Agriculture
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1515
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
1520
| Mr. Scott Reid |
1525
1530
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
1535
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1540
1545
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1550
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1555
1600
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1605
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1610
1615
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1620
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
1625
1630
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1635
1640
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1645
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1650
1655
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1700
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1705
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
1710
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
1715
| Division on amendment deferred
|
| Allotted Day—Lumber
|
1750
(Division 18)
| Amendment agreed to
|
(Division 19)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Allotted Day—Agriculture
|
| Motion
|
(Division 20)
| Amendment negatived
|
1805
(Division 21)
| Motion negatived
|
| SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A)
|
| Concurrence in Vote 15a—Public Works and Government
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 1
|
(Division 22)
| Motion No. 1 agreed to
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1a—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 6
|
(Division 27)
| Concurrence in Vote 5a—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 7
|
(Division 28)
| Concurrence in Vote 10a—Foreign Affairs and International
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 8
|
(Division 29)
| Concurrence in Vote 1a—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 9
|
(Division 30)
| Concurrence in Vote 5a—Canadian Heritage
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 10
|
(Division 31)
| Concurrence in Vote 1a—Privy Council
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 11
|
(Division 32)
| Motions Nos. 6 to 11 inclusive agreed to
|
| Concurrence in Vote 1a—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 2
|
(Division 23)
| Concurrence in Vote 5a—Justice
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 3
|
(Division 24)
| Concurrence in Vote 5a—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 4
|
(Division 25)
| Concurrence in Vote 15a—Indian Affairs and Northern
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion No. 5
|
(Division 26)
| Motions Nos. 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion for concurrence
|
1810
(Division 33)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Bill C-20. First reading
|
| Bill C-20. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Bill C-20. Third reading
|
| (Motion agreed to)
|
| INTERIM SUPPLY
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion for concurrence
|
1815
| Bill C-21. First reading
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Bill C-21. Second reading
|
| Motion agreed to
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Bill C-21. Motion for concurrence
|
1820
| Third reading
|
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
1830
(Division 34)
| (Motion agreed to)
|
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Income Tax Act
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
(Division 35)
| Motion agreed to
|
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of document
|
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1835
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
|
| Bill C-217. Second reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1840
1845
1850
1855
| Mr. John Maloney |
1900
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1905
1910
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1915
1920
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1925
1930
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1935
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 032
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 20, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR EDMONTON-STRATHCONA
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have been doing a lot of
soul-searching over the past three days and would like to share
my thoughts.
I came to Canada as a baby, fleeing Idi Amin's Uganda in the
arms of my parents. It was their dream to live in a great and
free democracy. Canada is their promised land.
Four years ago, I became the first Muslim elected to Canada's
parliament and one of the first refugees. I am very proud of
this honour, not just to be chosen by the people of
Edmonton—Strathcona and not just to serve in this great
institution, but because I knew that my being elected as an MP
was the last milestone in my family's road from tyranny to
freedom, the final destination in my people's journey from being
refugees who belong nowhere to being full citizens of Canada, the
greatest country in the world.
That is why the events of the last few days have been so
hurtful.
On Saturday, my partner and I opened up a new business, a cafe
that employs a dozen young people in the heart of Edmonton.
However my assistant had booked me on a radio show at the same
time. He tried to call me at the cafe to let me know when I was
to appear on the show but he could not reach me. With only a few
minutes left until air time, he panicked and did the radio
interview himself pretending to be me without my knowledge or
consent.
It was a bad decision, an error in judgment, made in the stress
of the moment. It has never happened before and it will never
happen again. It was wrong.
Right after the show, my assistant drove to the cafe and told me
what he had done. Shortly after that, the radio station phoned
me and asked me about the interview. At first I covered for my
assistant, a man who has competently and loyally worked for me
and our constituency from the beginning.
I told the producer that it was actually me on the radio. I
lied.
1005
It was wrong for my assistant to appear on the radio claiming to
be me and it was wrong for me to cover that up.
My assistant and I have since telephoned the show to apologize
and my assistant has resigned. He is sorry for pretending to be
me. I am sorry for trying to gloss over his error.
I have already apologized to Peter Warren, the host of the show,
and to all of his listeners across Canada. Today, Mr. Speaker, I
would like to offer to you, as the Speaker of this legislature
and my friend, my apologies for not living up to the standards of
the House.
To my fellow MPs, I offer my regrets for not living up to their
standards of integrity. I apologize for embarrassing them. I
pledge my loyalty again to my leader and the whip, who have dealt
with me firmly, yet compassionately.
To the people of Edmonton—Strathcona, I offer my sincere
apologies for my momentary lapse in judgment. It has been a
unique honour to work for my constituents in parliament and to
serve them in the riding. I hope they will continue to look at
me and judge me by the sum of my words and deeds and not by this
one error.
More than anyone, I want to address my parents, Nizar and Razia
Jaffer, who have been hurt the most by my mistake. For 30 years
they have put their own interests and wishes aside to give
everything they had to my brother and me. I would not have been
able to get here to Canada without them. I would not have been
able to get to parliament without them. All of my achievements
have been because of their love and devotion. I am sorry I let
them down. More than anything, that has hurt these last few
days.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to clear the air.
Let me close by pledging to continue doing in years ahead what I
have done for the past four years, to serve the people of
Edmonton—Strathcona as best I can and, just as important, to
live up to my parents' example as best I can.
The Speaker: I am sure all hon. members appreciate the
kind words of the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona. I am
sure that his parents and his electors will be very proud of him.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not want to be seen or in any way derogate from the rather
complete and forthright way in which this matter has been dealt
with by the hon. member, but it occurs to me that in the facts as
I have heard them there was a decision and an act by another
individual, the staffer of the hon. member, who made a decision
to do something which I believe would be contrary to the rules of
the House and could constitute and be seen as contempt.
I would suggest that although there is probably a will to put
closure to this, it having been addressed well by the hon.
member, it seems to me that the staffer involved should be
providing a written apology to the House for the actions or
decisions that he made, if I have understood the facts properly.
It would be my view that the matter should not close until that
individual has acknowledged the error that he appears to have
made. I would like to suggest that an apology should come from
that person.
In any event, I wanted that to show on the record, having heard
all of the facts. Again I do not want it to derogate at all from
the rather fulsome and complete way that the hon. member has
dealt with this today.
1010
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
think it is time to put closure to this.
The Speaker: I agree.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern
Development and Natural Resources relating to Bill C-4, an act to
establish a foundation to fund sustainable development
technology. It was agreed on Thursday, March 15, 2001 to report
it with amendments.
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs with regard to the third report of the committee entitled
“Procurement Study”, which was presented to the House on June
14, 2000 during the second session of the 36th parliament.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee requests that the government provide a comprehensive
response to this report.
* * *
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-19, an act to amend the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-305, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (inventory of brownfields).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to introduce a
bill, which is the first step of what I intend to be a three
stage process, aimed at identifying, assessing and remediating
what are known as brownfields. The term brownfields refers to
industrial properties which lie vacant or neglected due to
concerns of environmental contamination.
The bill will amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to
expand the existing registry so that any member of the public can
report suspected contaminated sites with the express purpose of
building an easily accessible national registry of brownfields.
The bill would also allow the federal government, together with
provincial, municipal and private partnerships, to assist with the
often prohibitive costs of environmental assessments.
To solve a problem one first has to identify the problem.
Ultimately, I see this is as a three stage process:
identification, assessment and remediation. The bill addresses
the first two stages directly. First, we identify the extent of
the brownfields nationally. Once we know where these sites are,
we can begin to assess the costs of the clean up.
Having this information open and available to all levels of
government and private enterprise will foster co-operative and
innovative solutions. The advantages of the remediation of
brownfields are obvious: job growth, revitalization of our
downtown cores and reversal of urban sprawl, as well as the clean
up of potentially environmental hazardous sites right in our own
back yards.
The bill is a small but crucial step toward reclaiming these
commercially useful sites, revitalizing our city centres and
combating urban sprawl.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1015
[Translation]
BROADCASTING ACT AND INCOME TAX ACT
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-306, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and
the Income Tax Act (Closed-captioned Programming).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly honoured today to introduce
this bill which requires broadcasters to provide closed
captioning for their video programming by September 1, 2003. It
also, generally speaking, allows income tax deductions to
broadcasters for their purchase of closed captioning technology.
I would like to remind hon. members that over 10% of Quebecers
and Canadians have hearing problems and that this House
has passed a motion recognizing the importance for the public
and private sectors to provide deaf and hard-of-hearing persons
with the tools required for them to take their place in an
increasingly communications-oriented world.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my honour pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition
signed by residents of the city of Val-d'Or and the Vallée-de-l'Or
RCM concerning the Sigma-Lamaque and Beaufor mines.
The petitioners call upon parliament to put in place a financial
assistance program for the mines with a thin capitalization
structure in Quebec's resource regions and call upon government
to ease up on the rules of existing programs and ensure they are
used in the resource regions.
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table on behalf of my constituents a
petition that calls upon the House to amend and repeal section
13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act dealing with rural route
mail couriers. I am pleased to present the petition on their
behalf.
VIOLENCE
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition
this morning organized by a constituent of mine, Mr. Cran
Campbell.
The petition deals with violent material on the Internet and on
interactive video and computer games. It addresses the problems
associated with that material and the negative impact it has on
our children. It brings to the fore the notion that the term
obscenity in the criminal code has a linkage between sex and
violence. It suggests that the linkage should be eliminated and
that we should be able to deal with the notion of violence alone.
The petitioners call upon parliament to enact appropriate
legislation to protect our children from these violent videos.
CANADA POST
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition representing rural
route mail couriers of Canada who feel they have not been allowed
to bargain collectively in order to improve their wages and
working conditions. They are asking parliament to repeal section
13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition that has attracted a great deal of
attention in the greater Peterborough area. The petitioners are
people who are interested in Canada fulfilling its commitments to
the Kyoto protocol by developing sustainable transportation, such
as rail services.
They point out that a commuter rail service running between
Peterborough and Toronto would be environmentally and otherwise
beneficial. This rail service would result in dramatic cost
savings to society through reduced car usage and accidents. They
point out that the commuter service would be economically
beneficial by enhancing the employment mobility of Peterborough
area residents and make the greater Peterborough area more
accessible to students and tourists.
The petitioners call upon parliament to authorize the
recommencement of a VIA service between Peterborough and Toronto.
I know I am not supposed to endorse petitions, but I would like
to say that the people of Peterborough are on the right track
with this one.
1020
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition is from people who are concerned about children
in Iraq. They call upon parliament to accept the recommendations
of the standing committee on foreign affairs for the lifting of
sanctions and the establishment of a diplomatic presence in
Baghdad.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
AGRICULTURE
The Speaker: The Chair has received an application for an
emergency debate from the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I contacted your
office this morning. I wanted to bring this matter forward in a
timely fashion because there is a great urgency.
Farmers in Prince Edward Island are currently facing a very
devastating decision. They must decide within the next few weeks
whether to plant their potato crops given the situation that
exists in terms of the market that would be there for them in the
United States.
It is important, as you, Mr. Speaker, would be quick to agree,
that members of parliament be given the opportunity to express
their concern and also to urge the government to act in a
significant way. We know that there has been a compensation
package offered to Prince Edward Island potato farmers in the
range of $14.1 million. This was less than half of the amount of
money that the Prince Edward Island government has put into this
issue already itself. It was much lower than the amount that
they were requesting.
I will put this situation into perspective as to the seriousness
of the issue itself. Canada and Prince Edward Island agree that
approximately 6.3 million cwt. of potatoes in storage currently
is surplus resulting from the closed U.S. border, restricted
shipments to Canada and the price protection in the rest of
Canada. What Prince Edward Island did in absorbing this loss was
to protect the rest of the potato market for the entire country
at a huge expense to those individual farmers.
To summarize, United States protectionism is devastating the
Prince Edward Island potato industry. The hurt that was suffered
by the island is testament to the fact that this problem is
Canada-wide, but it is being absorbed by a single province in
this instance. Both short term economic and long term financial
market re-entry needs must be addressed in the package.
I would urge the Chair to accept this application given the
urgency, particularly the urgency pertaining to the necessity for
farmers to decide whether to reinvest in their farms and to put
potatoes in the ground for the coming season. I stress again
that the border is currently not open for farmers to assess
whether they should make this reinvestment.
The Speaker: The Chair has certainly read the letter
that was forwarded by the hon. member and has heard his remarks
today. I note that the subject of the debate today, an
opposition day, is in fact agriculture as chosen by the official
opposition. The motion will be put to the House in a few
minutes.
In the circumstances, it would be premature for the Chair to
allow this application at this time. We should hear how the
debate progresses today. The issue may be discussed during the
debate, as I suspect it might be. If the hon. member feels that
perhaps the issue has not received a reasonable airing, he could
bring the application before the House on another occasion. At
this time I will say no.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Speaker: Before I call orders of the day, since
today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending
March 31, 2001, the House will go through the usual procedures to
consider and dispose of the supply bills.
[Translation]
In keeping with recent practice, do hon. members agree to have
the bills distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: I wish to inform the House of a translation error
in today's opposition motion. A revised copy is available at
the table.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1025
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance) moved:
That this House call on the
government to authorize an additional $400 million in
emergency assistance for Canadian farm families (over and
above all agriculture programs announced or in place to
date), to be paid out in 2001, and that the confidence
convention need not apply to this motion.
Debate arose thereon.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wish to raise an issue before the House on the acceptability and
admissibility of the motion.
The motion reads:
That this House call on the government to authorize an additional
$400 million in emergency assistance for Canadian farm families
(over and above all agriculture programs announced or in place to
date), to be paid out in 2001—
It is noteworthy, from a procedural point of view, that the
motion does not urge the government. It directs the government
to do the action in question. The motion does not say that the
House ask the government to consider the advisability of spending
$400 million. It calls on the government to authorize such an
expenditure. I will get to both of those terms in a moment.
In other words, I will argue with the Chair that the motion
directs the government to make such an expenditure.
Standing Order 79(1) deals very clearly with this kind of
situation. It states:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address
or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue,
or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first
recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General
in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is
proposed.
There is no recommendation for the motion from the governor in
council which purports to direct the government to make an
expenditure. It is, therefore, in my estimation, out of order.
Marleau and Montpetit, at page 901, indicate how such a motion
should be worded. It says:
As an alternative to a bill which might require a royal
recommendation obtained only by a Minister, a private Member may
choose to move a motion proposing the expenditure of public
funds, provided that the terms of the motion only suggest this
course of action to the government without ordering or requiring
it to do so.
The motion uses extremely definitive language. It does not
suggest something to the government. When one calls upon someone
to do something, one is not thinking about it or making a
suggestion, one is telling or directing someone to do it.
Beauchesne's 6th edition, at page 186, goes into more detail.
Citation 616 states:
Motions purporting to give the Government a direct order to do a
thing which requires the expenditure of money are out of order.
Citation 617 states:
Abstract motions should use the words, “that the Government
consider the advisability of...”
Number (2) of citation 617 states:
When these words are used, it leaves the Government free, after
considering the advisability of doing something, to come to the
conclusion that it should not do so. There would not, therefore,
necessarily be an expenditure of public money involved.
In other words, if one is ordering the government to do
something, it causes the expenditure, and if the government does
not have the tools to refuse to do that thing, then it is ordered
and therefore it requires royal recommendation.
Number (3) of citation 617 states:
An abstract motion does not finally bind the House to make the
grant, and it imposes upon the Government the responsibility of
either accepting or rejecting the recommendation.
1030
This motion is not at all abstract. It specifies an amount of
money. It specifies the recipient. It specifies what is not to
be included in the calculation of the amount. It specifies a
time limit by which the payment is to be made. All of those
elements, not just one or just some, are there. It does not say
to the government to go away and think about it or consider it,
it says to do it. This is a direct violation of Standing Order
79.
I would like to draw a couple more things to the attention of
the Chair. Page 213 of the 6th edition of Beauchesne's, which
refers to the royal recommendation, states:
The recommendation precedes every grant of money, the consent may
be given at any stage before final passage, and is always
necessary in matters involving the rights of the Crown, its
patronage, its property or its prerogatives.
This comes from Bourinot, page 413.
You will notice as well, Mr. Speaker, that the motion in
question states “That this House call on the government”. I
explained extensively why I do not think call satisfies the
criteria. However the word authorize is in the motion. That is
a word utilized in the estimates, estimates that are tabled in
the House pursuant not only to a royal recommendation but signed
by the Governor General and we rise in the House to acknowledge
the royal recommendation which was made.
Page 1-2 of the main estimates, entitled “The Expenditure Plan
Overview”, states:
That is the amount in question. In other words, that language
is in the estimate process with which we deal.
Finally, Mr. Speaker might be tempted to say that it has
happened on a couple of occasions that the words “call upon the
government” have been inserted in a motion put before the House
by the opposition. Should the Speaker be tempted to say that
that would constitute the precedent on which the Chair might want
to rule that the motion is in order, I would suggest that it does
no such thing.
First, there may have been two or three such motions in the
past. Prior to that they were never accepted. Because no one
has challenged him on a point of order in the past, the Chair did
not rule on the acceptability of those motions. Therefore, he
was not called upon to rule them in order. I believe that this
is the first opportunity the Chair has been called upon to do so
by a member of the House. I would ask the Chair to consider
that particular proposition as well.
Those are points that I wanted to make to the Chair this
morning. The motion calls upon the government to authorize an
expenditure. It specifies when the expenditure is to be made,
who the recipient will be, the timeframe on which to give it and
what is to count and not to count as part of that expenditure.
In my opinion, this is not in order.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, first, to quote the hon. House leader, he knows this is
not a point of order. It is a nice try but it is not a point of
order and he knows that full well.
It is also cutting into debate time. I hope at the end of this
discussion that this time could be added on to the allotted day
because farmers want this issue debated, they want it debated in
full and they want it debated today.
1035
I point out in Marleau and Montpetit on page 724, under the
consideration of opposition motion, it says:
Members in opposition to the government may propose motions for
debate on any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the
Parliament of Canada, as well as on committee reports concerning
Estimates.
We could have a debate today about the estimates and how the
government has failed to contribute the necessary funds to deal
with the farm crisis. Instead we chose a motion which is
obviously in order and has been tabled with the required notice
ahead of time.
It is also important to note that our motion does not direct the
government to a course of action. It does not order the
government to do a certain thing. It does not compel it to a
certain course of action. However, it does call on the
government, as are farmers across the country, to a course of
action that will direct the government to help out with the farm
crisis. So it is a plea.
It calls on the government to address that concern. I hope
it will enter into the debate in such a way that by the end of it
the government will understand the severity of the crisis and
will vote in favour of the motion.
Under Beauchesne's parliamentary rules, page 256, paragraph 923,
with respect to opposition day motions, states:
The Opposition prerogative is very broad in the use of the
allotted day and ought not to be interfered with—
The government House leader, while he has an interesting
discussion, should perhaps change his late night reading to
something more entertaining than the standing orders because he
knows full well his is not a point of order.
I did not have notice of this. It would have been interesting
to go back to see what the government House leader had in some of
his opposition day motions when he sat on this side of the House.
He called on the government of the day to spend money freely,
widely, indiscriminately and at will, especially his. I am just
pointing out again that is not what this is. It is very specific
to a particular crisis and is calling on the government.
For clarity, there are two parts to this motion. The second
part has to do with the confidence measure. Just to be clear,
that is what we call a free vote. That means the government will
not rise or fall on this debate. It is a free vote. We can have
a debate on this and the House can even decide in favour of this
motion without the government falling.
The Speaker: The hon. member is straying a little off the
point. I do not think the government House leader was arguing
that the motion was out of order because of anything it said
about the confidence convention, words which I know are in the
motion I put to the House a minute ago. The hon. member might
simply be wading into a morass if he brings that subject up.
Might I suggest we deal with the admissibility of the amendment
on the grounds raised by the government House leader, rather than
going off. Frankly, the Chair is not concerned beyond anything
the government House leader might have raised. That is why I
would like to hear on that point and nothing else.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the
confidence measure, not to belabour that, is in order as it says
in Beauchesne's. The first part is also in order because it does
not direct the government or order the government. It would have
been out of order if, for example, we had just said that the
House authorize or the House direct the government to spend
money, or change the budget or any such thing. It does not do
that.
It calls on the government to address this serious crisis. It
calls on the government to react to this particular proposal,
which is very precise. It is completely in order. We look
forward to the debate which I suggest should be starting
immediately.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, to speak very briefly in support of the submission
put forward by my learned friend the House leader for the
official opposition, this matter when viewed in the whole does
not order the government to do something. It calls upon the
government to exercise its discretion and increase spending with
respect to farming.
The Speaker has always held, as set out in both Beauchesne's and
Marleau and Montpetit, that broad discretion should be used when
interpreting these types of motions. It would be unduly unfair
for this motion to be ruled out of order.
1040
I suggest that it is very much an attempt by the government
House leader to eat into the debate time. This can be
interpreted as not only an insult to the official opposition and
members of the opposition who support this, but also a swipe at
farmers who are very much in need and very much interested in
seeing their issue aired in a public way in this House.
I suggest that the submissions of the government House leader do
not rule this motion out of order, that we should get on with the
debate so we can talk about the real issue today, and that is how
the government is underfunding farmers in this country.
The Speaker: The Chair thanks all hon. members who
have made contributions to this debate, the House leader for the
official opposition, the government House leader and the member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
I start by citing to hon. members page 724 of Marleau and
Montpetit:
Members in opposition to the government may propose motions for
debate on any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the
Parliament of Canada, as well as on committee reports concerning
Estimates. The Standing Orders give Members a very wide scope in
proposing opposition motions on Supply days and, unless the
motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular (e.g., where the
procedural aspect is not open to reasonable argument), the Chair
does not intervene.
Notwithstanding the very able arguments of the government House
leader, the Chair has reviewed this motion and I will allow
myself to fall into the temptation that the government House
leader warned me against by citing to the House past practice in
respect of this matter.
On October 25, 1999, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake
proposed a motion to the House:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to
defend the interest of Canadian farmers from the unfair subsidies
and unfair trading practices by foreign countries...accordingly,
the government should immediately ensure that emergency
compensation is delivered to farmers—
On March 2, 2000, the hon. member for Halifax moved:
That this House calls upon the government to stand up for the
Canadian value of universal public health care by announcing
within one week of the passage of this motion a substantial and
sustained increase in cash transfers for health—
On March 20, 2000, the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill moved:
That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the
Canada health and social transfer by $1.5 billion—
There is ample precedent for these kinds of motions to be moved
in the House. The Chair, in considering these motions,
admittedly heard no argument on the admissibility of the motions.
However, in putting any motion to the House, the Chair reviews
its procedural acceptability, and unless the Chair feels that the
motion is within the rules and the precedents of the House, the
Chair will decline to put the motion and may instruct hon.
members that amendments are required, and that consultations are
an ongoing feature of submissions of motions and amendments in
the House.
As hon. members know, if they submit an amendment that in the
opinion of the staff of the House working under the Speaker's
direction feel is inappropriate or out of order, suggestions are
made to improve the wording or change the wording to bring it
within the practices of the House.
While the hon. government House leader feels it might be falling
into temptation on my part to rely on these past practices, the
fact is they have been allowed in the past because the Chair
took the view that they were in order. It might have been urged
otherwise, but I suspect the ruling then would have been the same
as it is today, and that is, that this motion is in fact in
order. Notwithstanding the very able arguments of the hon.
government House leader, we will proceed with the debate.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, thank you for your prudent ruling. I
am sure that members of all parties who individually supported
your ascendancy to Chair are in fact congratulating themselves
for their good judgment and your good judgment. We appreciate
that.
Farming is said by some to be a way of life but it is also a
business. No one knows better than Canadian farm families today
that the price of this business has often been bankruptcy. Over
the past year prices have plummeted. Farmers are facing the
prospect of not being able to put seed into the ground. They are
facing many challenges.
1045
Let me say from the outset and make it very clear that I believe
Canadian farmers are as innovative, as hardworking and as
entrepreneurial as any in the world. In fact, Canadian farmers
can take on the world and feed the world and do it on a
competitive basis.
Canadian farmers believe this too, but the fact of the matter is
that our farmers are competing in an artificial field, competing
against subsidies in the United States and in Europe that are
artificially high. Everything is skewed against our farmers.
They are asking for the playing field to be levelled. In fact,
because of the field not being level and because of the federal
government's neglect, it is as if the federal government has tied
the hands of our farmers and hobbled their feet. It is as if the
government has put a 100 pound weight on their backs, thrown them
into the international race and is expecting them to keep up.
That is unrealistic and it can and needs to be changed. However,
the federal government does not want to change the rules to give
our Canadian farmers the level playing field they need and that
is what this discussion is all about today.
Add to this weight that farmers already carry because of
government inaction an unrealistic tax regime, not just for
farmers but for agriculture businesses that would like to expand
opportunities for farm products, and add to that Agriculture
Canada user fees, and we see the weight that has been
unrealistically placed on the backs of our farmers.
Whether we are talking about growing grains, oilseeds, corn and
soybeans in Ontario or about wheat in the west or any of the
ridings producing farm products across Canada, farm incomes have
fallen severely in the last three years. The projection is that
they will continue to fall. This is a very serious message and
it is a very serious crisis that our farmers face right now.
It has been estimated that farm income for grains and oilseed
producers is projected to fall as much as 35% from the five year
average in the year 2000. That is a drastic and unbearable drop.
It is important to note that the five year average already
includes two years of disastrous commodity prices. This level of
income is not sufficient to sustain the agriculture industry in
Canada. Years of neglect by the federal government has resulted
in the need for an immediate emergency compensation package. We
will talk about the other things that also need to be done, but
this compensation package is the most pressing issue for
agriculture today.
We believe the situation is so severe that we have called for an
immediate emergency package of at least $1 billion in new federal
spending. It is important to point out that this must be
additional spending from the federal government, not just a
reallocation of spending that has been promised and in fact not
delivered. This dollar amount is based on clear estimates of
what we calculate to be the hurt Canadian farmers have been
carrying and the damage they face, mainly as a result of the
unrealistic subsidies from the United States and the European
market.
Some of our political opponents would like to say that the
Canadian Alliance is not bringing forward a consistent policy
because we call for free trade on the one hand yet demand an
emergency package for farmers on the other. However, let me be
very clear that this is absolutely consistent with the Canadian
Alliance position. Our agriculture policy states that “we
should only reduce Canadian farm support in conjunction with
other countries”. That is a direct quote from our policy.
This is far different from what the Canadian government has done
since it signed the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
Support for European and U.S. farmers has not changed
significantly from the time of the GATT agreements. We saw
support for our farmers slashed and drastically reduced. We
cannot expect our farmers to fight this, and not just against
farmers from the United States and Europe because those farmers
are backed by the might of the treasuries of Europe and the
United States. This is an unrealistic expectation.
Subsidies provided by our trade competitors to increase their
own agriculture production are the principal cause of this
current farm income crisis in Canada. A lot of Canadians would
be surprised to know that in 1999 European wheat farmers received
58% of their income from government. In 1999, U.S. wheat farmers
received 46% of their income from government, while Canadian
farmers received only 11% of their income from the government in
1999.
This is a very dramatic change in terms of what Canadian farmers
face.
1050
In 1997, U.S. support for its oilseed producers amounted to only
4% of income. However, we must look at what happened in just two
years. By 1999, that support had ballooned to 25% of U.S.
oilseed producers' income. During the same time, support for
Canadian oilseed producers remained essentially unchanged. These
are drastic comparisons. It should be no surprise that the U.S.
is now forecasting a fifth year of record soybean production
while the value of Canada's soybean crop continues to fall
dramatically.
Before the last GATT round of trade negotiations were completed
Canadian farmers were basically at par with U.S. subsidy levels.
After the round was completed, the gap between Canadian and U.S.
subsidies began to grow and that put added pressure on our
farmers. While Canadian farm support has fallen since the accord,
support for U.S. farmers has actually returned to pre-GATT
levels. Canadian farmers were actually worse off after the last
round of trade negotiations.
This gap between support levels for Ontario and those for U.S.
grain and oilseed growers is actually equivalent to about $63 an
acre for a typical farm growing a mix of corn, soybeans and
wheat. This means that the cost of achieving equity with U.S.
farmers would be about $300 million per year for Ontario and
about $1.5 billion nationwide. These are real costs. These are
measurable effects. Our farmers, as I have said, are some of the
most efficient producers in the world, but they are competing
against European and U.S. treasuries all on their own.
This serious drop in revenues, which has been caused by these
increasing foreign subsidies, has also been compounded by
skyrocketing costs. It is not as if farmers are just fighting
subsidies. Costs are rocketing through the roof.
There are not many people outside the farm community who know
the degree to which farmers are impacted by energy costs and the
significant increases there. The cost of getting their crops
into the ground in the spring and of harvesting in the fall is
highly dependent on the cost of diesel fuel, as is the cost of
getting their product to market. Then we have the ballooning
cost of fertilizer which uses natural gas as a key ingredient.
All farmers here today know what has happened to fertilizer
costs, but I wonder if Canadians know of the increased cost
because of soaring energy costs.
What has the federal government done to assist in those energy
costs? It has sent cheques to students and to prisoners in jail.
I think it is time that the government looked at the energy costs
and the increases being carried by farmers.
The current programs have failed. The 1998 agriculture income
disaster assistance program continues to hold back a huge
percentage of the money that was promised to farmers, with 8,700
claims from 1999 that have not even been processed. We say it is
time to get that money off the cabinet table and onto the kitchen
tables of family farms.
Some have said that the $500 million the government has just
promised is a lot of money. We can make the analogy of putting
500 litres of fuel into an airplane so it can cross the ocean,
but it needs 1,000 litres to make the trip. There is no point in
even filling the plane if it is going to crash into the ocean.
That is what we are talking about. Farmers cannot even get the
crops into the ground if they know they cannot complete the job.
This must be done and it must be done
immediately. We are talking about an industry that is 8.5% of
the Canadian gross domestic product and employs 1.9 million
Canadians. In Ontario, it is the number two industry.
I want to add that we must not leave unattended the other things
that must be done. I just want to say in closing that once we
get this emergency help we must aggressively attack foreign
subsidies, we must remove the 4 cent per litre federal excise tax
on farm fuel, we must encourage more value added processing with
a realistic tax regime, we must give all grain farmers marketing
choice, especially those in western Canada, and we must reduce
farmers' costs by modernizing the grain handling and
transportation system.
We demand this action. We demand that the government move on
this emergency request and that it do so now.
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting the balance of my time with the
member for Selkirk—Interlake.
1055
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the speech from the Leader of the
Opposition. I recall that when the member was campaigning in
Regina during the election he said that our farmers do not need
any more subsidies, that they are the best farmers in the world.
I am wondering why he has changed his tune to such an extent in a
matter of a few months.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous,
because all through the campaign, as a matter of fact, I gave a
speech very close to this one. I said that if the U.S. and
Europe were not involved in this increased subsidy game, we would
not need these subsidies. However, because they are involved in
that game, we need these subsidies.
I also distinctly remember a speech in Saskatchewan during the
election in which a Liberal candidate said the reason farmers
were not getting help was that they were not voting Liberal.
Those are the kinds of comments I remember in the campaign in
Saskatchewan.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Dr. Gordon Barnhart, a former clerk
of the Saskatchewan legislature, recently published a book on the
history of Saskatchewan's first premier, Walter Scott. Throughout
that book he made references to agriculture, one which I will
quote: “If agriculture prospers, so will this land”. He was
referring mainly to the new province of Alberta, but it is also
true if we look at the history of Saskatchewan in particular. If
agriculture prospers, so does the province.
The hon. member alluded in his speech to the fact that
agriculture has been going down. All he has to do is take one
journey through my constituency. It is so evident what is
happening: agriculture and the people are in a desperate
situation. I have received well over 1,000 desperate calls.
I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition could agree with
the premise that we must prosper in agriculture if we are going
to be a viable community.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, the member for
Souris—Moose Mountain is not only good on history but on the
future, because he is looking ahead in a proactive way.
Of course when agriculture as an industry is 8.5% of our GDP,
with 1.9 million Canadians directly involved in agriculture or
agriculture industry markets, it is vitally important to the
entire economy of the country.
If we look back to pre-depression years, we can see that when
the agriculture community was affected everything got hit,
whether it was implement dealers or producers of various seed
products, everything we can imagine in terms of all the products
and lines that are being affected today.
I agree 100% and, as a matter of fact, it is not just a premise
but a fact that our economy depends on agriculture in a very
significant way.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the front page of the National Post today tells us
that junior ministers are to get limos as the Prime Minister
reverses policy. It will cost the Canadian taxpayer about
$50,000 for each one of the secretaries of state who will get a
limo courtesy of the taxpayers of Canada, yet farmers are
left behind.
As my colleague said: 1,000 desperate phone calls and they have
received nothing. How many desperate phone calls did the Prime
Minister receive from secretaries of state demanding cars?
I would like to hear the hon. leader's comments regarding the
disparity in the ways in which cabinet secretaries and farmers
are treated in this country.
Mr. Stockwell Day: It is a penetrating question, Mr.
Speaker. I am tempted to move toward some partisan remarks, but
I will try to restrain myself because this is very serious. It
reflects the priorities of the government, whether it is cars for
junior ministers—and reflecting the fact that tractors cannot
move into fields—whether it is putting hundreds of millions of
dollars into other highly questionable activities, or whether it
is to reflect on the comments of the auditor general who has
asked the question in terms of the management of hundreds of
millions of dollars by the government. The auditor general has
asked this question: who is minding the store?
Just on the amount of money the federal Liberal government has
spilled and wasted, we could top up this amount and meet what is
required for farmers facing disaster today, leaving alone the
government's misplaced priorities.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance has today
brought forward this motion suggesting very clearly and telling
the government quite clearly that $900 million is the minimum
amount of money required to get our grains, oilseeds, corn and
soybean producers through this spring seeding.
1100
Only $500 million of that money was brought forward by the
agriculture minister. As a result, I have found it necessary to
bring the issue of agriculture and the income situation back to
the House and once again put it to the members. We are moving
past the cabinet, which produces half measures, to the House as a
whole so that individual MPs can stand in their places and say
through their votes whether or not they support agriculture.
This is a crisis. This is not some frivolous exercise we are
going through in the House. This is a crisis.
However, agriculture is not in total crisis. There are many
sectors that are doing fine. The problem the agriculture
minister has is that the government has not put forward any long
term policies that would help the sectors that are affected when
the price cycle hits bottom, which is a normal thing with
agriculture commodities around the world and in Canada. The
government has no policies that come into play to give those farm
sectors and commodity groups not a profit but the ability to
continue to farm and to contribute to Canada's national product
and to the food supply we all need.
People have been asking if this should even be done. Our food
supply is essential to the well-being of our country. It
contributes dramatically to the well-being of every Canadian.
Having a viable agricultural sector, with the expertise required
to be a farmer these days, is in our national interest and our
vital interest. We must maintain that infrastructure and ability
in Canada so that we can continue to feed ourselves.
I have mentioned the agriculture minister. He has brought
programs forward and he will be talking about all the money that
has been put out to farmers. However the last statistics I have
on the AIDA program, for the years 1998 and 1999, show that only
62% of that money has been given out. That is part of the
problem. Not only is the money insufficient but it is not
necessarily given out.
I will deal a little more with the politics of this and the
responsibility of backbenchers. Ultimately the cabinet has
responsibility but we, as individual members of parliament, have
one member, one vote. My vote is every bit as good as the
minister of agriculture's in that we each have one of 301 votes
in the House. If each member represents their constituents, then
we will see the motion pass at the end of the day because many
MPs in the House know that farming is essential to the country
and that the $400 million is essential to farming.
Backbenchers on the government side, including the Ontario
rural caucus chair, have indicated that the opposition should be
doing more on the issue and that somehow that would translate
into more action by the cabinet. We have been doing quite a lot,
right back to 1998 when I became chief agriculture critic for the
official opposition. We have had motion after motion.
The agriculture minister was giving speeches in Regina and
suggested to the agriculture committee that we should go out west
and hold hearings for farmers. The chair of the day from
Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia said that was a good idea and
nine meetings were held. I put a motion forward saying that not
only should we hold hearings in western Canada to listen to
farmers but that we should go into Ontario.
It is not enough to have fancy words and good speeches telling
everyone how sincere we are about the issues.
1105
When I was at the agriculture committee there were members who
voted against my motion to hold hearings on safety net issues in
Ontario. Had those hearings been held I think perhaps the
government would have understood from farmers back in 1998-99
that the crisis was real and that it had to do something.
The members who voted against me and against holding hearings in
Ontario were the members for Gatineau,
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Whitby—Ajax,
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Kitchener Centre,
Leeds—Grenville and Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
The member for Toronto—Danforth has professed quite loudly that
he is a big supporter of farmers. I take him at his word. He
held a concert in Toronto and a big dinner here in the Hall of
Honour. It was a big public relations exercise, for all apparent
purposes. Here at the Hall of Honour dinner farmers believed
they and MPs were signing a petition that would result in action
being taken by the House. That was not within the rules of the
House. It was a deception for the farmers who thought backbench
Liberals would do something.
I told them constantly that the only way to get something done
in the House was to have a vote—
Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I take constructively the comments from the member with
one exception, and I would ask you to rule on it. The member
used the word deception and I believe that is inappropriate
language because it would suggest that it was a deception, a lie
or a trick. Those words to me are very close, and I would ask
him to withdraw.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for
Toronto—Danforth for his intervention but, respectfully, I am
not satisfied that I would require asking another member to
withdraw the word deception in the context in which it was used.
However I take the opportunity early in the debate to ask all
members to be generous and, to use a word from previous
parliaments, judicious in their choice of words, and particularly
to be respectful of one another given the importance of this
issue to a large number of Canadians.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I was certainly trying
to commend the member for what he tried to do in bringing the
information to city people around the country, but also for
ensuring that the right message is sent to rural dwellers.
After the $500 million was announced, of course, the Ontario
Federation of Agriculture, following up on what I had already
done, sent a letter to the editor “Re: Federal government
campaign against farmers”. It was dated March 15, right after
the $500 million was announced. It said:
The federal government has fired up its formidable propaganda
machine to counter the day of action carried out by farmers
across Canada on March 14, 2001.
The ad that ran in newspapers cost anywhere from $1,500 to
$2,500 at the going rate. I know the federal government gets a
cut but it is still an awful lot of money.
Members will note that the newspaper ad, in big black letters,
says “Supporting our Farmers”. This is followed by smaller
font, and then, again in big black letters, it says “$1.6
billion”. This is followed by more small font, and then the ad
talks about the spring credit advance program. The next big font
reads “$700 million”. This is misinformation to people who do
not understand farm issues or how much money has actually gone to
farmers.
When they read the ad, it says “Government of Canada”,
“Supporting our Farmers”, “$1.6 billion”, “$700 million”.
Those words stand out. The ad has everyone believing that
somehow farmers have received $2.3 billion.
This kind of information should not happen.
1110
We have letters of support for the motion today from the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Keystone Agriculture
Producers, farm organizations and farmers across the country. I
do not think there is one farmer out there who will not support
it.
I am asking if Liberal members will support the motion, which
gives direction to the agriculture minister and the cabinet that
$400 million is what is required as an immediate emergency cash
injection for the year 2001. I think the government will support
the motion and come through with the required funding.
I would like to move an amendment at this time. I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting between the words “to”
and “authorize” the word “immediately”.
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member and the Alliance Party for bringing forward this
issue under their supply day. I do, as members of the House
recognize, believe very strongly in the issue.
I have always been somewhat confused about the Alliance policy
on agriculture, but it seems to be a little clearer today after
the Alliance leader and the member for Selkirk—Interlake spoke
on it, although it is more anti-government than pro-farming.
I have a question for the member for Selkirk—Interlake and
perhaps he can clear it up for me. He spoke very eloquently on
support for farmers right now. However, back in October 2000
Statistics Canada said there were 22,100 fewer farmers than
during the previous year. I will quote the member who indicated
at the time:
It doesn't necessarily indicate a disaster happening. It
indicates to me more the rationalization and changing of the
business side of the agriculture sector. While the study
indicated that there's fewer farmers on the prairies, that
doesn't mean we're going to have less production or lower
agriculture sector dollar earnings.
Could the member explain how that comment fits into what he is
now talking about with respect to the supports that are necessary
in agriculture? He says here that it does not necessarily mean
less dollar earnings, but that it does not necessarily mean less
production either. Perhaps he could clear that up for me.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, obviously the member
for Brandon—Souris continues with old style politics about how
the agriculture sector works and his understanding of it. The
Progressive Conservatives had many years with massive majorities
to set forth a long term agriculture policy. The member for
Brandon—Souris sits there questioning whether the Canadian
Alliance has a strong agriculture policy.
We have a strong policy regarding grain transportation and
organic farming. We support supply management. We have always
supported safety nets for farmers. When the Crow rate was thrown
out we had the trade distortion adjustment program that would
have continued supporting farmers.
Let us talk about the survey the member mentioned. The survey
was not taken out of income tax forms. It was not taken out
of who was filing an income and expense statement. It was a
phone survey done by Statistics Canada. The survey did not
determine the number of farms lost. It determined what it was
told were the number of farm jobs lost. Certainly there were
fewer people in the agriculture sector than before.
However this member continues to ignore history. At the end of
the second world war in Saskatchewan there were something like
175,000 farmers. At this point there are some 60,000 to 75,000
farmers there.
1115
The Canadian Alliance very clearly understands that change or
evolution in any business sector, including the agriculture
sector, is necessary. Those members who would sit and save the
status quo as it was 5 or 10 years ago are doomed to failure, and
the Canadian Alliance will not let Canadian agriculture fail.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
previous member talked about the standing committee on
agriculture visiting the prairies in late November and December
1999. He read into the record the number of members of
parliament from Ontario sitting on that committee who voted
against similar meetings being held in Ontario.
My question is for the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake. Of
the nine meetings that were held in western Canada, three in each
of the three prairie provinces, how many meetings did the
agriculture critic for the Canadian Alliance attend?
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, this is a very
interesting question. I did not attend any of those meetings
because the Canadian Alliance has such a depth of members of
parliament with expertise in the agriculture field that we had
members at every one of those hearings. While those hearings
were ongoing and in that immediate timeframe, I was in
southwestern Ontario representing farmers who were not being
represented by their own MPs. Also during that time we had the
agriculture producers hearings on the go. We had meetings with
3,500 farmers in 72 different ridings.
It is pointless for the NDP to say that we have not been doing
our job. Hansard will show that the Canadian Alliance has
done more for agriculture in the House than any other party since
1997.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this
debate and discussion on the importance of agriculture and
agri-food in Canada.
We in the government can clearly show through our actions the
importance of the industry. Farmers and the agri-food industry
are the backbone of rural Canada. A lot happens in rural Canada,
and agriculture is a major part of it. Certainly other sectors
of our economy and resource sectors are involved as well.
We all contribute to the good standard of living in Canada.
There is no question that there is some stress out there in
certain sectors of primary production. The hon. member for
Selkirk—Interlake pointed out in his comments a minute ago that
some sectors were affected at the present time more than others.
A couple of years ago some other sectors were affected.
We must work collectively and constructively to put together
programs, recognizing that those programs have to be altered and
changed as time goes on. It is like building a new building, a
new office or a new kitchen. In a few years one has to recognize
there are some realities to deal with.
One of the realities we had to deal with was the financial
situation of the country when we formed the government in 1993. I
will not go into it, because people know about that disastrous
situation. In 1997, when I became minister of agriculture, the
safety net envelope of the federal government was $600 million.
In the fall of 1998 the industry was saying that it needed $450
million in extra support above and beyond what was there for
income support. The government put $1.07 billion in place to
assist over the next two years.
1120
The long term safety net agreement that we signed with the
provinces last summer for the first time ever has an envelope in
it of $435 million for income support alone. That is above and
beyond the support that is there for programs such as companion
programs within the provinces, the net income stabilization
account, crop insurance support, et cetera. As a result of the
document we all signed, it is $1.1 billion. When the provinces
put their share with ours, their 40% for our 60%, it came to $1.8
billion.
As everyone knows, a couple of weeks ago the government
announced an additional $500 million for income support to be
allocated to the provinces based on our allocation formula of
60%. Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction, as we know, so when
the provinces put their share with that it came to the $830
million which was announced a couple of weeks ago. The total
available to farmers is $2.66 billion, the highest level of
support for farmers since 1995. Members can say what they want,
but I assure them that money will go to farmers.
In addition, we increased two and a half times the spring
advance program the government put in place last year. Farmers
can borrow up to $50,000 interest free this year to help put
their crops in the ground. We estimate that farmers will take
advantage of that to the extent of at least $700 million.
I ask the House and people across the country where the
provinces were. Most of the provinces did not put any money on
the table until the federal government forced them to come
forward with their 40%. Some of them are even kicking and
screaming at that, saying that their province does not want to
take part in it.
For example, one province in the last two years received $400
million in support from the agriculture income disaster
assistance program. The announcement last week of $500 million
will mean another $200 million to that province on top of the
estimate of the Canadian farm income program for this year of
$200 million. That will be $400 million in government support to
one province alone for the 2000 crop year.
I appreciate some of the comments being made today. I
appreciate some of the comments out there in the public today and
coming from farm leaders. I neglected to say that I will be
splitting my time with the member for Toronto—Danforth.
Overall we need to talk about government support to farms, but
we need to talk about farm income in general. What can we do as
opposition parties, as government, as industries, as provincial
governments, to put in place a longer term plan?
The analogy I would like to give is that we have been trying to
fix the roof for a number of years, with some success but
certainly not total success for everyone. It is time that we put
effort into analyzing and reviewing the programs, which was
started. That was discussed and agreed to by my provincial
counterparts last week.
We have 145,000 farmers enrolled in the net income stabilization
account with $3.3 billion in their accounts. Is that $3.3
billion being used to the extent that it could be? I do not
know. We need to look at it.
We have 100,000 farmers that participate in crop insurance. They
have $5 billion in crop insurance out there. Are the crop
insurance programs the best they could be? I do not know. My
guess is there will be some improvements in co-operation with the
provinces. I could go on, but we need to talk about how we can
assist the overall income.
We know that there are pressures and that consumers are
concerned about how agriculture is treating the environment and
about food safety. We also know there are farmers out there who
need some transition within their own farming operation, for
example. We know as well that there may be some lands out there
that, given the realities of the day, economically just do not
make sense.
No matter what the good Lord gave them for resources and under
the best of management, with the realities of today production
capacity is just not there.
1125
Can we assist those producers to do something else or something
different with their land? There is no question that there are
some producers who need skills training. I believe there is a
role for the federal and provincial governments and industry to
provide that type of thing. I look forward to hearing
constructive criticism.
We need to take that approach to build a new barn. When we
build that new barn a few years down the road we know we will
have to do some renovations. I have farmed all my life and I am
realistic. When I built barns I thought they were the be-all and
end-all, but I knew that down the road I would have to analyse
and make some renovations.
The long term approach is the one we have to take. There is a
short term need. The government has sought all available
resources for the bridging approach that will take us to the long
term approach. We cannot continue to manage the way we have been
on a year to year basis. As we said in the throne speech we have
to do long term planning to move it beyond crisis management. I
am confident that will take place as we already have it started.
Provincial ministers told me at the federal-provincial meeting
last week that they too have to take that approach. They are
being told by their cabinets that they have to do something in
the long term approach about the overall income of farmers. This
includes government support to income, but there is more to farm
income than government support such as research, innovation and
resource allocation.
I look forward to the comments members will be putting forward
today. I am confident that as we work together we will continue
to strengthen the industry to deal with the realities before us
today both domestically and internationally.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister has
recognized that not all commodities are in trouble. However
grain, oilseed, soybean and corn producers are subject to world
market prices and in a lot of trouble. That is where the AIDA
program has failed to deliver to farmers.
The government has changed the name of the program from AIDA to
CFIP, the Canadian farm income program. Does the minister expect
this program to serve farmers, those that are being hurt in
particular, any better than what AIDA did?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing
as a program that can be designed to do exactly what every
individual producer wants it to do for them.
The reality of any program in Canada is that it is based on the
amount of production of producers. If, for example, the gross
sales of a farm in Canada are $75,000 or $80,000, the program is
based on guaranteeing 70% of the gross margin, which is a
considerably smaller sum than the gross sales. The program brings
the farmer back up to 70% of the gross margin referring to a
period of reference years prior to that.
I can tell the member that over the two years of the AIDA
program in the province of Saskatchewan a bit shy of $400 million
will be put into that province. The $500 million that we
announced two weeks ago in Saskatchewan, along with
Saskatchewan's 40%, and I trust that it will be there, will put
another $200 million into that province for this year.
In co-operation with the Saskatchewan government and the federal
folks the estimate is that another $200 million will go into
Saskatchewan. That is on top of the $200 million that was
connected with the announcement two weeks ago. This means that
for this year those two programs with federal and provincial
portions will put $400 million into the province of Saskatchewan.
1130
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for being here
during the debate. I have a couple of comments and a question
for the minister.
The minister has indicated that the responsibility is a shared
federal-provincial responsibility. We all accept that. The norm
now is a 60:40 split. Could that not be adjusted? Is there any
reason this could not be an 80:20 split as opposed to a 60:40
split?
The reason I ask that is because in the United States it is a
federal responsibility. The U.S., between 1998 and 2000, has put
$48 billion of federal money into the pockets of farmers. Our
government seems to always say that the provinces are not coming
to the table equally and as quickly as what the feds are. Why
could that split of 60:40 not be changed?
The minister has said that since 1995 there has never been more
money in agriculture. The government took power in 1993. Prior
to 1993, $4.3 billion went to agriculture. Today it is $1.6
billion. Forgetting about all the rationales, reasonings, budget
deficits and the rest, the fact of the matter is that there were
$4.3 billion and it is now down to $1.6 billion.
With the amount of surpluses that are available, does the
minister not see that more of those dollars should go back into
agriculture?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the
hon. member keeps bringing this up all the time. He only
embarrasses himself and his party. When we took government, the
Government of Canada was taking in $120 billion a year. That
member's government spent $162 billion a year. Someone had to
take hold of the finances of the country because his government
had put it into bankruptcy. Someone had to put it back. When we
got it back in line, and there is no question that we did, we did
it through the contributions of all Canadians.
Over the last five years $7.1 billion has gone into support and
safety nets for Canadian farmers.
The member asks why our system is different than the United
States. It is because our constitution says that it is a shared
jurisdiction. If the hon. member wants to change the
proportions, a shared jurisdiction would be 50:50. If he wants
to talk to the provinces about a 50:50 split, I am for it. We, as
a federal government, have said that we will go to a 60:40 split.
It is a shared jurisdiction.
As we strengthen this industry in every way possible, the
individual producers, the provincial governments, the consumers
of Canada and the federal government will all benefit. The
biggest beneficiaries are the consumers because our industry
provides them with the safest, highest quality food of any
country in the world. We need to work collectively to continue
to provide that to our Canadian consumers.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I was watching part of the debate from my office and
became somewhat concerned about aspersions cast on my colleague
from Toronto—Danforth. More important, right after that I noted
that the member for Selkirk—Interlake introduced an amendment to
his party's own motion.
I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the
amendment effectively precludes, prevents and, in a very
calculated way, denies any opportunity for a member of parliament
to expand on the very important and meaningful debate.
Specifically, I had intended to put forth a motion that would
also consider the impact of the grocery industry concentration in
the manufacturing industry. It is a point—
The Deputy Speaker: With the greatest of respect, I
believe the hon. member is engaging in debate. He will certainly
have time for that over the rest of the day. For the time being,
we will resume debate on the amended motion.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to say at the outset that I will not be supporting the
motion. I feel that the debate is serious and that all parties
must be involved, but I feel that the approach taken by the hon.
member for Selkirk—Interlake, the agriculture critic, is
mischievous.
He tries to divide the House. When he uses a word like deceive
to describe our efforts on this side of the House, he dumbs down
the ongoing constructive approach.
1135
I deal with the issue from the perspective of an urban member of
parliament. I do most of the shopping in my family. I have
tried for many years to understand the complexities surrounding
the issue. I will continue with all my energy and intellect to
support family farms, but I want to do it in a reasoned and
constructive way.
At the outset, all of us in the House have done a mediocre job
educating consumers on agriculture. Few consumers or few urban
people realize that the average family farm income is under
$20,000 a year. Few consumers realize that the average age of a
person farming today is close to 60 years old. I am not
surprised that more and more younger people living on farms are
not inspired to continue in the footsteps of their mothers and
fathers and maintain their farms.
To shift the emphasis we have to go back to the consumer. Is it
not amazing that in the city of Toronto one in six jobs depends
on the food business? When we in the House of Commons press the
Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister for support and
resources in the automotive, aerospace, tourism or any other
sector, we always link it to jobs. It seems that most of the
debates on agriculture focus on 270,000 farmers. We should start
including in the debate and in the rationale the fact that one in
six jobs in urban areas depends upon the agri-food business.
If we turn to the business section of any newspaper, we see the
massive profits of food retailers and processors. Then, when we
come to producers, we see an incredible disparity. I cannot
figure out how producers, who are supplying processors and
retailers, are getting screwed right in front of us. How is this
happening? Why is it not being challenged?
The numbers we are using are wrong. We talk, for example, of
the $500 million of new money going to farmers. To someone making
$25,000, $30,000 or even $100,000 a year, it seems like a lot of
money going to 270,000 farmers. The reality is that consumers,
the urbanites, are the net beneficiaries of the work of farmers.
We have the cheapest food policy of any country in the G-7.
Over 90% of Canadians probably do not know this fact. We have a
cheap food policy in Canada. In other words, it is not farmers
that are getting the subsidies. When we in urban areas go into
Loblaws, Sobey's, Dominion, or whatever, we get access to high
quality food at very cheap prices. We are the ones who in the
end are the net beneficiaries of any moneys going to farmers.
1140
The motion today is asking for another large sum of money. By
the way, I support the principle and the spirit of the motion,
whatever the amount of money, whether it is $400 million or $600
million.
However we have to start educating urban people. The issue is
about food sovereignty. Would an average family of four be
willing to spend $1 per person per week, or $4 a week, for a year
to maintain the family farm system of Canada? Would that average
family spend $200 a year to have a safe and secure supply of food
and to maintain food sovereignty?
Canadians should understand that this is the cost to them on an
individual basis, approximately $50 per person per year. They
should link to the issue on a personal basis and understand what
it means to them in terms of added cost. If so, the energy and
the reason behind rebuilding the agriculture and agri-food sector
would be greatly enhanced.
Let me say to all farmers listening that I have no doubt about
their need for the dollars put on the table. In fact, as a city
MP I could never understand how this number was arrived at.
On March 13 I received a fantastic letter from Mr. Brian Doidge
from Ridgetown College, University of Guelph. I would be happy
to share it with anyone who is interested. He did the
calculation of gap in income support payments from government for
grain and oilseed farms in Ontario versus those in the U.S. He
did a brilliant calculation.
Essentially the calculation showed that if we gave Canadian
farmers the $63 per acre over the 4.83 billion acres planted in
grain and oilseed crops, we would arrive at the $1.5 billion and
the 60:40 split. However, it would only be half the subsidy
American farmers would receive. Even at half we are not totally
in the game with our American friends.
We have to bring the debate to city people. We have to ask city
people if they want a food sovereign country. We never seem to
challenge the profits of retailers, restaurants, food services,
food processors and hospitality industry. We never challenge
those sectors because we understand the number of jobs they
create.
I say humbly that if the Minister of Finance took a look at all
the revenue through personal income taxes which those jobs and
those corporations created, maybe he has to take a little less
from the food processing and food retailing sector. He may have
to distribute some of what he is taking from those sectors to
farmers who make sure the quality and secure supply of food
ultimately serves all Canadians.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague on doing a
commendable job on education, which is the term he used.
All provincial governments, all local governments and all
parties in the House, I say without fear, have not done a good
enough job educating the public on this issue.
1145
The previous speaker, the hon. minister of agriculture, used
some figures for Saskatchewan. I direct this question to him
concerning the federal-provincial cost sharing.
Saskatchewan, as we know, has the largest number of farmers, the
largest number of acres under cultivation and so on. With the
60:40 split, it is extremely difficult for Saskatchewan to match
that 40%, more so than for any other province in Canada. We have
to be careful in condemning one province for shying back a little
because it is in the least financial position. It has the least
resources right now to match that 60%.
Does the member think this all or nothing approach, which is
meet the 40% or the province does not get the 60%, is perhaps the
right approach?
Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon.
member that I have always believed that the essence of being in
the House is that the stronger regions look out for those regions
which do not have the same financial resources.
I understand that Saskatchewan does not have the financial
strength that the provinces of Ontario or Alberta have, but I
will give an even better example. I think it is a near scandal
that we cannot find $6 million or $7 million for the potato
farmers in P.E.I. when we all know that we spend that amount in a
year around here on paper clips.
In answer to the question, I have always been a believer and
have always supported the fact that the advantaged provinces have
a duty to look out for those provinces that go through bad
patches.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth
is in essence up to his old game of trying to divert this debate
away from what the real issue is. The real issue is simply that
this motion says that farmers require an additional $400 million.
I am going to ask the hon. member not to try to blame government
inaction on the fact that the consumers in Toronto or other
cities do not fully understand the agriculture issue. Elected MPs
fully understand it. They have been lobbied by every group, such
as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture.
Does the member not recognize that the motion is a vote about
$400 million and not a vote about educating the consumer?
Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Speaker, the motion belittles the
intelligence of government members because essentially the hon.
member for Selkirk—Interlake is trying to embarrass government
members into a money motion.
Anybody in the House realizes that a money motion is a vote of
non-confidence. Quite frankly, I think we can do a hell of a lot
more to rebuild the family farm sector of this country in here
rather than in another election.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, first,
I would like to congratulate the member for Toronto—Danforth.
Being a city folk, he has done an awful lot to try to put across
the issues of the farm crisis and certainly the issues that
affect farmers themselves.
In saying that, I wish everybody in the House would stop playing
politics and get to the issue. The issue obviously is trying to
find solutions to a very serious problem. It is a non-money
issue.
I have a question for the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.
There was a non-money issue when the Minister of Finance decided
to spend $1.3 billion on an energy rebate, and I am not going to
argue that program. Perhaps it was the best program that could
have come forward.
Does the member not believe that the same kind of political will
in the government could and should come forward with $1 billion,
or $900 million or $1.3 billion for an issue that is equally as
important, which is agriculture in the country?
1150
Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Speaker, I said in my remarks that
I am passionately committed to this issue, as are nearly all of
my colleagues in the House.
Members of parliament on this side of the House were in a state
of absolute shock when we did not get the full $900 million a few
weeks ago. Does that mean we are going to go back in our corner
and hide? We are going to continue to use our reason and use our
arguments to press the government to come up with the amount of
money that is required to have a proper national agricultural
policy in the country. We are all committed to that.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in today's debate and to indicate at the
outset that the New Democratic Party will be voting in support of
the resolution put forward.
That is not to say we do not recognize that there is a good deal
of double talk going on here today. One of the earlier speakers,
in questioning the member for Toronto—Danforth, said that we
have not done a good enough job of explaining agriculture to
Canadians.
While I would not disagree with that, I point out that one of
the reasons that perhaps we have not done a good enough job is
because some political parties in the House are
johnny-come-latelies to the crisis. I am speaking specifically
about the Canadian Alliance, formerly the Reform Party, that
introduced the motion today. That party has come to prominence
in the country based on a cheap food policy. There are many
examples over past years.
The one and only leader of the Reform Party said in Truro, Nova
Scotia in the early 1990s that western provinces could not afford
all the farmers they had. We have quotes on the record that I
alluded to in the past, indicating that Elwin Hermanson, who was
the agriculture critic in the House between 1993 and 1997 for the
then Reform Party, said that he would not disagree with any of
the cuts that were made in agriculture following the arrival of
the Liberal Party to power in 1993.
The 1997 election platform of the then Reform Party indicated
that it would cut support to agriculture by several hundred
million dollars. Less than a week ago there were a number of
rallies around the country. The Leader of the Opposition, the
person who introduced the motion today, spoke at the rally in
Ottawa that a number of us attended. Anyone would have had the
impression, as would any one of the 5,000 in attendance, that he
was going to rush right back to the House of Commons and demand
additional funds for agriculture. He rushed back to the House
but he dealt with immigration and not the crisis on the farm.
While I share the sentiments of the member for Brandon—Souris
that we should not play politics with this issue, at the same
time history teaches us some lessons. It is important to point
those out from time to time.
When the history of the problem of agriculture in Canada is
written, people will recognize and realize that 1993 was a
pivotal year in the process. Not only was it the election of the
Liberal government and its preoccupation with eliminating the
deficit as quickly as possible, but that year coincided with the
conclusion of the lengthy Uruguay and GATT round at which time
agriculture and support payments for agriculture, both domestic
and external, were dealt with for the very first time in an
international setting.
I believe that the government, with its preoccupation on
eliminating the deficit, hid behind the GATT resolutions and
recommendations that everyone should cut subsidies or support
payments by 20% over five years.
1155
We all know, and it is a matter of public record, Canada went
much further than 20%. It eliminated it by some 60% over that
period of time.
At the same time it is a matter of public record as well that
following the 1993 election two parties lost their voices in the
House. The former Progressive Conservative government and the
New Democratic Party did not have official representation between
1993 and 1997. The government opposite was listening to the fact
that the Reform Party was not being critical at all of the cuts
that were coming in agriculture. It went at it in a very
ruthless way. That was the period of time in which the Crow
benefit was lost in western Canada. That was a huge amount of
money out of farmers' pockets, more than $600 million per
year across the three prairie provinces.
The province of Saskatchewan, as was pointed out by the
member for Souris—Moose Mountain, has most of the arable land.
It is over $300 million.
The fact of the matter is, the minister of agriculture would
have all of us believe that history began in 1997 when he started
to put more money back into agriculture. My colleague from
Brandon—Souris was absolutely correct when he said there was far
more money in agriculture support payments for Canadian farmers
prior to 1993. That first mandate of the Liberal government took
a lot of money out of agriculture, the Crow benefit being one of
them, and it enormously jacked up the costs to farmers. We are
still seeing the downside of all of that.
Another point the minister of agriculture raised, and he talked
about it again today, was this 60:40 split. He correctly pointed
out that there was a joint program for agriculture between the
provinces and the federal government. I do not believe it was
part of the confederation bargain that agriculture would be split
in any kind of a 60:40 arrangement.
To go back about 15 years ago to 1986, I remember very well that
the premier of Saskatchewan, Grant Devine, was demanding a
billion dollars to help grain and oilseed farmers. This was in
the midst of a provincial election campaign in Saskatchewan. I
recall as well that the billion dollars was forthcoming from the
then Conservative government of Brian Mulroney with absolutely no
40% arrangement having been made by Saskatchewan to pay for that.
This is relatively recent history which we are dealing with.
Another point that the minister of agriculture referred to was
the AIDA program, which is now morphed into the Canadian farm
income program. My recollection goes back to 1998 when the
minister of agriculture spoke at the United Grain Growers
convention in Regina. It was in the fall of 1998, a few weeks
before the AIDA program was announced in December of that year.
The minister was very clear in his comments that morning that the
real problem in agriculture was in the provinces of Manitoba and
Saskatchewan, and by golly he was going to do something about it.
The something became the AIDA program.
Despite the numbers the minister has revealed here today, the
fact of the matter is, and the statistics bear it out, that the
agricultural income disaster assistance plan has worked less well
in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba than in any of the
other provinces. This has to do with the rules and regulations
and the fact that it looks at previous years to sort out their
income for this year.
With farming, especially in the grains and oilseeds which is
predominantly in western Canada, having been at such a flat
plateau over the last number of years, there were no dips. With
few exceptions, many farmers have not qualified for the AIDA
program, nor do I predict will they be able to qualify in those
two provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the CFIP.
1200
That leads me to comment on the fact that now we are getting
signals from the Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food saying
that it will not be putting money into the CFIP plan in the
province of Saskatchewan unless that province puts up its 40% of
the money for CFIP. I think that is a very wrong way to go.
I think the government of Saskatchewan has looked at agriculture
support plans in the country and has concluded—and I agree very
much with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain on this
point—that this program and its predecessor, the AIDA program,
simply do not work for Saskatchewan farmers. What the government
of Saskatchewan is saying is that it will put the equivalent
money into agriculture to help farmers in its own province, but
it does not want to contribute specifically to this program
because it has demonstrably failed over the last number of years.
I do not think there should be any demur on the part of the
Government of Canada in regard to that approach.
As long as the government of Saskatchewan can demonstrate
clearly that it is putting in new and equivalent money but is not
putting it into a flawed program that does not work for its
farmers, surely that should not be a reason to tell Saskatchewan
that if it is not going to comply, it will not get its share of
this $500 million that was announced a couple of weeks ago.
Just as an aside on the $500 million, it was very revealing to
me to hear the member for Toronto—Danforth say essentially how
shocked and appalled he was, although those were not his exact
words, that it was only $500 million, not $900 million, when the
announcement was made two or three weeks ago. Yet I well
remember every one of those members standing up to vigorously
applaud the minister of agriculture when he said that he had just
come from meeting with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and
that the government had put in $500 million.
I note again the duplicity in all of this and the theatrics that
go on around here, with the member for Toronto—Danforth now
saying how disappointed he is that there was not more money,
although doubtless he was one of the people who was up and
applauding the $500 million. There were certainly a number of
others who did so at that time.
After 1997, when the New Democrats and the Progressive
Conservatives were once again represented in the House in
sufficient numbers, the early arguments we heard when we started
talking about the need for federal assistance for agriculture
were that our pockets were not as deep as those of Washington or
Brussels. Those were the arguments at the time and to some
extent they were correct, because the deficit had not yet been
eliminated but the government was bent in that direction.
Now that argument, I submit, no longer applies. The budget has
been balanced. There is a healthy surplus of some $21 billion
this year, I think, and for the next four years thereafter it
rolls out to about $100 billion, so there is no argument that our
pockets are not as deep as those of Washington and Brussels or
that we cannot compete with them. The fact of the matter is that
the government can compete. The reality is that it chooses not
to do so.
It was not lost on farmers when just before Christmas an
announcement was rolled out by the government about a $1.7
billion loan guarantee for Bombardier. There was no hint of any
problem whatsoever in that aerospace industry. There is $1.7
billion in loan guarantees for Bombardier while farmers are
fighting for any financial scrap they can get in their area.
If we do not put money into agriculture, I do not think there is
any question that we are going to risk losing the food security
we all want to retain. I think the Europeans understand that.
They have survived two famines over the past century and that is
why they support their farmers. They have simply determined that
they are not going to accept a third famine and they are prepared
to put some money into farming to ensure that it does not happen.
1205
The Americans have responded and are saying that they will not
put their farmers at a disadvantage in regard to what is
happening in Europe. The numbers have been bandied about this
morning; they have put a lot of money into supporting their
farmers in recent years. We in Canada have not done so and I
think that if we do not, we risk losing our security over food
and agriculture.
In his remarks, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in
answer to some questions, I think, talked about the need for
transition and about farms perhaps continuing to get larger, like
they have over the last many decades. That is all well and good,
but if we are to have some transition programs, we are talking
about an aging farm population. The average age of farmers in
Saskatchewan is 58 and I suspect it does not differ very much in
that province from many other provinces. If the government is
planning to do that, it will have to look at putting some
transition programs in place to help ease the adjustment of
farmers who will be leaving the farm and going on to other types
of work.
The member for Toronto—Danforth talked about the disparity
between producers and the food business, the retail sector. He
is absolutely right. I think the National Farmers Union has
indicated that for the last 30 years food production across
Canada has basically held steady at something less than $5
billion, while the retail sector has increased sixfold to $30
billion or $31 billion.
The point is well made, but we also now have people like Larry
Solomon, who was recently quoted in the paper as saying that we
cannot afford to continue to subsidize farmers and that if only
we had small farms around big cities all our problems would be
over. It would be interesting for Mr. Solomon to visit
Saskatchewan and see the reality of 47% of the arable land and
figure out how everybody would be able to cluster around some
large cities.
The point I am trying to make is that we really do not have an
oversupply in the country as long as we have people around the
world who cannot feed themselves. What we have is a difficulty
in getting the food to the people who need it most. It would be
short term pain if we were to reduce our food supply and not be
able to get back into that business.
I will conclude my remarks with that point and just emphasize
again that with a $100 billion surplus, there is a need to put
some of that money into farming. I have never been persuaded
that the $900 million was enough. There were a lot of farmers in
western Canada saying not to go down that road, that they needed
more than that. It is probably important and it is probably high
time that provincial ministers of agriculture, farmers and, to
pick up on the point from the member for Toronto—Danforth,
consumers as well try to have some kind of a discussion and
debate about the future of agriculture in the country and where
it is that we think we are going.
Rather than the top down approach, where lobbies happen, a rally
happens and the government comes out with a dollar amount, I
think we should turn the process on its head. Let us have some
discussion with the farm community, consumers and the agriculture
ministers across the country. Let us deal with it in that way to
see if we can finally come up with a program that works for
farmers.
It may be that we need a long term safety net program where, on
one occasion in one year, there will be a certain group of
farmers accessing the money, perhaps in southeast Saskatchewan or
southwestern Manitoba, for example, because of the flooding there
which wreaked havoc. That might be for this year, and then next
year there would be another. There will always be uneven results
in farming. In those happy years where there are not, it may
very well be that we could set aside some money and have a larger
pool on which to draw in future years.
That is the position of the New Democratic Party and I
appreciate the opportunity to speak about it this afternoon.
1210
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Madam Speaker,
let me begin by congratulating the Leader of the Opposition for
moving this motion on a matter of real urgency, not simply to
people who live in rural Canada, as the member across the way
indicated earlier, but to Canadians as a whole.
Let me serve notice that I will be splitting my time in this
debate with my colleague from Brandon—Souris who, as the House
will know, moved the first emergency debate on this issue when
the House resumed after the election.
Just last night Statistics Canada reported that 63,000 Canadians
have left agriculture in the last year. They are farmers, farm
workers and farm families. What is most concerning is that of
those who remain, the average age is steadily increasing. People
do not see a future in farming in this country.
Let me be clear about what that means. There is a financial
crisis now in agriculture. There could be a food crisis tomorrow
in Canada. Consider for a moment a related field, that of
energy. Whether the Bush administration in the United States is
right or wrong, it has now embarked on an energy policy to reduce
the reliance of its consumers on foreign energy producers.
In agriculture, the Liberal Government of Canada is embarked on
a program to increase the reliance of Canadian consumers on
foreign food, because that is the natural consequence of driving
Canadian farmers off the farms. That would be food that could
cost more than households in urban Canada are paying today. It
would be food that might be of a lower quality. It would be food
that could go to families in other countries if they were
prepared to pay more.
We have taken for granted Canada's ability to produce large
quantities of high quality food. We will lose that ability if we
continue to drive farmers off our farms, and driving farmers off
the farm has been a consistent result of the Liberal government,
which has cut the federal budget for agricultural support by
nearly $3 billion since it came to office in 1993.
How does this happen? One way it happens is that governments
too long in power or too easily in power become so arrogant that
they ignore what the public is saying. Indeed, in this House on
this question, without any doubt at all, the government ignores
what its caucus is saying. That is why the proposal by the
Leader of the Opposition to have this as a vote that is not
construed as a question of confidence is of such great
importance.
The Liberal government governs by public opinion poll. When it
does that it runs the risk of enormous harm. The Liberal
government has done that before. This is the government, after
all, that let Canada drift to the brink of losing the last
sovereignty referendum. Do members remember the arguments? The
Prime Minister claimed there was no crisis. He ignored the
people on the ground. He said that public opinion polls showed
there was no crisis. He nearly lost Canada.
Now, again, he claims that there is no crisis in agriculture. He
took a poll on the farm crisis in Toronto, Vancouver and
Montreal. The people his pollster questioned have not seen much
of a farm crisis, not in Scarborough, not in Etobicoke, not in
Ville Laval. Therefore, since they did not see it, the pollster
did not report it and reality cannot exist. The Prime Minister
puts rural Canada at risk because he has let urban Canadians
believe that a cheap food policy is their natural right and there
is nothing that would threaten it in Canada.
What the Prime Minister who nearly lost Canada in a referendum
is in danger of losing now is rural Canada and, in doing that,
losing the capacity to provide quality food grown here at home
for Canadian families.
If farmers keep leaving the land, more Canadian supermarkets
will have to look abroad for their supplies. They will have to
look to Europe for their beef and their lamb. They will have to
pay higher international prices that consumers are spared from
today because past governments have protected a strong
agricultural industry at home.
[Translation]
This government does not look after rural Canadians. It changed
the employment insurance program, thus penalizing workers in
seasonal communities in Canada, communities that live primarily
off fishing, forestry, tourism and other industries that are
inactive during the winter.
1215
Most of these communities are located in rural settings and the
Liberal government continues to pick on them.
Reductions in federal funding for health care have hurt all
Canadians, but nowhere more than in rural communities where the
quality of health care has largely diminished. It is impossible
to attract doctors and nurses to many rural communities and to
encourage them to stay there.
The federal government is not helping the situation at all. And
so now, the government is turning its back on the Canadian
agricultural industry and driving our farmers to bankruptcy.
The Prime Minister, however, is saying that the polls reveal no
crisis in agriculture.
Why? Because the majority of the people polled live in large
cities. They take agriculture for granted. That is unfair and
dangerous.
If we lose our farming capability, the cost of food will shoot
up in Canada. Our country can do better. We have done better
in the past. It was my privilege to be part of a Canadian
government that was familiar with agriculture and concerned
about the sector.
However, the Liberal Party has cut substantially the programs we
had put in place to help farmers. Federal aid paid out to the
farm sector today amounts to nearly $3 billion less than in the
time of the Conservatives. Agriculture is not a priority for
the Liberal government. Rural communities are not either. This
has to change.
[English]
This is not about fiscal restraint or fiscal prudence. This is
about priorities. The government is quite prepared to spend
public money. Let us look at the fountain in Shawinigan or the
$1.3 million given yesterday to book publishers because Heather
Reisman's company is paying publishers with returned books rather
than cash.
When there is new money to spend, why is the heritage minister
so much more influential in the government than the minister of
agriculture?
More damningly, let us look at the spending estimates for the
government's own propaganda. What is euphemistically called
communications co-ordination services in the department of public
works translates into government advertising. It has a budget of
more than $75 million this year. That does not cover crown
corporation advertising. It does not cover what the Prime
Minister will spend in Quebec. The figure does not cover the
cost of the polls which tell the Prime Minister there is no
crisis in agriculture.
As Canadian farmers leave the land and Canada's food security is
put in jeopardy, what is the government spending its money on?
Perhaps the House has seen the expensive television ad for the
Royal Canadian Mint featuring a little girl dancing over her
birthday cake, lip-synching to the tune of All I Want Is
Money. Now there is a celebration of Canadian values and a
model to which young Canadians can aspire.
Let us assume the little girl in the expensive Liberal ad also
wants her cake. Because the government is driving farmers off
the land, the odds grow every day that the grain and flour in the
cakes that Canadians eat will come from foreign fields and will
be grown by farmers whose governments make agriculture a
priority, as is not the case in Canada.
I wholeheartedly support the idea that there needs to be broad
public debate about the future of agriculture. We have serious
issues to face: the real nature of the viable family farm; what
to do about international corporations and competition; what to
do about vertical integration; what to do to ensure we are
competitive around the world; and how do we sustain rural
communities.
Those issues are critically important to the future of the
country but they are being ignored. The House has a duty to play
a leadership role in ensuring they are discussed. We must face
them. We cannot simply let the future of farming drift away.
The urgent issue now is money. If it is urgent for us as a
group, it is particularly urgent for Canadian farmers who want to
continue to produce quality food for Canada, but who must go to
their bankers and must put seed in the ground in the very next
few weeks and have no help in doing that.
We strongly support the motion, but we also strongly support the
need for a very real, thorough debate on agriculture, the place
of food security in Canada and the importance of a food policy
that will not only keep our rural areas active but ensure the
security and quality of the food eaten by our urban populations.
1220
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
I thank the right hon. member for Calgary Centre for his most
eloquent speech as well as his understanding of the issue. As
most members of the House recognize, the right hon. member for
Calgary Centre has been in the House a long time and has
experience in the House that I and others do not have.
I would like to ask the member a question. Looking at
agriculture over the years, particularly in western Canada, has
he ever seen the type of desperation that is now etched on the
faces of producers he meets on a constant basis? Has he ever
seen such a lack of the political will necessary to give those
producers hope, not only for this spring but for springs to come,
with respect to their livelihoods in farming? Has the right hon.
member ever seen anything so desperate as what is now before the
House with respect to agriculture?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Madam Speaker, I have not before,
in my career in public life, seen this level of despair. This
despair is not simply among farmers one might consider as
business people, but also among families.
I will never in my life forget a conversation I had with a
kindergarten teacher in rural Saskatchewan near Carnduff a little
over a year ago. She told me the story of a five year old who
had been missing classes because he had to go home and walk
around to restore the confidence of his father who was on the
verge of losing his farm. That is a terrible reversal of the
roles that should exist in families.
What happened that night in Carnduff is happening across the
country in agriculture. It is a human crisis, it is an economic
crisis and it is a security crisis for Canada.
As to the government, my only explanation is that, try as he
might, the minister of agriculture has no influence in the
government. I have never before seen a government in which a
minister of agriculture had so little influence. It makes me
long for the days of Eugene Whelan.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the right hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative
Party has had experience as prime minister. He has had
experience as a minister at the cabinet table. He made remarks
about priorities. I would ask him a very specific question.
Where would he suggest the cuts come from to find the $500
million?
I would say respectfully that a $200,000 fountain in Shawinigan
or a portion of government advertising would really not make up
the critical mass necessary to do the job here. What will need
to happen eventually are deep and profound sectoral cuts because,
as the member would understand, there is a limited amount of cash
available.
My question for the right hon. member is: Where would he find
that $500 million?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Madam Speaker, that is a serious
question and it emphasizes the point that we are dealing here
with a question of priorities.
I personally would not spend the $500 million, or whatever it is
we are spending, on the gun registry. It is a waste of money and
a mistake.
I talked about government advertising. The government is
spending excessively on advertising; $75 million, that we can
trace in one piece of the estimates, for ads that need not run
and serve no public purpose.
How much money can we gain here? We can gain millions of
dollars here. There is money in the EI account that could be
directed toward this.
I take the member's point. This is a difficult question of
priorities. We must, when considering it, consider not only the
moneys we might need to take from other expenditures or from
government services, but we must also consider the cost of doing
nothing.
What will be the cost in the future if our farm population
continues to age and no young people are prepared to go into the
production of secure, high quality food? What will we do in the
future if we continue to downgrade the infrastructure that is
available in rural communities, communities that contribute
significantly to the quality and distinctiveness of Canadian
life?
1225
What do we do in the future if Canadian consumers are forced to
pay for foreign food because we have made it less and less
possible for Canadians to produce high quality, secure food at
home?
The questions are serious but when they are considered by the
Liberal government agriculture always comes out last. That is
not acceptable.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I commend the right hon. member for his remarks.
I also commend the member opposite, the hon. member for
Toronto—Danforth, who has a great personal interest in the issue
and has taken initiatives that have furthered the cause of those
in crisis in agriculture.
My question for the right hon. member focuses on remarks he made
about priorities. I would also put to him that this is an issue
of leadership. With respect to the department of agriculture, I
have a quote from one of the Liberal members from Prince Edward
Island. An article that was in the Guardian newspaper
quotes the hon. member for Malpeque as saying:
The underlying problem from the start has been that the very
department (Ag Canada) supposed to be working in the interest of
the farmers has been the greatest obstacle.
He goes on to say:
That was a quote from a Liberal member.
The situation in Prince Edward Island is outside the normal
circumstances of federal-provincial problems. The P.E.I.
industry has made large sacrifices to protect the rest of Canada
and there is no certainty that the U.S. border will even be open
for the remainder of the year.
I wonder if the right hon. member could focus a little bit on
that situation, on the lack of leadership shown there, and on the
fact that the federal government has come up with less than half
of what P.E.I. potato farmers were looking for to address their
problem.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Madam Speaker, I think we sometimes
forget that P.E.I. potato farmers have made sacrifices at the
behest of the federal government to ensure their sales were
within Canada. The sacrifice they made on Canada's behalf should
surely be reflected in the aid the Canadian government gives them
at a time of exceptional crisis, a crisis that grows from one
field, not from several fields. The support that has been given
so far is not only inadequate, it puts at risk an industry that
is fundamental to the future of that province.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
as always, it is difficult to follow the right hon. member for
Calgary Centre. He speaks so eloquently and knowledgeably about
the issue.
I am sorry that I must once again stand in the House to speak to
an issue I thought the minister of agriculture and the Prime
Minister would have by now realized is of such a serious nature.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake had to put
forward a motion on his own supply day to once again profile what
is a very serious crisis in our communities and in our country.
Unfortunately that is what has happened.
It is necessary to continue to profile the issue because
unfortunately the government has not seen the seriousness of the
crisis. It is serious. It is extremely serious. I am talking
of farmers whose livelihood comes from the land, farmers, whom I
deal with on a daily basis by telephone and in my constituency
office, who are absolutely desperate.
This is a way of life. It is their livelihood. It is all they
know. Their families before them and their families before them
came from the land and they are now in my office and on my phone
saying that they do not know what to do. They want to grow
products for the rest of the country and the rest of the world
but they have found themselves in a position where they may not
be able to.
This is spring today, March 20. One month from now a lot of
them should be on the land. Unfortunately the government,
without the necessary supports, has thrown them onto the garbage
heap of our society. That is sad.
This is not just about farmers. It is about their families.
It is about their children who go to schools in the
communities.
1230
It is about the wives who work off farm and have always worked
off farm to provide a livelihood for those families. It is about
the same children the hon. member for Calgary Centre spoke of who
are concerned about the welfare of their parents. This is
extremely serious. It is about the communities that surround my
community and the communities of the member for Palliser and of
the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
In my community the backbone of our economy is agriculture. It
is desperate when we walk into a small rural community and we see
boarded up businesses, schools being closed down, and elevators
being ripped out. We see the way of life being destroyed in
those communities. That is what this is about.
It is not about the ego of a prime minister. It is about
families, communities and farmers. It is about businesses that
have tried to develop in communities and because of lack of
support are closing their doors. When those businesses close
their doors, they close the doors on employment. The people
employed in those businesses then leave their communities. Where
do they go? They go to Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. They go
to urban centres.
We have a rural way of life that we want to preserve, not only
in western Canada but across Canada. That rural way of life that
should and must be preserved is not even on the government's
radar screen. Why has this happened?
It is not happening because farm families, communities and
businesses said that they were making mistakes and therefore they
had to live by them. That would be easy to fix. The reason they
find themselves in this position is unfair competition with the
Americans and with the Europeans. They are eating our lunch and
the minister of agriculture is allowing it to happen.
What is happening right now with unfair subsidies is that the
Americans, between 1998 and 2000, provided $48 billion of support
for agriculture. In that same timeframe in Canada it was less
than $3 billion. That is despicable. The government is allowing
the Americans to put us out of business through no fault of our
own.
Another problem we have right now is increased costs. In most
cases when people are in the business of making things they can
pass on costs to consumers. In our particular case the costs are
going up quite dramatically because the fertilizers being
utilized on the land are natural gas based. We know what is
happening in the natural gas industry right now. Costs are going
up by 100% over last year's costs. Fuel being put into a
tractor, a swather or a combine has gone up again about 100%, or
45% coming back in the other direction.
These costs cannot be passed on because the commodity price that
is being driven down by these unfair subsidies is now less than
what it was in 1995-96. It does not take a very long time to
realize that when it costs more money to make a product than to
sell it one cannot stay in business very long.
We are not only finding ourselves in this position because of
unfair competition and increased costs. It is also because, as was
mentioned earlier, we have a government and particularly a Prime
Minister who have lost the priority and the profile of this
industry.
It was also mentioned earlier that the government wants to
govern by polls. I was told by a member of the backbench that
the Prime Minister said that they had done plenty for agriculture
and that nobody out there was making any noise as to what the
problems are.
Over the last four weeks we have had a minister of agriculture
burnt in effigy in Saskatchewan. We have had a rally here in
Lansdowne Park, at which I, the member for Palliser and others
spoke in front of thousands of farmers. We have had people in
the Manitoba legislature sleeping overnight with their families,
without sleeping bags because they were not allowed to take them
in. Why did they do this? It was because they were desperate.
Was there a profile given to the seriousness of the industry? Of
course there was. Where has the Prime Minister been when he
cannot see what is going on around him? We had members of his
own party, his own backbenchers stand to say very effectively
that there must be more support now.
1235
There are three issues with respect to support. The first one
is support now. The motion is very specific. It asks for an
additional $400 million. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth
said that $400 million was an awful lot of money above the $500
million that has already been expended. On a per acre basis,
that probably, in most cases in Saskatchewan and Manitoba alone,
would mean less than $5 per acre. That does not even take into
consideration the cost of what the inputs are that are going into
the land for the coming year. Four hundred million dollars above
the $500 million is the minimum amount that is necessary to make
sure our producers can get onto the land. That is an ad hoc
program.
I remember listening to the minister in the House saying many
times that the government does not like ad hoc programs in
agriculture. He said that the government would like a long term,
well thought out safety net program that will solve the problem.
I see no evidence that the government is leading in that
direction. Everything that has been dealt with, in my experience
in the House, in agriculture, has been totally ad hoc.
We all know about the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec back in
1998. It was ad hoc. The government gave money to Quebec and to
Ontario for issues that have never been dealt with before on an
ad hoc basis. I remember the 1998 flood in the Red River Valley.
What was the program for agriculture? It was an ad hoc program.
They received lost inputs, seeding requirements and a lot of
programs that were kind of made up on the go and put into place
ad hoc.
In 1999, when the hon. member for Palliser's area and my area in
southwestern Manitoba were affected by extreme rain conditions,
to the point where 1.1 million acres were not planted, we asked
the minister for some programs. He told us that he could not do
ad hoc programs. He said that we had a wonderful program called
AIDA that would take into consideration all the losses suffered
in the area and that AIDA would fix everything.
Half of what my office handles in my constituency are complaints
about the AIDA program. The program has not solved the problems.
In fact maybe the minister was getting off track. Maybe he
should have gone to an ad hoc program. I would have been much
happier, believe me, because I would have had some compensation
for people who required it.
We heard the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough say
that there is no program right now in P.E.I. The government came
along, pulled $14.6 million out of the air and it is an ad hoc
program.
We desperately need money now. All members in the House must
vote in favour of the $400 million. We need long term programs
that will put some hope back into agriculture. We need a
government and a Prime Minister who will say publicly that there
is a problem in agriculture and that, yes, they are prepared to
fix it.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I might say, without telling my
age, that I have been directly or indirectly involved with this
industry probably longer than anyone in the House, but I have
never seen people so absolutely at a dead end as they are now.
This is no longer a question about agriculture. It is now a
question of human tragedy.
I would like to direct a question to the hon. member. Would he
not agree that there is a lack of funding right now to see that
the crops in my area and his area get into the ground? If the
money is not there, is the government saying that it will let
this human tragedy play its full course and maybe it will die out
and go away?
I believe that if the government had the will it would come to
the rescue. Obviously it does not have the will so it cannot
find a way.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, I could not agree more
with the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. I said that
earlier.
1240
There always seems to be demonstrated a lack of political will,
to the point where the Prime Minister says that there is no
problem. He does not talk to the same people we talk to on a
daily basis, because then he would recognize that there is a
problem. He received thousands of phone calls from producers in
my area and the hon. member's area. We know because the his
office returned the calls. Why is he not getting the message?
If there were political will, could it be fixed? Absolutely,
and let me give an example. Prior to the election we sat in the
House when the Minister of Finance stood and announced a $1.3
billion program for an energy rebate. There was no protest.
There were no ministers burned in effigy. There were no phone
calls made. There were no people protesting in legislatures. All
of a sudden this was the major issue of the day. The
government's political will was to do something, so it put in
$1.3 billion.
What do we have to do to tell the government that it is also an
issue in agriculture and that if it comes up with the same amount
of dollars we will be able to fix the problem in a very short
period of time? There is no political will and that is the
problem. That is why it is necessary that the motion stays in the
House and that the government listens to us regarding the
agriculture industry.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for
Brandon—Souris on his great speech. I also congratulate him on
his basketball club that played St. Francis Xavier in Halifax.
They were great ambassadors of the Manitoba people. They should
be congratulated on a great effort.
Now Canadian farmers know what east and west coast fishermen
have been going through for many years. It is sad for me as a
member of the New Democratic Party representing Nova Scotia to
stand in the House to make that comparison. That is exactly what
has happened.
The government and previous governments have basically said to
the family fishermen that they are finished. It does not even
have the stamina or the wherewithal to tell the truth. It says
quite clearly that the family farm is finished. If that is the
direction of the government, it should stand up on its hind heels
and tell the people of the farming community throughout the
country that is the game plan. That is exactly what it is doing.
That is a tragic policy on behalf of the large corporate sector
which will gobble up these farms and destroy the hopes and
aspirations of many young people who wish to pursue agriculture
as a proud and noble career.
I thank the Alliance for bringing forward the motion today. It
is very important as the member and others have indicated. We
only hope the government will honour this commitment.
The leader of the Saskatchewan party, Elwin Hermanson, a
previous member of the House, said in the House:
There should be no guarantees to small business. There should be
no loan guarantees to farms. We should not treat farmers
differently.
Also the leader of the Reform Party said:
The brute truth is the prairie provinces cannot support the
number of farmers they have been supporting.
I am very proud and would like the Conservative Party member to
elaborate on why there is a change of policy in the Reform Party.
We are glad it is doing it, but it may be a little too late. All
the government is doing is honouring the Alliance policy—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am sorry, but the
member's time is up. I will permit the hon. member for
Brandon—Souris to give us a short answer.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, my answer will be very
short because I cannot speak for the Alliance. I do know that it
has had some changes in policy and some changes in thinking on
any number of issues in the House, regardless of whether it be
Stornoway, pensions or whatever. It seems to change its mind on
a number of issues. This is just another one where it seems to
have finally seen the light. It has come to the issue a bit late
but we certainly thank the Alliance for that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Madam
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak today to
the motion moved by the official opposition leader, the member
for Okanagan—Coquihalla. The motion reads as follows:
That this House call on the government to authorize an
additional $400 million in emergency assistance for Canadian
farm families (over and above all agriculture programs announced
or in place to date), to be paid out in 2001, and that the
confidence convention need not apply to this motion.
1245
As is customary, the motion was amended by adding the word
“immediately”. The government is therefore now being asked to
pay out this additional $400 million immediately.
I am gradually becoming familiar with the world of agriculture
which is a completely new portfolio for me, but one thing I have
understood. Recently I attended a meeting of leading
agricultural stakeholders in a room here and I heard the
minister of agriculture say “In Canada, there is always someone
somewhere saying that it is too little, too late. There is
always too much rain, or it is too dry, there is too much of one
thing or not enough of another.
It is never possible, in the world of agriculture, from coast to
coast, to please everyone”. Fine, but what is amazing is that
the minister of agriculture manages to displease everyone at the
same time. This is amazing.
People are unanimous in saying that the half a billion dollar
effort—and I do recognize the effort—announced by the Canadian
government two weeks ago is totally inadequate. On this, people
are unanimous from coast to coast. Some have their own way of
putting it but, generally speaking, people agree on that. For
example, the Quebec minister of agriculture said that it is a
good initiative—he is being positive—but that there is still
two-thirds of the way left to go. It is not enough and everyone
agrees on that.
The minister should have announced an investment of $1.5
billion, not half a billion dollars. With regard to that
announcement, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture also
confirmed that this amount is far from the minimum of $1.5
billion a year that would be required over the next three years
to help farmers.
There is no need to look at all the releases issued on that
occasion. Each stakeholder has its own style of communication.
For example, in Quebec the UPA says that the amount is barely
enough to keep one's head above the water.
The hon. member for Brandon—Souris rightly pointed out that the
fact that the government wasted $1.4 billion in January 2001 to
fulfil an election promise was rather shameful. He said $1.3
billion, but I have always known the amount to be $1.4 billion.
We will not argue over $100 million. After all, it is peanuts
considering how the government seems to be throwing money
out the window.
We know that money was very badly spent.
If the government could find close to $1.5 billion quickly in
order to keep a campaign promise, one might well wonder how it
can be that the ministers were incapable of sitting down for
discussions in order to acknowledge that Canadian agriculture
was in urgent need.
This past weekend I met a number of my constituents and many of
them told me “Being made responsible for agriculture may be
interesting for you, but it will not be easy. It is a difficult
area, because farmers are rarely content”.
Since I got involved with agriculture especially I have an
understanding of why farmers are never content.
They are constantly having to beg for help, and when they do get
any it is always out of synch with their needs. When they get
half a billion, they have to continue to demand the full billion
they really need.
It is hard to understand why the government is not capable of
giving them what they are calling for. We ought to be able to
sit down for once and for all and say that crisis management is
over, that now there will be long term planning and find out
what the needs of agriculture are.
1250
It is time to stop seeing agriculture as a holdover from the
past. Obviously it is a style of life that must be maintained,
but agriculture is also a vital industry contributing nearly 10%
of the gross domestic product. It provides jobs for hundreds of
thousands of people across Canada.
Therefore, it is not just the lifestyle that must be maintained
so we can go for a drive in the country and say there are farms
around still, we will go camping on a farm or stop over there or
do all sorts of things on the farm to keep it traditional.
No, we have to do something and find a way to provide the
millions of dollars families need to resolve their problems.
To be more specific about the contribution agriculture makes to
our economy, in 2000, 46% of net farm income in the United States came
from government subsidies. Canadian support for the agri-food
sector has been cut by half over the past ten years, shrinking
from $5.1 billion dollars in 1991 to $2.6 billion in 2001. In 10
years, spending on agriculture has decreased from 3.6% of the
federal budget to 1.7% of it.
We can see from these reductions that since the Liberal
government has been in office, the surpluses it now has coming
out of its ears it found in employment insurance—as we have
said—the former unemployment insurance.
According to the auditor general, it helped itself to at least
$28 billion, mostly in worker contributions. But there are also
billions of dollars in subsidies and assistance that our farmers
used to receive.
Today, Canada has become one of the OECD countries providing the
least support for agriculture, $163 per capita, as opposed to
$336 per capita in Europe and $350 per capita in the United
States.
With figures such as these, it is not hard to understand why the
farmers of Quebec and of Canada cannot go up alone against the
competition from the U.S. and European countries which provide
generous subsidies for farming.
Our WTO agreements are being held up as an excuse for being over
zealous and cutting our support to farmers.
In addition to the disasters so eloquently described by the
members who spoke before me, our farmers have had to face many
difficulties with much less assistance from the government.
They have another problem as well: the increase in production
costs, which is largely the result of the increase in fuel costs.
This is exacerbating the structural crisis in the agricultural
sector. On the whole, producers have seen their fuel costs alone
go up $400 million since 1998. This in turn means that it will
also cost more to produce fertilizers. There goes another $400
million.
So while the motion is asking to immediately give farm families
an additional $400 million, the total amount would still be
$600 million less than what is needed by farmers. But it goes
without saying that an additional $400 million would be helpful
and might enable farmers to keep a little more than their heads
above water.
Quebec and Canadian farmers are confronted with soaring
production costs and a reduction in prices on the market. They
are suffering a shortfall that is now in excess of $1 billion. In
a period of budget surpluses, Canada refuses to provide fair
assistance to its agriculture industry and is letting the
situation deteriorate.
1255
As I said earlier, the agricultural sector currently accounts
for 10% of the gross domestic product. It also accounts for
about 10% of the jobs in the country and provides Canadians—and
this is worth noting—with the world's least expensive grocery
basket.
Again, we are number one in the world. In spite of the fact that
the government does not look after them, our farmers continue to
produce food items at a reasonable price after all since our
grocery basket is the least expensive in the world.
In order to solve the crisis, the government must implement long
term structuring measures based on the actual costs of
production. The Canadian agri-food sector includes not just
farmers but suppliers, processors, shippers, grocers, and restaurant
workers. This entire industry is the third ranking employer in
Canada. It is far from insignificant.
We must therefore ensure that an industry that generated in the
year 2000 more than $95 billion worth of business is worthy of
our taking the time to reflect on how best we can give it a hand
up out of the mess it is in, and enable it to at least move
onward and upward like any other industry.
For instance, there was no hesitation when it came to giving a
tiny little business like Bombardier a $87 million hand up.
With it, Bombardier was able to finance the development
necessary to make it into a company that is now flourishing both
in Canada and in the rest of the world. If we want our
agricultural sector to develop a degree of self-sufficiency and
if we want to see it develop further, it needs to be given
the required assistance for that forward move.
Since the federation has said that the requirement was $1.5
billion over three years, I asked the farmers of my region—the
lower St. Lawrence, a tiny region when compared to the whole of
Canada—to give me some idea what amount of money I would have to
give them if I had the means of meeting their needs.
The means are there, the needs corresponding to catastrophes
they have lived through, but there are also needs that relate to
development of what I call planning of medium and long term
visions. For example, another $750,000 would be required to
compensate producers who have lost their herds as a result of
scrapie.
In this case, the government decided to provide compensation.
However, it sat down with business people, not with producers.
They used that and said “Fine, that will be a good thing. We
have to develop traceability. We will therefore use this
opportunity to spend $1 million of the money we are giving you in
order to produce, in the field of informatics, everything
necessary to keep track of your sheep production from the farm
to the table”.
During this time while they were taking the means to set up
this system, which I consider praiseworthy, it would for
example, make it possible to take $750,000 away from producers,
money they could have applied to the purchase of animals to
rebuild their flocks.
In my region agricultural lime production is being developed.
It would require $400,000. There is a plan to develop cattle
farming over a five year period which would require
$2.5 million. A potato marketing project—because my region
produces potatoes—would require $30,000.
In order to establish the standards so dear to the Food
Inspection Agency for the abattoir located in my riding just to
put the standards into effect it will take $150,000. If it does
not get $150,000 to implement the standards, I wonder what sort
of job the Food Inspection Agency will do if the money is not
available to put the standards into practice.
1300
Since the lower St. Lawrence region is a farming region we have
tried to develop quality products. The humus in the region is
excellent and we must therefore develop quality products. We
are very advanced in the development of organic farming.
One brand name, Les saveurs du Bas Saint-Laurent, has been put on
the market. Expanding this line would require $175,000.
Since our region also produces maple syrup and honey an
investment of $60,000 would be necessary to develop a shared
brand name for these two products.
There are also large sheep production operations in our region.
Since we have no wool processing plant $500,000 would be
necessary to set one up. Otherwise, we can do nothing with the
wool and this entire sector of the economy will be unproductive.
We would need $500,000 for a meat processing centre in addition
to $100,000 to build a cheese factory to process the goat's milk
produced in our region.
An investment of $150,000 is needed to rebuild the Centre
Avibier. Finally, $60,000 is needed to develop farm tourism so
that we can keep our rural way of life alive, just to mention
this aspect in passing.
So a small region like mine needs $5.375 million to meet urgent
and real needs that relate to sustainable development and that
require long term policies.
The region could be further developed which would create jobs
and allow most people to leave the employment insurance program.
Jobs would be created in primary and secondary processing
plants if only the government showed some vision and stopped
relying on crisis management.
The government thinks that people will be happy with half a
billion dollars. We do not even really know how all the issues
will be solved.
I thank my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance for bringing
forward this motion today.
This is an extremely important issue.
Since the Minister of Finance said that he is leaning toward
fall budgets, we should not expect too much this spring. Yet
today is a beautiful day.
It would be important for the minister of agriculture and all
his colleagues to understand that action is urgently required in
agriculture since it is a leading industry in Canada. It is an
industry we should be proud of because we will be increasingly
dependent on what is produced worldwide if we cannot become
increasingly self-sufficient in the agricultural industry.
[English]
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today
with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
I will quickly deal with three questions today: Why are we
here, where are we going with agriculture, and what are we doing
with it? We are faced with a desperate situation in agriculture
today. This morning I heard people criticize the Alliance for
its agriculture policy. I want to read it to them to assure them
it has not changed.
Our agriculture policy reads:
To ensure a self-reliant and economically viable agricultural
sector, we will vigorously seek free entry of Canadian products
into foreign markets. We support and will advocate the phased
reduction and elimination of all subsidies, support programs and
trade restrictions in conjunction with other countries.
We further go on to state:
We believe it is in the best interest of Canada and Canadian
agriculture that the industries under the protection of Supply
Management remain viable.
Our agriculture policy has not changed. It continues to be
compassionate and based on common sense. We are in a situation
now that requires some common sense and we do not seem to be
getting any direction from the government. We are stuck in a
subsidy war with the European Union and the United States, and
Canada is the third and smallest partner in those trade wars.
1305
Our grain and oilseed prices have crumbled to the point where
farmers cannot compete. Why do we need to help? When incomes
have fallen to 20% of the five year averages, something needs to
be done. We either let our farmers go down the drain or we help
out. We are not prepared to let them go down the drain.
We must expect changes in agriculture as the industry goes
along, but seeing 23,000 people per year leaving the industry is
far too many. We have a problem.
The second question is this: Where are we with agriculture and
what are the specific problems?
The first problem to which I have already referred is
financial viability. People put many years into their farms. We
heard the member for Brandon—Souris talk about that. At a young
age they begin trying to build equity in an operation. They make
the best decisions they can. They try to raise their families on
the farms.
Farming is not just a living. It is a way of life that
contributes $95 billion to the Canadian economy. A farmer's
decisions can be absolutely right but in the end the results can
be wrong. They must make their crop selections and guess their
incomes far ahead of production. When incomes go down and costs
go up, as we have seen with the price of diesel and fertilizer,
grains and oilseeds are no longer viable.
We have other problems in our agricultural sector, one of which
is political interference. I have talked a little about
subsidization. According to reports, U.S. farmers are asking for
$14 billion more in subsidies on top of the approximately $28
billion they already get.
Farmers cannot afford to be involved in trade wars. Last week
we had a discussion on softwood lumber. It is the small people
who are affected by trade wars and disputes. Wheat and cattle
have begun to get dragged into the softwood lumber dispute.
Farmers cannot afford that.
We see trade problems in the area of P.E.I. potatoes. We feel
for the people who have produced their product and then are not
allowed to take it to market.
Another concern for farmers is transportation. Our system
continues to be very expensive, particularly in western Canada,
and not all that efficient.
Producers are separated from legislation which seems to be made
far away from them and into which they have no input. Two
examples are the firearms legislation in western Canada, which is
still a big issue, and the endangered species act that producers
look at with suspicion because they realize they do not have a
big say in how it is being put together.
Farmers have concerns over GMOs. Many have grown them. They
are unsure whether they can continue to grow them or even whether
they should. The government needs to give some direction and
regulation in that area.
There are food safety issues. Producers are concerned about
food safety but they also need to be protected from overreaction.
Producers have issues over seed patents. We put public money
into seed research and then turn around and sell the new
varieties to private companies, and farmers in turn must deal
with those companies. It is one more expense for the farmer and
for the taxpayer. Those kinds of things make farmers and
producers feel marginalized.
Perhaps my biggest long term concern, and the concern of many
people to whom I have talked, is that there seems to be no
leadership or coherent direction in Canadian agriculture. I have
farmed for 25 years. For decades we have seen ad hoc programs. I
would sum up what I have seen over the years by saying that
policies are often too little, too late.
The federal and provincial governments need to sit down and
accept responsibility for the sector, negotiate what they will do
and begin to develop long term plans. Uncertainty in this
business kills. We have enough of it without the government
providing more.
I talked a little about why we are here and where we are with
agriculture. I will now talk about where we are going. I have
some suggestions.
I suggest we begin by building on the positives. Specialty
crops have been a real success story in Canada in the last few
years. Organic crops like kamut and the chick pea industry
which has developed out of nowhere in western Canada are
examples of this.
The second success story is the development of the pulse
industry. It has seen a 2,500% increase in productivity in the
past 20 years. It is now a $1 billion industry and within the
next five years it is expected to be a $2 billion industry. That
is a success story.
A third success story has been our livestock industry.
Infrastructure is being developed and has been developed to
support that industry. We need to protect it.
These are three sectors where we have had limited government
involvement and have had success. We need to give the Food
Inspection Agency the power to keep our cattle industry safe.
1310
I suggest that we need emergency aid at this point. People have
been criticizing the Alliance for what they see as a change in
policy. As I have explained, it is not a change in policy at
all. Farmers need compensation. We are prepared to deal with
that and we want to deal with it.
We need an emergency structure for natural disasters. People
come into our offices on a fairly regular basis who have not had
satisfaction in dealing with natural disasters such as floods. We
need long term planning for those kinds of situations.
We need to strengthen our insurance programs. Those programs
have worked for the most part. Producers and the government
contribute to them, and with adjustments as we go along they seem
to be working not too badly. It was mentioned earlier that we
need transition programs. I would echo that as well.
We need a long term safety net program with producer
participation that works better than AIDA. We also need good
trade negotiations to reduce foreign subsidization. We need to
reduce our involvement in that regard. We need our trade
negotiators to sit down and do serious business in that area.
As our motion says, we need $400 million of short term aid to
farmers. I would call on the government to do more than just
criticize the opposition. In the last two weeks it has changed
its tactics. Last week members such as the member for
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey expressed the opinion that it is
the opposition's fault the government has not responded to the
crisis. I reject that.
This week there has been a very expensive Canada-wide media
campaign to convince Canadians that farmers are well off as it is
now. The government still does not understand that driving a
wedge between people is not good agricultural policy. Perhaps
again its agriculture policy is being driven by poll.
I cannot believe the lack of planning and commitment we see in
the government. Liberal backbenchers today need to stand and
show their influence. The opposition has done its work. We have
tried to bring the issue to the forefront and we have done so
today.
Many opposition members agree with the Liberal member for
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex who said, in response to the
government's last announcement of new agricultural funding:
It was one of my darkest days in politics so far. I had really
honestly thought the Prime Minister understood the plight of the
grain and oilseed farmers...I just really felt my knees were cut
out.
We call on members opposite to support our motion today to get
involved, take care and do their part in correcting the emergency
situation we have on the farm.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the
debate to support the motion to immediately authorize an
additional $400 million in emergency assistance for Canadian farm
families. It is clear that the concerns of Ontario farmers have
been falling on deaf ears with the government. Farmers have been
facing their worst income crisis since the great depression. It
is also clear that only a Canadian Alliance government would
listen to the problems facing rural Canada.
In my riding of Renfrew-Nipissing—Pembroke, farmers are
experiencing the same income crisis that is being experienced
elsewhere.
Considering that a large portion of the terrain in my riding is
the Canadian Shield, which has poor, rocky soils where there is
soil, production is substantial. Beef farms account for over 50%
of all farms in Renfrew county. Dairy, field crop and
miscellaneous specialty farms account for most of the remaining
farms. Renfrew is a leader in hay, maple syrup and Christmas
tree production.
However, the profile of farming in my riding is changing. The
number of beef farms is steadily declining and field crop and
miscellaneous operations are on the increase. That is happening
because our farmers are searching for ways to make a living in
light of the problem of low commodity prices. Here in Ontario
the federal government has developed a reputation of being
anti-farmer.
This past year Ontario farmers have been faced with bad weather,
reduced yields and declining prices due to the international
agreement the Liberals signed that created the World Trade
Organization. Not only did the new agreement end the provision
which protected supply management from imports, it exposed
Canadian farmers to penalties which the Liberals claimed would
not occur.
In September 1999 the WTO ruled that Canada was dumping milk on
to the world market and it ordered Canada to change or to stop
exporting.
This exposed the lie told to farmers when they were advised that
supply management would not be affected by the Mulroney-Liberal
trade agreements, and that there would be no effect on domestic
supply management.
1315
The Liberals then tried to cover their tracks by incorrectly
stating that a Canadian Alliance government would unilaterally
end domestic supply management. That is false and the worst form
of negative politics from a federal government that thrives on
negative politics. The Canadian Alliance knows that farmers want
straight talk from Ottawa about what is happening in agriculture
here at home and abroad.
The Canadian Alliance believes it is in the best interest of
farmers, Canada and agriculture that the industries under the
protection of supply management remain viable. While the
Canadian Alliance supports greater international trade, our
farmers will only benefit from increased trade if it is rules
based fair trade. We will continue to support supply managed
farmers. Tariffs will only be reduced and my party and I will
only consider changes to domestic policies if other countries
match our existing commitments.
It is clear that a significant segment of the Ontario farming
community did not support the Mulroney-Liberal trade agreements
because it feared the deal would mean the end of the family farm.
The Mulroney-Liberal trade agreements are a direct assault on
rural Canada.
In Ontario since the current government took power, according to
Statistics Canada the number of farmers for whom farming is their
principle means of livelihood have declined from 121,200 to
88,200, or a loss of 33,000 farmers. Farmers' worst fears are
being realized with the government.
According to the Ontario Corn Producers Association, federal
statistics on farm income data for all provinces show that the
total net farm income was substantially lower in Ontario than in
Saskatchewan in both 1998 and 1999, even though the scale of
agricultural output was larger in Ontario. Total net farm income
was $484 million in 1998 and $281 million in 1999 in Ontario. For
Saskatchewan the figures were $603 million in 1998 and $531
million in 1999.
During the past federal election in rural Ontario, some elected
politicians had big words of encouragement but the sad fact is
that it was just another last minute vote ploy. With two days
before an election call, when this cynical government thought it
might need the votes from farmers, it promised bigger and more
flexible AIDA program payments. The AIDA funding, offered two
years ago, is for the most part still in Ottawa. Funding
programs are meaningless unless they reach those who need them.
The Canadian Alliance believes Ontario's market revenue program
must be maintained or it will be lost for good. We believe the
program has served Ontario producers well. We will not allow the
program to run out of money or be scrapped because if it does the
Mulroney-Liberal trade agreements will not allow us to start it
up again.
The Ontario farmer in rural Ontario is an endangered species.
The Prime Minister and his contemptuous advisers knew that they
did not have to make commitments to farmers but were quick to
throw money at rich urbanites, including $500 million for the
Toronto waterfront and $380 million for new four lane highways
and bridges for Quebec.
Farmers in Ontario have long feared that the Liberal government
policy of driving them off the land would mean a loss in
political influence. That grim realization has come with the
November 27 election results.
Ontario farmers are asking for a level playing field.
Agriculture is important. I say that to all members of the House
but I particularly direct my comments to the Liberal MPs in
Ontario who have rural constituencies but cannot seem to convince
their leader that agriculture is important.
This is not just a western Canada issue to ignore, as the
Liberal Party tends to ignore the west.
1320
As the only unbiased voice of rural Ontario since 1993, I can
say that farmers are talking to me. Members opposite may think
that four years is a long time and that they will forget how they
have pushed away their concerns, but I am saying that they will
not forget because as their voice on Parliament Hill I will
remind them of how their trust was betrayed. Excuses can be made
but the facts are there.
We in the official opposition are asking the government to
support the needs of Canadian farmers so that they will be here
tomorrow to put quality home grown food on the tables of
consumers.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have a copy of two statements from the Reform Party policy
platform and statement of principles. One is dated August 14,
1988, and reads:
We support the shift from a government dominated and supported
agricultural industry to an industry shaped by market forces.
The other statement is also from the policy declaration of the
Canadian Alliance dated January 2000 and reads:
We will support and we will advocate the phased reduction and
elimination of all subsidies, support programs and trade
restrictions in conjunction with other countries.
Would my colleague not agree that these two statements, one that
is twelve years old and the other one which is nearly one year
old, are very contradictory to the motion proposed by the Leader
of the Opposition which is calling for the exact opposite?
I know my colleague is a straight shooter. I would like to know
whether or not she agrees that there is a contradiction in the
two statements and which one she supports.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Madam Speaker, I was not aware that
my rifleman talents were known that widely. The Canadian
Alliance will reduce subsidies only in conjunction with other
countries. It is the Liberal government that unilaterally took
away subsidies from Canadian farmers.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to this issue. I represent an urban riding
in Ottawa Centre, the riding in which the House of Commons is
situated. I am a bit at a loss when I see the official
opposition come forward with motions such as the one before us
today.
As I indicated in an earlier question to the member of the
Reform Party, her party policies call for the exact—
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to know what the member is talking about. I
thought the Reform Party of Canada was demised.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I would caution the
hon. member to use the official name of the official opposition
which is the Canadian Alliance.
Mr. Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, my deepest apologies. It
was an honest oversight on my part. It is difficult for a
government member to differentiate between the old party and the
new party.
The policy of the Canadian Alliance Party speaks very much to
the opposite of what the motion is speaking to today. As I told
a colleague on the other side earlier, it is quite clear and
quite unequivocal that in essence it contradicts what is in the
motion. I will be splitting my time with the member for
Elgin—Middlesex—London.
It is fair game when we have consistency before us, but when we
see situations like this one it is quite frustrating because we
do not know where that party sits on the issue. At the end of
the day the issue before us is an issue of fairness.
It really has nothing to do with partisanship. It has nothing to
do with the political affiliation of one member or another. It
has to do with the issue of fairness.
1325
We have a situation where the farming communities across Canada
are telling us that they are faced with a situation where farmers
in other countries, in particular south of the border, are
getting unfair subsidies. As a result they are putting our
farming communities at a disadvantage.
This is an absolutely fair statement and fair game. Ultimately
at the end of the day it is imperative that those in the farming
community are playing with the same rules. Therefore, if
subsidies are being put on the table by other countries, it does
not necessarily mean that we will have to bring in more
subsidies. It means, though, that we will have to do our utmost
to ensure a level playing field.
In the meantime what should we do? Should we let our farmers
leave? Should we let our farmers suffer the inequity that exists
while we are fighting the injustice that is taking place
elsewhere, or should we fight for them and at the same time do
something to support them?
That is exactly what the government has done. Every business
venture and every trading nation has to play by the rules set out
by the World Trade Organization and by the rules set out
previously under the free trade agreement and eventually under
NAFTA. We all have to abide by and to follow the same rules. We
have to subscribe to those rules and we have to ensure that our
industry subscribes to those rules.
When we see situations such as we are seeing now in the farming
communities, or when we see situations such as we will see at the
end of this month with the softwood lumber issue, we get
frustrated. We as elected officials feel that we have an
obligation to do what is right and not just to correct what is
wrong. This is exactly what the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and what the Minister for International Trade have been
doing consistently over the past few months to address the whole
issue of inequities.
What is enough? The minister just announced a support package
for farming communities to balance the imbalance that exists.
What is enough? Frankly I would say that $500 million may not
solve the problems of the farming communities for good. Even $1
billion will probably not be enough to solve the problems of the
farming community for good. What will solve those problems is
the removal of unfair subsidies from anywhere in the globe where
farming products and farming services are provided. That is the
only way for us to ensure fairness.
In the absence of that we have to be exceptionally careful not
to create the impression that we have a well with an endless
amount of resources into which we dip every time there is a
problem and wait for the problem to go away.
We have to be consistently persistent in trying to speak out on
behalf of farming communities, as the minister and the government
have done. We have to consistently seek justice when it comes to
the World Trade Organization and NAFTA to ensure a level playing
field.
I am not saying that we have to eliminate subsidies all at once
and for good. However there are others who have already embarked
on eliminating subsidies altogether. That has happened in New
Zealand. Others may also follow suit and eliminate subsidies
altogether so the market can decide.
If I were asked as an elected official from an urban riding
whether or not I am calling for the removal of subsidies, I would
say no.
1330
That cannot be done unilaterally and cannot be done by one
country in the absence of action by others. We must do it
collectively. As nations we must collectively set the rules of
law and ensure those rules are respected by member countries.
It is fairly hurtful when we see situations like the one the
farming community is faced with now. To a large extent it is
being discriminated against. I commend the minister of
agriculture who is very knowledgeable about the file. I also
commend the Prime Minister and the Minister for International
Trade for speaking out on behalf of farmers. That is responsible
action on the part of the government.
When the official opposition says if we throw another $400
million at the problem it will go away, I challenge it to tell me
the exact amount the government must put on the table to make the
problem go away. No sum of money will make the problem go away
as long as other nations outbid us and subsidize more than us.
At the end of the day what is required is corrective action like
the government has done: work with farm communities and leaders
and speak out on the international scene. We must bring sanity
to the system so that farmers around the world will play by the
same rules. When they play by the rules, they know that all
other farmers in every other country are also playing by the same
rules.
We have an unjust situation that is made worse by the fact that
some member countries of the World Trade Organization are not
playing by the rules. That is the issue before us. Rather than
telling the government it is onside in the fight to ensure equity
and a rule of law that is fair across the board, the official
opposition says that if we throw more money at the problem it
will go away. That will not work in the long run. It might be a
bit of a band-aid solution in the short term, but ultimately it
is not the answer.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I think the hon. member has put his finger on it. What
will solve the problem? Successive governments in the past have
failed to respond with a long term solution to agricultural
problems. The problem before farmers right now is very clearly
that their production costs exceed the compensation they get for
the sale of their products.
Some may say it is not the government's responsibility, but it
is the Liberal government, with its majority, that has mandated
that western Canadian farmers must sell their grain to the wheat
board. In essence we are back to the Trudeau salute. Trudeau
asked western farmers why he should sell their grain for them. It
is because the government passed a law that said it would.
I simply comment on the member's speech. We are looking for
emergency aid. It is needed. It is absolutely necessary for
farmers this instant so that they can stay out of bankruptcy and
not lose their businesses, their farms and their homes. That is
the immediate measure. How we wish the previous Conservative
government had signed agreements with the Americans and other
trading partners in the world that they were willing to live by.
Will the hon. member comment on the fact that he is part of a
government that has failed in the very area he is talking about:
the lack of a long term policy to meet the needs of Canadians for
a secure food supply through our agriculture industry?
Mr. Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, we do have a long term
policy. Negotiations have been going on for years.
We had the GATT, under which the rules of law were set up for
member countries. That was followed by the World Trade
Organization, the free trade agreement and then by NAFTA. These
organizations represent hundreds of countries around the world.
The rules of law are there for everyone to follow.
1335
What we are saying on this side of the House is that at the end
of the day the long term solution my colleague has called for is
for everyone to respect the law of the land.
We have a situation now where some member countries are not
respecting the law of the land. The policy of the government is
to ensure that member countries respect the rules of law and do
not create unfair subsidies that put our farmers at a
disadvantage. We must fight and continue to fight on their
behalf and we must provide them with the support they need, which
is exactly what we are doing.
However, at the end of the day, and I repeat this one more time,
there is no amount of money that will solve the problem. The
only way to solve the problem is for everyone to play by the same
rules. As long as people from other corners, doors or windows do
not play by the rules, the situation of inequity will repeat
itself. We will see our farmers in front of the House of Commons
and elsewhere protesting and asking for assistance.
I will mention another point to my colleague. In any operation
or business, every time there is a crisis, whether it is
financial or otherwise, inefficient operations will fall victim
to it. What we must do is ensure we have a support mechanism to
assist those who are in need.
That is exactly what the government has done on a number of
occasions. I will not repeat this for the record, but speakers
before me have, and speakers after me will, put on the record
specific programs the government has put in place to support
farming communities. Through such programs we will continue to
work with farmers to ensure they can support themselves and their
families.
However for my colleague to say that we do not have a long term
policy is grossly unfair because we do in fact have long term
policies.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to discuss the very
serious issue of the agricultural crisis. Let me begin by
commending the opposition for bringing it to the attention of the
House and for using one of its opposition days to discuss the
issue.
As hon. members know, my riding in southwestern Ontario is one
of the richest farm areas in the country. The counties of Elgin
and Middlesex have a vast array of agricultural producers,
whether in wheat, corn, soybeans, livestock or supply management.
The health of the agricultural industry and its livelihood is a
very critical issue to my riding, to my community and, as such,
to me as well.
It is important when we define the problem, and it is a very
real and serious problem, that we acknowledge that not all of
agriculture is suffering. Certainly areas involved with supply
management, whether dairy production, the feather industry or the
production of eggs, continue to do reasonably well. That is
because they are protected from the games foreign countries play
in terms of increasing subsidies at a rapid rate. They know when
they go to the marketplace that they will get a reasonable return
for their production and one that will cover their production
costs and allow them to feed their families and make a good
living.
The other part of the farm sector that is doing well right now
is the whole area of cattle. Hog production is also doing well
because the prices those producers are enjoying are reasonably
high.
1340
Again, not all parts of the farm economy are in a crisis. It is
a particular part of the farm economy. If we look at the numbers
in Ontario we see that farm incomes went up last year, which is
not what one would expect given world prices for grains and
oilseeds and the awful weather we had in terms of a very wet
spring.
Let me turn my comments to the issue at hand, which is the farm
income crisis in the grains and oilseeds business. I will
provide some statistics.
The Ontario average for the price of grain corn has dropped from
$4.65 a bushel in 1995-96 to $2.85 a bushel. That is a huge drop
in a very short period of time and farmers cannot make money at
that price.
The Ontario average for the cash price of soybeans has dropped
from $9.66 in 1995-96 to $6.90, which is more than a 30% drop in
the space of about four to five years. At the same time, the
cost of production has risen through the roof. Farmers are
facing the lowest prices for their product, in nominal terms, for
the last 27 years while incurring an increase in the cost of
fertilizer. Fertilizer costs have gone up primarily due to the
cost of oil that goes into making it.
Costs have increased for things like drying expenses. When
harvest corn is taken from the field and shipped to market, it
must be dried to prevent it from moulding on the way to market.
Because of the high input costs involved in that and the low
revenue, the farmers are suffering and going broke. They incur
high costs for the rental of land and a variety of other costs.
The average cost of production for corn is estimated in Ontario
at $3.50 per bushel. If one compares that with the number I
gave previously, we see that the price farmers get for corn is
$2.85 per bushel. The breakeven for soybeans is estimated to be
$8 per bushel compared to the $6.90 per bushel. These numbers,
as well as any, highlight the difficult times farmers are having.
The worst part is the source of the problem: The Americans have
increased subsidies to farmers fourfold over the last few years.
They are paying their farmers to produce at a level that distorts
the marketplace both in Canada and abroad.
The Americans have a policy of not giving up market share around
the world, and they have gotten into the business of paying their
farmers to produce without getting a normal price from the
marketplace. For example, when Ontario corn farmers go to the
marketplace they sell corn at a certain price. When American
farmers go to the same marketplace they get a certain price plus
a very high subsidy.
The market is not signalling to U.S. farmers or to European
farmers that they should cut back production because the market
is being distorted by high subsidies. Ontario farmers are
extremely frustrated by this and by the fact that they have no
hope or optimism that it will change.
A number of people have talked about signing new trade
agreements that would bring in new rules so that subsidies would
go down. Even if we did that, farmers in Europe or the U.S.
would go through a period of adjustment, some say from five to
ten years, but the Ontario corn and soybean farmers would get no
immediate relief.
That highlights the level of frustration and how difficult the
situation is. It indicates that the federal and provincial
governments need to be cognizant that the situation has changed
dramatically since 1993-94 when the Liberals first came into
office. Our support for agriculture at the time, in terms of
safety nets, was roughly $600 million. We did not hear squawking
or complaints that it was too little money because the price
farmers got from the marketplace compensated for the fact that
they did not get subsidies.
They now find that when they go to the marketplace they cannot
get a fair price so they are looking to the federal and
provincial governments for help, as is their right.
1345
I am happy to say that the federal government has responded. It
may not have responded as aggressively or as generously as some
farmers and farm organizations would have liked, but it moved the
$600 million in safety net programs from the 1994-95 budget year
and increased it by $500 million to what was then called AIDA.
AIDA was designed to deal with sudden and quick dramatic drops
in price. It played an important role two or three years ago in
maintaining a hog industry in my riding when the price of hogs
fell through the floor and a number of livestock farmers were
facing very difficult times. They made good use of AIDA, and I
was pleased to see a government safety net program come into
play. It was virtually put in as a permanent program. It is
now a multi-year commitment that farmers can rely on for the next
few years.
The minister just announced an increase of $500 million. One of
the two debates surrounding that $500 million is whether it
should be higher. As someone who represents a farm riding, I
would have liked to have seen it higher, but I understand the
government has a lot of competing calls on resources and it came
up with $500 million.
However, if we go back to 1994-95, when we went from $600
million of total safety net programs, we added roughly $500
million to AIDA. We also increased our $600 million bottom line
safety net programs by another $85 million. We have now
increased it by another $500 million. In my view, that is not
bad. We have almost tripled the support for agriculture and the
safety net since I have been in office.
Other than the amount of money that we should be putting into
agriculture, we also need to call on the government to make a
multi-year commitment. The $500 million we have is a one year
commitment. I will have an opportunity in a take note budget
debate to talk about this, but if the Minister of Finance is
taking note tonight I would tell him privately or publicly that
we need to be more generous in our multi-year commitment to
agriculture.
I understand the difficulties in making a decision now. We do
not know where the economy is going. We do not know what
resources the government will have in six, eight or nine months
from now. However, I call on the government to be as generous as
possible.
While I commend the opposition for what it has brought
forward today, I should point out that it did not mention a word
about increasing support to farmers during the campaign. The
only party that had a coherent platform in terms of increasing
cash support for farmers during the campaign was the Progressive
Conservative Party. Its leader came down to my area in Woodstock
and spoke about how we need to do more to support our farmers and
he talked about increasing the budget. I never heard—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member for
Lethbridge has the floor to ask a question.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, we have to get past the rhetoric of who did what when
and who asked for what.
The other day there was a comment from across the floor that I
did not ask an agriculture question until the fifth spot. What
is that all about? The fact is that our agricultural community
is in trouble and needs some help. Let us get past all the
rhetoric.
I just received a letter today from a couple who live on
Heritage Road in Georgetown, Ontario. They have asked me if I
would ask the Liberal government some questions. The letter
reads:
In doing so, please be sure to ask the government, who is having
difficulty finding the moneys desperately needed to sustain our
food system and ensure food sovereignty the following question:
Why did they spend valuable consumer tax dollars on an
anti-farmer campaign that ran in Canadian newspapers on March
15th?
It goes on to explain how much money the government proposed to
have spent. It ran in all the big city newspapers, although I am
not sure what that was all about. The couple wants to know why the
government did that? They also want to know how much that cost
and why the money was spent on something like that instead of
going directly to farm families?
Mr. Gar Knutson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should
know that I have no idea how much the advertising campaign cost.
As question period will start in about 25 minutes, that question
would probably be better put directly to the minister who, I am
sure, would be happy to answer it.
1350
As for the comment about it being an anti-farmer campaign, the
opposition likes to make the point that Canadians have a right to
know how their tax dollars are being spent. It is absolutely
ridiculous to suggest that because the government is explaining
how we spend roughly $1.7 billion in terms of annual farm support
programs to Canadians that it is somehow anti-farmer.
We are telling Canadians how we spend the money. Is it not
implicit in that argument that we need to spend the money and
that our farm sector is important?
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I will preface my question with a statement. There
was once an American president who defined liberal economic
policy. The policy was very clear and concise. It stated “If
it's alive and it's moving, tax it. That will slow it down. If
it doesn't slow it down enough, regulate it. And when the thing
is almost dead, subsidize it.”
I believe we have an industry in Canada that is in the third
stage through that type of policy. When the government starts
subsidizing using the Liberal way, it does not want to make the
subsidies too big because it might get healthy again. Keep it
down.
There was some mention made in the throne speech about helping
agriculture move to become a value added industry. We have a
good example of what the president of the United States was
talking about with liberal economic policy in Saskatchewan. The
Americans blocked or restricted Canadian durum, the best durum in
the world, from the U.S. market. For people who do not know what
durum is used for, it is used to make spaghetti, pasta and those
types of products.
A group of farmers trying to help themselves, tried to form an
organization that would grow its own durum, build its own pasta
plant, crank out its own pasta and export it directly into the
U.S. market so it could get away from government regulations and
subsidies. These farmers wanted to empower themselves to help
themselves. Unfortunately, Canadian Wheat Board regulations
prevented those farmers from going ahead with that very
worthwhile venture.
Would the member comment on how we could get our regulations
simplified so that farmers could empower themselves rather than
being at the mercy of subsidies and governments for their
support?
Mr. Gar Knutson: Madam Speaker, I do not have a detailed
understanding of the pasta plant in southern Saskatchewan, but
off the top, if in fact the wheat board prevented that plant from
developing, that was a mistake in policy. We need more pasta
plants and food processing plants and any regulation that gets
in the way of that should be abolished.
However, it comes as no surprise to hear the member quoting a
U.S. president. That party is trying to make an argument for
more subsidies—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): THe hon. member for
Lethbridge has the floor on debate.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, we are here today to speak in support of the opposition
motion to get an additional $400 million into the pockets of our
farmers this spring before seedings starts. We want to do it in
a way that is quick and efficient, not like some of the programs
that have been developed in the past by this government. We need
to do something that responds quickly to the situation.
I just spoke to a gentleman a couple of minutes ago to ask if it
would be all right to read a letter that I received last week
when I was at home. It is from a company with which I did
business while running my farm operation. Last year this
organization won one of the awards given out by the Lethbridge
chamber of commerce for businesses that excel in what they do and
how they promote their business. I read the letter even though
it is a form letter. It states:
I want to begin this letter by saying thank you for giving us an
opportunity to serve you and allowing us to work with you. We
have dealt with some of you since 1977 and through that time we
have come to know you very well and it has been a very rewarding
experience.
My son, Tim, made an interesting comment a few years back after
he returned to work with us following his legal training in B.C.
We were sitting talking about our business and he remarked that
one of the things that he liked about agriculture was the kind of
people with whom he dealt. I agreed with his feelings.
We have had an opportunity to work with some very fine people.
We have found that the small size of our company was continually
a limitation on what we hoped to achieve. In recent years it has
been very difficult to run a profitable business. I know you
face that same struggle. Getting financing continued to grow to
be a larger and larger challenge. The competitive environment
also became tougher as the grain companies battled for a market
share and used ag inputs as part of their marketing levers.
The drought last year was the final straw. It was financially
very damaging and even though we improved in every aspect of our
business we cannot overcome the impact of the drought and the
resultant drop in sales. The prospect of another such year was a
factor that convinced us. We no longer were strong enough to
survive in this market so on January 6 of this year we began the
plan to shut down the fertilizer, pesticide and seed sector of
our business, and the related services.
It was with considerable sadness that we realized that the close
working relationship we had with you would not continue in the
same manner. It was also very painful to have to lay off our
crew, 12 full time people and 20 part time people after working
with them and watching their skills develop. Some of them had
also been with us for a very long time and we had been watching
with much interest hoping that some good opportunities would come
to them.
1355
This was a small business in southern Alberta that has gone out
of business because of the farm crisis. This goes further than
farmgate. We are not only talking about primary producers, we
are also talking about the entire industry of agriculture when we
talk about the seriousness of the situation.
The dramatic increase in input costs is one of the things that
caught farmers in a real vice in the last few years. Commodity
prices, as we know, are low in the grains and oilseeds sector,
and to compound that with the increase in inputs, plus, in our
area, a very severe drought that has not relinquished yet, could
really send us into a crisis situation this year.
With a combination of all those things, as this gentleman has
indicated, it has put a well run family business that had been
in place since 1977 out of business. They were award recipients
for the way they ran their business. They had to lay off 32
people. That is just a part of what is happening.
In the misplaced and misguided policies of the government, it
went ahead of the rest of the world and took away the subsidies
or any support that our farmers had. It did that before anybody
else did, before any other countries with which we deal. We have
now placed our people at a competitive disadvantage. It is not
because of the marketplace or low commodity prices, which are all
part of this, it is because of misplaced government policy.
Government policy has more to do with the price of goods
than the marketplace does. We have done that through very
ill-advised policies, whether it is trade, foreign or domestic
policies, that affect our farmers. We now have a situation that
some feel is irreversible.
We have to do something in the interim while we decide what we
will do in the long term for our agricultural community. We have
to do some things in the short term and that is what we are
talking about today. Let us get this out. Let us put some of
the crisis decisions that are being made on farming on hold until
we can have a long term plan.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
SPINAL CORD RESEARCH
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier today I joined with colleagues from the House, including
you, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister, to provide a send off
to a remarkable, courageous and tenacious individual, Mr. Mike
Nemesvary.
Today at noon, Mr. Nemesvary set off from Parliament Hill with
the goal of becoming the first quadriplegic to drive around the
world. The goal of Mike's 40,000 kilometre Round the World
Challenge is to raise $10 million for spinal cord research and
rehabilitation. I am sure that Mike's determination and bravery
remind us of a couple of other Canadians, namely, Terry Fox and
Rick Hansen.
I urge all Canadians to visit Mike's website at
www.roundtheworldchallenge.org and to follow his progress on this
incredible journey. I hope that all Canadians will join Mike in
helping to work toward a cure for spinal cord injuries.
* * *
1400
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Islam encourages man to live
a life blessed with honesty, mercy, courage, patience and
politeness.
The Taliban government in Afghanistan, twisting and torturing
the Quran, has embarked on a demolition campaign to destroy two
monumental Buddha statues that date back to the second and fifth
centuries.
The use of instruments of war to extinguish diversity, in this
case that of Buddhism, is an affront to the best interests of all
who believe that the best interest of man is served in a world
tolerant of religious plurality and compassion.
Tolerance and religious freedom are virtues on which the future
of a safe and secure world will be built. The military assault
on these virtues by the government of Afghanistan is an action we
should all deplore.
* * *
BASKETBALL
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
X-Men are kings of the court. This past Sunday at Halifax's
Metro Centre, St. Francis Xavier University men's basketball team
repeated as the CIAU men's basketball champions with an 83 to 76
overtime win against the Brandon Bobcats.
This is the third national title for the X-Men since 1993 and
the third straight win for the Atlantic conference. This
championship game caps off a remarkable season during which St.
F-X held a 31 and 1 record and marked its 29th straight win on
the court. As coach Steve Konchalski put it, his team refused to
lose all year long.
I congratulate Coach K., tournament MVP Randy Nohr, and the
entire team and staff of St. F-X, home of the top CIAU men's
basketball team in Canada..
* * *
POTATO INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the number
one industry in Prince Edward Island has fallen victim to unfair
trade restrictions from the United States.
The potato industry almost ground to a complete halt last fall
when the discovery of potato wart prompted the U.S. to close its
borders. Even though science is on our side, the U.S. still
bullheadedly continues with ridiculous and unjustified
restrictions which could essentially result in the destruction of
an entire industry of a Canadian province.
Free trade agreements are useless when only one partner abides
by the rules. Our province is part of Confederation and should
benefit from nationwide support. The U.S. has demonstrated a
patent disrespect for P.E.I, for Canada and for an entire system
set up to protect the industries of our two countries.
I call upon our government and our nation to unite and send a
clear message to the United States. If it can shut the border
without just cause then Canada can too. Next week let us target
Idaho, then California, then Florida.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government has made the fight against organized crime
its number one law enforcement priority.
Working with those in the justice system, including the police
forces, is essential to this effort. Last fall the House
subcommittee on organized crime reported to parliament with
recommendations to help combat organized crime. Subsequently the
government has been consulting with the provinces, police forces
and others to identify needs and priorities in the fight against
organized crime.
These efforts are proof of the government's work to fulfil its
commitments in the Speech from the Throne and to provide law
enforcement and others with the tools they need to break the back
of organized crime.
* * *
HOCKEY
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an
outstanding group of young athletes from my riding, the Delisle
Bruins, who on Saturday won the provincial bantam A hockey
championships.
In the total point series, the Bruins triumphed over the Weyburn
Red Coat Rams by a score of 12 to 4. The Bruins are made up of
players from Delisle, Asquith and Harris.
I extend congratulations to Rylan Isaac, Cory Thiessen, Derek
Gramson, Matt Dunlap, Kevin Chave, Andrew Busby, Perry French,
Tyler French, Blake Rolston, Jeff Colborn, Brendan Reynolds,
assistant captain Dustin Knittig, Kevin Burwell, Adam McTavish,
Mitch Mrack, Dan Yakasovich, assistant coach Shawn Colborn, coach
Joel Durham, and manager Bill Mrack. Because I am a bit biased,
I wish to extend special congratulations to Shaun Cairns,
assistant captain Chad Laing and captain Louis Genest, all from
my home town of Harris.
On behalf of my constituents and all the proud parents, let me
offer my congratulations to the Delisle Bruins on their wonderful
victory.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to underscore the importance I attach to any government
initiative that would control the problem of the intimidation of
society by organized crime.
Any attempt to intimidate a parliamentarian constitutes an
attempt to intimidate the entire institution of parliament.
Any attempt to intimidate a party to the legal system, be it
judge, witness or lawyer, constitutes an attempt to intimidate
the entire legal system.
Any attempt to intimidate a member of the media constitutes an
attempt to intimidate the media as a whole.
Parliament, the judiciary, and the media are all pillars of our
democracy. It is time that concrete and effective actions were
taken to preserve our democratic rights.
I am anxiously awaiting the outcome of government reflection and
consultation on this matter. The measures we take must be
energetic, effective and dissuasive in nature.
* * *
JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this
Journée internationale de la Francophonie, we salute the
dynamism of the various communities almost everywhere in the
world who share the use of French, and whose devotion and
passion ensure its survival and expansion.
Through a variety of events, such as the Francofête, and the
Francophonie summits and games, and through the various
associations and federations of the francophone communities here
and throughout the world, we are building links which enhance
the vigour of the francophone culture and contribute to the
greater diversity of our global culture.
Some express the culture in song, some in the written word, and
many in the spoken word, some of them in shouts. Many envy it,
but everyone everywhere cherishes it.
* * *
RADIO JEUNESSE
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to draw my colleagues' attention to the Radio Jeunesse
initiative, which was launched as part of the Rendez-vous de la
Francophonie, which will be held until March 25.
Radio Jeunesse broadcast on the airwaves for the first time in
1999 during the Jeux de la Francophonie in Moncton, and was a
hit. The second edition is happening this year, as the fourth
edition of the games is being held.>
Over 70 young people aged between 18 and 30 from countries
belonging to the Francophonie will have a turn to speak. They
will report the events of the games and introduce us to
international Francophonie. They will prepare, host and produce
very diversified programming.
I invite you to listen to 89.9 on the FM band, the RFA network
or the Internet from June 24 to July 24, and you will be part of
a great radio gathering as the guest of the world's young
francophones.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Ontario's vibrant culture begins with
the family farm. The crisis in rural Ontario goes beyond
agriculture. Our way of life is under assault.
The history of our province is steeped with stories of our
attachment to the land. In my riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke the extensive linkages that
agriculture has in the local economy and the benefits provided go
far beyond our farmers.
The government needs to look past the current economic crisis to
the loss of our rural heritage with the demise of the family
farm.
The government will subsidize books, films and television about
Canadian culture because in the future if our children want to
learn about the family farm, they will have to read about it in a
book.
* * *
[Translation]
JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every
year on the 20th, Canada celebrates the Journée internationale
de la Francophonie.>
This is the occasion chosen by francophones and friends of the
Francophonie in Canada to express their attachment to the French
language and culture and to promote its vitality in our country.
During the two weeks surrounding this day were born the
Rendez-vous de la Francophonie, which aim to draw attention to
our francophonie through discussions, get togethers and
celebration.
The Rendez-vous gives the country a picture of Canadian
francophonie and underscores its strength, diversity, important
contribution to building the country and contribution to
Canada's cultural wealth.
March 20 reminds us of the solidarity of the francophonie. This
is a rendez-vous not to be missed.
* * *
1410
CANADA-FRANCE INTERPARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to draw your attention to
the presence in this chamber of a delegation of French
parliamentarians, led by the member for l'Eure, François Loncle,
who is also the president of the French section of the
Canada-France Interparliamentary Association and the president
of the foreign affairs committee of the French national
assembly.
During its visit, the French parliamentary delegation will be
taking part in the Journée internationale de la Francophonie.
In addition, president Loncle will present his views on the
theme of European defence to members of the foreign affairs
committees of both chambers as well as to members of the
Canada-Europe and Canada-France interparliamentary associations.
Finally, the French delegation will attend the annual general
meeting of the Canadian section of the Canada-France
Interparliamentary Association.
I am pleased to note the very high quality of the relations
established between French and Canadian parliamentarians over
the years and I wish our colleagues and friends a productive
visit to Canada.
* * *
[English]
AIRPORTS
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, when
the Liberals were in opposition they were against airport
privatization. These days the Liberals have forced airports
across Canada to come under local airport authorities, and
Toronto's Pearson airport is no exception. Most airport
authorities charge a departure tax of $10 and now Pearson airport
is no exception to that practice as well.
However, Pearson airport will also charge a $7 connection fee
for changing flights at Toronto, and that is a big change. Given
that most flights of any distance involve passing through a major
transportation link like Toronto, people will have little choice
but to pay the extra fee.
Is this the beginning of more fees for the travelling public
from a Liberal Party that used to be against these fees on
principle?
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I took
part in a press conference with Régine Laurent, the spokesperson
for the Table de convergence pour une opposition pacifique au
Sommet des Amériques, a member of the executive of the
Fédération des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec and of the
Table de convergence.
Also there was Philippe Duhamel, non-violent direct action
trainer, and organizer and spokesperson for SalAMI, a grassroots
anti-globalization organization.
I attended in order to express my solidarity with hundreds of
groups from Quebec and various regions of Canada, including the
Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale, which is
calling on the government to make public the texts of the
negotiations for the FTAA.
Today, March 20, is the deadline for making these documents
public, and I now ask, on behalf of all these groups, that these
documents be made—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.
* * *
CANADIAN POLICE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today, for the seventh year in a row the members of the
Canadian Police Association are meeting with parliamentarians to
discuss issues of concern to them.
I take this opportunity to salute their determination and the
professionalism with which they present their views.
You, the people in the front line, are the ones we need to
listen to.
The Bloc Quebecois shares the majority of your concerns, and we
will continue, with you, to seek to make our society still safer
than it is at present.
Like you, the Bloc Quebecois has been concerned about biker gang
wars and organized crime in all of its forms for some years now.
Like you, the Bloc Quebecois proposes legislative measures that
are aimed at prohibiting membership in a criminal organization
and make it more possible to get at those in charge.
Like you, the Bloc Quebecois also wants to see more federal
government funding put into an effective battle against
organized crime.
We hope that the Minister of Justice of Canada will, like all of
us, have the firm intention of putting a stop to organized crime
and of doing so very soon.
* * *
[English]
GREG GATENBY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to salute and congratulate one of my
constituents, Mr. Greg Gatenby, who has been named the third
recipient of the WNED Steuben Canadian Arts Award. Mr. Gatenby
was presented with his award on Tuesday, February 27, in Toronto.
Greg Gatenby is a poet, author and founder of the International
Festival of Authors in Toronto. He is also artistic director of
the Harbourfront reading series, which welcomes the world's
finest and most influential authors to read their work at
Harbourfront Centre in Toronto.
Greg has been an outspoken advocate for writers and for freedom
of expression. He was one of the five founding members of the
reconstituted PEN Canadian centre.
1415
In 1989 Greg was given the city of Toronto literary award. In
1991 he was made an honorary lifetime member of the League of
Canadian Poets. In 2000 he was named to the Order of Canada. I
congratulate Greg. This is another award that is well deserved.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, recently the government attempted to
address the anguish of Canadian farmers by tossing out some old
money and claiming it was new. The fact that the amount was
still too little does not seem to bother the government. In fact
it diverted untold thousands of dollars to big city newspapers to
brag to urban Canadians about their phony compassion.
The agriculture minister claimed he was merely trying to inform
all Canadians about the great job he was doing. However, the ads
failed to mention that farm programs were slashed over the last
year while our trading partners continued to prop up their
industries. The ads did not mention that almost half the money
promised back in 1998 was never delivered, while the part that
was delivered is now being clawed back.
Government advertising is not the real issue. Did it ever occur
to the government that thousands of Canadian travellers should be
informed that the hoof and mouth virus rampaging through European
herds can be carried on shoes, clothing or on fresh foods? Did
it ever occur to the government to stop patting itself on the
back and to put resources in the hands of farmers and inspectors
who will save Canadian agriculture, despite the Liberal
government?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Alan Greenspan has just cut the
United States federal reserve rate by 50 basis points. The
Canadian dollar is weakening and the C.D. Howe Institute has
stated:
Inflation has been creeping up and is now pushing on the upper
limits of its target range, which of course will limit the bank's
ability to match the federal reserve's rate cuts.
Could the government tell us how it intends to provide further
stimulus to the Canadian economy without further jeopardizing our
dollar and without risking inflation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition ought to know, the Bank
of Canada is independent. Monetary policy will be decided by the
Bank of Canada.
In terms of stimulus in the Canadian economy, again as the hon.
member ought to know, as of January 1 the Canadian government as
a result of its fiscal actions and its spending actions provided
the Canadian economy with a larger amount of stimulus than any of
the major industrial countries.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister clings
frantically and stubbornly to his policy of maintaining a weak
Canadian dollar, the savings of Canadians continue to erode. Mr.
Jeff Rubin of CIBC World Markets has said:
If we continue to have our heads in the sand about this, we are
going to wake up one day and we are going to see a 60 cent
Canadian dollar.
He went on to say:
When will the Prime Minister get his head out of the sand and
take action to improve the position of the dollar and abandon his
policy of a weak dollar? When will the Prime Minister abandon
his policy of a weak dollar?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we are in a time of global volatility such as we
are now, when they are talking of deflation in Japan, when there
is a banking crisis in Japan, and when there is a major slowdown
in the world's largest economy, the United States, it is
incumbent upon all political and economic leaders to show a sense
of responsibility.
I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to do that. As we
discussed yesterday here in this room, he knows full well that
the government does not have a weak dollar policy. It makes
absolutely no sense to take statements out of context.
The fact is the Canadian economy is doing much better than those
of the vast majority of our competitors and that—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will quote the Prime Minister's own
words. There was a question to the Prime Minister when he was in
opposition about the fact that the dollar was too strong and he
did not like that. He said again that he wanted the dollar to
flow downward. He then said 12 years later that it was time to
accept a weaker dollar.
[Translation]
For the past 15 years, the Prime Minister has been an avowed
supporter of a weak Canadian dollar. The Minister of Finance,
however, claims that this is an irresponsible position.
Can the Prime Minister tell this House whether it is his own
statements that are irresponsible or whether...
The Speaker: The hon. the Prime Minister.
1420
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Minister of Finance yesterday and today has
stated, we have an independent monetary policy that is decided by
the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Canadian dollar is a
floating currency.
In fact over the last two years it is the Canadian dollar that
has done the best of all currencies in relation to the American
dollar.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal loonie tanked four years ago, the
finance minister said that it was because of low commodity prices
at the time.
Now we are facing new record high commodity prices, so I am
wondering what is the finance minister's excuse. Could it
possibly have something to do with the fact that his boss, the
Prime Minister, has articulated a weak dollar policy for 20
years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that statement is simply ridiculous. The fact is that
the policies of the government are the result of the economic
consequences of the actions taken by this government under this
Prime Minister.
Let me just simply say that our mortgage rates, as an example,
will now save the average Canadian over $750 a year. That cut
has occurred since January.
Let me go on. Our building permits have surged to a record
level in January. Our housing starts were up 6% in January and
February. This is what is happening in the Canadian economy and
there is no other economy in the world—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, he talks about the consequences of the Prime
Minister's economic policy. That economic policy, the highest
income taxes in the G-7, the highest corporate income taxes in
the OECD and the second highest debt in the developed world, has
led to a 64 cent dollar which may be going to 60 cents, and he
said it is irresponsible. What is irresponsible is an economic
policy which is impoverishing Canadians and diminishing our
standard of living.
When will the government finally get its fundamentals right so
that we can have a currency we are proud of which increases and
does not decrease our standard of living?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, impoverishing Canadians is what the finance critic for
the Alliance said. There are twice the number of jobs over the
last eight months in Canada as compared to the United States.
Our current account surplus hit record levels in the fourth
quarter of 2000. Our investment in machinery and equipment was
up 19% last year. Today Canada announced the highest monthly
trade surplus in its history.
* * *
[Translation]
AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
defence of his actions in the Grand-Mère golf course affair, the
Prime Minister says that his shares were sold in 1993.
But the ethics counsellor said “In January 1996, we both
discussed this, because at that time he was not receiving any
money and wanted to know what his options were”.
How does the Prime Minister explain that, in January 1996, he
was looking at his options in connection with the golf course,
and that, four months later, he contacted the president of the
Business Development Bank of Canada so that a loan would be
approved for the Auberge Grand-Mère?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I have said ten or fifteen times since November 1, 1993, I sold
my shares.
Since that time, neither I nor the company in which I had an
interest have— These shares were disposed of. They were acquired
by a third party, and I have not been part of that company since
November 1, 1993.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
problem is that the Prime Minister told us that he sold his
shares in 1993. However, he had not yet been paid in 1996, and
in 1999 he was negotiating. If someone is selling something and
has not been paid, the sale has not been completed.
If he had made the deed of sale public, things would be a little
clearer. I hope that he is going to do some explaining to the
House because, according to the ethics counsellor himself, the
Prime Minister, who had not been paid in 1996, was still looking
at his options in the matter.
Is there not a direct link between the Prime Minister wondering
about his options and the lobbying of the president of the
Business Development Bank of Canada?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I quote from the words of the ethics counsellor who
appeared on CBC on Friday of last week:
I have access to all of the documents. I have seen all of the
documents. I've been able to examine them. They are personal
information to the parties, including some other citizens other
than Mr. Chrétien, but I have been able to confirm to my entire
satisfaction, that these shares were sold in 1993 and never
returned to his possession.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister telephoned the president of the Development Bank on
April 12, 1996. He invited him to his residence on May 29,
1996. He called him again on February 20, 1997, and the loan
was granted on May 6.
Here is my question. How can the Prime Minister claim that he
had no interest in the arrangements to save the Auberge
Grand-Mère, when he was still waiting to be paid for his shares
and, according to the ethics counsellor, whom they quote
abundantly, the Prime Minister was trying to discover his
options?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me quote further from the ethics counsellor on
Friday of last week with respect to this matter:
This is neither as complicated nor as mysterious as some would
make it out. Mr. Chrétien ceased to be a shareholder in 1993.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister is basing his defence on the fact that his assets were
administered by a blind trust and that this trust was
responsible for recovering his money in the Auberge Grand-Mère
matter.
If a blind trust did look after his shares, why did the ethics
counsellor say that the Prime Minister himself had decided to
hold negotiations in order to resell his shares in 1999 and
finally recover his money?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the facts are clear. Here is a member who yesterday had
so much courage, the courage of his convictions, that he dared
not say outside the House what he said inside the House. This is
an attempt at a smear campaign and it is beneath this member. He
should know better.
* * *
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Today we learned that
Scotiabank, Alcan and other corporate executives would buy direct
preferential access to world leaders at the Quebec summit of the
Americas. Trade bureaucrats say it is just business as usual.
For a mere half a million dollars corporations can pole vault
right over the three metre high chain link fence.
Has the Prime Minister no understanding of why ordinary citizens
find this unsettling? Does the Prime Minister have no problem
with corporations buying political access at the Quebec summit?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every time we have had summits in Canada we have always
invited corporations in Canada to help the government offer the
best reception possible. Everyone does it on a voluntary basis.
Most of these people have interests in Latin America. As they
are all coming to town they want to show that they are good
citizens of Canada like they are good citizens of these
countries. None of these corporations will have a chance to have
privileged access to the leaders during all the meetings. They
will be present with hundreds and hundreds of other people at
receptions.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first
we hear that it is about extending hospitality, then about saving
money. What on earth is next? Will the Prime Minister pull the
maple leaf down from the peace tower and replace it with a
McDonald's flag?
This has nothing to do with saving money. It has everything to
do with giving corporations preferential access. Half a million
dollars and one is in: no problem, instant access. No money,
stay behind the chain link fence. Is the real reason the Prime
Minister is ignoring his critics that they do not have half a
million dollars to put their message on a tote bag?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is clear. We have done this all the time. We ask
corporations that have interests in Canada to show to the
visitors who are coming that they are good citizens of Canada
just like they are good citizens of their countries.
We did it at la Francophonie summit in Moncton. I remember very
well a company from Vancouver made a contribution to the good of
Canada. It was the biggest contributor to la Francophonie summit
in Moncton.
* * *
1430
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a simple question for the Prime Minister.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House if there was any
consultation by any member of the Prime Minister's office or any
member of the privy council office with the ethics counsellor
relating to the attendance of the ethics counsellor at the
industry committee meeting today?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ethics counsellor reports through Industry Canada.
I want to assure the leader of the Conservative Party that the
ethics counsellor is quite free to testify in any way he wants
before the committee. More to the point, members of parliament
on all sides, but notably members of the Liberal Party, are quite
free to ask whatever questions they want as he appears before
that committee.
* * *
TRADE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have another question for the Prime Minister.
The government has denied the premier of Quebec, the host
province for the summit, a speaking role at the summit of the
Americas. At the same time the government has offered to any
corporation prepared to spend $500,000 what the government's own
document describes as “a potential speaking opportunity during
the world leaders' welcome reception”.
How can the government justify that double standard? If the
premier of Quebec were a company would he be able to buy his way
in?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the process that has been followed for the premier of
Quebec is the same process that we follow for all the
summits that we have, including the one by the Conservatives
when the leader of the fifth party was the Minister of Foreign
Affairs. When the Conservative government had the summit in
Toronto it did not invite the premier of Ontario to make a speech
to the leaders.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, projections now indicate that the Minister of Justice
will spend another $1 billion over the next 10 years on a long
gun registry that everyone, including the minister, knows will
not work.
Why does the minister not give these resources to front line
police officers who daily demonstrate their work in this
country's fight against organized crime?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have said before in the
House, our gun control program is about public safety. It is
about a commitment to Canadians that we will not see the pictures
on our television screens that tragically are seen night after
night in the United States of America.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, organized crime, according to the RCMP continues to
expand while this minister chases sportsmen and hunters.
Organized crime has unlimited cash available for the best
technology. Our police are handcuffed by ineffective laws and
ineffective programs.
Why does the minister not support our police and Canadians by
putting resources back into front line policing?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that the
government has taken many steps to fight organized crime. We
have put $1.5 billion into the public safety envelope in the last
budget. We have 13 proceeds of crime units across the country to
take proceeds out of organized crime.
* * *
[Translation]
LUMBER
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in commenting on
the softwood lumber issue yesterday, the Minister for
International Trade said that Ottawa would, ultimately, bow to
the wishes of the industry. Yet there are persistent rumours
that the producers in British Columbia are not opposed,
apparently, to the imposition of a voluntary tax by Canada.
Can the minister tell us whether he sanctions this approach of
some producers in British Columbia, and can he assure us that he
is not in the process of negotiating an agreement that would be
contrary to free trade?
1435
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I never said that the Government of Canada will bow
to the industry's wishes. What I did say was that our
government is open to hearing what the industry's needs are and
will most certainly meet with industry leaders if they request
it.
This morning I had the opportunity to meet with British Columbia
producers. The industry in British Columbia did not ask me
to impose an export tax. They were far more prudent
than that. They asked whether the suggestion made in this
connection by Mr. Zoellick might prove useful at some point.
They did not, however, make the suggestion attributed to them by
the hon. member for Joliette.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the
minister says he is prepared to examine any option except free
trade for softwood lumber, does he not realize he is giving the
Americans the impression that Canada is prepared to give in,
contrary to the interests of the industry in Quebec and in
Canada?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the objective of this government is to have free
trade where softwood lumber is concerned, as we do in other
areas.
Our objective is clear and firm and we are going to act
responsibly in order to ensure that all of the very important
interests in the softwood lumber matter throughout the country
are respected by this House and by our government, which will
provide the necessary leadership, and by the Americans and the
American producers above all, who are only concerned with
protectionism in this area.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the solicitor general told Canadians that
American sex offender registries are of no value because only 50%
of the people who should be registered are registered.
On the other hand, the government introduced the national gun
registry where less than 50% of Canadians are registered.
Perhaps the solicitor general could enlighten us. Why it is
more important to register law-abiding Canadian citizens rather
than sex offenders.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday was that we do have
a national registry. We have CPIC, one of the best database
systems in the world. It is the envy of all police forces around
the world. We have a national database with input from all the
provinces across the country.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he is the only one in the country who
believes it.
The Canadian Police Association represents over 30,000 front
line policemen and those policemen say, and I quote:
Let me quote Ujjal Dosanjh as he introduced the sex offender
registry in British Columbia yesterday. He said “There is no
national registry and none is guaranteed or promised”.
Could the solicitor general get the courage to stand up in the
House and be forthright enough to say that the CPIC system is not
a national sex offender registry?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times in the
House, CPIC is a registry of all individuals who commit a
criminal offence in Canada, whether it is a sex offence or any
other offence.
What I have said over the last few days is that the government
will not spend dollars just to duplicate a system already in
place. I met with the Canadian Police Association today, and we
are working together to make sure that we have the best possible
rules and tools in place.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, by paying $75,000 for a coffee break and up to
$1.5 million for the Prime Minister's reception, companies and
CEOs will have access to the 34 heads of state present at the
summit of the Americas in Quebec City, while civil society is
excluded from the event and parliamentarians are not allowed to
see the documents of the sectorial tables.
Is this not proof that the sponsorship system being promoted by
summit organizers is slanted toward commercial priorities, to
the detriment of all others?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister gave a very good
explanation of our government's practice, which is to allow
certain companies that behave like responsible corporate citizens
to benefit from this opportunity to encourage our country's
hospitality. What these companies are doing, obviously, is
acquiring a certain visibility vis-à-vis countries where this is
important.
But I think that we have been very clear that these companies
will not have privileged access to heads of government. They
are doing this for the visibility and in order to improve
Canada's credibility and skill when it comes to providing
top-notch hospitality, rather than having taxpayers foot the
bill, which is what the Bloc Quebecois would prefer.
1440
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am not about to pay $500,000 to believe all that.
Why is the government so mean and secretive with civil society,
pressure groups and parliamentarians when it is throwing the
summit doors wide open to those willing to put cash on the
table?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member's simplistic approach is not worthy of
this House. Everyone is perfectly aware that we will be meeting
with representatives of non-governmental organizations. I have
already accepted.
My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I will be
sitting down with representatives of the summit of the people.
We are going to work harmoniously with them as well and they
too will have a chance to express their views.
I find it very interesting to see the Bloc Quebecois aligning
itself with those who oppose free trade and economic progress
and who are trying to do everything they can to hamper the
economic development of our country.
* * *
[English]
LUMBER
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in 11 days the softwood lumber agreement will
expire. The government has had 1,816 days to prepare and what
does it suggest? It suggests 1,816 days of litigation.
Tens of thousands of workers will lose their jobs. Our industry
will be bankrupt. Where will our government be? It will be in
court.
We have spent $100 million in legal fees in the last 20 years.
Where are we now? We are at ground zero.
Will the minister agree that going back to court for four more
years is not the answer while Canadians lose their jobs?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, up until today I have always thought that
the Alliance Party supported the government's move toward free
trade. Moving toward free trade means that every country can
have some recourse to its legal tools that we have in the kit.
I can tell the opposition that the government has not been
waiting for the termination. We have not been waiting for the
end of the agreement. We have been working for a few years on
this file. We have been working at building a coalition of
consumers in Washington and supporting them in their arguments.
Canada has initiated a WTO challenge against the United States
legislation regarding export restraints of Canadian logs. We
have been active—
The Speaker: The hon. member For Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that our government is not even
talking to the Americans. The minister goes on about all these
things they have done for the last three years but there are
absolutely no discussions going on right now.
Make no mistake that thousands of forestry workers in this
country face a very uncertain future and unemployment because of
our government's incompetence to set the record straight in
Washington.
What will it take for the government to pick up the phone
instead of burying its head in the sand and pretending that
everything is going to be just fine on April Fool's Day?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been engaging in dialogue with Mr.
Zoellick. I was in Washington three weeks ago. We have
expressed very well the points of view of the Canadian industry
and the Canadian provinces. The Prime Minister also raised the
issue with President Bush when he met him.
We have been engaged in talks and we will continue to provide
the right leadership for all regions of the country toward free
trade and against U.S. protectionism.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES COMMUNITIES
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, true to
its convictions the Government of Canada reiterated its
commitment to linguistic duality in the January 30 Speech from
the Throne, along with its desire to mobilize the efforts of the
federal government in connection with official languages.
On this Journée internationale de la Francophonie and the first
day of spring, can the Prime Minister tell us what his
government has in mind for promoting the cultural, economic and
linguistic development of this country's official language
minority communities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a major priority for our government. Certain steps have
already been taken and we have considerably increased the
program budgets for Francophonie and French language education.
For example, we have a totally new initiative in the medical
field.
1445
We have established an institute here in Ottawa to help
francophones in the health field. We are going to take all
necessary steps to allow all Canadians access to the French
language in Canada and to celebrate with all Canadians the fact
that Canada is the second ranking country in the world as far as
numbers of French speakers are concerned.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Medical Association today validated the
concerns we in the NDP have been raising repeatedly in the House
about the government's trade agenda. It agrees with us that
under NAFTA and GATS, Alberta's bill 11 on private hospitals will
allow international trade tribunals to intrude in our health
policies. It agrees that action is needed now because there is
no retreat from liberalizing a sector of trade. If we open the
door now, we cannot go back.
Will the trade minister now agree to act with urgency to protect
Canada's health care system in all its trade deals, or is the
minister saying the CMA is wrong?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reaffirm quite clearly in the
House today the firm commitment of our government in the past,
today and tomorrow, never to open the door to force our public
health or public education systems into a challenge at the
international trade level.
In all our trade agreements, whether at the GATS level or at the
FTAA, Canada will protect the margin of manoeuvre of our
government and our provincial governments in the health and
education sectors.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and
Africa. Today we learned that 33 Huey helicopters, recently sold
by the Canadian government to the U.S. state department, are in
fact being used by the Colombian military as a part of the
destructive Plan Colombia. Last week the minister agreed in
committee that this kind of sale would be totally unacceptable.
Will the minister now agree to close the gaping loophole in our
military export controls that allows this shameful complicity
with the Colombian military, a military that has one of the worst
human rights records in the entire hemisphere? Will he close
this loophole now?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the helicopters to which the
member refers were built in Fort Worth, Texas, in the 1970s. They
were brought to Canada and used by the Department of National
Defence for about 20 years. They were then sold to the U.S.
government. They were reconfigured by the U.S. government and
sold to Colombia. We do not give re-export permits to the
government of the United States.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resource Development. Every
year the minister releases her programs for student summer
placement programs. These programs are available to not for
profit and for profit agencies.
This year the not for profit groups are paying 100% and the for
profit are paying 50%. She has lumped the municipalities in with
the for profit groups. Why did the minister's department decide
to do this?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct.
The Canada student summer placement program is one of the most
important programs in which the Government of Canada
participates.
I can tell him the reason we chose to make the changes on which
he commented is that we want more students to participate. There
is no less money. We just hope more students will be able to
participate.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is correct. If we have everyone paying 50% we will get
more students, but small, medium size and large municipalities
cannot afford to pay a cent. They are taking out street lights
to balance their budgets. The best organized institution in
communities is the council.
Will the minister review her decision to see the negative effect
this decision is having on small and medium size communities and
even larger ones throughout the country?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note that members on this side of the
House have raised the issue with me. Indeed we are looking at
the direct application in communities and we will see.
Fundamentally the intention of the program is to ensure that the
largest majority of students possible can participate in this
great program.
* * *
1450
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime
Minister. The Liberal member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex said
she was devastated when the minister announced only $500 million
in aid. She stated “It was one of my darkest days in politics
so far. I had really honestly thought the Prime Minister
understood the plight of grain and oilseed farmers”.
Her constituents clearly want her to vote yes. Will the
government unshackle its backbenchers today and allow them to
freely vote the wishes of their constituents?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the last three years we have substantially
increased the contribution the government has made toward the
farming community. We increased it substantially last week. Of
course everybody wishes we could have done more.
I note that since we came to the House of Commons the question
of the aid has not been raised by the leaders of those parties.
Perhaps the member raised it once or twice. It was a members
from this side of the House of Commons who put the pressure on
that led to the increase of $500 million.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, clearly I reject the premises of the
Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition has been up asking
questions on agriculture. In fact he was the only opposition
leader to do it for several weeks. I also—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. It is clear we are having
trouble with the premises on both sides of the House, but we want
some order in the House so we can hear the question and its
premises.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Prime Minister. Does he not believe that there is still an
ongoing farm income crisis when Canadian farmers, many in the
grains and oilseeds sectors, will have an income of $10,000 or
less and when many will lose money? Does he not believe that
this additional $400 million, which is a minimum required, should
be given today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was because we believed there were problems that we
decided to invest more money on top of the money we invested a
year ago and the year before.
Three years in a row we have increased the contribution of the
federal government to this problem. We are very proud of it
because we know there is a problem.
Some would like us to do more than that but we are doing much
more than what they do in New Zealand and Australia. There is a
war between the United States and the Europeans. We said a long
time ago that Canada could not afford to go as far as the
Americans in terms of subsidies.
* * *
[Translation]
COLOMBIA
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in January
2001 the Vector Aerospace company of Newfoundland proudly
announced that it had won a contract worth $6.5 million to sell
military helicopter parts to Colombia.
According to Amnesty International, the Colombian armed forces
and paramilitaries have killed 20,000 civilians since 1996.
This situation, under Canadian policy, should prohibit this
export.
How does the minister explain his department's permitting the
violation of its own guidelines?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, up to now, and I imagine this will
continue to apply, we have not approved a permit for Vector to
export helicopters to Colombia. That is the answer.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
allows them to operate, but he does not allow them to be there.
The Minister for International Trade justifies
Cuba's exclusion by the fact that the FTAA would create a sort
of close relationship between Canada and its various partners,
different from that with China, for example.
How then are we to explain his agreeing to promote such a close
relationship with Colombia, a country with more than 1,000
political assassinations a year and where human rights offences
are no longer counted?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, until now Vector's
involvement concerns civilian planes. There are no helicopters
for military purposes. So the same response applies.
* * *
1455
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, five provincial governments have
publicly called upon the Liberal government to deliver at least
$900 million in emergency aid to farmers this year. This is the
absolute minimum farmers need.
In today's Regina Leader Post the Saskatchewan minister of
agriculture stated:
The $500 million in aid announced recently by the federal
government to address the current problems in the industry is
clearly an inadequate response given the emergency situation
facing the industry.
Will the minister listen to his provincial counterparts and
commit the additional $400 million being called for today?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member, in reference to
the province of Saskatchewan, that the federal contribution to
NISA crop insurance and companion programs is $175 million this
year.
The Canadian farm income protection program is estimated by its
officials and ours to be $200 million this year. When it puts
its 40% with the announcement that the government made two weeks
ago, it will be another $200 million. That is close to $600
million for Saskatchewan alone this year.
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister is more
concerned about fighting with provincial governments to force his
own programs upon everybody rather than allowing some provincial
discretion.
Is the minister trying to tell the House that the governments of
Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are wrong in
saying that at least $900 million is needed from the government?
Only the current agriculture minister could unite two
Conservative governments and two NDP governments with the
separatist government of Quebec. Why does the minister continue
to ignore the advice of governments and—
The Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting and quite sad
that the province of Saskatchewan, for example, did not offer to
put in any more money until the federal government was there. It
did not offer any.
With the combination of all of us it is over $600 million. In
the spirit of negotiating and discussion I remind the hon. member
that those five minister walked out of a meeting rather than stay
and discuss it. I stayed there. I had a press conference. They
walked out of the meeting.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister for International Trade. U.S. political
leaders in industry say that our forest management system
subsidizes our industry and hurts the environment. Is this an
accurate assessment? Is it true that the U.S. system offers
stronger environmental protection?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our forest practices absolutely do not
unfairly subsidize our industry. We are actually much better
than the United States in protecting our environment.
Canada protects its forests from depletion. For every tree that
is harvested, two new ones are planted. We only harvest one-half
of one per cent of our commercial forests each year. Ninety-four
per cent of Canada's forests are publicly owned and strictly
regulated. By comparison, 90% of U.S. timber comes from private
lands. It has virtually no regulations on forest management.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, agriculture has been a priority for
the Canadian Alliance all winter, but it appears that the Prime
Minister does not particularly care if farmers can even plant
their crops this spring.
The government spends money advertising government rhetoric
rather than giving emergency money directly to farmers who need
assistance. Why will the government not make agriculture a
priority and deliver the additional $400 million needed by
farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful what cold weather will
do. It must have been shock treatment. The Alliance Party
finally got interested in agriculture. It is nice that it was
interested this winter. It was the first one.
Adding to what I commented on a few minutes ago, the government
increased interest free loans for farmers this year two and a
half times what they were last year, up to $50,000 per farmer. We
estimate that farmers will borrow interest free over $700 million
to help put their crops in the ground this year.
1500
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister may not have heard or
answered the questions but we have been asking them. The
backbench member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey repeatedly
states that the $500 million aid package is not nearly enough to
avert the farm crisis. He promises to continue his lobbying
efforts to the Prime Minister and the minister of agriculture.
Since the Prime Minister refuses to acknowledge the depth of the
crisis and get the needed resources out to farmers, will he at
least allow his backbenchers to vote freely for the additional
$400 million?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the lobby for this from outside the House
approached cabinet, approached me and approached the Prime
Minister, and as a result of this lobby, the government has done
something.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the chief of
the land staff, Lieutenant General Mike Jeffery, has announced
that given the budget available to him he is getting ready to
make staff cuts that could number in the thousands.
Will the Minister of National Defence explain this contradiction
to us? On the one hand, the Minister of National Defence is
arguing in favour of increased recruitment and, on the other,
the chief of the land staff is threatening to make deep cuts.
Which will it be? Increase, cut or stabilize military
personnel?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not correctly characterized what
General Jeffery said, but let me say that General Jeffery, as is
the government, is determined to implement the 1994 white paper
defence policy. We are determined to make sure that our troops
get the resources they need.
In addition to considering additional resources, we have to look
at making sure the existing resources we have are used in the
most efficient and effective way possible. That is all of what
General Jeffery and the army are attempting to do at this point.
There is no decision on any cutting of troops.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of Mr. Bjorn Bjarnason, Minister of
Culture and Science of Iceland
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I would also like to draw the attention of hon.
members to the presence in the gallery of François Loncle, the
president of the French delegation of the Canada-France
Inter-Parliamentary Association, and the chair of France's
foreign affairs committee.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1505
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations
among House leaders and I believe you would find unanimous
consent for the following motion with respect to Ways and Means
Proceedings No. 3:
That a division on the motion to concur in the Notice of Ways and
Means tabled on Friday, March 16, 2001, be deemed to have been
requested and deferred to the conclusion of government orders
later this day.
The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have
unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt it?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
OFFICIAL REPORT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order to complain about a situation and to clarify
another, as I indicated earlier.
Yesterday I put a question to the Prime Minister in the House
which included conditions, in my opinion, in my text and in the
way I asked it and which hinted conditionally at an infringement
of the criminal code.
On reading Hansard, I realized that the last part of the
sentence did not reflect my thinking. It was not what I had
intended to say, and I wanted the sentence to be in the
conditional, since I was questioning the Deputy Prime Minister
on a hypothesis.
That said, I asked the people at Hansard, as is a regular
practice, to correct a part of the sentence I did not consider
represented reality, which was not at all the intent of my
remarks.
I was given no explanation. This morning I realized they had
rejected my correction, and yet, I regularly saw as House
leader that substantial corrections had been made to the
answers given by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Human
Resources Development, for example, to such a point that it was
even impossible to raise a question from the blues since
Hansard was so different.
At the time it was explained that the changes in Hansard were
made more to have the record reflect what the person speaking
wished to say, what had actually been perceived here in the
House of Commons.
I will say simply that I find it unfortunate I was denied the
opportunity to correct Hansard. In this regard, obviously, I
have no problem, as you discussed with me, with removing the
last part of the sentence of my question since it did not
really reflect what I had intended to say, which I had asked,
before you spoke to me to have corrected.
It is therefore fitting, both for the Prime Minister and for
myself, that this sentence be withdrawn from Hansard.
Since you allowed the question yesterday in the belief that it
was in the conditional, I too thought I had put it in the
conditional, but I realized that it had been put in an
affirmative style.
In this context I think you will be satisfied at my requesting
the end of the sentence be removed so that my question concludes
with “acted in his own interest”.
I do not think the rest is in the context in which I wanted to
ask my question.
The Speaker: The Chair greatly appreciates the retraction
requested by the hon. member for Roberval.
I must admit that I referred to yesterday's Hansard to check
what had been said and was somewhat shocked at what I read. I
indicated to the hon. member that it was important in my
opinion both for the House and for the Chair for there to be a
retraction. I greatly appreciate the hon. member's co-operation
in this matter.
1510
The editors of Hansard always try to be fair and just in
reporting and printing what we have said in the
House. It is often difficult to determine exactly what was
said.
We work together, the editors of Hansard, the clerks at the
table, and everyone who works for the House, to provide a quite
accurate and precise text of what was said in the House. We
shall continue to try to improve the already excellent service
Hansard provides to this House.
I thank everyone in this regard.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—AGRICULTURE
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I should like to finish this portion of my speech. I
was talking earlier about the far-reaching effects of the farm
income crisis. We are talking not only about the people who are
on the land, the primary producers. We are talking about the
communities and the businesses that support the industry and how
it reaches into all aspects of our society and all aspects of our
communities.
I should like to mention a couple of points besides the
immediate influx of cash into the farming community we are
talking about today in addition to what the government has
already done. This is much needed money which we think should be
going out immediately before spring seeding.
The government could do other things in the long term to improve
the plight of our agriculture community. Certainly in western
Canada one of the things that needs to be done is to maximize
marketing opportunities. We need the ability to market our
product the best way we see fit and to get rid of the monopoly
the Canadian Wheat Board has on certain aspects of our marketing
abilities.
This is something that is peculiar to western Canada. Producers
in other parts of Canada have the ability to choose who they wish
to deal with in selling their grain. Western Canadians do not.
Our party has advocated forever that marketing choice should be
part of the mix when it comes to curing the ills of the
agriculture community.
We also worked an awful lot on the reform of the Grain
Transportation Act, the changes to that act when they were before
the House last spring. The government had an opportunity at that
time to make some meaningful changes and put some market forces
back into the costs farmers have to pay to get their product to
the coast to be shipped to other countries. It fell very short
of what was needed.
I know from personal experience that when grain is taken to the
elevator the amount of money taken off the top of the farmer's
cheque for transportation and grain handling is huge. We could
do something about that tomorrow. We could do something about
the wheat board. We could do something about the transportation
system. The government chooses not to work on those angles as
well.
We talk about increased input costs. Input costs in the last
few years have gone right through the roof. Energy costs have
skyrocketed. However there is one area the government could act
on tomorrow which would leave $100 million in the pockets of
producers in Canada: the elimination of the excise tax on farm
fuel. This tax collects $100 million that the government could
very well leave in the pockets of producers. All these things
could be done to add up to a whole that would be better for the
community.
We have done some extensive travelling across the country. I
remind members opposite who keep insinuating our party has done
nothing as far as agriculture is concerned that it was our party
which twice asked the agriculture committee to travel into
Ontario, the rest of Canada and the maritimes to discuss the
crisis in agriculture, and twice we were refused. After the
feeble attempt the government made to have the committee travel
in western Canada, we took it upon ourselves to travel
extensively across Canada to discuss face to face with primary
producers the situations they were facing.
1515
One of the things they told us was not to leave them hanging.
They said that if it was the policy of the government to destroy
the family farm, then let them know. If they knew there was no
further support for them, they would not use up all the savings
and equity that they have in their land and machinery.
They are asking the government to be up front with them. They
are asking the government to be forthwith. Hopefully the
government will do that.
In closing, we want to reiterate that on a short term must have
basis, we implore the government to top up that support to the
farmers by $400 million. That is what we are asking for today.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
ironic that through the motion today, not only the speaker who
just spoke but all the speakers in the Alliance are now
supporting a subsidy. However, they ran a campaign against
subsidies of various types.
Canada is involved in subsidies in all sorts of areas. Other
countries are involved in subsidies, and we have to match them.
Many of the subsidies the opposition spoke against are there
because other countries have them. Yet they are inconsistent in
this one situation. I made this point before in the House. The
reason I did was because it hurts my riding. It needs these
subsidies for other things than just agriculture.
We have a town called Faro which has the largest open pit lead
zinc mine in the world. The people of Faro want to be heard in
the House because they have nowhere else to go now. Their only
industry has collapsed, the ore has run out and they do not want
to leave their homes. They believe in their land.
I have to compliment the people of Faro. They are very
ingenious. They are trying to come up with all sorts of things
to improve their economy. The chamber of commerce of Faro, the
town council, citizen groups are trying to think of things.
Through think tanks, they are also trying to come up with ideas
on improving the economy. Without some sort of start up O and
M money or capital, they will not be able to get back on their
feet.
If we are going to help people we have to have a philosophy that
helps people in all parts of this country equally, so that we can
all get back on our feet, including the citizens of the town of
Faro.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I imagine one of the
reasons the member opposite was elected and sent to the House by
the people he represents was to work hard for them. I applaud
him for fighting to keep the industry in his town open. That is
why I was sent here. I will stand in the House every day if need
be to fight for my constituents.
He inferred that we did not campaign for farmers during the
election. I will read what it says in our Alliance policy. This
is misquoted time and again by the agriculture minister and it is
very unfortunate that he does that. It states:
To ensure a self-reliant and economically viable agriculture
sector, we will vigorously seek free entry of Canadian products
into foreign markets. We support and will advocate the phased
reduction and elimination of all subsidies, support programs and
trade restrictions in conjunction with other countries.
That is where the government has gone wrong. It has gone out
ahead of other countries and reduced the subsidies for our
producers while other countries receive subsidies. This has put
our producers in a very bad situation. They will not agree with
that.
A component of what the agriculture community needs on a long
term basis is a disaster program that responds to the need and
gets the money out quickly. We need a long term income
stabilization program to put some stability back into the
program. We need opportunities to market our product the way we
see fit. We need a government with some guts to go to the United
States and the European Union and fight down the subsidies that
are killing our producers.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague has in a very effective way presented the
parts of the puzzle to solving this agriculture problem by
reducing high taxes, unfair user fees, changing regulations that
will make the grain transportation system less expensive and
getting our product to market more reliably which will increase
price.
1520
He also talked about the problem with subsidies. He mentioned
subsidies in a broad scope, but the subsidies that drive Canadian
farmer prices down most are export subsidies. That is money
spent to put a product into the market at a reduced rate. That
is what hurts farmers more than anything. We are talking about
compensation for that harm. Could the member comment on that?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, that is the thing we are
advocating. We have to come to the plate to support our
producers when their lives are being ruined by forces beyond
their control. The export policies of the United States and the
European Union are distorting the marketplace. The price our
producers are receiving for their commodities is no longer market
driven, it is driven by poor government policy. Because of the
situation that exists, we have to do something in the short term
to keep our farm families alive.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the motion put
forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
I will read it for the benefit of members who have missed some of
the earlier part of the debate. It states:
That this House call on the government to authorize an additional
$400 million in emergency assistance for Canadian farm families
(over and above all agriculture programs announced or in place to
date), to be paid in 2001—
There is a little bit added on the end about not being a
confidence motion to avoid giving the government an excuse to
require their MPs to vote against this.
I would like to start by paying tribute to my colleague's
dedication to the cause of Canadian farmers, which is admirable.
He is my seat mate of course, so I get to see his passion and
enthusiasm up close. It has been an education to me, to see the
way in which a member can take on and responsibly advocate the
interests of a community within Canada. He deserves to be
applauded for that.
Almost single-handedly
my colleague, the hon. member for
Selkirk—Interlake, has pushed the crisis in Canadian agriculture
to the top of the policy agenda. The very first question that
was raised in the House following the Speech from the Throne was
raised by my colleague and related to agriculture. In fact, he
set a bit of a precedent in asking a question in that manner at
that time.
He is assured, along with a few others from this caucus, that
the Canadian Alliance will lead the charge on this issue, keeping
our traditional place as the most vigorous defenders and indeed
as the only serious defenders of the legitimate interests of
Canadian farmers in the House of Commons.
It is all too easy to forget, because of the way this has been
brought to the fore of the agenda, just how far agriculture had
been pushed from the mainstream agenda over the past year. It
was almost completely absent from the 2000 election campaign, so
much so that when a debate on the subject was finally held in my
riding, five days before the election, I felt compelled to begin
my remarks by saying “Tonight's debate is about agriculture, the
most important issue not being discussed in this federal
election”. Well that has changed, thank goodness.
This is partly due to the work of my distinguished colleague and
is partly due to the remarkable efforts of farmers from across
the country who have met and who have demonstrated in cities to
draw attention to their situation.
Last Wednesday an enormous farm rally was held here in Ottawa. I
was honoured to attend it. This was the lead item on that
night's news. The surest sign that Canadians are finally turning
their attention to the farm crisis is this. After having utterly
ignored the agriculture issue in the election campaign and in the
first three and a half months of this parliament, even the leader
of the Progressive Conservative Party was finally willing to ask
a question in the House of Commons last Wednesday relating to
agriculture.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Where was Stockwell Day?
Mr. Scott Reid: A member has just asked where Stockwell
Day was. He has asked so many questions, it is hard to keep
track. He also addressed that—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I know the hon. member
is new in the House. He should know that we do not address
ourselves by our personal names but by the riding or in this case
the Leader of the Opposition.
1525
Mr. Scott Reid: I thank you for that, Mr. Speaker. The
member obviously needs to get some wax removed from his ears
because on so many occasions, and it is hard to keep track, our
leader has in fact addressed this issue.
I will simply continue now to give a little information on the
background of the agricultural industry. I think Canadians
forget sometimes just how important this industry is to the
country. Agriculture is one of the pillars of the Canadian
economy, accounting for just under 9% of our gross domestic
product.
The average Canadian farm produces enough food to feed 120
people. One result of this remarkable efficiency is that food
prices have dropped to record lows. Canadians were able to eat
better and to do so at a lower cost than at any time in our
history.
Another less fortunate result of this efficiency is that the
number of farmers, as a percentage of the Canadian population,
continues to decline. In fact it is in steady decline. This
means that increasingly governments are able to ignore farmers
and the farm vote and still get elected. Heaven knows the
government is proof positive of that fact.
The result of the policy of ignoring the interests of farmers
can be seen everywhere. It can be seen most dramatically in the
number of dollars that the Canadian government has been willing
to devote to farm support. To make this point, in 1997 for every
dollar the Canadian government spent on farm support, Japan spent
$3.47, the European Union spent $2.14 and the U.S. spent $2.06.
These policies of our competitors have led to a worldwide glut
of agricultural product and to dramatically declining prices.
Corn prices have dropped from $3.60 a bushel two years ago to
around $2.60 at the time of last year's harvest, and soybean
prices from around $8.60 to about $6.50. Break-evens on
soybeans, incidentally, are around $8.00 per bushel.
This is forcing even more farmers off the land. According to
Statistics Canada, agriculture employment in my province of
Ontario has dropped by 33,000, or 27%, since the Liberals first
came to power in 1993. The facts clearly show that farming in
Canada, and in Ontario in particular, is in crisis. It is a
simple statement of fact that Canadian farmers are facing their
worst income crisis since the great depression. This is made
worse by the doubling of fuel costs which have driven up input
costs for farmers.
Farmers need a government that is on their side. I would like
to describe two of the key elements that would need to be set in
place before farmers could really feel that the government
believes in them and in their industry.
First, Canada claims to have a strong system of safety net
programs, including emergency disaster relief, crop insurance and
net income stabilization accounts for the immediate delivery of
emergency compensation. Farmers need to know that these programs
will be adequately funded and that the funds put into these
programs will be genuinely available in a timely fashion.
Canada must launch an aggressive campaign through the WTO and
through NAFTA to ensure that our trading partners reduce their
subsidies for their farmers so that our farmers can compete on a
level playing field. Until that happens, we have to defend fair
trade, as well as free trade, and that means that we must ensure
that farmers get timely compensation.
In the time I have left I want to talk a little about some of
the red tape that is involved in getting access to some of these
funds. A farmer in Mississippi Mills, which is a rural township
in Lanark county in my riding, described the following mess to
me.
Last October the farmer applied for relief under the Ontario
whole farm relief program. The terms under which relief money
was available was sufficiently vague that he had to acquire the
services of an accountant, which of course was not free. He used
these services for a full day. At the end of the day neither the
accountant nor my constituent were actually sure whether he
qualified. The forms were submitted anyway in October and he
still does not know whether or not he is getting aid or, indeed,
the amount that it would be.
I am describing a problem in an Ontario government program.
However, this problem of red tape is hardly unique to provincial
programs. In fact it is even worse in federal programs. I have
a copy of the application forms for the year 2000 for the
Canadian farm income program.
There are eight spreadsheets to fill out. There are 13 pages of
explanatory material as to eligibility requirements. Even the
instructions on how to fill out the forms take up an additional
10 pages.
1530
Moreover, farmers are required to have further documentation in
the form of the official Canadian farm income program price list.
If they dispute the prices on that list, they have to append
copies of receipts. Non-participants in the net income
stabilization account program must append to their applications a
form called a CFIP supplementary package for non-NISA applicants,
and so on.
The point to be made here is simply that when these programs are
produced, if they are made so hard to get at, government can
forget about promising $500 million. Why not promise $500
billion? The farmers cannot get it. It does not count. That is
the situation farmers are faced with.
The money is needed now. It is needed before seeding. It is
needed through a non-bureaucratic mechanism. The history of the
programs offered by the government over the past seven years has
been that they have been exceedingly hard to get.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad I
will soon have the opportunity to address the debate. However, I
know the very excellent and hard working member who just spoke
would want me to clarify something for the people watching and
listening.
It is something he may have omitted, but the fact is that the
Ontario whole farm income program is administered by his
colleagues at Queen's Park, the Harris government. The money is
there and the cash is there to be spent between now and the end
of March. I would ask my colleague to speak to those colleagues.
Mr. Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I guess I could have made up
a story, but the farmer told me a story about this particular
program so I cited it. My point was to suggest, and I think
accurately, that the problem with filling out these forms and
trying to apply for these forms is that they are too
bureaucratic.
An hon. member: Provincial forms.
Mr. Scott Reid: That is why I cited the federal forms;
they went on at great length about them. I am sorry that my
colleague was not listening to that and I am sorry he cannot put
a sock in it and listen now.
I do want to mention that when we look at the amount of money
ostensibly available under AIDA for the years 1998 and 1999 we
find that fully 38% has not yet been accessed by farmers. That
has not yet been handed out to farmers, despite the fact that it
was meant to be disaster aid. That forces farmers to pay more
for their inputs because they are unable to function as properly
operated businesses.
One of the farmers in my riding told me he expects his input
costs this year to be pushed up by about 15% because he cannot
take advantage of various discounts such as early payment
discounts, because his aid, federal aid, is not available to him
in a timely fashion.
It seems to me that the federal government is as much at fault
here as any provincial government. I would think a great deal
more.
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleagues on
this side of the House, especially those two who are from
Ontario, for joining in this agriculture debate today. Those of
us from Saskatchewan sometimes feel like we are the only ones,
but we know we are not. Statistics Canada actually has said that
63,000 jobs were lost last year alone because of the agricultural
crisis.
The plan announced recently by the government requires the
provinces to contribute 40% to the federal programs already in
existence. Saskatchewan has already removed all the provincial
taxes on farm fuels. I wonder what the government would think if
it were forced to match that move. My question to my colleague
is this: what does my colleague have to say about the
requirement of the provinces being forced to put their money into
the federal programs rather than being able to add it directly to
their own?
1535
Mr. Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, of course it is the standard
procedure of the federal government on all issues to try to put
moneys forward in the form of matching grants and then take
credit for the entire amount as if it had in fact spent the
entire amount. That would explain the largest proportion of what
is going on here.
The original claim of the government was that it had in fact met
the farmers' demands for $1 billion, with the government saying
that after all, it was putting in a good chunk of that and the
provinces would put in money too but only because the federal
government was, so therefore the federal government really spent
the money even though provincial taxpayers paid for it.
Obviously farmers have not bought that. That is in fact why
they were protesting here in Ottawa and elsewhere, including
Saskatchewan. Clearly proposals similar to those made by my hon.
colleague would have been precisely the right direction to go in.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I know this is a very important debate in the House. The
minister on many occasions has said the Alliance has not raised
questions about the agriculture issue, but we have, and I think
it would be incumbent upon the government to have at least one
minister of the crown here to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hon. member knows
very well that he cannot allude to or refer to the absence of
anyone in the House.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time with my hard working rural caucus colleague
from the great riding of Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant.
Before I put some of the good programs before the House, I have
to point out some falsehoods that were put forth by the last few
members who spoke, especially those from Saskatchewan.
I want to be very careful and very accurate in my description
here. They talked about the money that has not gone to the
Saskatchewan producers, which we are all working for. I say to
my colleague from the Alliance, I would not laugh when we see
from the statistics that it is very fair to point out that
Saskatchewan farmers have now received very close to $400 million
from AIDA. Yes, more than 80% of that money has been delivered
directly to those producers. Yes, the province has helped up to
this time, but now the province is denying the money to the
producers.
The last $500 million, half a billion—yes, it could have been
more—will be invested. The cash will get to the producers
between now and the end of March. That is how fast we want to
hand out the money. I would ask my colleagues, for all the right
reasons, to lobby their own minister, as we members will, so that
we can get the money through to our producers.
Also, my colleagues across the way were very correct in pointing
out that we must have the co-operation of the European Union and
the United States in bringing down the tariffs. They are right.
I want to point out that our minister of trade spoke with his
counterparts in the United States in the last few days. In fact,
the minister of agriculture spoke to his counterpart in the
United States yesterday. Our minister spoke to his colleague
yesterday in Washington, and we are working on it.
I am very pleased to join this debate, but I would ask my
colleagues on the far side to clarify where they stand on this
situation. Perhaps that is why only once have we heard the
leader of the CA Party on his feet asking questions in the House
on this very important issue. The rest of the time the CA leader
never stood up on this subject. That leader never stood up to be
counted.
Earlier today my colleague from the great riding of Ottawa
Centre pointed out that several years ago Reform Party policy was
against all subsidies. When it comes to present research, the
same situation exists. Less than one year ago the policy
papers—I am sure they come from the leader's office and the
backroom people, and I am sure my colleagues are ashamed of
them—pointed out that the party is still against subsidies for
our producers and our growers. It is very unfortunate.
1540
Certainly agriculture is very important in this country and we
in the government will continue to be there for our farmers. It
is true that agriculture is essentially a rural industry, but
rural Canada, its people and its communities are more than
agricultural communities.
The federal government has resolutions and plans in place to
address rural needs. Whether or not it is the main industry,
whether it is agriculture or not, the government will be there
for the people. In fact, rural and remote communities are a
vital part of our national fabric and the Government of Canada is
committed to ensuring that they are able to share in and
contribute to our prosperity.
Most rural communities rely on the income and the industry that
agriculture generates, which is why it is essential that we
support this sector beyond our farm income programs, and that is
exactly what we are doing. We believe that two factors are
critical to the success of our communities. First, communities
must take charge of their own future. Second, the programs the
government puts in place must stimulate economic development
rather than just supplement it. Also, the programs must be
initiated by local individuals. In other words, they have to
come from the bottom up, from the grassroots.
I would like to look at what I believe are the two specific
roles for government in this process. The first role is to
ensure that communities have the tools to pursue their particular
interests. The federal government has worked hard over the last
several years to develop a series of tools that communities can
access in a way that makes sense for them. I would like to take
a minute to review some of them.
Canadian rural partnership is a four year, $20 million
initiative that was launched in 1998. It has proven to be a
great success. It includes a pilot project component that has
helped fund 239 community based projects in the first three
years. There is also a rural dialogue, which has given rural and
remote Canadians a real voice in the decisions that affect their
communities, and a rural lens, through which all government
policies, programs and services are examined to make sure they
respect the needs of rural and remote Canadians.
Community futures is one of the greatest programs we have had
for the last decade. Our government has expanded this program by
an additional $90 million in the last budget.
I am proud to say that the Secretary of State for Rural
Development accompanied me to my riding this past Friday. The
government invested $750,000 in the riding. The money was
invested because the decisions on the money lent to small
business and invested in small business and entrepreneurs will be
made by the grassroots people, the great people who give their
time and who are the directors of the CDC in North Hastings and
Central Hastings. I would like to extend a thank you to those
individuals.
In budget 2000 we announced $2.65 billion over the next five
years to rebuild our national infrastructure. Work will include
improvements to grain roads in the west as well as federal
bridges and wharves. Most of these will be in rural Canada.
Last summer the secretary of state and the hon. minister of
agriculture announced the Canadian agricultural rural communities
initiative, CARCI. Funding of more than $9 million will be
provided over the next three years to help agricultural rural
communities adapt to change.
These are just some of the ways our government and our programs
help rural communities, including farmers, achieve profitability
and stability in the long term and prevent sole reliance on farm
income programs. By encouraging and investing in local
development, the risk of becoming one industry towns is
minimized.
There is a second role for government. Community development
requires more than the investment of dollars. It requires an
investment in people, an investment in community leaders, not
just the decision makers but all the people who have innovative
ideas and all the people who make important contributions to
provide the vision their communities will have in the future.
We have to foster that culture of creativity in our communities.
We can have initiatives that sound great on paper, but without
the individuals who have the skills and the initiative to set the
economic wheels in motion, we will not succeed in achieving long
term sustainable development in our communities.
1545
This development can only happen when all partners are working
together and everyone has common long term goals. The key to
helping rural communities move away from being dependent is to be
self-sufficient.
In that speech the government said:
Canadian communities of all sizes—whether urban or rural,
aboriginal or multicultural—face diverse challenges and have
unique needs. The Government of Canada will strive to ensure
that, whenever possible, its actions and programs are
co-ordinated to help build local solutions to local challenges.
This empowering of local communities will govern our actions as
we implement our campaign and our throne speech commitments. This
will be evident as we carry out our commitment to our rural
communities.
Specifically, the Speech from the Throne said:
The government will help Canada's agricultural sector beyond
crisis management—leading to more genuine diversification and
value-added growth, new investments and employment, better land
use, and high standards of environmental stewardship and food
safety.
The government provides funding but to be effective it is
essential that initiatives are developed by local individuals to
address local needs and priorities.
The people at the grassroots are the best ones to make decisions
that affect their communities. It is this bottom up approach
that is absolutely essential to effective community development.
One-third of our population lives and works in rural Canada.
They are a vital piece of our social fabric that makes our
country. I am sure we all agree on one thing. We are very proud
of the citizens of rural Canada.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if there is a disaster in Canada, the
Prime Minister usually visits the area. I personally delivered a
letter of invitation to the Prime Minister but he has
consistently refused to meet with farmers.
I do not believe the Prime Minister could ignore the plight of
grain farmers, if he could personally witness this disaster. Why
does the Prime Minister not come to Saskatchewan and personally
meet with farmers?
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for the invitation. I am sure he wants to include all
of us.
I have visited his great riding, which includes Yorkton, in the
last two years. I am glad we have an infrastructure program so
we can do a little better job on the roads north of Indian Head.
However, I know my colleague will agree that I have met with
many farmers from Saskatchewan in the last few weeks. Many of my
colleagues, urban and rural on both sides of the House, have met
with these farmers. Our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
has met with the farmers and spokespeople. We met with them here
on the Hill in the last few days. As I said, our minister spoke
to our U.S. colleague.
To answer my colleague, I would like to see the Prime Minister
also visit his riding. However, let us put forth right now the
fact that the Prime Minister has met with farmers from
Saskatchewan more than once in the very last few months. The
Prime Minister was very kind to extend an invitation to Nick and
his combine. I did not say that the combine was on the grounds
at 24 Sussex, but I was very glad that the Prime Minister met
with Nick.
More important and most serious, the Prime Minister and his
office met with more of these producers in the last few days, and
we shall again.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have certainly been following the
words of the member for the Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington.
Today is decision day. We will be voting on the motion today to
support farmers with an additional $400 million. When we look at
the other issues surrounding agriculture, his stand on issues has
not been in keeping with the agriculture sector. I would quickly
point out that he supports a Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. Our
organic farmers have voted overwhelmingly that they want to have
marketing outside the wheat board, along with many other farmers
of standard grains.
1550
I do not see any pressure to lower the federal excise tax on
fuel. This member supports grain transportation which is highly
regulated and causes problems with the wheat board. The gun bill
is still in place by the government.
Will the member vote for or against this motion to give farmers
$400 million?
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I watched the news
today on farmers from across this country. It reminded me of my
colleague who does a lot of great work on our committee. I
believe we still will. It is a committee that gets along
probably better than any other committee on the Hill.
I was reminded of Canadian cattlemen. I would not want to
include a list of which members opposite belong to this wonderful
association. I admire the Canadian cattlemen, I appreciate them
and support them. However they are asking, as they and their
colleagues have before, that we not support giving money to our
producers.
We cannot have it both ways. I am not asking my colleague to
stand up and say that we will hand out a few dollars today, but
we will not be there tomorrow. We will be there tomorrow for our
producers.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, I want to take this opportunity to thank the
opposition for bringing forward a motion today on agriculture. It
is a very important issue. I believe we have a crisis in
agriculture today. As rural members in the House, it gives us an
opportunity to speak on agriculture. It is very much
appreciated.
At the same time too, I want to thank the Prime Minister, the
cabinet, my colleagues in our rural caucus and some of our urban
members, such as the member for Toronto—Danforth and the member
for Parkdale—High Park, two downtown Toronto members who stood
up and voiced the concerns that many Canadians have on the crisis
in agriculture.
I also want to thank the Minister of Finance, the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of National Defence who are
all urban cabinet ministers but who are in the House today
talking about this issue. They are concerned about this and have
been listening to the concerns of all members about the crisis.
We are here today, aside from the politics of the issue, because
agriculture in Canada is in crisis. We have heard from many
different people who have many differing views on what the crisis
is, how best we can solve it and whether or not money should be
flowing into the hands of agriculture, farmers and rural
Canadians.
From the bias of coming from a rural area, a small town Ontario
riding which has very many similarities with the ridings of the
hon. members across the floor who are from other provinces, I say
there is a crisis out there and we need to further recognize
that. As parliamentarians and as a government, I believe we need
to move to do more in this area.
The opposition suggests that we need to put more money into it.
Our rural caucus and our cabinet ministers who supported us came
up with a good package that addressed many of the immediate
concerns that farmers have today, particularly those concerns of
getting crops into the ground this year.
In saying that, I believe we need to do more and can do more. In
fact we not only need to look at the immediate crisis, but we
need to look at the long term solutions. First and foremost, we
need to talk to Canadians, inform them and let them know why
agriculture is so important to this country and why it is in need
today.
1555
Agriculture is the third largest employer in the country. It
accounts for 8.5% of our GDP. It is important to the future of
the country that we have a healthy industry.
Why are we in crisis today? We are in crisis today for a number
of different reasons. As was pointed out, our international
partners are putting direct subsidies to exports. Exports are so
important to the agricultural community today. We have $22
billion or $23 billion in exports across the world.
When our farmers try to export into foreign markets that use
export subsidies, it lowers the price that that farmers gets for
his commodity. Hon. members may not be aware that in certain
areas farmers are not making back their costs of production. They
are paying more out than they are taking in from their crops. I
saw on television last night, I believe it was on CTV, that in
some cases 75% of farmers' incomes come from the public purse.
We cannot continue to survive as a country and we cannot
continue to thrive as an agricultural community, if that
continues to be the case. We need to get our income out of the
marketplace. As parliamentarians we need to sit down and try to
find solutions to do that.
One solution being put forward is to put $100 million of new
money into it and that somehow will solve the problem. It will
not solve the problem that we are facing today. We need to go
beyond that and look for broader solutions that involve all
provinces and involve not only farmers and rural Canadians but
also those who live in the urban centres who purchase the food
farmers produce.
That is not being done. There has not been enough dialogue from
the farm leadership, from the parliamentarians or from farmers
themselves. There has not been enough done to bring in more
Canadians and inform them of the problems that farmers face
today.
I have been involved for a number of years in international
trade. What I try to do, and what our Minister for International
Trade is doing as we speak, is deal with how other countries
subsidize their farmers and get these export subsidies down. If
we can get those export subsidies down, if we can get the trade
distorting subsidies down, our farmers will be able to compete.
However that issue will take a while to resolve. It will not be
resolved overnight. International trade negotiations take years.
In fact I believe the last one took seven years. This one could
even take more.
As Canadians we have to make a decision. Do we want viable farm
families? Do we want to support our families in need until we
can internationally negotiate these subsidies down? Those are
the questions we are faced with today.
I believe we should. I believe there is a public good in having
Canadian farmers produce the food we eat because we can regulate
exactly what is in that food. If we did not have Canadian
farmers producing the food, then we would not have control over
what is in it. We would have some control, but we would have a
lot more control if we were assured that Canadian farmers were
producing our food.
Not only can we regulate it but we can guarantee that we will
have that supply. If we start losing farmers, which is what is
happening now, if we do not invest in young people getting into
farming today, if we do not invest in the research and
development that is needed not only to produce better crops
but to produce better crops that will sell, if we do not put our
emphasis on those areas, then we will not have an industry here.
We will not have the guarantee that Canadians need: that the
industry will grow the food we eat. In fact, we will just import
it and the price will be at the whim of what is in the product,
which other countries will produce and we will not. We have the
cheapest food prices in the world. We have some of the most
productive farmers in the world. In order to keep these things,
we need to continue investing in the industry.
1600
I represent an area in southwestern Ontario that is one of the
most diverse agricultural areas. The problem today is not only
in grains and oilseeds, but in areas such as apples and
horticulture and particularly in areas that other countries are
putting a lot of emphasis on in subsidizing their producers.
We will deal with the international problems, but in the
meantime as parliamentarians and as a country we need to take
seriously the problems that farmers face today and deal with them
in a non-partisan way. I have tried—and I will wait for the
questions from the opposition—to deal with the issue in a
non-partisan way because I believe that is how Canadians will
listen to us.
I thank the Prime Minister, cabinet, my rural colleagues and
members of the opposition who have raised this very important
issue. I believe we can and should do more. On behalf of my
constituents, I guarantee that I will stand to speak at every
occasion on behalf of my constituents and farmers in southwestern
Ontario.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, certainly in a non-partisan way I
intend to stand here on behalf of Selkirk—Interlake constituents
and vote yes to support farmers with an additional $400 million.
I think that opportunity is open to everyone in the House.
I ask the member if he does not believe that in fact there are
many ways to help farmers through non-direct subsidies. Would
the member support a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board? Would he
support a lowering of the federal excise tax on diesel fuel to
zero from four cents, where it is today? Would he look at
supporting grain transportation, so that it is not the highly
regulated system it is today, and putting it on a commercial
contract based system? All those things would add up to close to
$400 million for farmers.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the
hon. member that I have only been here for 13 years or so. I
used to chair the agriculture committee and have probably spoken
on agriculture as much as most people in the House. Even though
I come from southwestern Ontario, I have always stood up for
western grain farmers.
I have been out there and have talked to farmers in the west. I
have looked into the whole issue. The member talks about the
wheat board. I want to assure him that I and members on this
side will stand up for the wheat board and for those farmers in
the west, who are the majority, who support farmers having a say
in the sale of their wheat. There is no question that if we ever
got rid of the wheat board, as the hon. member would like, the
farmers would be at the whim of foreign nations and foreign
multinational companies. They would not have a voice in the
marketing of their products.
I have always believed, as I have in terms of marketing boards,
that the best way we can market our products, the best way
farmers can have a say in their livelihoods, is to do it through
a marketing system. I disagree with the hon. member. I believe
that the best way we can support farmers is through marketing
boards, to make sure they have a say in the way their products
are marketed and to make sure they have a say in the House. That
is why I feel it is important that farmers have an opportunity to
have debates like this, and I appreciate the fact that the debate
was brought forward by the opposition.
1605
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke has no real
understanding of the Canadian Wheat Board and he has clearly
demonstrated that by his comments.
Does he know that if a farmer wants to take his durum wheat,
process it into pasta and add value to it he has to first of all
sell it to the wheat board? He does not own the grain. He has
to sell it to the wheat board. He has to buy it back at a price
considerably higher because he is charged for transportation to a
seaport whether he uses that transportation or not. He has to go
through all kinds of hoops and hurdles which discourage him and
cost him a huge amount of money before he can add value to it. Is
that right?
We do not have property rights in Canada and that is one of our
key problems. A farmer who challenges this will be found by the
courts to have no basis for it. That is absolutely wrong. There
is no way the Liberal government should be hamstringing our
farmers this way.
The member could change this entire debate. If 50 or 60 Liberal
MPs with rural components stood up and let their voices be heard,
they could break the power of the Prime Minister's Office and we
could get on with some meaningful assistance. I wonder if the
member would support that.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member
that I will not be drawn into his political debate because I
believe this should not be politicized.
I know that a lot of hon. members say that the Prime Minister's
Office somehow has a grip on hon. members. I talked with a lot
of my Liberal members yesterday and they see through the tricks
that the Alliance Party is putting on. They do not buy what it
is trying to do with this holier than thou sudden coming forward
to ask for funds. In fact, now I learn that it is not money
Alliance members are asking for. They just want us to somehow
change the wheat board.
I can assure the hon. member that members on this side of the
House will continue to stand up and speak for farmers in this
country, and in all parts of Canada, not just in the west. We in
this party represent all parts of the country and we represent
the farming community in all parts of Canada. We will continue
to stand up and fight on behalf of farmers.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is really frustrating to see how
Liberal MPs are twisting the entire meaning of this debate. We
have an opportunity today to tell the agricultural producers of
the country that we are not only concerned about their plight,
but we are willing to do something about it. This motion to
provide added financial support to our struggling farmers is not
about politics or party policy. This motion is about ensuring
that the primary producers of Canada are given the same
opportunities as other sectors of the economy.
Last night on our government funded public broadcaster, there
was a report about the amount of subsidies Canadian farmers
receive. The CBC reported that in 1999 this country's producers
received 57% of their income from the government. They project
that by the end of this year a farmer will have received 75% of
his income from the government. The CBC is crediting these
numbers to Statistics Canada. Common sense would tell us that if
these numbers are true then our farmers are in bigger trouble
because their incomes are so low. The reason we are really in a
crisis today is that the government puts so little into
agriculture in Canada compared to what other nations do.
The tone of the report gives a completely false picture and it
only serves to make the government look good. The figure the CBC
is using is not an accurate portrayal of farm subsidies in
Canada. The Organization for Economic and Co-operative
Development, known as the OECD, which is the authority in
determining agriculture subsidy levels, stated that in 1999 only
20% of a Canadian farmer's income came from government. That is
quite a difference from the 57% reported by the CBC. Why is
there that difference?
The OECD is actually taking into account the entire farm
receipts received. Statistics Canada figures use the net farm
numbers. When we use the net farm numbers it appears as though
our producers are receiving some great subsidies, because a
farmer's expenses will have been removed from the figure. If we
use the net farm numbers, we are in effect counting the
government subsidy level twice. If we count the government
subsidy level once on the gross farm numbers and then when we
eliminate the farm expenses and compare the subsidy level again,
we come up with the preposterous figures that were delivered on
the CBC last night.
1610
Inaccurate reports from our publicly funded broadcaster are
inexcusable and hurt the very people forced to pay for them. This
irresponsible reporting is one of the main reasons we are here
today. This type of misinformation gives the impression to our
city cousins that farmers are receiving some type of huge payout
from the government. However, that is far from the truth. If
farmers were receiving 75% of their income from the government,
does anyone think we would even be here today?
I hope that after hearing today's debate our national
broadcaster will correct last night's report and accurately
reflect the level of farm income support in the country.
Our minister of agriculture was on a CBC show this weekend. He
made the comment that farmers should be treated like any other
business. I could not agree with him more. Unfortunately, the
minister and the government do not treat farmers like other
businesses.
Let us look at how they are not treated fairly. The most
obvious difference is the treatment at the international
bargaining table. In 1986, Canadian wheat producers received
about 45% of their income from the government. Since that time,
support for our primary wheat producers has been reduced to the
point where it is only about 11% from government. This would be
fine if our competitors would have reduced their subsidy levels,
but that did not happen.
In fact, the United States in 1986 had its wheat farmers
receiving about 49% of their income from government. In 1999, a
U.S. wheat producer received 46% of his income from the
government. In the last year, that level of support has gone
higher.
The inequality in subsidization is the reason we are here today.
Subsidies distort the marketplace and have resulted in
overproduction of grains, which in turn has forced the price for
these commodities downward.
Our farmers in many cases are growing these crops below the cost
of production. By doing that, they continue to subsidize
consumers in our cities and keep food prices low. People
shopping in our supermarkets today should understand that one of
the main reasons a loaf of bread is not $4 is that our farmers
continue to produce this product cheaply and efficiently.
When our food prices start to rise substantially, then there is
going to be a public outcry. Will the government then realize it
should have supported our agricultural sector? Unfortunately,
then our family farms will be gone and it will be too late.
There are many examples of government preparing for problems
within different sectors, but when it comes to agriculture, the
planning is not there.
Back in the mid 1990s, when the government was balancing its
books on the backs of farmers, it removed the Crow rate subsidy.
At that time Reformers told the government that eliminating this
program did not remove government from having to support farmers.
We explained that even though times were good then, commodity
markets would come down and the government had better be prepared
to help when it happened.
In fact, we told the Liberals to take 80% of the money in the
Crow and put it into a trade distortion adjustment program to be
used when farmers needed it. Did the government listen? No. We
would not be here today making this motion if it had done what we
asked. If the government had listened to our suggestion, by
1998, when this crisis started to become apparent, there would
have been over $4 billion to help farmers.
The fact the government was not willing to plan for the future
relates to my main theme, in that government does not treat
agriculture like other sectors of the economy. The government
will plan for the future when looking at other sectors and
industries, but when it comes to agriculture there is no long
term agriculture policy.
Let us look at the Bombardier issue. This is a company that
made $700 million in profits last year. It was competing with a
Brazilian company for a $3 billion contract to build airplanes.
The Brazilian company was receiving subsidies from its national
government to give it a competitive advantage. Canada's response
to this was an industry minister who said Canada could no longer
afford to be the Boy Scout of the international trade world. This
statement was also combined with a $1.5 billion loan guaranteed
to help Bombardier compete against Brazil for a contract.
Here we have the government supporting a business that is being
forced to compete against unfair foreign subsidies. Does this
not sound familiar?
For the last four years we have been explaining to the
government how our farmers are competing against unfair foreign
subsidies, yet we do not have an industry minister or an
agriculture minister who is willing to back up our farmers by
making the same commitment that was made to Bombardier.
This is why I am saying agriculture is not being treated like
other businesses or industries by the government. There are two
sets of standards here and it has to stop.
1615
Another example of the government preparing other sectors for
problems down the road is our Canada infrastructure program. The
government has committed $2.65 billion to deal with the need to
replace aging infrastructure in communities. This is a prime
example of how government can provide support to a sector by
looking ahead, determining a need and addressing that need.
I cannot understand why the agriculture department is not doing
the same thing. It has used ad hoc programs to address the
current crisis. The programs are not working and the department
still has not prepared long term solutions to help support
agriculture. This is not treating agriculture like other
sectors.
Let us look at grain transportation. It is not treated like
other industries. The government promised $178 million in
savings when it rammed its new transportation bill through the
House of Commons last spring. After talking to grassroots
producers, I can tell members that there have been little or no
savings in transportation. Without implementing a commercial and
competitive grain handling system, the savings will never be
achieved. By government overregulating and not ensuring
competition among the railways and grain companies, farmers
continue to lose out.
The MP for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington said
farmers should be allowed to be entrepreneurs and I agree, yet
when I talk to backbench Liberals they have no idea of how the
wheat board works.
There is one glaring difference between prairie grain producers
and other businesses: farmers cannot sell their wheat and barley
to whomever they want. Producers are forced to sell their wheat
and barley to the Canadian Wheat Board. They cannot process
their own product and sell it to consumers without going to the
CWB.
Other sectors of the economy are not treated like this. I do
not know of any other industry that has to sell its product to a
government controlled bureaucracy and then buy it back at a
higher price before it can reap additional profits through
processing. If another profession or industry would not stand
for this, why should our farmers be forced to accept this type of
approach? The government once again does not treat agriculture
like other businesses.
Here we are, asking the government to approve an additional $400
million in support for our agriculture producers. This is not
some cap in hand payment. This is treating our farmers like any
other business in the country. When other businesses are sold
out at the international bargaining table, there is an obligation
to stand behind them. Why not agriculture? We have to put our
political ideologies to the side and look at what is needed for
our agricultural sector.
Members from all political parties in the House have expressed
concern for the primary producers of the country. Now is our
chance to not only talk the talk but walk the walk. This action
would provide some immediate relief to producers to help them
through this cropping season.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member mentioned in closing that maybe we need to put ideologies
aside. He is far from doing that. We have had the usual rant
against the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Canadian Wheat Board is
one of the vehicles that is there to maximize returns back to
producers from the international marketplace. We have had that
kind of rant from the Canadian Alliance before.
He wants to set the ideology aside when it comes to paying
subsidies, which the Alliance Party is opposed to doing, although
they are talking about it now, but when it comes to the wheat
board he wants to keep his old ideology. Does he want the
government in or out? He cannot have it both ways.
I want to correct for the record what the member said about
government controlled bureaucracy or something along those lines
in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board. The fact of the matter is
that he was in the House when we passed a new act in terms of the
Canadian Wheat Board, in which the Canadian Wheat Board, after
much debate, was turned over to the control of the farm community
through an elected board of directors.
The member cannot have it both ways. For Pete's sake, he should
give the real facts to the House instead of the malign ones he is
producing.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I wish we could get
the real facts into the House. I agree with the member on that
last point. The members across the way are the ones who are
distorting the predicament farmers are in right now. Not
defending them or the motion is not looking at the facts.
Yes, philosophically we are opposed to subsidies, but clearly if
other countries are engaged in subsidizing their farmers and we
have hung our farmers out to dry at the international bargaining
table, we have to stand behind them. We have a clear obligation
to do that and we have said since 1994 that this is what has to
happen. That is why we proposed that 80% of the Crow subsidy be
put into a trade distortion adjustment program.
1620
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member made the point that there is a double standard, that
agriculture is treated differently, and he is exactly right. It
is the Alliance that is treating agriculture differently, wanting
to offer subsidies only to agriculture.
We have already offered $500 million to agriculture, but we have
also offered subsidies for exports. We offer subsidies in Quebec
through FEDQ, in northern Ontario through FedNor, in eastern
Canada through ACOA, and in western Canada through western
diversification, to the aerospace industry, to the technology
industries, to the sustainable development industries and to
communications.
I have four quick questions for the hon. member. Did he support
the rural pilot projects that help projects in rural Canada? A
number of them are related to farming and people living in
farming communities.
Was he incredulous when the previous Alliance member criticized
the Liberals for their subsidize, tax and regulate philosophy
when the hon. member is proposing a motion on subsidy that causes
more taxes and when the member had just spoken against
regulation?
Did the member find it strange when the member from Pembroke
said she is the spokesperson for her province when there are 50
times more Liberals in her province?
Finally, did you find it strange when the hon. member said this
is fighting export subsidies while the leader of the official
opposition, in his response to the Speech from the Throne, spoke
against export subsidies?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I know the hon. member
is new to the House and I remind him to address his comments to
the Chair, please.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, that was more like a
little rant. In this debate we are trying to indicate clearly
that the subsidies the government should be engaged in are those
where we can clearly demonstrate that a sector is being hurt by
another foreign subsidy. It is absolutely clear.
In regard to some of the programs he was listing, the businesses
in competition with those being subsidized would have to pay
those subsidies. That is blatantly unfair. We would not support
that because that is within Canada.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about this being a
non-confidence vote. The member for Malpeque has said that the
department seemed unable to come up with a solution in terms of
an assistance package. He said that there were always 16 reasons
why the bureaucracy could not do something and never one why it
could. He also said that this country had to support the farm
community to nearly equivalent levels with the United States and
Europe.
I would ask the hon. member if he does in fact believe that a
confidence motion should not be held on this and that members
should be able to vote according to their constituents' wishes.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that this
would provide an opportunity for the 50 or 60 rural MPs on the
government side of the House to represent their constituents. I
was hoping that would be what would take place today. We wanted
to make this a non-partisan debate and suddenly we are shouting
at each other, and those members are going to use it as an excuse
not to support the farmers in their ridings.
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, farming is the heart of this country.
It always has been and hopefully it always will be.
Today we are debating the Alliance motion calling on the
government to inject the additional emergency funding necessary
to keep Canadian farming alive through the coming year.
It sometimes seems like we are speaking to a brick wall over
there. As a farm partner myself and one of the hundreds of
producers in my riding, I know firsthand how serious this crisis
is. The magnitude of the emergency cannot be overstated. We
need the money, period.
The minister's announcement a couple of weeks ago was clearly
inadequate. He said so himself. Here is a quick rundown. All
farm groups are asking for at least $900 million. Five
provincial governments are calling for at least $900 million. The
Canadian Alliance is calling for at least $500 million. The
Liberals knew about this crisis at least three years ago.
Rather than continuing to point out the obvious to the
government and the minister, I thought it would be beneficial for
you, Mr. Speaker, and your colleagues to hear from farmers in
their own words. Before I entered the political arena, through
the media I put out a plea to farm people to tell me their
stories. These are some of the letters I received. I was
overwhelmed by the response from these people, and there were
heartbreaking ones from all of them, but especially from the men.
1625
I would like all hon. members in the Chamber to pay careful
attention to the letters I am about to read, particularly my
colleagues opposite, some of whom clearly need to learn a thing
or two about farming and farmers. The first letter states:
This year we didn't put a crop in—we are finished farming. That
sounds so simple “didn't put a crop in”. How do I put into
words the despair, the tears of anger, frustration, the
heartbreak. My husband is so defeated. He used to be up for a
challenge. If something didn't work the first time, he kept on
trying. He'd find a way.
My husband feels that he is a failure—no amount of me telling
him that it's not his fault changes the way he feels. Something
is gone inside.
We took a crushing debt load with us, as we try to start a new
business. Our little community is in jeopardy. The rail line
has been removed and our elevator closed. In the past five
years, many families have left the community. Approximately 18
school-age children have left. In a small school with a
population of 97—those numbers are devastating. We're fighting
to keep our school open. Everything is a fight—and there is
little fight left in anyone.
The second letter states:
The sad thing is, if it happened suddenly like a lot of
disasters, we would have gotten noticed. But the grey depression
that has settled over southwest Saskatchewan where we live has
been coming for a long time.
There have been so many marriage breakups, alcoholism,
depression, cancer and farmers leaving the land. The whole
stressful household is worn out.
All our neighbours are in the same position. It just seems
there is no joy in farming anymore. We are puppets with big
corporations pulling the strings. I see sadness and depression
everywhere I look.
The third letter states:
I farm with my husband and I know the crisis we're in. I need
not say more. When the government took away the “Crow”, that
was their first mistake. It was to be here as long as the grass
grows and the rivers flow.
The government is putting millions of dollars into other
countries and have a deaf ear to their own farmers.
The fourth letter states:
In the mid-eighties when grain prices started to fall, my
husband became really stressed out and was ready to sell out and
quit. This is where our problem arises. Our older son has
always wanted to farm. He saved enough to buy a quarter of land
so we sold him one. He tried renting some land from a neighbour
but found he only had a profit one year of the four he rented.
He had worked off the farm for about ten years and was ready to
take over more land and responsibility so we are gradually
selling everything to him. We didn't want him to borrow from the
FCC or a bank to pay us as the yearly interest alone would be
move than the profit from farming. He has no money to pay us
even though he does off farm work. He is always busy and if
anyone deserves to make a living farming, he does.
At 31, he is still single, which probably is just as well as the
stress would be too much for a lot of young women who haven't
lived on a farm...He really needs a break but can't afford a
holiday even though he has enough air miles to fly almost
anywhere. It really bothers him that he owes us so much money
and it bothers us too now that we are retired, we are so limited
in what we can do. Everything we put into the farm as “the farm
is our retirement” is still tied up in the farm.
The fifth letter states:
The farm crisis in Saskatchewan is real—it is happening, it is
a tragedy, it is preventable. It is impossible to make a living
on a farm of any size with the present world situation.
What will it take for the Canadian federal government to take a
long hard look at an industry that feeds millions and yet the
principal players cannot make an honest living through no fault
of their own? How can a democratic country like Canada stand and
watch the death of the western Canadian grain industry? The
break basket of the world is being destroyed by an eastern
Canadian government that refuses to accept responsibility for its
demise. And a demise it is as every other grain producing
country subsidizes their grain growers because they value their
product, they value the farming industry as an integral part of
their country's business world and they recognize the importance
of the farmer and his family to their way of life. But not here
in Canada—the very country that should be supporting farmers is
destroying them.
1630
Finally, the sixth letter, written by Nicole Stenerson of
Sonningdale, Saskatchewan, a University of Regina first year
student, states:
A very sad situation has evolved in our prairies. A morbid cloud
has rolled onto its beautiful sky. Hopelessness is in the air
and you stop for just a moment, you can almost hear the land
weeping in mourning for what used to be. The death of a family
farm is upon us. The tradition that this country was founded on
is dying along with the spirit and the pride of the farmers that
are left to preserve the land. Today, every family farm on the
prairies is in danger and many of them are indeed dying. This
story is the truth and it is happening today.
Canada's farming economy affects everyone. This is a fact that
is most misunderstood. Most Canadians think the farming crisis
does not involve them, and approach the issue with great apathy.
In truth, this crisis affects every Canadian. If sympathy for
the struggling farmers cannot cause you to surrender your
support, perhaps fear for this country's economy can. Canada's
economic base was originally farming, with the prairies
considered the “bread basket of the world” and today they still
are. Unfortunately, this is a fact that has become forgotten.
As Canada loses its farmers, it begins to suffer economically.
The disappearance of the farmer would affect the economy in a
very direct way. Farmers with less money spend less money. This
would mean the demise of both small businesses and large
corporations. Without farmers, there would be no need for farm
equipment dealerships, fertilizer and chemical companies and many
other large businesses that base themselves solely on farming.
This is not a prairie crisis; this is a Canadian crisis.
As Canadians, we need to stand up for our fellow countrymen. We
need to show the farmers empathy for their plight. Unfortunately,
if this government continues to do nothing to stop the extinction
of the family farm, we will soon be in mourning for a culture
that has disappeared completely. We cannot stand idly by as a
culture of the country is in such great suffering and not even
offer our heartfelt sympathy and support.
What more can we offer the government? What more can we say?
How can we convince the backbenchers of the government that
cannot see what kind of a plight agriculture is in? How can we
convince government members to stand up and vote tonight on the
Canadian Alliance motion?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has
been some firing of derricks from the other side in terms of how
we might vote on this issue tonight. Let me make it clear off
the top where I stand on this resolution today by the Canadian
Alliance. I will vote against it. I will outline the reasons
why I will vote against this resolution.
Yes, I believe that we must do more. We must do much more to
encourage the minister of agriculture and cabinet in terms of
assisting the farm community. However, I do not want to see that
decision handcuffed by this narrow motion by the Canadian
Alliance.
The party across the way, the Canadian Alliance, was the party
that came to Ottawa and said it was going to do politics
differently.
I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker.
Here it is today basically saying what it has said all along and
that is get government out of agriculture, get rid of the
Canadian Wheat Board or dual marketing, and it attacks supply
management.
What the Alliance is really doing with this motion is violating
its own principles. It is asking for government subsidies when
it has said all along it does not believe in subsidies.
The Alliance cannot have it both ways. Its position, and I have
fought against it, has been to get the government out of the
farmers' lives. That is why it attacks the Canadian Wheat Board.
That is why it attacks supply management.
1635
I have always believed there is a role for government in farm
policy and I continue to believe so. I advocate a much stronger
role in terms of farm policy by government than we currently have
in the country.
Contrary to my party on this issue of support, I believe we must
support at levels close to that of the United States so that we
are not a poor country. I believe we are a very strong
industrial nation. We have good fundamentals in our economy. We
should be there for our farm community when our farm community
needs help. However, we should be there in a number of ways, not
just by subsidies.
I found the discussions over the last number of weeks very
interesting in terms of some of the people who came to us looking
for government subsidy support. I spent 17 years in the farm
movement and many of the people today who are calling for
government subsidies are the very people who said “Get
government out of the business of farming. Do not allow it to
subsidize things. We can survive in the marketplace”. We
cannot have it both ways. We either believe in the farm market,
live by the sword and die by the sword or we do not believe that
that market is the absolutely determining factor.
Farmers, governments and political parties have to think this
through. What is the best way? Is the marketplace really the
answer? If the marketplace is really the answer, and the farmers
and the parties believe that, then they should not be in the
House asking for government subsidies. I believe in them, but I
come from a different philosophical base because I believe there
is a role for government in farming, to assist the farm
community.
Tonight I am not going to align myself with a party that says
one thing and does another. I stand by my principles. If it is
willing to rethink its position, I am willing to work with it in
order to try to find a long term solution.
To comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge, we
see where the Alliance Party stands through its attack on the
Canadian Wheat Board again. The fact is, as bad as prices are in
the grain industry as a result of international subsidies and the
export enhancement program in the United States forcing prices
down, the Canadian Wheat Board is able to protect the interests
of farmers and producers somewhat.
The Canadian Wheat Board is able to at least maximize the
returns that are in the marketplace back to the primary producer.
As well, through single desk selling, the Canadian Wheat Board in
selling into that competitive international market has created a
situation where farmers are not competing against themselves and
are maximizing the price that is in that marketplace.
This is not the first crisis that farmers have faced since we
became a nation. In the 1930s, under emergency measures, the
Canadian Wheat Board was brought in partly to challenge the
unbridled power of the grain companies and the railways at that
time. It remains today, and we have made improvements to the
wheat board in the interests of farmers.
In the sixties and seventies, dairy, poultry and egg producers
were in much the same situation as grain producers find
themselves today. The buying power of who they sold to was so
concentrated that they could basically drive prices down. There
was not too much product in the marketplace but product was
manipulated, the market was manipulated and farmers were being
driven out of business. What did farmers do? They got together
and came to the government. We had a minister, a department and
a party that was willing to go out and say that the market was
not working. They were willing to challenge that market. They
implemented the supply management systems which remain in place
today and which that party attacks.
We do not hear supply management producers in here today. Those
farmers went out and changed the system that was not working,
with the support of government. I maintain that is what we have
to do in this area as well.
1640
I think Elbert van Donkersgoed perhaps said it best, certainly
better than I can say it. He was talking about the minister of
agriculture's $500 million in federal funding and the total of
over $2.6 billion. He said “The commitment is timely and
welcome. Rural Canada will breath a small sigh of relief”.
He went on to say that the minister of agriculture said “With
this funding in place we must now focus on our ability to compete
over the long term”.
He further said:
We've been there and done that! If Canadian agriculture has done
anything well over past decades, it is focusing on our ability to
compete—almost to the exclusion of all else...reinvested assets,
latest technology, faster machines—
We are still producing more for less. The answer is not to just
go that route.
Let me conclude by saying the current crisis will require short
term assistance. The Alliance Party resolution is not going to
do it. Yes, in my view there should be more on the table, but it
will require long term, global solutions and changing how that
marketplace operates. We have to change the marketplace so it
operates for farmers rather than against farmers.
The member for Selkirk—Interlake mentioned something I said
earlier in a past debate in the House relating to the department,
and I stand by that view. I believe that the people within the
department do not really understand the practicality on the farm,
and we have to change that too. That does not mean those people
are not good people. They are just in the wrong department at
this point in time. We are going to have to change this thing
from stem to stern.
The departmental level and the farm community are going to have
to come together and analyze this from the total perspective, not
just a subsidy or a dollar here and a dollar there, but in terms
of putting in place the kinds of marketing programs and
transportation policies that will assist the farm community so
that it can be the best in the world in agricultural development.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed and disappointed by the
comments made by the member. I am not sure why the member who
just spoke wants to twist what we are doing today or why he wants
to twist our policies. The attacks he made are false. People
watching television may not realize they are false. We have not
opposed supply management.
Then he made the point that somehow the Canadian Wheat Board was
an indication of supply management. People watching television
might not realize that there is no relation between supply
management and the Canadian Wheat Board. The two are completely
different concepts.
Then he said that the Alliance was opposed to subsidies and now
it was coming forward with this. We have made it abundantly
clear that we need to support our farmers because of the
subsidies that are put in place by governments in other countries
that stand behind their farming sectors. That is very different
from subsidies within a country that have nothing to do with
trade distorting programs in other countries. Those are two
completely different concepts. To mix them is totally
inappropriate.
We are correcting the record here today. Back in 1994 we were
calling for 80% of that Crow money to immediately be put in a
trade distortion adjustment program.
What we really are opposing is our tax money being used to
subsidize projects in the Prime Minister's riding that cost more
than all three prairie provinces get in similar programs.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, if I had the policy
statement of the Alliance Party here, I guess I could get into a
discussion on those points and what they really mean in terms of
supply management, the Canadian Wheat Board, et cetera. However,
I will not take the time of the House. I can give the member a
copy of his party's policy, if he wishes, so he can understand
it.
1645
The member mentioned that the Canadian Wheat Board is not supply
management. Of course it is not. Supply management is a system
that came into place where producers of certain commodities,
dairy, poultry, eggs and turkeys, decided that under legislation
they would produce to meet effective market demands. In other
words, they were not producing surpluses. A 5% surplus can drive
down the whole price by 105%. They manage the supply. That is
what supply management is all about.
In return for doing that, consumers are assured of a high
quality product at reasonable prices. That is a very good
system. However, it will not work for every commodity and I
recognize that. It certainly will not work for commodities where
the major amount is exported.
What will work and can work in that area, if we have the right
international environment, is orderly marketing. The Canadian
Wheat Board is orderly marketing. It sells through a single desk
and tries to maximize what is in that marketplace back to primary
producers. That is what the Canadian Wheat Board is doing, given
the rough prices internationally. In other words, with the
orderly marketing system within our country, we are not competing
against ourselves to drive prices down.
The members opposite talk about subsidies. That is the party
that says, and there are other farm groups out there that will
agree with it on that point, let the market decide all things. As
I said earlier, if that is its position, to let the marketplace
decide all things, then let it live by the sword and die by the
sword.
However, if we are ready now, after facing this crisis and
seeing that the system does not work, then let us come to the
table. Let us discuss it and decide where we will go as a
country on the recognition that the marketplace does not work in
its entirety. There is a need for government involvement in
terms of farm policy, be it through assistance, through marketing
programs or through whatever, but let us have that kind of
discussion. The resolution on the floor today does not lead us
to that kind of discussion.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have reflected on this, and the member opposite is already
chirping that I am a resident agricultural expert before I have
even started.
The point I want to make, if the member is at all interested, is
that this is the first time I have seen an issue that has
galvanized rural and urban members on all sides of the House, and
certainly in this caucus.
As the chair of the Ontario caucus, I have to present the views
of my colleagues from Ontario before the Prime Minister,
cabinet and national caucus. I had to really study this issue,
get to understand the significance of the problem and what some
of the solutions might be. I arrived at a couple of conclusions.
First, a farmer from Saskatchewan called me and asked me if I
realized that the $500 million that the federal government was
giving to farmers would not solve the problem. That is a lot of
money. It is curious how we can give out $500 million and still
not solve the problem. The catch phrase from the opposition
would be hard earned tax dollars.
Let me say to the urban members in my riding that they should
understand the extent of the problem. That $500 million to a
1,000 acre farmer in western Canada means about $1,800 in
subsidy. Let us think about this. A 1,000 acre farm is a
serious business. The amount of subsidy that farm will receive
is $1,800. What happens if we basically double it, which in
essence is close to what the opposition motion is calling for? It
is almost $400 million which will generate about $3,000 in
subsidy.
1650
Will that particular farmer be satisfied with $3,000? Will the
farmer's problem be solved so that he or she will not be knocking
on the door again? Will the farmer go away and say that it is
wonderful, that the $3,000 has turned life around? We know that
is not true.
Of course members on this side of the House would have liked to
have given more. However, we also have much greater
responsibility than some people in this place. We have to take a
look at all aspects of society and prioritize the issues for all
Canadians. A responsible motion would have called on the
government to establish a policy platform to develop some long
term sustainable solutions to the agricultural crisis.
I find it amazingly entertaining to sit here and see members of
the Canadian Alliance back-pedalling. They are trying to defend
policies that their predecessor, the Reform Party and their
former leader, talked about and had in place, policies that they
have ratified since becoming the Canadian Alliance.
I will share them with the House. The member could say that
people watching might not understand what the members on this
side are saying. Do not even ask them to try. Let them try to
understand this.
At that party's last convention, it adopted a new policy book
which called for the government to force “a self-reliant
agricultural sector”. It was a policy declaration from the
Canadian Alliance adopted in January 2000. Let us put that on
the record. What does that mean? Words are very important in
this business. Words are supposed to tell people what one is
saying.
It went on to say “We will support and will advocate the
phased reduction and elimination of all subsidies”. These are
not my words. They are policy words from the Canadian Alliance
convention adopted in January 2000. It said “the elimination of
all subsidies, support programs and trade restrictions”. This
is where they hide behind the words, when it said “in
conjunction with other countries”.
Just so the folks at home understand, I guess what Alliance
members are saying is that they are going to call their buddy,
George W. and say that we have a problem in Canada and that they
want him to stop handing out money to his farmers so that we
do not have to hand out any to ours. George W. is going to ask
who is calling and then wish them a nice day.
The Alliance should talk straight to farmers. It should
tell them whether or not it is prepared to support them. On one
hand it wants to eliminate all subsidies. The predecessor party
went dramatically further than even this policy book does when
it called for the elimination of support to the agricultural
sector.
The member for Calgary Southwest said in this place, “Spending
more taxpayers' money is not the answer to any industry's
problem”. He went on to say, “Reformers continue to call for
reduced federal expenditures. Reformers on the other hand call
for a phased clear cut reduction of the dependence of the
agricultural sector on both levels of government”. Let us not
play games.
That party actually ran election after election advocating the
elimination of support to the agricultural sector. It has the
unmitigated gall to stand here in front of the nation, in front
of the House of Commons, and try to pretend that somehow were it
on this side of the House, it would have written a cheque for
$900 million. We just know it would have done that.
Actions in this case speak louder than words. The actions that
have been shown by that party are despicable in the area of
support. Did it raise the issue in this place? It did not raise
the issue in this place.
1655
Did it raise the issue in interviews and on talk shows? On an
ongoing stead, it sustains an attack on the Prime Minister rather
than sustaining the issue of support to the agricultural sector.
That is what Alliance members have done over the past several
weeks in this place.
Did the media raise this issue? Were there screaming headlines
that farmers need help? I read all the papers every day and I
did not see it anywhere. The media did not raise it.
One of the members in opposition during question period today
said that they asked questions but that we did not answer them. I
wonder who they asked? They must have asked each other because
they sure as heck did not ask them in this place. The
proceedings in this place are recorded. We know who has been
fighting for farmers.
The people who have been fighting to get the $500 million, which
is a lot of money, to support farmers and convince the government
that they need help are members of the rural caucus, supported by
people from urban Ontario and the rest of Canada.
People such as my friend from Toronto—Danforth held a rally in
the Air Canada Centre, in that wonderful agricultural metropolis
called Toronto, where thousands of people attended to celebrate
and support the family farm. I was there.
It is not just about farming, it is about security of food. It
is about knowing that our children will have food to sustain them
as they grow. It is about building great communities. It is
about restaurants and grocery stores. It is about jobs and
business. It is extremely important and is all encompassing.
In closing, it would be a wonderful opportunity for any
government to simply say yes every time someone came to it with a
particular problem. We did say yes, with a $500 million
contribution.
The Canadian Alliance is simply playing politics in an attempt
to embarrass the government. It will not work. We are going to
support farmers, as we have, and will continue to do just that.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I notice that once again the hon.
member across the way is long on rhetoric and good at throwing
words around, such as despicable. Then he says in his
intervention, let us not play games here. He says that words are
very important in his business. I would submit that is very
true. They are very important.
The fact of the matter is that our party and the one that
preceded it, the Reform Party of Canada, raised this issue time
and time again over the last seven years.
One of the most frustrating things for myself and a lot of my
colleagues is the number of bona fide farmers who exist in the
Canadian Alliance caucus. These are people who have been raised
on farms. Their families are trying to earn a living on farms
all across western Canada. I was raised on a farm. I farmed
actively for 20 years in western Canada. My brother still
endeavours to operate the family farm in the Peace country.
The reality is that there is a lot of knowledge on this side of
the House, not just in our party but in the other opposition
parties. It is continually ignored, to our frustration, by hon.
members like the one who just spoke and who thinks he has all the
answers.
He had the unmitigated gall to suggest that we should be
advocating long term solutions. We have been doing that for
seven bloody years in this place. The government has done very
little, other than come up with ad hoc programs that do not work
and do not address the needs.
I would ask the member to give it some more thought. If he
wants to truly fight for farmers, then he should go back and ask
the government why it has not instituted some long term
solutions.
1700
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. I
certainly would not purport to have all the answers to the
farming crisis or, frankly, to just about anything else around
here.
This is a collective in the sense that we all have input.
However for the member to suggest that because he was raised on a
farm he knows more about the issue than other members in this
place is just nonsense.
I have never worked in a mine but I believe the importance of
the mining industry is significant in my province and my
community. I may have never worked in a steel plant or a car
plant but does that mean I do not have a right to stand in this
place and defend the workers in those places and talk about how
we can support those industries?
Let us understand that farming is a business. I heard a member
opposite refer to it as a culture. The member should get over
it. Maybe he would like it to be a culture but it is a business.
To survive as a business it must have new markets.
I absolutely agree, at least with the premise that the member
puts forward, that we must work together, as a government and as
opposition members, to bring ideas forward so we can develop long
term sustainable solutions to this crisis that happens year after
year after year.
Just for once I would be delighted to see opposition members put
a motion for debate in this place that would lead us in that
direction, but they do not. They continually play politics,
trying to create problems that do not work toward solving the
crisis. At least we are trying with an infusion of $500 million.
The caucus will stand strong to help farmers survive in the
country so it will be a sustainable business for years to come.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it was just over three years ago, as
a rookie MP with a farming background from a rural riding in
western Canada, I stood here with a certain amount of pride and
dignity to talk about farming issues.
Three years ago agriculture in western Canada was on a slippery
slope. We started to realize that farming out west was 90%
politics and 10% producing the product.
We have seen agriculture over the last three years decline to
the point that we have an industry in crisis. Agriculture is one
of the largest industries in the country when we consider the
inputs that go into the ground, the processing that applies to
everything we produce and the jobs created on the in and the out.
The agriculture minister stood in this place and said to western
Canadians and Ontario producers that crop insurance and NISA were
the answers to global subsidization problems. What a ridiculous
statement.
Later the Prime Minister stood in his place and we heard him say
that there could not be an agricultural crisis because he did not
read about it in the National Post or the Globe and
Mail.
Those newspapers do not represent the problems we have in
western Canada or in rural Ontario, let alone in Quebec or the
maritimes. An editorial writer from the Globe and Mail who
is based in Winnipeg decried the whole situation. What a joke.
Those people should get outside the city, have a look around and
talk to producers who cannot afford to put bread on their own
table let alone put a crop in the ground this year.
There is a lot of talk about the $500 million that has been
allocated. There are a couple of problems with that number. When
we look at the budget that the government handles, close to $160
billion this year, $500 million is not a lot of money in that
context. It is a lot of money when compared to other industries
that receive money from the government, but we are talking about
the third largest contributor to the GDP.
The problem has gone way past the farm gate. As I alluded to, a
tremendous number of service industries feed into the
agricultural sector. Input costs have gone up 50%, 100%, or 200%
in some cases, for fuel, fertilizer, chemicals, land taxes,
machinery costs and so on.
The member who spoke before talked about a 1,000 acre western
farm. That would be a hobby farm out there. The average farm in
the west approaches 3,000 to 4,000 acres. There are all kinds of
large farms in my riding with 10,000, 12,000 and 15,000 acres
that try and make a go of it. The average cost of machinery is
in excess of $1 million to $2 million on each farm.
1705
The problem with all those inputs, the parts and everything
else that keeps them running, is our low dollar. All the input
costs are based on American money. We are starting out 37 to 40
cents behind, and those costs are rising.
The Prime Minister says that the low dollar is great for
everybody because it helps with our exports. Well it has not
seemed to help with my export prices on commodities that the
wheat board handles but it certainly has cost me a lot in the
pocketbook on the input side.
The freight system in western Canada is now based on conflict
and animosity rather than being commercially based and properly
tendered. Rising transportation inputs are probably the highest
costs on my farm. Transportation costs me at least one-third off
the top, which is absolutely ridiculous.
The answer to rising transportation costs on the prairies is to
go higher up the food chain. Let us value add to the grain,
durum, barley and so on. Let us run the flour mills and pasta
plants, which have been tried and shut down because of
regulations controlling the way we must buy and re-buy our own
products. It is absolutely ludicrous. We are forced to pay
freight and elevation charges on a product that never leaves the
farm. How smart is that?
When that is explained to backbenchers on the other side they
say that it is ridiculous. They ask why durum growers cannot
build their own pasta plants and grind their durum into flour and
recoup the extra $3 a bushel. The Canadian Wheat Board says that
we cannot do that.
Ministers, like the one from Prince Edward Island who stood here
and said that the wheat board is a great thing, do not live on
the prairies. The people who come from these opposition benches
do live there and we all got elected in 1993, 1997 and 2000
campaigning on an open and accountable optional marketing system.
We need that.
The wheat board does not export out into the global market as it
used to. Everything it buys and sells now goes through a line
company, hence the transportation, freight and elevation
charges to tidewater. There are no terminals on the west or east
coasts. It is run back through one of the line companies. Who
is making the money? It is not coming back to the producer at
the farm gate.
Where do we go? The debate today is on subsidies, safety nets
and the role of government. The role of government in this
institution is to play catch up. The farm is in crisis. We must
have a cash injection before spring. Farm groups and provincial
governments are lobbying for a minimum of $900 million from the
federal government and the balance of 40 cents on the dollar from
the provinces. They thought that would get the crop in the
ground and that hopefully the European and American subsidies
would start tailing off. We have seen crop problems in the rest
of the world that may bring the price back up.
We need those options. We must be able to do that. We must be
able to value add, as I said. We need the government to look at
the tax component of our input costs and the huge freight problem
in the west.
There are answers. We need a safety net system. There is talk
about short and long term situations. In the short term we need
cash to get the crop in the ground. There is no doubt about it
because we are playing catch up.
In the long term we need a NISA account that will allow us to
level the playing field for good and bad years. Even the
agriculture minister now realizes his previous position was
wrong. We must be able to use the NISA account to level out the
bad years. We must change the fundamental way NISA is handled so
young farmers can get a start. The average age of farmers in
Saskatchewan is 60. We have lost two generations of young
producers because they cannot afford to get into the industry.
We need a NISA account that will allow that type of thing to
happen.
We need crop insurance that is user friendly so we can insure
crops that are not covered properly now. When there is a claim
we need results to be specific to one farm and not calculated as
a general average, as is done with the costs.
We need a long term trade type of cushioning mechanism. It can
be the trade distortion thing we talked about with the Crow money
or a system like GRIP or MRI in Ontario, but it must be able to
soften the blow of offshore improper trade subsidies. That is
the long term requirement, but we need cash today to be able to
keep on farming.
I am sharing my time with the member for Crowfoot who I know has
some great points to put on the record today.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the farmers in my region, Mr. John Downer, brought to my
attention a comment made on CBC last night that $2.6 billion in
government support will be 75% of net farm income.
1710
It is very important that Canadians hear that with 270,000 farms
in Canada, the net farm income this year would be $12,800. That
would be about $4.30 an hour based on a 60 hour week. That is
without benefits, and with wives and children adding their labour
for free.
In my city a policeman is paid $26 or $27 an hour. A nurse gets
$25 or $26 an hour. Even though the CBC statement was factually
correct, it was terribly misleading to all Canadians because it
took out of context what really happens. I am appreciative of
the opportunity to put it on the record.
Most Canadians would be ashamed if they realized that based on a
60 hour week the average hourly rate was $4.30.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
intervention. He is quite right that the net income on a farm is
a very elusive target if there is any at all.
Seventy-five per cent of the farms in western Canada are viable
only because of off farm income, that is husband and/or wife both
working off farm to keep the cows in the barn.
The problem with the AIDA money, and he is talking about the
$2.6 billion that was in the global budget, is that less than 60%
of it ever left the cabinet table and got on to the kitchen
tables. That includes 1998 and 1999.
Distraught farmers in my riding have been phoning me. Less than
two-thirds of what they applied for in 1998 ever came to them.
Now they are getting clawback notices from the minister of
agriculture and his friends asking them to send back two-thirds
of it because they were overpaid. Can we imagine being on the
bankrupt rolls and being asked to send money back?
The government has rejigged the formula to include things that
were not in the original formula. That would be fine if it
triggers more money when the government could not get it all out
in the first place, but it will now claw back the two-thirds it
sent out.
The payments for 1999 are finally coming out. Guess what year
it is? It is 2001. Is it a bankable program? My sweet aunt
Fanny, it never got out there. It is sending out only two-thirds
of the 1999 money because it is scared it will run out of money.
What an absolutely ludicrous reason. The government never sent
out more than 60% to begin with and it just put another $500
million in the same clogged pipe.
That pipe must be clogged with Liberal logic because we never
saw any of the money out west. The Saskatchewan grains and
oilseed sector is hardest hit in the country. How can the
government sit across there and vote against any more money being
topped in? It would not matter if we were asking for $10 billion
today. Nobody would qualify.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is unfortunate that today, as we brought this debate
to the House, the House leader on the other side stood and for an
hour we questioned the agricultural difficulties and the problem
here. We lost an hour of debate. There are now six people from
my party, many on the other opposition sides and a few on the
government side who would love to speak to the agricultural
crisis. However we spent an hour on a technicality when the
country is in a disaster and a crisis.
This is the fourth time I have stood in the House on behalf of
the many farmers in my predominantly rural riding and pleaded
their case for assistance. Today is the first day of spring, the
day most farmers look forward to getting on the land and putting
a crop in the ground, a time when calves are being born and
equipment is being fixed. Many farmers in my riding are not
looking forward to much.
Every farm group across Canada has asked for a minimum of $900
million. The government says it can give $500 million and that
should do.
That will not do. It will not help the plight of our farmers.
1715
Last week farmers across the country took to the streets in
tractors and combines to protest the meagre aid that was given.
In Ontario convoys pulled on to the highways, even highway 401,
the busiest highway in the country, to protest. They also
protested in Saskatoon.
I realize that my time is pretty well up. I should like to ask
for an extension of the time for debate on the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the request of
the hon. member for Crowfoot. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We are simply asking for the hour the government took up
this morning. Perhaps we could have an extension of the debate
by an hour because a few people on our side of the House would
still like to speak to it.
The Deputy Speaker: If the member for Yorkton—Melville
wishes me to ask for the unanimous consent of the House, I will
do so. The House has heard the terms of the request of the
member for Yorkton—Melville. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.15 p.m. it is my duty to
put forth every question necessary to dispose of the business of
supply.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division stands deferred
until after the deferred recorded division relating to the
opposition motion of Thursday, March 15.
[Translation]
ALLOTTED DAY—LUMBER
The House resumed from March 15 consideration of the motion and
of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made Thursday, March 15,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division
on the amendment to the opposition motion standing in the name of
the hon. member for Joliette.
Call in the members.
1750
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Allard
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Burton
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
| Lebel
|
LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marcil
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| McTeague
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pallister
| Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Penson
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scherrer
|
Schmidt
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Skelton
| Sorenson
| Speller
|
Spencer
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
|
Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood
|
Yelich – 253
|
NAYS
Members
Blaikie
| Comartin
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Godin
| Hubbard
| Lill
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Stoffer
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 15
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion, as amended.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just
taken on the amendment to the main motion now before the House.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to apply
the vote on the motion, as indicated?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, as amended, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Allard
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Burton
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
| Lebel
|
LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marcil
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| McTeague
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pallister
| Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Penson
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scherrer
|
Schmidt
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Skelton
| Sorenson
| Speller
|
Spencer
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
|
Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood
|
Yelich – 253
|
NAYS
Members
Blaikie
| Comartin
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Godin
| Hubbard
| Lill
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Stoffer
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 15
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
[English]
ALLOTTED DAY—AGRICULTURE
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the amendment relating to the
opposition motion of earlier today, standing in the name of the
hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees I
propose that you seek unanimous consent that the members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the
amendment now before the House, with Liberal members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote in favour of this amendment.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party vote yes to this amendment.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to the amendment.
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be
recorded as voting no.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be
recorded as voting no.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Godin
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Moore
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
| Paquette
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 151
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost. The next question
is on the main motion.
1805
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
|
Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
| Comartin
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Day
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Meredith
| Merrifield
| Moore
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pallister
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Roy
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Yelich – 116
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 151
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the consideration of the motions
necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
* * *
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A)
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15A—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT
SERVICES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15a, in the amount of $31,682,000, under PUBLIC WORKS
AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES—Canada Information Office—Program
expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2001, be concurred in.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I propose you seek
unanimous consent of the House that the members present who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
vote no to this motion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservatives
vote no to this motion, and I would like it noted that the member
for Richmond—Arthabaska is now in the House.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| .Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wood – 151
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 carried.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find unanimous consent to apply the votes just taken on Motion
No. 1 to Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1A—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1a, in
the amount of $33,321,927, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Department—Operating expenditures,
in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2001, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wood – 151
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5A—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5a, in the amount of $93,600, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Department—Capital expenditures, in
the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March
31, 2001, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wood – 151
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10A—FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 10a, in
the amount of $1,199,838, under FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE—Department—The grants listed in the
Estimates, in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, be concurred in.
The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wood – 151
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1A—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1a, in
the amount of $27,275,645, under CANADIAN HERITAGE —
Department—Operating expenditures, in the Supplementary
Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, be
concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wood – 151
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5A—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5a, in
the amount of $652,969, under CANADIAN HERITAGE. —
Department—The grants listed in the Estimates, in the
Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2001, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wood – 151
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1A—PRIVY COUNCIL
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1a, in the amount of $2,181,906, under PRIVY
COUNCIL—Department—Program expenditures, in the Supplementary
Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, be
concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wood – 151
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11
carried.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1A—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 1a, in the amount of $55,938,696, under
JUSTICE—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Supplementary
Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, be
concurred in.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent that the members who voted on the preceding
motion be recorded as voting on Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, with
Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois support these motions.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP will vote nay.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote nay.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marceau
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Ménard
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wood – 185
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
| Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Davies
| Day
| Desjarlais
|
Doyle
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gallant
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Lill
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Penson
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Sorenson
| Spencer
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Yelich
– 83
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5A—JUSTICE
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5a, in
the amount of $48,217,868, under JUSTICE—Department—
Grants and contributions, in the Supplementary Estimates
(A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, be concurred
in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marceau
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Ménard
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wood – 185
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
| Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Davies
| Day
| Desjarlais
|
Doyle
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gallant
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Lill
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Penson
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Sorenson
| Spencer
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Yelich
– 83
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5A—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 5a, in
the amount of $89,129,304, under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND
NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT—Department—Indian and Inuit
Affairs Program, in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marceau
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Ménard
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wood – 185
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
| Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Davies
| Day
| Desjarlais
|
Doyle
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gallant
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Lill
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Penson
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Sorenson
| Spencer
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Yelich
– 83
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15A—INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 15a, in
the amount of $81,974,246, under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND
NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT—Department—Indian and Inuit
Affairs Program, in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marceau
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Ménard
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wood – 185
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
| Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Davies
| Day
| Desjarlais
|
Doyle
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gallant
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Lill
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Penson
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Sorenson
| Spencer
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Yelich
– 83
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5
carried.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2001, except any vote disposed of earlier today, be
concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose this motion.
1810
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no
to this motion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the PC Party
vote no.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wood – 151
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 117
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that Bill C-20, an act for granting
to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of
Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2001, be read the
first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
[English]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that the bill be read the
second time and referred to committee of the whole.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee
thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair)
The Chairman: The House is in committee of the whole on
Bill C-20.
(On clause 2)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Chairman, could the President of the Treasury Board confirm that
the bill is in the usual form for an appropriation bill?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, the presentation of this
bill is essentially identical to that used during the previous
supply period.
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 8 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 8 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 9 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 9 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that the bill be concurred in at
report stage.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? By
leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that the bill be read the
third time and passed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare
the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[Translation]
INTERIM SUPPLY
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That a sum not exceeding $16,343,875,327.99 being composed of:
(1) three twelfths ($7,984,390,230.25) of the total of the amounts of the
items set forth in Schedule 1 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002, which were laid upon the Table Tuesday, February 27,
2001, and except for those items below:
(2) eleven twelfths of the total of the amount of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade Votes 15 and L35, National Defence Vote 10, Privy
Council Vote 55 and Treasury Board Vote 5 (Schedule 1.1) of the said
Estimates, $1,072,174,369.75;
(3) ten twelfths of the total of the amount of Privy Council Votes 30 and
35 (Schedule 1.2) of the said Estimates, $21,794,166.67;
(4) nine twelfths of the total of the amount of Industry Vote 70 and
Parliament Vote 10 (Schedule 1.3) of the said Estimates, $42,884,250.00;
(5) eight twelfths of the total of the amount of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Vote 10 (Schedule 1.4) of the said Estimates, $539,631,333.33;
(6) seven twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote
65, Fisheries and Oceans Vote 10, and Human Resources Development Vote 20
(Schedule 1.5) of the said Estimates, $52,309,308.34;
(7) six twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 15,
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 5, and Natural Resources Vote
25 (Schedule 1.6) of the said Estimates, $213,990,500.00;
(8) five twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 60,
Finance Vote 15, Health Vote 5, Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Vote 15, Industry Votes 105 and 115, Justice Vote 1, Solicitor General Vote
5, and Transport Votes 1 and 20 (Schedule 1.7) of the said Estimates,
$3,338,571,333.33;
(9) four twelfths of the total of the amount of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Vote 25, Canadian Heritage Votes 20, 35 and 45, Citizenship and Immigration
Vote 10, Finance Vote 30, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Votes 25
and 45, Health Vote 1, Human Resources Development Vote 5, Indian Affairs
and Northern Development Votes 35 and 40, Industry Vote 40, Public Works
and Government Services Votes 1, 10 and 15, and Treasury Board Vote 2
(Schedule 1.8) of the said Estimates, $2,431,740,586.32;
(10) three twelfths ($646,389,250.00) of the total of the amounts of the
items set forth in Schedule 2 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002, which were laid upon the Table Tuesday, February 27,
2001;
1815
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chairman: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion the yeas have it.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-21, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money
for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending
March 31, 2002, be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that the bill be read the
second time and referred to committee of the whole.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare
the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House
went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair)
The Chairman: The House is in committee of the whole on
Bill C-21.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out, for the
benefit of the Liberals, that we expedited the voting by having
voice votes. Several times when we were in committee of the whole
previously there were no yeas yet there were nays. I simply want
them to wake up and vote. They can do at least that today.
The Chairman: I give the hon. member and the committee
the benefit of my position at this table. I have heard both yeas
and nays and concluded that it was carried on division.
(On clause 2)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Chairman, I ask the President of the Treasury Board to confirm
that this bill is in its usual format for an appropriation bill.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, the presentation of this
bill is essentially identical to that used for the previous
supply period.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to)
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point
out that in committee of the whole we are about to approve
approximately $16 billion, but the government does not have the
wherewithal to give additional money to farmers.
It surprises me how it can spend so little time approving $16
billion and give nothing to farmers.
The Chairman: This is debate, so I will conclude.
[Translation]
(Bill reported)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that the bill be concurred in at
report stage.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
(Motion agreed to)
1820
[English]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard moved that the bill be read the
third time and passed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed from March 16 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at
risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Friday, March 16,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-5.
1830
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| McTeague
| Meredith
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 154
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
| Comartin
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Day
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 113
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Environment
and Sustainable Development.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Hon. Brian Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if I may take the time of the House for a moment
prior to the conclusion of the vote to draw attention to a matter
which has been very much the subject of discussion in this place,
and a matter to which I could now quickly respond by tabling a
letter. There have been many inquiries.—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The minister can table a document at any
time. Perhaps we could wait until after the vote. We will now
proceed with the recorded division on Ways and Means Motion
No. 3.
* * *
WAYS AND MEANS
INCOME TAX ACT
The House resumed from March 16 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this day the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on Ways and Means Motion No. 3.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I believe you would find unanimous consent in the House
that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
voting on the motion now under consideration, with Liberal
members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois are opposed to this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP who are
present vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative party vote no.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 150
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Godin
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Moore
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
| Paquette
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
| Yelich – 116
|
PAIRED
Members
Duceppe
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Rock
|
Savoy
| Ur
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today the Department of Industry received a
communication through its communications directorate from the
owners of the Grand-Mère Golf Club in response to questions which
have been raised regarding the shareholders list of the golf
course.
The letter in question is being released and made public with
the consent of the shareholders as is required by law. It was
dealt with earlier today before the standing committee on
industry. The letter makes clear that since 1993 the Prime
Minister has not been a shareholder in that golf course.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1835
The Speaker: Order, please. This is not a statement by
ministers. We are ready to move to private members' business and
while it is always in order for a minister to table a document, I
must say in this case the minister seems to have stretched the
sense of tabling by making a bit of a statement. Clearly it is
creating difficulty in the House.
Tabling of documents is one thing and ministers making
statements that cannot be replied to is another and we are
getting into the statement category here. I really think it is
not appropriate to carry on with this at this time.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Not only is it inappropriate that the minister is trying
to table the document now, but furthermore I think inquiring
minds want to know why the ethics commissioner did not have the
information in his hand, but it was withheld from him as a
contempt—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I remind hon. members that
question period happens at two o'clock. It does not happen at
6.30 p.m. I suggest we draw this to a conclusion.
There are two things to remember. The government does not
require consent to table a document in the House. A minister may
do that at any time. What does require consent are statements by
ministers. We are not getting into that now and that is why I
have tried to draw this to a conclusion.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think that the Minister of Industry and the Prime
Minister would find unanimous consent if they would agree to lay
upon the table the document of an option for purchase between Mr.
Jonas Prince and Akimbo Developments and—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. As I pointed out, this is
not question period. It is time to move to private members' hour
and I respectfully suggest we do that now.
It being 6.37 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) moved
that Bill C-217, an act to provide for the taking of samples of
blood for the benefit of persons administering and enforcing the
law and good Samaritans and to amend the criminal code, be read
the second time and referred to committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand here
today and speak in favour of Bill C-217, the blood samples act.
Before I discuss the pith and substance of this legislation and
give three excellent reasons why members should support the bill,
I would like to tell the story of how this legislation came into
being and how it developed to the stage it is at now.
On April 12, 1999, I received a letter from a father who lives
in my riding. I will quote from his correspondence:
My eldest son was involved in an incident at work (Canadian Tire
in Abbotsford) a few weeks ago which has raised a large question
for me. He helped apprehend a would-be shoplifter and in the
scuffle some blood from the accused came to be on my son.
My son is now on medication from the Aids Prevention Society (St.
Paul's Hospital in Vancouver). We won't be able to test him to
see if he has contracted any disease until after three months
(because the HIV antibody does not show up until then). However,
all it would take is for the accused to take a blood test to see
if he has any such disease (he's a known heroin addict to the
RCMP in Abbotsford). The accused refuses to take such a blood
test and the law, I've been told, supports him in his refusal.
Here again, is a case where the victim is being punished and the
accused's rights take precedence over the victim's rights. What
can we as a family do? What, as our MP, can you do to help us,
to help my son?
1840
I took this father's plea to help seriously and I started
researching his very deep and legitimate concerns. What I found
was that this father's assertions were correct. When a good
Samaritan, a police officer, a health care worker, a doctor, a
nurse, a paramedic, a prison worker, a security guard, a
firefighter or an emergency personnel worker of any kind is
exposed to someone else's bodily fluids in the course of their
duties, antibodies for HIV, AIDS or hepatitis may not appear for
weeks or months in their bodies after the initial infection.
Therefore, the best way for these individuals to know if they
have been exposed to a particular virus at the moment of initial
contact is to acquire a blood sample from the person who infected
them and then have that sample tested.
The information from the blood test allows frontline workers and
good Samaritans to make properly informed decisions about
post-exposure treatment and lifestyle activities. It also helps
reduce severe anxiety levels for them and their families.
For example, let me read to the House just the known side
effects of post-exposure treatment for HIV: potential harm to
reproductive capacity; hair loss; coughing; abdominal pain;
kidney stones; higher risk of contracting diabetes; total
exhaustion; severe headaches; and perpetual nausea. The Canadian
Police Association is also tracking one case involving a police
officer who is gradually losing his eyesight since taking the
treatment.
If frontline workers can discover through a blood test that they
have not been exposed to someone who has HIV or hepatitis, they
do not have to take the drug treatment that causes these
symptoms, symptoms that can last for several months.
Oftentimes blood samples are given voluntarily and people should
be praised when they do so. The crux of the debate here today,
however, is what should the government do and what should public
policy say when someone refuses to give a blood sample to hurt
someone else and has the legal right to do so, even when the
information being held is extremely valuable to society?
To answer that question, I tabled Bill C-244 in the House of
Commons on October 19, 1999. Bill C-217 is exactly the same
legislation.
In a nutshell, Bill C-217 allows a judge to order the taking of
a blood sample from someone who accidentally or deliberately
exposes a good Samaritan, a health professional, an emergency
professional or a security professional with his or her blood or
other bodily fluids. The blood would be tested for HIV and
hepatitis.
The legislation would only be applied on rare occasions when
someone refuses to give a blood sample for testing. The
information would only be shared with the medical staff and
affected individuals. The blood test analysis would only be used
for medical purposes, with the highest levels of confidentiality.
At this point, I do want to mention my deepest sympathy for
HIV-AIDS and hepatitis sufferers in Canada. The trauma and pain
they feel is great. I want to reassure all of them that this
legislation does not single out any individual or group who may
suffer from a disease in Canada. It will not make life more
difficult for people who find themselves in such trying
circumstances. Rather, it is designed for those rare occasions
when someone refuses to give a blood sample, which will in turn
damage someone else.
Bill C-217 is about helping others. It is about compassion.
After Bill C-244 was deemed votable, it received enormous
support from thousands of individuals and organizations across
the country, including the Canadian Police Association, whose
members have been on the Hill today on their annual lobbying day.
Also on the Hill today is a lady by the name of Detective Isobel
Anderson, who was exposed to a suspect's bodily fluids a few
years ago. She has played an instrumental role in supporting and
promoting this legislation.
Let me read to the House part of her story, which was published
on November 15, 1999, in the Ottawa Citizen:
Isobel Anderson's nightmarish experience began when she arrested
a man for armed robbery in October 1997. While searching for
weapons, she reached into his pocket and felt a stab of pain. She
pulled her hand out to find a bloody needle stuck in her palm.
My first thought was “God, I have AIDS”, recalls Constable
Anderson, a mother of three.
As she feared, doctors told her that the needle may have
infected her with HIV. She was advised that if she started
treatment with the anti-HIV medication AZT within two hours of
being jabbed, she might not contract the virus. Then she learned
that the robbery suspect refused to take the HIV test and could
not be compelled by law to give a blood sample.
1845
In this case, hours later the man agreed to be tested, but only
after another police officer—and I hate to say this, but it is
the truth—offered the man a hamburger. The man said for a
hamburger he would provide a blood sample. Thankfully he tested
negative for HIV, although he was positive for hepatitis C. Upon
hearing this news, Isobel discontinued taking the drug cocktail
that was causing her severe physical harm.
It is because of excellent and supportive people like Isobel
Anderson and groups like the CPA, the paramedic association of
Canada, hospitals, doctors and emergency workers of all kinds
that Bill C-244 received unanimous consent to proceed to
committee on March 21 last year. The legislation then went on to
receive two days of committee hearings and died on the order
paper October 22, 2000 due to the election call. I reintroduced
it as Bill C-217 in the 37th parliament and that is the
legislation before the House today.
Presently the questions before parliament are the following.
Will we continue to support a system that allows those who help
others to become helpless? Will we continue to support a system
that allows those who sacrifice to become sacrificed? Will we
still support a system that allows the heroes to become the
victims? Or will we today, in the debate that follows, support
cautious, moderate and balanced change in the form of Bill C-217
which will protect frontline workers and good Samaritans? For
their sake, we need to send the bill to committee where experts
can make suggestions, propose amendments, strengthen the bill and
make sure that it is acceptable to the charter.
There are those who would oppose protecting frontline workers
and good Samaritans by placing roadblocks in front of the
legislation. Let me review some of these hindrances and why they
can easily be overcome. I will then describe the three reasons
why the House must support the legislation and send it to
committee.
First, people will say that Bill C-217 does not meet the
criteria for federal criminal law power, but that is not true.
Let me explain why. For a law to form criminal law, it must meet
three criteria. The first step is to consider whether the law
has a valid criminal law purpose. Valid purposes include public
peace, order, security, health and morality. Bill C-217 meets
these criteria because it is aimed at providing security and
protecting the health of those who help and protect society. It
also attempts to contribute to public peace by protecting those
who enforce the criminal code.
Second, in determining whether the purpose of a law constitutes
a valid criminal law purpose, courts look at whether laws of this
type have traditionally been held to be criminal law. Bill C-217
meets this criteria because the criminal code already contains
two provisions that deal with the non-voluntary taking of bodily
fluids: section 487.05, the DNA provisions, and paragraph
254(3)(b), the impaired driving provisions.
Third, the purpose of the law must also be connected to a
prohibition backed by a penalty. The bill also meets this
standard because it uses a penalty to prohibit the act of harming
someone by refusing to give a blood sample. I have heard
testimony from many police officers and prison guards who say
that they have been confronted by a blood wielding opponent with
a needle full of blood or bodily fluid who exposes them to it and
then says they have AIDS or hepatitis. The bill tries to
eliminate or reduce this harm by letting those officers know
whether that is true or not.
Bill C-217 also places a criminal penalty on someone for failure
to take a certain step. The supreme court, for instance, upheld
the gun registry as criminal law because it penalizes someone for
not doing something. In other words, it is not just a commission
of a crime, it is also the omission, not doing something, which
in that case, of course, was registering their firearm.
The second hindrance that people will put forward is that Bill
C-217 would offend charter rights. There is no question that
section 7 of the charter, security of the person, and section 8
of the charter, unreasonable search and seizure, are engaged by
the legislation. Some argue that the bill should not become law
because it would violate the charter in those respects. However,
again I beg to differ, for the following reasons.
Bill C-217 provides a fair and proper balance between the
charter rights of the sick, injured and perpetrators of crime,
and the rights of those in the service of helping others. It is
a balancing act. Under the present system, emergency and law
enforcement professionals and good Samaritans have no right to
the security of their own persons.
1850
Bill C-217 would not violate the charter because it can
be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. A
constitutional expert who appeared before the justice committee
last June asserted that the Diment decision established a
standard by which compulsory blood testing would be allowed under
the charter.
He said the following about the decision:
The Justice writing for the Court said, and he made it very
clear, that the invasion of privacy such as compulsory blood
testing will only be sanctioned by the charter where societal
claims outweigh the privacy interests and where clear rules exist
setting forth the conditions under which the privacy right can be
violated. Such rules would of course also be subject to charter
scrutiny.
To summarize this point, for a case to be demonstrably justified
in a free and democratic society the societal claims must
outweigh the privacy claims, and clear rules must exist setting
forth the conditions under which a blood sample could be taken.
Does Bill C-217 meet this standard? Absolutely, yes. Emergency
workers and police officers, the very people who help and protect
us, receive protection under Bill C-217 and thereby society as a
whole benefits.
There is some argument that emergency personnel do not receive
any valuable information from the blood tests of those who expose
them. I will rebut that argument in a moment, but I also want to
say that in regard to clear rules, this legislation is only
activated with the approval of a judge and with the utmost
sensitivity to people's basic human rights and privacy. It is
done in rare cases that warrant this kind of action.
The third hindrance that you will hear from people, Mr. Speaker,
is that a blood sample does not offer societal value.
I would like to quote Dr. Shafran. He is an infectious disease
expert from the University of Alberta who appeared before the
Standing Committee on Justice last year on the bill. He said:
I think there are a number of benefits to the proposed
legislation. The specific benefit of the legislation is that
since the prevalence of infection with all three blood-borne
viruses in Canada is low, the majority of individuals, if the
source individuals are tested, will test negative and very
quickly the anxiety level will be reduced in the exposed
individual. Secondly, in the event that transmission does occur,
there will be documentation as to how it occurred and this is
relevant in terms of issues of occupational exposure.
Third, he stated further that:
The prompt identification of infected source patients will allow
the most appropriate and judicious use of post-exposure
prophylaxis. In the voluntary testing that happens in the
hospital patients, if they test negative, we do not offer
post-exposure prophylaxis. It very much influences the way we
practice.
However, the best response to this question of societal value is
the personal testimonies of the people themselves. Ask those
that have been exposed if this has value. Ask Isobel Anderson
and the hundreds of police officers who have been on Parliament
Hill today. Ask the thousands of groups and people who support
this legislation. Ask my young constituent and his father. Ask
the police officer who is losing his eyesight. Ask the justice
official who represented the Department of Justice before the
committee last year when he said:
Don't get me wrong. If I were the one who had been involved in
an incident like this, I would be very much interested in getting
as much information as I could as to whether or not I had been
infected.
In short, it is quite obvious that mandatory blood testing in
rare cases would meet the societal benefit standard of the
charter.
To sum up, there are three reasons why the House should support
this bill. I hope all members will be able to do so.
Bill C-217 is about positive change to the legal system, change
that would provide fairness, a better balance between differing
rights and assistance for those who are in the service of others.
First, the blood samples act is about fairness. Presently
emergency workers and good Samaritans do not have the right to
know what blood-borne virus may have invaded their bodies from
another person. We need a sensitive, balanced procedure to help
those people make an informed choice about their health. Bill
C-217 will do that for them. It is a balanced approach, it is
fair, and it treats privacy conditions properly.
Second, the blood samples act is about balancing rights. Under
the present system, only the perpetrator of a crime or the
injured or sick person has the right to the security of their
person. However, I believe the same security should also apply
to the protector and the caregiver. Bill C-217 will do that. It
will balance the rights so that charter rights are protected for
both groups of people.
Third, the blood samples act is about compassion and helping
those who help others in our society.
If people put themselves in harm's way trying to help or trying
to arrest someone, there should be some safeguards for them when
they are exposed to risk. Let us be compassionate with this
legislation and help those who are helping others. Bill C-217
will do that.
1855
In conclusion, this legislation has also been called the good
Samaritan act after my young constituent who was covered in blood
during his good Samaritan act. Some would say it is also called
the good Samaritan act because the bill would benefit the health
and peace of mind of thousands of emergency, health and security
and paramedic workers who give of themselves every day so that we
can enjoy a better life.
I would also argue that Bill C-217 is also called the good
Samaritan act because it provides an opportunity for members of
parliament to act like good Samaritans. The choice before us
today is clear. We can refuse to support the bill and in so
doing deny frontline and emergency workers their health and their
peace of mind, or we can in, the spirit of good Samaritanism,
provide health, compassion and assistance to those who are hurt,
needy and give of themselves in the service of others.
We must allow privacy sensitive, human rights sensitive and
balanced mandatory blood testing in rare cases to build a system
that allows those who help others to be helped and allows our
heroes to stay heroes instead of becoming victims. Let us pass
Bill C-217 to help those in the service of others.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the bill proposed by the member for Fraser Valley raises a number
of important issues that must be thoroughly examined. There is
no question that he speaks with passion on this issue and I
commend him for that.
Bill C-217 provides that a justice may issue a warrant
authorizing a peace officer to require a qualified medical
practitioner to take or cause to be taken by a qualified
technician samples of blood from a person in order to determine
whether the person carries hepatitis B virus or the hepatitis C
virus or the human autoimmune deficiency virus, which is commonly
known as HIV, if the justice is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds to do so. These reasonable grounds are
subsequently enumerated in the proposed bill.
At first blush, the bill appeals to our desire to help those on
the front lines, those individuals who in their daily work
confront the possibility of putting their health at risk. We are
speaking here of medical practitioners, health care
professionals, firefighters and police officers to name a few.
The Minister of Health appreciates the work that has been done
by emergency responders in Canada, as we all do. They are an
essential component of the Canadian health care system. Health
Canada has collaborated with emergency responders on many
occasions, leading to the development of a national consensus on
guidelines for the establishment of a post-exposure notification
protocol for emergency responders.
Those who work on the front lines as emergency responders can be
exposed to blood and other bodily fluids in the course of their
work. Of concern in this proposed piece of legislation are those
injuries that could result in exposure to blood-borne pathogens,
namely HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. It must be pointed out
that exposure to the blood or bodily fluids of a person infected
with HIV, HBV or HCV does not necessarily result in transmission
of the virus.
In order to properly prevent these exposures and to respond
appropriately when exposure does occur, emergency response
organizations need an overall occupational health protocol that
includes immunization against hepatitis B, personal protective
equipment such as gloves, and safe work practices. If possible
exposure does occur, emergency responders need to be educated
because of the protocols on how to obtain immediate assessment
and follow-up.
Bill C-217, the blood samples act, would authorize the drawing of
blood samples from individuals who may have been accidentally or
intentionally exposed—frontline service emergency providers or a
good Samaritan—to hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HIV.
After a suspected exposure, an emergency service provider would
be permitted to apply to a justice for a warrant. This warrant
would authorize a medical practitioner or technician to take a
blood sample from the patient in question, test for the
aforementioned diseases and provide test results to the patient
and to the emergency service provider.
Refusal to submit to a blood test could result in a prison term
of up to six months. While we recognize that emergency service
providers must act promptly to counteract the negative effects of
exposure to serious diseases, it is important to note that
previous requests for such testing have been rejected by the
courts.
Preventive measures should be taken within hours of exposure.
According to Health Canada guidelines published in the Canada
communicable diseases report, the option to administer
post-exposure prophylaxis should be established within a few
hours.
It is unlikely that the legal and medical procedures necessary to
draw an authorized blood sample, to test it and distribute its
results could be accomplished within this brief time frame.
1900
While mandatory blood testing of sources in cases of genuine
exposure might assist in making more informed decisions regarding
the use of post-exposure medications, there would also be the
potential for endangering the health, especially the mental
health, of the victim by breaking the rules of patient
confidentiality.
The guidelines referred to above and established by Health
Canada, in conjunction with firefighters, police and ambulance
workers in 1995, demonstrate the concrete actions taken to
address the risks, and by consequence have already anticipated
the objectives of the bill. These guidelines, which ensure that
emergency responders will be notified quickly regarding exposures
obtained in their line of work, have been implemented by a number
of parliaments, specifically Alberta, Ontario, British Columbia,
Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories, and in other regions
and hospitals in other jurisdictions.
In 1997 a second protocol outlining assessment, testing and
treatment procedures to be used to promote the well-being of
health care workers, including firefighters, police and ambulance
workers, was released by Health Canada. By following the second
protocol, emergency responders will receive up to date care
directed toward reducing the effects of an exposure.
The guidelines recommended by Health Canada for emergency
responders reflect the same standard of care given to all other
health care workers, including nurses and physicians. The
guidelines recommend testing the source in such cases but always
with consent. By following Health Canada's notification
protocols, emergency responders can be assured of timely,
rational and effective assessment and treatment.
The issue of blood testing has been the subject of extensive
study in the criminal field in the context of sexual assault.
Medical experts advise that the only way a victim of sexual
assault can be sure that he or she has not been infected is by
undergoing hepatitis B or C or HIV antibody testing, according to
recommended procedures. A random test is simply not
determinative of the health of an individual.
On its face the bill does not apply solely in cases where an
offence is alleged to have been committed, but rather in any case
where there has been an exchange of bodily fluids. Thus a
warrant to obtain a bodily sample is sought without any offence
being committed. There is therefore no nexus for criminal law.
This is most troubling.
The bill also raises important concerns relating to privacy,
searches and seizures and human rights guaranteed by the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The taking of bodily substances
always raises significant constitutional issues and charter
issues. The taking of bodily substances without any charges
being laid or before conviction raises considerable
constitutional questions under section 7, life, liberty and
security of the person, and section 8, unreasonable search and
seizure.
The issue of blood testing clearly belongs in the domain of
health. The Department of Justice is actively working with other
departments, in particular Health Canada, to ensure that there is
more done to provide support and assistance to those who may be
concerned about the risk of hepatitis B or C or HIV infection.
In conclusion, I support measures to protect our emergency
workers, firefighters, police officers and good Samaritans.
However, it is questionable whether Bill C-217 does this.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I
wish to congratulate the spokesperson and sponsor of the bill. I
know that he is acting in good faith. I know how much he cares
about this issue because this is the third time he has introduced a
bill such as the one before us today.
I also want to say that today is a special day in that several
members of parliament met with police officers on this national
day of lobbying for police officers. I personally met three of
them, including a very dedicated police officer who has been in
the public life for a number of years and who is himself a
brilliant spokesperson for his union. I am referring of course
to Mr. Prud'homme.
This is not an easy topic for me as a parliamentarian. My oldest
brother has been a police officer for eight years and I would
not like to see him risk being contaminated by the AIDS virus or
any other harmful substance. Moreover, I shared my life with a
person who died of AIDS.
The hon. member's bill raises the question of how to protect the
confidentiality of those who do not readily want to disclose
their serologic status. How are we going to comply with the
state of law? I will get back to this later on.
1905
How are we going to guarantee to police officers that, as
parliamentarians, we will give them the most modern and useful
tools for their work? For police officers who come onto a scene,
there is a risk factor that does not exist for other
professionals.
Of course, the bill does not concern only police officers but
also medical practitioners and firefighters.
I am going to tell members right now that I hope—and I discussed
this earlier with the parliamentary secretary—the bill will be
referred to committee, where we may responsibly analyze it and
hear again from the Canadian Police Association, the Association
of Chiefs of Police, representatives from the field of health
care and representatives of those affected.
That said, since we must be clear, I must say that in its
current form, I would not recommend the bill to the Bloc
Quebecois caucus for its support, although—and I say this for
those watching—we have a tradition in the Bloc Quebecois that
when private members' bills are involved of giving free voice to
members to vote either way.
I want to make the following three comments.
First, there is a risk in using search warrants issued by a
justice of the peace in situations in which—and I think the
member for Fraser Valley will recognize this—it is possible to be
objective in a situation where a justice is asked to issue a
search warrant where there has been no offence.
That is very troubling because it is recognized under our system
of law, rightly or wrongly—but this is the law in force at the
moment—that a search warrant is closely linked to the finding of
an offence and gives considerable powers to those who wish to use
them, although these powers are not described as extraordinary.
Second, we know that since the early 1990s—and this is what I
told the police officers I met with earlier—there has been a
national AIDS strategy with an annual budget of $45 million. The
entire strategy is based on respect for the confidentiality of
serologic status.
A few months ago, when we listened to the witnesses who appeared
before us to talk about the member's previous bill, there were
two distinctly different camps. The police officers will see
that their fellow officers were among those who supported the
bill. Of course we can understand why. As I said, I have an
older brother, aged 39, who is a policeman. I would certainly
not want to learn that in the course of his duties he had been
exposed to contamination factors such as hepatitis B or C or to
the AIDS virus.
However, those appearing before the committee fell into two
camps. One consisted of police officers who were in favour;
the other consisted of Health Canada, which was opposed; the
Canadian Human Rights Commission, which was also opposed; the
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, which was opposed; and the
Canadian coalition of organizations representing persons with
AIDS, which was also opposed.
The problem with the bill is that once it is passed it will
change a fundamental approach in the criminal code. A situation
could arise where someone who did not wish to reveal his
serologic status would be required to do so. Not only would it
be possible to oblige someone to allow a sample of their blood
to be taken but, in addition, the bill would provide that the person
must be told the result of this blood test.
This is where some caution is in order.
What is the solution? I make no claim to have found it.
Reflection in a parliamentary committee is needed and it is
important for the bill to go before a committee.
What I want to tell the police, those who are infected, and our
colleague is that we are going to work very seriously in
committee. I wish to remind him, however, that Health Canada
has indicated to us that, when a health professional, police
officer or firefighter has reason to think that he or she has
been infected, it is urgent to seek prophylaxis.
1910
People must not believe that the blood tests that are available
are the be-all and end-all. What the Health Canada professionals
have reminded us of is that in two-thirds of cases, because of
the serologic window—that twenty or so days before an infected
person develops antibodies even if infected—blood tests cannot
necessarily give a proper indication.
For this reason, Health Canada told us that the most up-to-date
solution, reflecting the progress made by the medical profession
and what was available for those who wish to avoid developing
the disease, was for people to seek prophylaxis right away.
We must keep this possibility in mind.
Also, I do not share the analysis made by the sponsor of the
bill because the supreme court clearly indicated that we cannot
force a person to disclose his serologic status since this
would contravene section 7 of the charter. I would like to quote
from that ruling. The supreme court ruled that:
The use of a person's body without his consent to obtain
information on that person is a violation of a part of his
private life that is essential to the preservation of his human
dignity, and the Canadian charter prevents a police officer or
an agent of government from collecting a substance as intimately
personal as a blood sample.
I will conclude by saying three things. Let us support the hon.
member's initiative and let us work seriously in committee.
However, it is not obvious that in its present form the bill
should get the consent of our colleagues and of all House
members because it opens a breach in the provisions of the
charter that could lead to abuse.
Again, the Bloc Quebecois is determined to work seriously in
parliamentary committees because we owe it to police officers,
health professionals and firefighters.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks by commending the hon. member for
Fraser Valley for bringing the issue forward and for pursuing it
with great vigour and sincerity. By virtue of his remarks and
the wisdom behind the particular legislative initiative, it is
quite clear.
Bill C-217, referred to as the blood samples act, is for with a
very practical purpose. It is for the taking of blood samples
for the benefit of persons administering or enforcing the law and
good Samaritans. There is a need to protect those individuals
and it clearly encourages selfless acts of courage. It is
clearly there to safeguard persons who quite often because of
their profession or because of their own good will find
themselves in harm's way.
Police, firefighters, ambulance attendants, nurses and many
other professionals are clearly those who are most vulnerable and
most affected by the ill that can come from being subjected to a
potentially deadly or lifelong disease, if they find themselves
in that circumstance. However, it also goes further than that.
It would also affect and encourage good Samaritans and
individuals who find themselves in a situation where they may be
called upon to aid someone who has a heart attack, for example,
or is drowning. It encourages these selfless acts of courage
that many in other professions, like police, routinely perform or
routinely find themselves facing.
When an individual comes in contact with another individual's
bodily fluids, whether it be by accident or by deliberate
contamination, their professional duties, their emergency skills
and first aid response is often required. It is demanded of
them. It makes good sense to me, and I think to members present,
that they should be afforded some protection.
Where they are required to act, should we not do everything we
can to enhance their safety? The bill goes a long way to achieve
that.
1915
There are many people in the constituency of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who routinely put themselves in
harm's way. I take this opportunity to thank them and tell them
that members in this Chamber fully appreciate what they do. We
owe a debt of gratitude to all those who perform these acts daily
and routinely around the country.
I have already mentioned the broad nature of the bill, where it
refers to good Samaritans who might be performing CPR in
circumstances where an individual is afflicted by a sudden
illness in a public place. The legislation is there to enhance
the protection of those who put their own safety second, when
trying to administer help to another.
I know there are doctors present who probably have faced that
situation on numerous occasions. Police officers, ambulance
attendance and others very often have to get a blood sample from
an individual who is receiving some kind of emergency service.
In the performance of their professional duty, they can get stuck
by a needle or they might, by virtue of having a wound
themselves, receive a transfer of some deadly disease.
They are very much in a high risk category, just by virtue of
their job description, and they may then face the serious
prospect of not knowing whether they have in fact been infected
by a communicable disease. Intravenous drug users quite
frequently are carriers of HIV. They are carriers of hepatitis.
Anyone who might come into contact with this faces a lifelong
illness or death. The consequences could not be more grave,
which puts greater emphasis on the importance of the bill before
us. A high risk person is well within their rights to refuse to
give a sample of their blood. On many occasions, as we have seen
in the example that the hon. member from Fraser Valley
illustrated, individuals currently have the right to refuse to
give a sample of their blood.
Blood can be analyzed for communicable diseases. HIV and
hepatitis are two that have been referred to. The analysis is to
establish a course of treatment for that individual who may have
been exposed, that good Samaritan or police officer. This is a
basic right that any person would want. Even if the news is
horrible, they would want to know rather than be inflicted with
this lengthy period of waiting before knowing whether the illness
has in fact been transferred.
Without consent, the victim can undergo a series of chemical
cocktails within the first six hours of the incident in an
attempt to stop it. We know that sometimes the side affects of
the treatment are horrific as well. Even with this treatment,
this emergency effort to prevent the spread of disease, they may
have to wait for years. There are powerful drugs that can
produce these terrible side effects, but there are powerful drugs
now, at the very least, that can give an individual a chance to
fend off this transfer of illness. However, there is still very
much an element of a gamble that is involved.
In January 2001, a Calgary police officer was bitten by an HIV
positive suspect during an arrest for hit and run. The suspect
proclaimed “Welcome to the world of AIDS”. This veteran police
office is married and will now have to undergo a year of painful
tests, taking the AZT cocktail, which makes a person violently
ill and physically weak for months at a time, to ensure that he
did not contract this virus. An incredible, debilitating
experience, both physically and mentally, for the officer and his
family.
There are hundreds of examples that also illustrate this point.
An individual rightly has concerns, as do many good Samaritans
across the country.
I will give another example. Colonel L.R. Johns, a commandant
and CEO of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires in Nova Scotia,
has expressed his concern on behalf of individuals in the
private sector industry, who are often working in hospitals, in
situations where they are called upon to act for the betterment
of others and are in harm's way.
Many people have expressed support for this legislation,
including many police officers from the Canadian Police
Association, who have gathered here in Ottawa today to make their
point on this and other important bills, and the following people
from the province of Nova Scotia: Kevin Scott, Gary Thibadeau,
Brian MacDougall and Bruce from Kentville.
1920
Those officers and others are here to make the important point
that there is a duty upon parliamentarians to listen, to be
informed and to change legislation, where possible, for the
betterment of all Canadians.
A person who has blood taken from them, their rights are already
protected to a large extent. Police officers must obtain
warrants and they must go before a justice before a blood sample
can be taken. In most instances there are exceptions.
Blood is taken by qualified medical practitioners in most
instances where it involves an accident. Blood cannot be
analyzed for anything other than the purpose specified in the
warrant, which is punishable on summary conviction. This is not
just a guideline. There are sufficient safeguards there.
Technology is advancing in the methodology in which blood, DNA,
hair and other types of samples can be extracted. This is very
much a humanitarian idea. It goes beyond partisanship. It goes
very much to the heart of helping individuals who, but for the
grace of God, could very much find themselves in this situation:
professionals, good Samaritans, or anyone.
The bill protects Samaritans and professionals. It is something
that may very well be tested by the courts. This is why the
suggestion that it be examined at a committee is certainly
another way to safeguard the charter protections that currently
exist to vet any problems that may exist from a legal basis.
It is important to note that there are some deterrent effects.
Some enforcement provisions are already built into the bill that
could be examined in further detail at committee. For example:
No qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician is
guilty of an offence only by reason of a refusal to take a blood
sample from a person for the purposes of this Act.
There is no criminal or civil liability for anything necessarily
done with reasonable care and skill in the taking of such blood
samples. That has been contemplated in the legislation. It is
fair to say that judges would exercise discretion on the merit of
the individual case as to whether or not it was appropriate. All
of this is done with the reasonable test to be applied.
Bill C-217 is an important bill that has received the support of
many groups which have been listed already, many groups who I
know are most susceptible. I hope the government is listening
because we are often left wondering.
Bill C-217 has been carefully drafted so as not to go too far
afield into breaching a person's human rights. Current sections
of the criminal code would also apply to compel those who would
use the particular section not to go outside a person's human
rights. There are current sections that apply to impaired
driving, sexual assault and the new DNA databank that would come
under similar scrutiny in the judicial chambers.
It is an important step toward protection and enhancement of
safety for everyone. I again commend the hon. member for Fraser
Valley for this initiative. It is a tremendous, common sense
initiative, one that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
wholeheartedly endorses and I would encourage all members to do
likewise.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to address this bill which has significant merit. I
should like to give an example from my own life of what the bill
would mean.
I had an opportunity to hear a story which troubled me so
greatly that I told it to probably 1,500 high school students
over my time in parliament. The reaction of the kids in high
schools when I tell them this story is dismay.
A young woman was attacked, traumatized and hurt by a sexual
predator, a rapist. Luckily her assailant was captured fairly
quickly. That capture resulted in his being in custody. The
young woman had some medical background and knew she was at risk
for infection. She asked the officers who had made the arrest
what provisions would be made for the individual to be tested for
the diseases that she could be infected by.
1925
The officer said that if the individual agreed, they were fine.
The individual did not agree. She said that her rights as a
citizen who had been attacked were impacted upon by the
individual's rights as a perpetrator.
I have told that story to young people in and outside my riding.
I asked them this question. When the rights of the victim and
the rights of the rapist collide, whose rights should take
precedence? I have yet heard one single youth say that the
rights of the rapist should be equal to the rights of the poor
victim.
I take that as an endorsement from young people who are not
sophisticated in legal matters. They are not lawyers but they
have common sense. That common sense is one that I recommend to
my colleagues across the way who say they support the concept of
looking after the good Samaritan but follow that with a but. That
but means the support for firefighters, paramedics, police
officers and good Samaritans. It is not going to cut it in
the groups I speak with.
I wish to give a more personal example. For those watching
television, I have been a practising physician for 25 years. I
came to parliament with very specific goals. One evening I was
coming home from the hospital on a slippery road and I came
across a severe motor vehicle accident.
Prior to my reaching the accident, a young RCMP officer had
arrived on the scene. I knew him and I enjoyed his company. We
played sports together. The victim of the accident was trapped
in the vehicle. He did what he could to get her out. In order
to successfully pull her from the vehicle, he cut himself on the
broken window. In doing so, his blood came in contact with an
open wound on the accident victim's forehead. He told me that he
was in trouble because he thought that he could be infected.
Under normal circumstances, we would ask the poor victim to give
a blood sample and everything would be fine. There is a period
of time when the antibodies are not evident if someone was
recently infected. However, somebody like that would never be
recently infected. This victim refused. This took me aback. I
could not imagine why that would happen.
She happened to confide in me the reason why she refused. She
said that when she was young she had done some things with
illegal drugs that may have infected her. She said she could not
have that known because it would affect her ability to work. It
would affect her ability in the community. It would also affect
some of the things she did. The victim left the police officer
exposed. In my mind, at that instance she completely forgot
about a good Samaritan.
Would the bill have an impact on many individuals? It would
not. It would have an impact on those individuals who for
whatever reason would not willing to be forthcoming with their
medical histories. Usually these individuals would be criminals
or people with vindictive attitudes. Surely my colleague across
the way with his but would not want those individuals when their
rights collide to take precedence over the victim.
The bill is such common sense that it should be supported by
everyone, even those individuals who say that it is an invasion
of privacy for the individual who is the victim. In a case where
it is an individual who benefits from the good Samaritan
activity, there is an invasion of privacy. Is it an invasion
that is too great? In my view it is reasonable, constrained and
balanced.
1930
I have watched private members' business since 1993 when I came
here. I have watched which proposals from private members that
get voted on freely. For those watching in the gallery, the bill
will be voted on freely in the House when it finally gets to
voting time. Occasionally the government will support a private
member's bill that comes from across the way or from its own
members, then send it to committee and have it die in committee.
Very seldom does a private member's bill get passed in this
place. Perhaps I understand when it is for partisan reasons, but
surely there cannot be a partisan reason in terms of this bill.
The member and two other members said that the proposals could be
improved upon in committee if there are overriding reasons.
This makes such good sense that surely we could set aside those
partisan considerations and consider it in committee. For that
reason, at this point in time I suggest that we have unanimous
consent of the House to send the bill to committee. It is
something that happened in the last parliament. The sky did not
fall. The bill went to committee and there was some discussion.
I ask for unanimous consent to send Bill C-217 to the justice
committee to have it reviewed and for members opposite to improve it
if that was necessary.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to send
the bill to the justice committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would just like to add a few comments. I thought the attempt
to have the bill sent to committee after less than one hour of
debate was an honest attempt to take it back to where the bill
was in the last parliament. I do not have a big objection to
that, except I do think there should be full opportunity for due
process.
We know there are three hours of debate. Having looked at the
bill, the chances of it going to committee are probably pretty
good. We should not take the procedural wrangling which has
occurred in a negative way, without having the full opportunity
for debate in the House.
I too commend the member for Fraser Valley for bringing forward
this concept. I was interested in the story of the previous
speaker about the individual refusing the blood test. One would
wonder why. Interestingly enough, though, not only do certain
rights collide here but certain responsibilities collide that we
need to hash out in committee. I hate this because it is
bureaucracy but it is also the reality that there is potential for
the justice ministry to collide with the responsibility of the
ministry of health.
That needs to be discussed. I am sure the member, being a
medical doctor, would appreciate that health issues are involved
in addition to justice issues. If the individual who refused the
blood test did so out of spite, ignorance, fear or not
understanding the outcome of it, maybe there is some
justification for being concerned.
What about if the person were concerned about finding out
something related to her past that would then preclude her from
making certain declarations for insurance or for whatever
purpose? That might be a stretch, but perhaps it is something
that needs to be discussed in committee and that needs to be
reported on by committee staff. Perhaps it could even hear from
witnesses.
This seems to be an hour of storytelling. I too have an
interesting story which the bill brought to mind. My oldest son
works in management for Home Depot. He is not an emergency
worker or a frontline worker, but one of the big problems in the
store he works in is that there is an awful lot of theft.
1935
There are an awful lot of people who walk out the door with
something off the shelf. My son observed a person putting
something in his clothing and walking out the door, so he
confronted him. I found it bizarre that all of a sudden the
person pulled out not a gun or a knife, but a syringe. He
threatened my son with the syringe and all of a sudden everyone
in the store panicked. People were screaming and falling down.
It turned into the potential for an incredible tragedy.
The good news is that the management at Home Depot train their
people. I cannot believe they go to that extent, but it shows
the society we live in. They tell their employees about the
possibility of being confronted with a syringe or being put in
danger of coming in contact with a customer's bodily fluids. They
tell them that they should avoid a situation like that at all
costs because of safety concerns.
My son started to run back but he tripped and fell over. All of
a sudden the guy was on top of him with a syringe and everybody
was quite excited. They managed to disarm him. It is an
interesting use of the word, but there was no question this was a
weapon. They managed to disarm the individual and no damage was
done.
It is an interesting perspective. This was not an ambulance
worker, a policeman, a firefighter or someone like that. It was
simply a manager in a store being confronted by someone who could
have caused very serious problems.
I would like to be sure. From what I have read so far, it does
cover people other than emergency and front line workers. I
think of sports injuries and the potential problems that could
occur there. I would want to be sure that was covered as well.
Referring it to committee makes sense. I would add, by the way,
that I understand the treatment. When someone is confronted with
that kind of situation, whether a front line worker or a store
clerk, they can be forced to take what is referred to as a
cocktail in a hospital emergency room under examination. I heard
a story today from some of the police officers who visited me.
They said they knew of an individual who went blind from the side
effects of the cocktail.
There are a lot of questions. There are health questions,
justice questions, rights questions and, as the former speaker
said, there is the collision of human rights and the
responsibilities of various ministries. When the time comes I
think it will go to committee. It has merit, but we should take
time to answer the questions properly.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 7.37 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 7.37 p.m.)