Debates of Dec. 7th, 1994

Bankruptcy Act

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the recorded division stands deferred until 5.30 p.m. tomorrow.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. Given that we seemed to have disposed with Private Members' Business a bit early, I think if you would ask you would find there is unanimous consent in the House to call it 6.30 p.m. so that we could proceed with the adjournment proceedings.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Madam Speaker, in this post-adjournment period I wish to reopen a question that I put to the minister of agriculture on Monday. I asked him whether there would be any changes in the government's policy toward the Canadian Wheat Board.

I asked this because during the election the Prime Minister was quite clear that the policy of the Liberals was to support the board. In the election that was quite important. There was a small group of farmers demanding a dual marketing system which would have had the effect of breaking the ability of the board to put prices on grain for western farmers.

Since that time the elections for the advisory committee have occurred. That election was openly fought between people who supported a strengthened board and those who wanted the board to either disappear or have very limited powers. As it turned out, 10 of the 11 positions on that advisory board were filled by people who supported a strengthened board. This is actually the strongest electoral situation the advisory committee has been in since it was first brought into being back in the mid-seventies when I happened to be a member of it.

The turnout was one of the heaviest that there has been. We have to remember this is a mail out ballot. A lot of the ballots never get opened. They get lost in the pile of mail that comes home. On average just over 46 per cent voted. This was one of the higher turnouts. In the two eastern provinces the turnout was considerably higher than in Alberta where it was just over a third of the farmers who actually voted.

I note that some of the board's detractors are saying that this does not tell anything because the turnout was not very high. I want to point out that even in Alberta where the return was only about 36 or 37 per cent, that is higher than the U.S. congressional elections which just changed the whole outlook of that Congress. It is higher than the normal presidential elections in the United States. Forty-six to 48 per cent which is what most of the provinces had for a turnout was much higher than we see in most municipal elections and occasionally in provincial elections. I do not think we can argue that this was not a legitimately elected group.

There are some special problems that face the board at the moment and I think this newly elected group should be utilized by the minister to look at some of those problems. New grains are something rye producers in particular have shown they are willing and ready to have included in the board's jurisdiction. The advisory committee should be given that as a question to look at.

It could also be asked to provide opinions on how to integrate organically produced grain and perhaps the question of grains milled on farm or by the owner of the grain, which is something organic producers particularly want to have looked at. This is a special niche market. The board has been occupied in developing these special situations.

I wanted to raise these in the post-adjournment debate because I think the minister is aware that there are many more things that the wheat board could be doing and I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister's assurances during the election campaign that he supports the board meant a stronger board, an expanding board, or simply a status quo kind of board. I hope the

result of the elections would give the minister the assurance that farmers are behind an expanded and growing wheat board.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's interest in and concern for the Canadian Wheat Board is noted and appreciated. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to his remarks in greater detail than I would be able to do during the course of Question Period.

The member makes reference to the most recent election of the Canadian Wheat Board's producer advisory committee and the proper interpretation to be placed upon the results of that election. The committee consists of 11 members. In the most recent election results 10 of those 11 members were identified very much as pro-board candidates who opposed any weakening of the Canadian Wheat Board, opposed the concept of dual marketing.

While this election was not a direct plebiscite about marketing systems, and while the overall producer participation in the voting was only about 40 per cent, I think it is fair to say that the vote results show an important level of producer support for the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not think it would be fair to say that the vote is the be all and end all. I do not think it would be fair to say it is the absolute last and ultimate word. It is one very important piece of evidence which is clearly supportive of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Over the course of the last year or so a controversy has been brewing among western Canadian farmers about the Canadian Wheat Board and this notion of alternative marketing systems. It is a subject upon which different groups of farmers hold profoundly different opinions. So far there has not been a rational, full, frank, objective opportunity for farmers to discuss all of those alternatives and to have a face to face analysis of the situation in a frank and logical way.

That is why I plan to carry through on a commitment that I have made to provide farmers and all interested stakeholders with that full, objective, logical, rational forum and mechanism within which to examine the alternatives, have all of those alternatives subjected to examination and cross-examination so there can be that full analysis with the full participation of the farmers. I am confident that in that process the Canadian Wheat Board will do very well.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to elaborate on a question I put to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on November 24, 1994. I asked what action the Canadian government is taking to ensure the human rights of Vietnamese refugees in southeast Asia.

On December 12, 1948, the year in which I was born so it is close to my heart, the United Nations Assembly passed the universal declaration of human rights. On Friday of this week the world celebrates International Human Rights Day.

I have a number of constituents from the wider area of southeast Asia and the concern has been raised with me and other members in southwestern Ontario that constituents of ours are very concerned about the safety of some of their family members in their original homelands.

Since 1988 Hong Kong has granted refugee status to Vietnamese who proved justified fear of persecution at home and I understand that since 1991 refugees have voluntarily been returning to Vietnam. The Hong Kong government is now operating a program of forcible repatriation to encourage the 24,000 refugees remaining in camps there to leave by 1996. That is the cause of the very real concern a number of Vietnamese Canadians share about the safety of their loved ones back home.

There is no question there have been incidents of violence and assault against these refugees. In September of this year the Government of Hong Kong admitted quite candidly that 142 Vietnamese refugees were injured in a forced repatriation operation. There have been serious allegations and questions about police brutality since the repatriation program began earlier this year.

This deplorable situation has been brought to my attention by leaders of the Vietnamese community both in my own city and in southwestern Ontario, and indeed by certain segments of the media in southwestern Ontario. I share their concern. Quite frankly Canadians generally would share this concern. We do not want to see human rights violations such as these going unanswered.

I certainly applaud the actions of our own new government and of previous governments of various political stripes in being a leader in the world in accepting refugees from virtually every part of the world. We know that is true and we are all as Canadians rightly proud of that record. However there is a situation here which needs to be addressed.

I am pleased to follow up my question to the minister this evening with this statement and to explore a little further the answer the minister gave to me in the House.

I would like to put a question to the parliamentary secretary. What other initiatives can Canada take besides accepting refugees? What other initiatives, either publicly or through appropriate diplomatic channels, does the government foresee might be taken to stop violence against Vietnamese citizens forcibly repatriated against their will?

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and for the concern he has shown for the situation of Indo-Chinese boat people throughout southeast Asia.

As the minister has already stated, Canada has also played an important role in the development of the comprehensive plan of action in 1989. Under this international agreement Indo-Chinese asylum seekers are screened under U.S. auspices.

Persons who are determined to become convention refugees are eligible for resettlement in a third country such as Canada. Persons who are found not to be refugees are expected to return to their country of origin. Most of the people who remain in the camps in Hong Kong have been determined not to be refugees and are expected to repatriate to Vietnam.

The non-refugees have been offered voluntary repatriation to Vietnam under United Nations supervision with an additional inducement of reintegration assistance paid by the international community.

Since the inception of the CPA in 1989 Canada has contributed $9 million for maintaining the camps and for returnee programs; 60,000 have returned voluntarily. Unfortunately approximately 50,000 Indo-Chinese remain in the camps in southeast Asia, the vast majority of whom have been found not to be convention refugees after examination under the CPA.

The international community and Canadians expect that humane methods are used to ensure the safe return of these people to their own countries. However in a removal situation, particularly when the individual being returned is not co-operative, some force unfortunately has been employed.

Canada's response to the Vietnamese refugee crisis has been exemplary. During the first 10 years of the Indo-Chinese movement from 1979 to 1988 over 79,000 Vietnamese were resettled by Canada from the camps of southeast Asia. Since the implementation of the CPA in 1989, Canada has resettled over 19,000 Vietnamese refugees from the camps of southeast Asia. In addition, under regular immigration programs directly from Vietnam, Canada has resettled nearly 50,000 Vietnamese.

I congratulate the hon. member for London-Middlesex for raising this important question and for his concern.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, before asking my question this evening, I will briefly review the situation to show what led the Official Opposition to raise this issue.

The whole thing started when we learned that the director of the Health Canada Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, who had been on leave without pay for about a year, was lobbying on the Hill to convince some government members of the merits of the hormone called somatotropin. You will remember this hormone stimulates milk production in cows. This issue raises many questions.

The main question is: How can the minister allow the director of the bureau currently examining the possibility of releasing this hormone for market to "pressure" his colleagues or at least try to convince them of the merits of this hormone while on leave without pay?

He is still the director even though he is on leave without pay. Let us be clear on the principle of leave without pay. The person on leave whithout pay does not lose his or her seniority, and continues to be entitled to his or her insurance plan, pension, disability insurance and everything else.

Even if this individual is on leave without pay, he knows the staff of this bureau. We find the minister's inaction on this rather deplorable.

This week, I wanted the minister to tell us why she did not respond before and what she intends to do about this director who, in my opinion, is unduly lobbying certain members of Parliament, in view of his previous functions.

I would like the minister or her parliamentary secretary to tell us whether her departmental staff feels that this is normal and what action they will take immediately to stop this activity, so that the health department can have some credibility with the public. This department has extremely serious responsibilities, and I do not think that we should play around with such things.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us what the Department of Health intends to do about that.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised a couple of statements with regard to the presentation of the person involved to a parliamentary committee, it is my understanding, at the request of the committee.

It is also my understanding from what we know of the issue right now that the person spoke only of issues that were public information. There was nothing spoken at the parliamentary committee level that was private information.

Second, the person did not have anything to do with the BST file within the Department of Health. Third, as the hon. member well knows, the person was also not working and was on leave of absence from the Department of Health at the time.

More important, the issue is being investigated. We cannot go on hearsay or on misunderstanding of issues. The issue is being investigated by Health Canada at the moment. As soon as the investigations have been finished and thoroughly looked at, the minister will be reporting to the House of Commons.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m.)