Debates of Sept. 23rd, 1994

Department Of Agriculture Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that question and I thank you for the time.

Very briefly, certainly we are in what I perceive to be a global market. There is no question about it. The role of people at the committee level is that we have to develop within our own boundaries part of that policy. Certainly part of that planning has to be a developmental policy that will lead us into an even larger global economy than what we are now involved in.

It appears to me from where I sit as a member from Saskatchewan and knowing most about my home province, that farmers are telling me that without starting at square one, the grassroots, we cannot develop the global policy.

The minister probably said it best. In his opening comments he said that without a solid foundation everything else falls down. In my experience that is in fact the case. One cannot build a building with a poor foundation; it just will not stand.

It is my opinion that we have to look at an agricultural policy as if there were none at this point in time. We have to start from step one, build it within our borders, and then expand globally and internationally.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to stand today to make some comments on Bill C-49.

I want to refresh everybody's memory on the purpose of the bill. It is giving effect to a change in the title of the department. At one time it was known as the department of agriculture or the ministry of agriculture and now it will be known as the ministry of agriculture and agri-food. That is one of the changes. Other changes and amendments will have to be made in corresponding

acts just to expand the act because of the role the department has been playing for many years. We are just bringing it up to date.

In response to some comments made by speakers in the opposition, the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois, concerning the allocation of spending, et cetera, they are not covered in the bill. They are not for discussion in the bill. It is at an administrative level in co-operation with the provinces and the federal government. It is ongoing at all times and certainly can and will continue.

In response to the member from the Reform Party suggesting that the minister give a speech on Thanksgiving Day, if he desires to do so he can certainly get a copy of a speech the minister made on September 19 in Regina to the Chamber of Commerce wherein he stressed the importance of agriculture and the agri-food industry in Canada. He also made some comments about what he saw as some of the issues that needed to be addressed. As the member already knows, next Thursday the minister will be attending a very detailed session on our vision and projected concerns about the total industry with members of the standing committee.

The bill makes other changes. At the present time it states that the mandate is clarified in the bill to include not only primary agriculture but products derived from agriculture. It is necessary to do that. The bill enlarges the responsibility of the minister by changing reference to experimental farm stations to research related to agriculture and products derived from agriculture, including the operation of experimental farm stations across Canada.

We need these important amendments to bring the matter up to date. They reflect the longstanding relationship between the ministry and the agriculture and agri-food industry of Canada. That relationship started changing a number of years ago when the ministry was given the mandate to ensure the safety of the Canadian food supply.

Our inspection services are still one of the most important points of contact between the industry and the department. The highest percentage of the employees in the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food are in the food inspection and production branch.

As years have gone by the department has played an increasingly important, necessary and continuing role in research and market development assistance. Enforcing safety rules is still important but the department sees itself as more of a supervisor in inspection roles.

A key activity in the department now is partnership. We must continue to rethink our working relationships with the industry clients out there. It is important to re-emphasize that food safety will always be our top priority but our priorities are in other areas as well. A partnership, however, can only survive if there is good communication among the department and the other parties. I am certainly looking forward to the type of communication and co-operation at the standing committee we have always had since I came to Parliament in 1988.

I want to emphasize another partnership recognized in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It was recognized for the first time at the meeting of federal and provincial agriculture ministers in Winnipeg back in early July. I am referring to the important role farm women play in the agriculture and agri-food industry. Not only do we look to them as the nourishers of the nation, but they are playing ever increasing and ever more important roles as business people, as individuals and as partners with their spouses or in businesses. They can play and will play even more roles. They bring to our attention in the department that we have to be constantly aware of safety in agriculture.

In Ontario a number of years ago, I had the privilege to be on a health and safety in agriculture task force for two years. At that time the necessity of our role was certainly made clear by farm women and other people involved in the industry.

We know, especially at the primary producer level, that days and nights can be long, wet, muddy or whatever, that conditions are not considered ideal. There are also bankers that would like to get the crop in the bin or to the elevator because there are bills to pay. We have to be very conscious of those concerns and the safety of everybody involved in the industry.

The role of government is changing. Canada's food inspection system is a good example. We cannot afford to have a full time permanent inspector at every factory and every processing plant for every minute. Therefore to a large extent we must rely on the industry to police itself. It too is a net beneficiary of the very high standards of food and produce quality in Canada. It has a responsibility to ensure the products and the processes it takes part in meeting the standards we set. There is also a facilitator role for the department to play.

The industry understands the high quality of our Canadian products is one of the biggest and best selling points for our domestic consumers and those abroad, and we have many of those. Our reputation for quality in Canada is money in the bank. We must make sure we can continue that.

It is a shared responsibility that is expensive to maintain. We spend a tremendous amount of money. I am not saying it is money wasted in any way, shape or form, but cost sharing arrangements are being discussed with the industry. They have worked very well in other countries. They are working very well in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Certainly those countries have very good standards as well.

We have to keep improving the inspection system and that is not cheap. For its part the department is trying to harmonize standards across the country. To our colleague from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke earlier I want to point out that one area in which we are making good progress and have co-operation is in getting rid of duplication or overlap among provinces in the Canadian food inspection system. We have a way to go yet. We can and will get rid of the duplication.

That area is of net benefit to everyone and it is necessary to continue that co-operation. We need to work more with the industry as far as research is concerned as often the result of scientific and technical breakthroughs are benefits to all Canadians.

We have goals we must reach in trade. In his comments earlier today the minister spoke about the goals we want to reach, including $20 billion in agriculture and agri-food export trade from Canada by the year 2000. We know if we are to reach that goal, I say to my colleagues and to the industry, we will have to get better at it than we are at the present time.

We need to capitalize on opportunities, new technologies, changing markets and trading agreements such as GATT, NAFTA and all the others we are involved in. That goal is there. The market is there.

The Asia-Pacific market, for example, is one that really beckons us. We know that 50 per cent of the increase in the world's wealth between now and the year 2000 will take place in the Asia-Pacific area. We also know that 50 per cent of the increase in world trade between now and the year 2000 is going to take place in that area. We know there is a booming increase in trade opportunities in Latin America and South America and we must be there. We as a department, collectively and collaboratively, need to work with all of the stakeholders and all the partners in the industry in order to take the best advantage of that. The opportunities are there so we need to work very closely.

In our platform during the campaign last fall we promised the creation of an agri-food council that would focus on international competitiveness. Some of my colleagues across the way will say yes, we put things in place but what are we going to do? I can assure you that these groups of people will not be put in place unless they are going to be given a mandate and that mandate is listened to and we can draw on the resources of those people.

We also said that we would be creating an agri-food trade service. We are doing that in the markets and industry services branch in order to provide a single window to get rid of duplication and get rid of red tape. Therefore, when an industry or someone in the industry wants to discuss access to federal government programs or federal government support, whether that be in research which we are encouraging as partnerships in research, or whether that be in support as far as marketing opportunities, they can do it at a single window.

Getting Ready to go Global is a $4 million program. Earlier this week I had the opportunity to join with some constituents at the Experimental Farm in Ottawa where the Indian agricultural program is working with some support from the Getting Ready to go Global program in the development of, and I hope I call it by the proper name, white Indian corn to be made into corn chips, et cetera.

The Getting Ready to go Global program is helping them to do the things that are there. It is to improve management capability, help people promote strategic alliances, apply technological solutions and develop market intelligence. We are pleased to be able to help there.

The agri-food industry marketing strategies is another one. There is the export expansion fund. I will give an example of the type of work of the agri-food industry marketing strategy. The department is providing up to $475,000 to the Quebec Agri-food Export Club in support of its international market developments. This is a club with international sales, excluding sales to the United States, of $25 million. It provides information, advice and training to its members. It supports and promotes co-operation among members in promotional activities abroad.

The department also helps agri-food exporters by collecting and disseminating trade intelligence. We have at the present time, and we will continue to emphasize this, about 85 commissioners working either full time or part time in over 100 foreign markets around the world.

For too long the Canadian agri-food industry has been content to just sell to the United States customer. Yes, it is our biggest, our closest and our easiest. However, we cannot put all our eggs in one basket, if I can use that well-worn phrase. We have to continue to look at the other areas, and we are doing that. We have to learn how to satisfy the appetites of the rest of the world. As the minister said this morning, we in North America are probably not too far away from the time when 50 per cent of the production at the farm gate will be used in some way in our society other than as a food product. There are increasing requirements for that.

The minister said as well that we have to look at the opportunities out there, whether they be domestic or abroad, and we have to produce what we can sell. We can no longer be successful trying to sell what we like to produce. We are all guilty of that. When you are in farming you kind of get into feeling that "I have always done this and I have always done that". That is what you become familiar with, but you have to roll with the punches.

I want to confirm the goals that the changes in this bill emphasize and offer as an opportunity. It is more than just a recognition that we have been doing these things in the department. We have been doing these things in the Government of Canada. I want to stress that better research in agriculture and agri-food will help us develop new products. Better partnerships will help us keep our standards high. In better partnerships, be that with farm women, industry, or the stakeholders, there are a lot of links in this chain and they all have to be strong and tight in order to pull.

Better partnerships will help us keep in touch with the needs within the sector. Better intelligence will keep us on top of market trends. Better promotion will increase the demand for Canadian agri-food products not only domestically but abroad. Better relations between the industry and the department will ensure that the agri-food industry continues to be the engine of prosperity for all Canadians.

In closing, I want to remind the House and everyone in Canada that the agri-food industry from the primary producer to the consumer, including the retail and the restaurant and hotel industry, employs 15 per cent of Canadian workers. It employs 1.8 million Canadians and accounts for 8 per cent of our gross domestic product. It is an important industry.

The government pledges to work even harder in order to make it even more successful and we look forward to the support of all the members in the House in doing so.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-49.

This bill deals with the management of the federal Department of Agriculture. As you know, Mr. Speaker, anything that impacts on agriculture is important to me as a farmer and is also important to a great number of my constituents in Kindersley-Lloydminster as agriculture is the leading industry of the riding.

In my opinion and the opinion of my caucus this House does not discuss agricultural issues nearly enough and government action is even more rare. We did see a little bit of action when cabinet was expanded the other day. We now have I believe a minister of state with responsibilities for agriculture. I guess that is well and good but the call I am hearing from the industry is not that the cabinet be expanded but that some of the issues that are near and dear to the industry be dealt with in a real, sincere and effective manner.

I heard a rather humorous description of a man who was adjusting his tie while his pants were on fire. I think that application might apply to the current minister of agriculture who gave a very eloquent speech. There was very little in it that any of us could find fault with. We all want the best for our industry. The fact is that there are a lot of problems in the industry. Until we act, our eloquence is rather hollow and rather empty.

Most reforms to the agriculture sector have one of two results. Either money is taken out of the farmers' pockets through program cuts or a department reshuffling is initiated, leading to more bureaucracy and red tape. If anything, this bill seems to fall into the second category.

Farmers have made it clear that they are ready for action on a number of very important issues. Instead, the first bill that the minister has brought to us in this session is one that opts to perform some cosmetic changes to the department, shuffles some chairs around and hires a few more inspectors. It would seem that the minister is deliberately ignoring the issues of most concern to the agri-food industry.

For instance there is widespread consensus across the prairie provinces for a producer plebiscite on barley marketing. Opinion polls, farm groups and surveys, including one that I did in my constituency, show that a vast majority of farmers support holding a producer plebiscite. In my constituency a survey indicated that 93 per cent of Canadian Wheat Board permit holders would support a plebiscite to determine how they market their barley. The strength of these numbers indicate that those on both sides of the issue are eager to resolve the question in a democratic manner.

In fact the Prime Minister before the election called for a plebiscite on this issue. Why is this minister not taking action regarding this democratic initiative? He seems more interested in rejigging his department than acting on issues of importance to farmers.

Another issue concerns the Canadian Wheat Board. All farmers know that the current board is out of date and unresponsive to the needs of producers. There are some elements of the western Canadian press that are sounding the demise of the wheat board. The Reformers believe that a vibrant and responsive wheat board that gives farmers choices would be preferable to eliminating the board.

Most farmers are calling for a democratized wheat board that will listen to farmers, meet their needs and change with the times. Again, this question was included in a survey in my riding. In fact 96 per cent of Canadian Wheat Board permit holders in the riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster in the survey we conducted supported democratization of the Canadian Wheat Board. In other words, take control of the wheat board out of the hands of the politicians and give it to the producers as is the case with most marketing institutions in Canada.

It seems that the minister would rather introduce housekeeping measures that have more to do with relabelling bureaucrats than accomplishing anything for farmers.

There are some very constructive things that can be done to reform the department of agriculture and will have positive results for producers.

It is my contention and that of my Reform colleagues that the purpose of funds earmarked for agriculture support should primarily be to assist agriculture producers who, through no fault of their own, find themselves financially disadvantaged.

I remind the minister of agriculture that at present there are a total of 41 different agriculture programs at the federal level, 286 more provincial programs, and 22 joint federal-provincial programs. That brings the total number to 349 separate support programs for agriculture, each one administered and accounted for separately.

The administrative cost of running so many different and often overlapping and outdated programs is rather staggering. Over $2 billion per year is spent by the minister of agriculture, of which over $700 million is spent on operating and capital costs alone. These figures do not include the $728 million spent under the Western Grain Transportation Act. I believe those figures are for the year 1992. They have been reduced somewhat since.

This appallingly high level of overhead signals mismanagement because of overmanagement. By consolidating all those federal programs and initiatives into three or four the government could save many millions of dollars and provide better support to the industry as a result.

We must expose the myth that more money spent always results in more effective programs. In the case of agriculture it is not only possible to provide better support with fewer dollars but it is essential to the long term sustainability of the industry given the bad financial shape of the government.

The government has a moral obligation to the next generation of farmers to ensure that whatever programs it has in place today will remain economically viable for tomorrow. At present with a $40 billion annual deficit this government is not living up to its moral obligation.

Reform of agriculture programs is essential because we must be able to defend the cost of agriculture support to taxpayers, consumers and future generations. Support programs that protect farmers and producers from situations beyond their control are defensible and desirable for the maintenance of the agricultural industry.

My colleagues in this House have proposed three major programs that we support. I will not review those in their entirety today but I will list them because we believe they are defensible programs. They include an actuarially sound federal-provincial producer funded crop insurance program. They also include an income stabilization program that is a whole farm program available to all sectors of the industry. The third program that we suggest would be a trade distortion adjustment program designed to compensate exporting producers as a direct countermeasure to foreign subsidies.

My colleagues and I believe that if these improved programs are targeted to those producers who need them there will be many benefits.

A couple of them I might list are support dollars that are strategically targeted to increase their effectiveness manifold. Why are we just spending money in all directions where there is not a quantifiable need? Also, by delivering support more directly to the farmer rather than through a large bureaucracy the money gets to where it is needed and it gets there faster.

These are just a few examples of how the minister can increase his effectiveness and the effectiveness of his department for those farmers in need of support and at the same time reduce the burden to taxpayers. These are the kinds of things the government should be doing. Simply making a few internal housekeeping changes to the department is not going to affect producers in any meaningful way.

Rather than making some of these reforms that move the agricultural industry forward the minister is content to shuffle his department around. The minister is adjusting his tie while his pants are on fire. In other words, there are serious problems in agriculture that need urgent attention and here we are in the House today debating a recycled Tory reorganization bill.

If we look at the minister's record of action we can see why farmers and producers from all across Canada are unhappy with his performance. I will list a few of the minister's non accomplishments. The minister signed the GATT agreement the way that we forecast he would during the last election campaign. He did not change a thing, contrary to the promises in the red ink book.

We recognized the decision that had to be made while the Liberals and other parties in this House were reticent to accept the fact that Reform indicated the deal would be signed more or less the way it was signed. The agriculture minister had to sign the GATT deal more or less the way it had been negotiated in spite of promises to the contrary.

Our agriculture minister bungled the grain transportation system effectiveness last year which led to a disastrous year for many producers. Producers are worried about the same thing occurring this year because very little has been done to put safeguards in the transportation system that would not allow a reoccurrence of last year's paralyzed system.

The agriculture minister is stalling on the issue of backtracking of grain from Thunder Bay. The date has been set back and we have not seen anything of substance that would indicate he is even going to meet the targets he set.

Of even more concern is that the minister of agriculture has caved in on his commitment to defend durum producers in Canada by agreeing to export quotas to the United States when all of the cards were in our deck and we were in the right and the Americans were in the wrong. Yet we caved in and handicapped our producers who were discovering a great export market for their product where the customer had cash on the barrel head to pay for the product.

Our agriculture minister has labelled Canadian farmers as criminals for wanting to export their own grain to the United States. Rather than rectifying the problem he has lashed out at the producers he is supposed to represent. Our agriculture minister has failed to reform the Canadian Wheat Board even though most farmers are calling for it. Our minister of agriculture has failed to consolidate support programs for the agricultural industry, as I mentioned earlier in my speech. He has failed to reduce the proportion of agriculture bureaucrats to farmers. I believe at this time there is one bureaucrat for every three to five farmers. It depends on where the figures come from.

This minister talks about consulting with producers. Certainly there is no one and no party more warm to the idea of consulting with people than the Reform Party. As my colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre said, we have seen consultations, we have seen studies, we have seen a lot of producers and producer groups do an immeasurable amount of work in putting forward proposals that once they have come to the cabinet table get put on a shelf and nothing comes of it or the final product is far removed from what was indicated through the consultation process.

We would urge this minister to move beyond the consultation process and move into the action mode where he either acts on the judgment and wisdom of producers who have spoken in the past or in a democratic fashion allows producers to make decisions such as on the wheat board and the marketing of barley.

The minister must get around to doing something. We cannot consult forever until the industry wanes and becomes weakened over time through inaction.

In his speech the minister talked briefly about Wayne Gretzky. Of course being a hockey fan I perked up immediately when he said Wayne Gretzky said he scored because he shot the puck. My concern is that our agriculture minister is not even on the ice. If he is on the ice he has not even gone over his blue line yet. It is a concern that many producers share.

I hope the minister has listened to the suggestions that I have put forward sharply. I admit I put them forward sharply because I believe that action is required. However, they are in a spirit of constructive criticism. My desire is that the government will very soon stop putting forward administrative bills and finally act to improve the agriculture industry.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could remind the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster that the minister, wherever he is on the ice, has such a slapshot that he can score from any position.

On his criticism of the minister with respect to the durum quotas I wish to remind the hon. member that the cap that has been agreed to is higher than the average of shipments to the United States over the last number of years.

My question for this member is one with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board and the criticism of the minister again as to the shipping of grain into the United States. My question is very simple. Does the member and his party support the Canadian Wheat Board and the maintenance of the Canadian Wheat Board?

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's questions.

I want to speak briefly with regard to the durum cap that he mentioned. It was either the minister of agriculture or his parliamentary secretary who talked about the fast and rapid changes in agriculture.

I agree. As I said, the minister of agriculture was very eloquent in his presentation. Who could help but applaud motherhood and apple pie? What we have seen with regard to durum exports to the United States is a rather rapid increase in those exports to the point in the last three or four years at which we have seen a great market develop which our producers were filling and being paid a good dollar for their product.

What the minister of agriculture has in effect done is cut those exports in half in a growing market that could have expanded. While the minister recognizes that there are rapid changes in agriculture, he is stifling those very positive changes. One of the few positive changes in agriculture he in effect axed and said we will go back to the average, which is half of what producers could have expected to export had the minister stood his ground, stood up to the free trade agreement that was signed with the Americans, which protected our producers and gave us access to that American market.

That is an indefensible position. As the leader of the Reform Party said, it was a cream puff move and we are appalled that the minister would put our own producers at such a disadvantage and allow or disallow them such a good market.

With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, yes the Reform Party is on record. We campaigned in support of the Canadian Wheat Board. I have mentioned this in the House before. Times are changing. When my father was a young man and delivered his own grain he had to deliver it with horses and a wagon 20-some miles and when he got to the point of delivery, there was only one person who would buy it. That person would offer him a price in grade and dockage over which he had no bargaining position whatsoever. If he did not like the deal he had to harness his horses and drive them another day's drive back to the farm, not a good use of time in those days when one was really busy.

Today it is a different situation. It is 1994, with numerous marketing options. Our concern is that the wheat board has been hindered by politicians getting too involved. Producers are in charge of their own marketing boards in most cases, the wheat board is the odd man out.

Even the Ontario Wheat Board, which markets the wheat for Ontario producers, is controlled by producers. It is only the Canadian Wheat Board which is confined to the prairie region that is controlled by government.

If producers control that board, they will make the right decisions for producers and if they make a mistake, they will correct it very quickly. If governments make a mistake-believe me, it has made several-it will never own up to those mistakes and will harm the producers it is supposed to be protecting.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the hon. member on how to better enhance our agri-food industry.

Given the fact that Canada is rapidly becoming more urbanized, perhaps he would comment on some of his proposals on how a triple-E Senate would enhance farmers' representation in Parliament.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is having a little difficulty seeing how a triple-E Senate relates to the contents of the member's speech but I am sure the hon. member can make it relevant.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Actually I have no problem, Mr. Speaker, responding to that question.

In the United States and even in Australia where there is a triple-E senate the agricultural industry has much more clout in decision making at a national or federal level.

If we look at states such as Iowa, Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota where there are two elected senators representing those states, the same number as Texas, New York and California, we realize that our Senate which is appointed-and we saw the type of appointments, always patronage appointments with no responsibility to the people they are supposed to represent-certainly is not likely to be very interested in agriculture. It handicaps the more sparsely populated regions of the country which tend to be agricultural regions.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the debate on Bill C-49.

My colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture, has spoken about the department's relationship in the agri-industry. I would like to discuss another important aspect of this bill, its recognition of agriculture and agri-food's role in research and development.

When the department of agriculture was first established the minister was given responsibility for experimental farm stations whose research concentrated on crops and livestock. Since then the role of the department has greatly expanded. The proposed legislation simply reflects today's realities.

AAFC's research efforts are still involved with crops and livestock but they have been taken far beyond the farm gate. The department is now committed to helping not just farmers but also the entire agri-food sector become more competitive here and abroad.

The department is working on non-food uses in agricultural products. For example, it is looking at new pharmaceuticals and grain based fuels like ethanol. It is also trying to develop and promote environmentally sustainable practices in agriculture and the agri-food industry such as biological pest controls.

What does this mean for the average Canadian? Let me put it in perspective. Many people do not realize that they owe their daily bread quite literally to Agriculture Canada research. Virtually all the varieties of wheat grown in this country were developed by scientists employed by the federal government of agriculture. They are constantly working to improve our plant and animal varieties and because of their work we enjoy plentiful, wholesome and certainly some of the least expensive food in the world.

Perhaps the most spectacular success story for government and universal research is that of rapeseed, known today as canola. In World War II rapeseed oil was used as a marine lubricant. Nobody thought of putting it on salad at that time. Government scientists working with universities saw the potential of rapeseed and worked to breed out the toxic elements in rapeseed and create a new strain of nutritious properties. Canola is now the most valuable single crop, worth one billion dollars a year.

The department continues to do outstanding work in plant and animal breeding. It is now exploiting some of the possibilities of new techniques in genetic engineering and biotechnology.

We have all heard of the human genome project whose goal is to identify and record every element in our DNA. On a some-

what smaller scale, our agricultural scientists are trying to decipher the DNA pattern of the common oat. AAFC's Ottawa based plant research centre is working with Quaker Oats of Canada and three American universities on this gene mapping project. Once we know what the oats are made of we can make even better ones.

In the agri-food sector innovative research is not a luxury. In a world of rapidly evolving markets technology is giving farmers and food companies new ways to meet their customers' needs. New foods and food processing techniques could stimulate economic growth and create many more jobs for Canadians.

The Canadian agri-food industry must remain technologically competitive. Continuing high quality research is fundamental to keeping Canada a world leader in agriculture and agri-food.

AAFC is managing to maintain a strong R and D capability even in the face of budgetary restraint. Increasing the government's budget for agri-food R and D may not be possible, but at least we can keep what we have.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food has made it clear that his strong commitment is to research. However, we need to reallocate some of the funding. To do this, AAFC intends to reduce costs and spend smarter. It will ensure that research priorities are driven by market opportunities, in other words, by doing research that pays.

A good example of this is sunola, a hardy miniature sunflower developed by the Saskatoon Research Centre. Royalties from certified seed sales will go back to the station's budget and it will form more joint ventures with the private sector. The department is working to ensure its research meets market needs. Input from industry helps the research branch set its priorities. Government scientists are encouraged to attend market focus workshops. At one of these events last year AAFC's research branch, eastern region, unveiled 13 potential new technologies; of these 11 were judged to have great market potential.

The agri-food industry has become an increasingly active partner in research since Treasury Board allowed the department to take outside money, including financial support, retention of revenues and royalties. Industry investment in federal government agri-food research has been moved up from $5 billion in 1989 to approximately $18 billion today.

During the past year the department has run a pilot project called the matching investment initiative. The department matched every dollar the private sector was willing to put into agri-food research. Two million dollars in federal funding was put into this pilot project this year and this amount could grow substantially in coming years.

Obviously the industry would not make this kind of investment unless it thought research well worth while. When the results come in, the department does not have to waste its time looking for a buyer, because the results are pre-sold. That is why public-private joint ventures can turn theoretical knowledge into practical applications, and much more quickly and easily.

Agri-food research brings many kinds of benefits. Scientific breakthroughs in our laboratories not only add to the store of human knowledge but also help to raise our standard of living both economically and environmentally.

Consider the case of ethanol. It could be a miracle fuel of the 21st century. It is based on a renewable resource, our surplus grain stocks, and it is cleaner burning than conventional gasoline thus less harmful to the environment. Ethanol and other biomass fuels could be the nucleus of a whole new industry and a tremendous economic boost for rural Canada. AAFC scientists are helping to make this happen. Some day, thanks to them, we may export both ethanol and ethanol technology to an energy hungry world.

This is not a fantasy. There are promising projects in biotechnology under way right now in AAFC's research labs that would have been dismissed a few years back as science fiction.

Would you believe that our molecule biologists are working on a natural sweetener called stevioside that is 300 times more powerful than sugar? That AAFC's scientists are using discarded crab shells to create a truly biodegradable packing material? Genetically engineered enzymes from the stomachs of cows may be used some day instead of toxic chlorine for bleaching fabrics and paper. Not to mention the custom-made micro-organisms that AAFC is introducing for the use as natural insecticides and fertilizers.

Experience has shown that agriculture R and D is one of the best investments we can make. A number of studies done in Canada have shown that return on investment in agri-food research can exceed 50 per cent. Findings in the U.S. show similar high rates of return. It is an engine of growth in every sense and we must take advantage of that opportunity.

With the help of our partners in the private sector we should capitalize on many more such opportunities in the future.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to ask a question about the Senate but I will refrain.

The hon. member talked extensively about research and it is an issue that is important to discuss. We also have to talk about how to fund research. Quite often the check-off system is used as a mechanism to garner funds for research.

I would like to get the hon. member's opinion on whether check-offs should be voluntary or whether they should be involuntary. Does he support the concept of how the levels for check-offs should be determined, and how they could enhance the funding for research in agriculture?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it truly is important to realize how research has affected the agricultural industry over the years. Over the past 40 years every dollar spent on R and D has returned many more dollars.

At the ag committee hearings just yesterday Professor McEwen of the University of Guelph gave some really interesting observations on research and development.

We have doubled the production per cow in the milk industry. We produce about the same amount of milk that we did 40 years ago with half the number of cows. In the pork industry we produce 80 per cent more lean pork than 40 years ago using far less feed. In the 1950s it required three kilograms of feed to produce a dozen eggs. Today 1.5 kilograms can do the same job. In Prince Edward Island 40 years ago an acre of land produced some 200 bushels of potatoes. Today farmers would consider it disastrous if they did not get 500 bushels per acre. That shows the importance of R and D.

Where do we go with R and D expenditures and how do we bring those forward? It was a very innovative and a very strong move on behalf of the government to open the unique venture between business and government in order to fund research and development. In that way we can spend smart as was suggested by the minister. We have to use joint ventures in order to establish what the industry wishes to engage in, how they wish to move along the research and development, and where we wish to be in the future.

If industry sees research projects as very vital and worth while it will be willing to fund part of that effort. Therefore the major direction of funding in the future will be joint ventures between government and industry in order to move our research and development forward.

I really believe that new innovations, new initiatives in research and development are very critical to our country. Therefore in answering I would suggest that the way to fund research and development and to move it forward is for industry and government to move in the same direction with the same agendas in trying to accomplish the same goals.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I did not phrase my question clearly enough or perhaps the member was not listening. Maybe I should have asked a question about the Senate.

My question to the member on the other side was specifically about raising funding for research through check-offs. Maybe the member does not know what a check-off is. It is where you take a percentage of the receipts of an agricultural product, such as so many cents a tonne on wheat or so many cents a litre on milk or whatever and you then designate that funding for research.

My question was whether or not he supported the use of check-offs to raise funding for research. If so, how should that be administered? What should the levels be? Should those check-offs be voluntary or involuntary? In other words, should producers be required to participate in a check-off program or should they have the option of participating?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to expand the viewpoint of the House leader. He seems to be in a very narrow position on research and development.

I would support a voluntary check-off system where the industry puts in money. It has the opportunity to participate or not in the check-off system. I do not have a problem with that. However, it is very important to realize that research has a very broad base and is certainly not just restricted to commodity groups but also many other sources in the country in order to develop science, technology, research or whatever in the future.

I tried to point out how far Canada has gone in research. We as a nation should be very proud of where we have gone and where we are today. Our research is certainly above and beyond that of most countries of the world. We can sell that technology to other countries. We have done very well. If we consider from where we have come with wheat and the developments we have made, we are a very fortunate nation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is in a difficult position because the member began speaking at 1.10 p.m, and clearly his time would end at 1.30 p.m. I would like all members to be aware of the fact that if questions go back and forth for another three minutes the question will not be put today.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just a short question. If the member cannot answer the question about check-offs, I wonder what his opinion is of the triple-E Senate and how it would help the agricultural industry?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think members of the Reform Party have a major problem today in paying attention to what is being debated. They seem intent on keeping the question of a triple-E Senate in front of agriculture. It is really a questionable approach to take in the House.

However, I believe that the problem is not with the government. The problem is with the opposition. Many times I have seen the press point out how ineffective it is. That ineffectiveness is showing right now.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Immigration Act

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should regulate the testing, under Sections 11(1) and (3) of the Immigration Act, of all applicants for immigration to Canada for H.I.V., and that a positive result of an H.I.V. screening be included, under the terms of Section 19(1) of the Immigration Act, as grounds for the inadmissibility to Canada of the applicant for landing.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House and address my hon. colleagues to argue this issue, although I do not think there is much of an argument in this case.

This motion to require the regulation of HIV testing for all applicants for immigration and the barring of those who test positive for HIV and AIDS from immigration to Canada is really only common sense. However, often common sense gets lost where immigration is concerned.

Let me briefly provide some background on this issue so that all members of this House can understand the importance of this issue and the importance of passing this motion. I do not need to tell anyone in this House that HIV and AIDS, and I use those terms interchangeably for obvious reasons, is a plague whose potential for death while having been intolerable and heartbreaking has yet to reach its terrible potential.

Thousands of Canadians have been afflicted with this condition. Thousands more may be. As tragic and devastating as this disease has been in Canada, AIDS in Canada has not reached the terrible scope that it has in many other nations, primarily developing nations around the world. There are nations in Africa where estimates put the rate of HIV infection at 20 per cent or more. That is a statistic that should sadden and terrify us all.

There is no question that the prevention of AIDS has been a priority for Canadians. We have engaged in education campaigns, campaigns to clean up our blood supply, efforts to prevent those with the disease from spreading it any further. However, there is one area of control, an obvious area, that no government has made an effort to enforce, in immigration.

The Immigration Act is clear on a couple of points. First, the protection of Canadian health and safety must be the priority of our policy. Second, anyone who suffers from a condition that would place an excess demand on our social or health services should be considered inadmissible to Canada. The language in the Immigration Act is as simple and straightforward as that.

In order to fulfil the mandate of the Immigration Act the immigration department conducts routine testing of all immigrants and refugees who apply for landing in Canada. To the credit of our immigration medical regulations it is a rigorous test. Here are a few of the things that we currently test for: tuberculosis, hepatitis, diabetes, debilitating physical conditions and even syphilis. Sexually transmitted diseases are currently tested for. Those who have them are screened out with the exception of the most dangerous of all sexually transmitted diseases, the one transmitted disease that is 100 per cent fatal, AIDS.

Why? That is a good question. I have asked that question on many occasions. Here are some of the answers I have received from the department and from the minister. I have been told by high ranking members of the immigration department that HIV-AIDS is not a contagious disease.

I am not kidding. They have told me that AIDS is not contagious. Of course they went on to explain that in their terms contagious means something that you can catch in the air from someone's breath or from a touch. Apparently you cannot contract AIDS in those fashions but everyone knows that AIDS is a highly communicable disease. To say that we need not test immigrants for HIV because it is not contagious is either the height of semantic stupidity or is political correctness that could cost hundreds if not thousands of lives and untold millions of dollars.

I have asked the minister if his government advocates the testing of immigrants for AIDS. He told me that the discretion for testing and recommending inadmissibility lies with the doctors overseas.

He said that if doctors detect traces of AIDS then they can, if they want to, recommend that someone not be allowed into Canada. I am not sure what traces of AIDS means. I suspect that the minister meant symptoms.

Needless to say, there are no symptoms of HIV. There is no way other than through a quick, cheap and easy to administer blood test to determine whether someone is infected. I said cheap in my last statement because several people have approached me asking how much this will cost. The answer is not much, from what I understand.

The AIDS test is one of the most routinely performed of all blood screenings. Blood screenings are already performed on all immigrants and the cost of including the HIV screening would be negligible. Even if it were a significant cost, so what? We are literally talking about life and death.

Should someone come to Canada infected with HIV, we the taxpayers are looking at a minimum cost of $200,000. That is a minimum cost to treat each patient until death. That is a cost we cannot bear.

The risk of admitting immigrants with HIV who likely do not even know that they are infected is one we cannot tolerate. I have asked immigration officials who are currently working on a new set of immigration medical inadmissability guidelines if HIV infection will be reason enough to declare someone inadmissible if we somehow find out that they have the disease. The answer was no.

They told me the same sort of logic which only some bureaucrats are capable of that the new guidelines use a five year window of medical service consumption. If an immigrant is not expected to use more than the average of medical services within five years of coming to Canada, then they are admitted.

Thus, HIV is not on the list because someone with HIV could remain relatively healthy for up to five years despite the fact that after five years, whenever AIDS kicks in-it undoubtedly will-the costs will be enormous and the risk before that time of transmission is great.

Also, now that doctors around the world have recognized the existence of HIV-2, a new strain of the disease that often takes much longer than five years to develop into full blown AIDS, there is even more reason to conclude that the five year cost guidelines the ministry has come up with do not make sense, not for this disease. That is precisely why we need the government to take specific action on this specific disease.

Canada is currently not testing for HIV because one, it is not contagious; two, doctors need to look for symptoms even though there are not any; and three, it is not expensive to treat. That is the logic coming out of the immigration system currently.

Clearly we need to jump start the immigration department into exercising a little logic in looking after the best interests of Canadians. This motion, when implemented into the immigration regulations, will provide that jump start.

I simply do not understand why this government has held out on the implementation of this measure but on my cynical days I think there may be some special interests that have the ears of this minister and previous ministers of immigration and that have nixed this common sense measure.

In case my colleagues on either side of this House think that voting for this motion would cost them votes or would raise the ire of a significant number of people, let me reassure members that it will not.

Let me also assure members that voting against this measure would cost votes. Allow me to provide some evidence to back this up. The immigration association conducted a poll over the summer.

One of the questions that was asked of over 1,000 people nationwide was whether they think people with incurable, contagious diseases should be permitted to immigrate into Canada. The result was 77 per cent of the respondents said they should not. Anecdotally, a radio station poll was conducted in Calgary just before the summer asking the same question. This time it was dramatic, if unscientific. Ninety-four per cent said that those with HIV should not be permitted to immigrate into Canada.

When was the last time any issue received this kind of consensus? That is the point. There is consensus on this issue. Granted, I have received letters from one or two individuals with a radical agenda who opposed my calls for HIV testing. That means little when compared with these numbers.

I can assure my hon. colleagues this is a consensus issue. Canadians were shocked when I brought to light the fact that immigrants are not screened for AIDS. Now that they know, they do support the necessary changes.

However, there is more to this than simply acting on the will of the Canadian people. Of course, that is a significant reason in itself for us to act. There is also the matter of doing what is best, doing what is right and doing what makes sense.

Canadians, including the members of this House, want AIDS eliminated in Canada. There is no one who does not want to see this plague eliminated. Given that, why are we not taking the most basic, the most proactive, the most obvious measure possible to move ourselves down the road to doing away with AIDS in Canada, preventing those who carry this disease from coming into Canada?

It boggles the imagination. I do not know how many of my constituents and citizens all over the country have written to me or have personally asked me how we could as a nation be so stupid as to not test immigrants for HIV and screen them out. My answer has been that I do not know.

Why are we not doing it when virtually every other nation on earth is doing it, when countries like the United States have gone so far as to prevent those who admit to having the disease from even entering the country as visitors?

Let me note this is not the intent of my motion. There is no way to screen visitors for HIV. Nor would it be feasible to

consider doing so. This motion would only affect those who make an application either through the immigration or refugee streams for permanent landing in Canada to become permanent residents.

Let me speak a moment about the humanity of this motion. I have been criticized by one or two of my colleagues on the opposite side of the House for not being humanitarian, for not being sympathetic to the cause of those who want to immigrate into Canada and who carry HIV.

Refusing immigration to Canada to anyone for any reason is not a pleasant task. Canada is the greatest nation on earth and one of the most desired of destinations for those who seek a new and better life in another land.

For these reasons Canada receives more applications for immigration than we can accept, even though we are accepting far too many. Canada must say no to some. There is no way around that. We cannot take everyone who applies. Given this fact, we as Canadians and as a government have some hard choices to make.

We have to devise rules that will screen out some and allow residency to others. In order to write good rules, in order to devise a just and appropriate screening process we must establish priorities.

In my mind the priority that should overshadow all others is the protection of those who have already been admitted to Canada, or were born in Canada. There is no other way. We would be doing a grave injustice to our electorate if we were to hold any priority above its protection and the protection of the services that government administers for it.

When some people apply for immigration to Canada who have a disease that not only threatens the safety of Canadians but is guaranteed to place a burden on our already crumbling health care system that is nothing short of massive, we have no choice but to conclude that the acceptance in Canada of these people poses a serious safety and cost threat to Canadians. Such immigrants must be excluded so that a place can be opened up for someone else.

Canada has no moral burden to accept everyone who applies to come to the country. We only have a burden to provide a good home for those whom we accept.

We as legislators have a duty to ensure that only the best, only the most fit and only the most productive come to the country as immigrants. We have a duty to protect our constituents. We have a duty to enforce the preamble of the Immigration Act which charges us to protect the health, safety and good order of Canadian society.

Immigration policy of late has failed in that duty. People have become disillusioned with immigration policy and with the people who implement it. They do not think that the right people are being allowed in and they see too many examples of good people being excluded. That has to change.

The motion is a small step in restoring some legitimacy to the immigration program in Canada. This is a small step toward convincing Canadian people that their protection is really our top priority. This is a small step toward making the immigration program make sense.

Let us take that step. Let us pass the motion in a non-partisan manner and improve immigration. In the process let us take another step that is just as, if not more, important toward preventing the spread of AIDS in Canada.

When implemented the motion would be a significant step in the war on AIDS. No one loses. Everyone gains. The people of Canada gain increased safety and a lowering of the burden on our medical system. Legislators gain by voting yes on an overwhelmingly popular initiative. The government gains by being handed an order of the House to move on something that is long overdue. Immigrants gain by having the status of their health thoroughly checked.

It is a hard decision to bar someone on medical grounds from coming to Canada as an immigrant, but so many people infected with this disease do not know that they are infected with the disease. While we will stop them from coming to Canada as immigrants, at the same time we could very well be providing an invaluable test and invaluable information to hundreds or thousands of people who may not know they are infected.

We are not doing a disservice to those who are infected since their fate, I am afraid, is certain. However we could unintentionally be doing a service to those who are infected but do not know it.

Finally, regulation is long overdue. It should be passed and it must be passed. There is no good reason for it not to be passed. It should not matter that the motion originated on this side of the House. Just let it pass and we will know we have done our job for the day and have taken a significant step forward in the protection of our citizens and the rationalization of Canada's embattled immigration program.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from our discussions that there are still a number of misconceptions regarding persons who are HIV positive or have AIDS. Despite extensive efforts at public education it is clear that prejudices about this terrible disease and the virus associated with it remain entrenched. The motion before us reflects somewhat this unfortunate attitude.

Although I do not-and I want to make it very clear-question my hon. colleague's intentions, I do wonder if the motion is not based on certain mistaken and preconceived ideas. I would like to point out that it is incorrectly assumed by many that a positive result on an HIV test means that someone has AIDS. It

is also incorrectly assumed that AIDS can be transmitted by simple contact. What is even worse, it is sometimes incorrectly assumed that someone who is HIV positive has no further contribution to make to society. We all know that these ideas are false. Nevertheless they unfortunately continue to influence certain public perceptions.

Misperceptions about diseases, disabilities and afflictions are not new to Canada. All we have to do to find evidence of this is to examine the Immigration Act of 1952. If we examine it we will see that the question of obligatory HIV screening of immigration applicants has certain historical parallels.

Back in 1952 protecting public health and safety was a key objective of legislators concerned with immigration to Canada as it is today. This was before Canada adopted a system of universal health insurance. The issue at hand was not a concern over an excessive burden on the health care system. Nevertheless the act listed various diseases and deficiencies that in themselves constituted sufficient grounds to deny someone admission to Canada.

The act is far from subtle. It reflected the common prejudices of the time. It denied admission to Canada "to idiots, imbeciles and the feeble-minded, epileptics, lunatics and individuals who are mute, blind or otherwise deficient from a physical point of view". It denied access to Canada of "immigrants who are dumb, blind or otherwise physically defective". Attitudes about disabilities were different back then.

In 1952 they did not consider an individual's capacity to live normally with a medical condition. They did not consider the possibility of calling on medical science to control a medical condition.

Epilepsy, for example, was considered a ground for exclusion even when it was controlled. When a new Immigration Act was proclaimed in 1978 it offered, thank goodness, considerable progress over the old act, especially with respect to medical grounds for exclusion.

Two important changes were made. First, the criterion of excessive demand was added. This measure was intended to protect the universal health insurance system that had been created nine years earlier. It was designed to protect the system from becoming overrun by people who had not paid into the system.

Second, the list of illnesses and deficiencies that automatically made a person ineligible was eliminated. Inadmissibility was now decided by medical officers. These doctors now decided whether a person's condition represented a threat to public health or whether their condition would present an excessive demand on health or social services. For example, people with epilepsy could now be admitted to Canada if their condition was controllable.

We have made much progress since 1952 and I believe we should continue to progress. Unfortunately it is my belief that the motion before us today would take us back to the attitudes that prevailed in 1952.

The motion before us would specifically make a positive HIV test grounds for inadmissibility to Canada. This denies the progress in attitude toward diseases that has been made over the years. It denies the progress in medical attitudes and practice that has also changed. Above all, it denies the progress in our approach to AIDS that has also evolved.

Our laws and our institutions must reflect this progress. As legislators we must take care to dispassionately analyse and reflect on issues that are too often fraught with prejudice and discrimination.

As dedicated legislators we must take pains to avoid imposing our value judgments on others. We must take care to resist ill informed and preconceived ideas. We must be very careful to avoid being stampeded into adopting a policy that is more based on fear than it is on fact.

I want to make our position very clear. The facts are unambiguous. People who have tested positive for HIV can live for many years without developing AIDS. AIDS is not a disease that can be transmitted by simple contact. People who are HIV positive can make a significant contribution to our society. Many of us have worked relentlessly to destroy the myths surrounding AIDS. Any decision that marks a step backward threatens to compromise the considerable progress we have made over the past few years.

Our decision on this important issue has the potential to critically damage our international reputation for openness, fairness and justice. We must avoid this at all cost.

At the same time I appreciate the concern expressed about not imposing an excessive burden on our country's social and health services. This is a priority for the department of immigration and for the minister.

I am confident we can arrive at a decision that is both fair and economical. That is why the government is reviewing the extensive information we have on HIV. We will be announcing our decision soon.

I am sure my hon. colleague agrees this issue deserves our careful attention. The last time the medical provisions of the Immigration Act were reviewed was in 1978. That is why we are not about to rush into a hasty, ill conceived decision on this matter. We are devoting considerable care and attention to medical inadmissibility issues once again.

I assure the hon. member that our decisions will appropriately reflect the health care system, social justice and economic matters that concern us today. I know the hon. member, with his very great concern in this area, would not want us to act hastily. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, the House and the hon. member that we will not.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate on motion M-285 requesting mandatory HIV screening for immigrants and prescribed classes of visitors.

Section 11 of the Immigration Act states that every immigrant and every visitor of a prescribed class shall undergo a medical examination. The medical examination required under Section 11(1) is defined in Section 11 as including a mental examination, a physical examination as well as a medical assessment of records respecting the immigrant or visitor.

Section 19 lists the classes of inadmissible persons, from terrorists and war criminals to persons convicted of an offence committed in Canada or outside Canada and so on.

In its present form, the motion tabled by my colleague the Reform Party member for Calgary Northeast therefore intends to bar entry to immigrants and visitors who are HIV-positive or have AIDS. In his opinion, this medical condition should be listed in Section 19 of the Immigration Act.

The minister of immigration has already stated that it was currently possible for Canada to disqualify applicants who are H.I.V. positive or have AIDS. In 1993, 54 applications were rejected on those grounds. A medical officer needs only suspect such a condition for an AIDS test to be performed. If the diagnosis is positive, then two medical officers must agree to recommend that the application be rejected by government.

The minister told the press that the reason for refusing in such cases is not the danger for public health but the financial burden it would impose on Canada's health care system. This provision would also be used to refuse admission to people with other diseases that require very costly medical care, like some cancers, kidney or heart diseases.

The minister himself also pointed out that it would be important to ensure the reliability of tests in different countries before making the tests compulsory. As for refugee claimants, who must undergo a medical examination within 60 days of arriving in Canada, the minister surely considers it a sensitive issue, because he said that on one hand there are medical considerations and on the other a real fear of persecution.

This issue is also tied to human rights. The Department of Justice should look at this aspect of the issue before making a final decision on this.

Immigrant selection based on AIDS screening is a matter for public debate. One of the arguments put forward in this debate is that excluding HIV-positive immigrants would limit transmission of the virus and reduce health-care costs associated with the treatment of immigrants with AIDS.

To determine whether a specific minority of immigrants constitutes a financial burden on the public health-care system, we must look beyond the costs related to a particular disease. The economic burden for a given disease must be compared with that for other existing diseases on the basis of which immigrants are selected or rejected. This, of course, for the purpose of developing an immigration policy that is sensible, fair and, above all, free from any hint of discrimination.

A group of researchers at the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal recently published a study comparing the cost of treating AIDS patients and the cost of treating coronary disease. In their study, the researchers used a model to project costs directly attributable to AIDS and coronary disease over the ten-year period following the arrival of immigrants who entered Canada in 1988.

The model has three components: first, estimating the cost of screening immigrants for AIDS; second, estimating the cost of treating immigrants with AIDS; and third, estimating the cost of treating immigrants suffering from coronary disease.

The results of the study may come as a surprise to some people. It is estimated that after ten years, the total direct cost of HIV-related health care would be $18.5 million. Over the same ten-year period, the total cost of treating immigrants suffering from coronary disease would be $21.6 million.

There is no effective screening method for detecting an increasing risk of developing clinical coronary heart disease. However, excluding all immigrants over the age of 50 years old would potentially save $14 million of the expected $21.6 million in cost attributable to coronary heart disease.

With regard to the reliability of the testing itself, we know it is not 100 per cent sure. In fact, three consecutive tests are needed to confirm positive HIV infection in a person. This process, time consuming and costly, will fail to detect close to 10 per cent of HIV carriers.

The study I am talking about assumed the testing to be done in Canada so that the false results could be reduced. How could the Canadian government possibly control the quality of testing in other countries? A similar problem produced itself in 1981 when

costly testing for intestinal parasites in prospective immigrants were abolished partly because of the inability to control the quality of testing in overseas laboratories.

All of these facts speak clearly against the introduction of AIDS testing of prospective immigrants and refugees. I have not even spoken about ethical considerations, which would seem just as important in the discussion. After all, applying a criterion for one disease and not for another is simply discriminatory. Testing for AIDS would also reinforce stereotyping and discrimination for prospective immigrants or refugees, whether it be in this country or the country they would be forced to return to.

The spreading of AIDS must not be labelled as originating from visitors or new residents to this country, but must rather be seen in its global context. In other words, if the Canadian government were to impose obligatory AIDS testing, how could it justify not spending an equal amount of tax dollars on educational programs aimed at preventing the spreading of this disease? Prevention is the only way to control AIDS, which is surely better than spending millions on a testing which gives absolutely no concrete results.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this motion.

For all these reasons the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this motion.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your kind consideration. I am pleased to debate the private member's motion put forward by the member for Calgary Northeast which in essence asks the government to make it mandatory to test applicants for immigration to Canada for the AIDS virus, also known as HIV.

Because of its severity, its infectious pandemic nature, the lack of a preventive vaccine and an effective treatment, AIDS had in the past engendered a great deal of fear among the general public, employers, insurance companies, schools and even health care workers.

Today the very mention of the term AIDS which once struck fear into the hearts of almost all still frightens some. Fear can elicit two opposite behaviours. It can compel one to take preventive measures, which is laudable, or it can drive out the compassion one would normally feel for those living with the disease, which would be a tragedy.

Fear of AIDS was often based on misunderstanding or misinformation. But as research adds to our knowledge and understanding of HIV and as public education dispels the myths which surround it, much of that fear has now subsided. Compassion for the patients and the victims of the virus has returned. I am therefore concerned that the motion before us and the action it proposes play upon the unfounded fears of the past.

The motion could resurrect public misunderstanding about HIV and cause undue panic and unnecessary suffering without serving any public health good. This misunderstanding could be directed toward immigrants even though immigrants now in Canada are no more likely to test positive for HIV than are Canadians born in this country.

I am concerned that we might unwittingly or wittingly stir up resentment against immigrants without achieving any benefit to public health and safety or to our health care system. We need to keep things in perspective.

Medical experts do not consider HIV to be a threat to public health or safety in the same way tuberculosis is or smallpox once was. I have more reason to fear being in the same room with someone who has a common cold virus than I do being near someone who is HIV positive.

HIV cannot be transmitted through casual contact as a cold can be. Even close contact as happens with health care workers and their patients is a very low risk activity. I certainly will not be infected by a chance contact with an immigrant or foreign visitor who has HIV.

Canada's public education campaign has been successful. I would like to think that the times when innocent children born with HIV were barred from schools are far behind us.

The private member's motion now before us which calls for mandatory testing of immigrants for HIV and the automatic inadmissibility for those who test positive is truly a regressive move. This motion would be a throwback to those dark days of the early eighties when our understanding of AIDS was still in its infancy.

Does the action the member proposes make more sense than barring those living with HIV from schools, from the workplace, from public transportation? Does the action make more sense than simply testing the 28 million citizens of Canada today? I submit it does not.

If the entrance of HIV positive individuals into Canada would pose a threat to Canadians, would the member then take the next step and propose mandatory testing as part of the criteria for obtaining a visitor's visa to the country? What of the open border that separates the United States from Canada? Is the member also proposing HIV testing at the United States-Canada border starting today?

Is the member willing to go on record today as suggesting that all those who enter Canada, including pilots on every return trip, diplomats, tourists, returning Canadians, will need to obtain an HIV clearance card first? Has the member considered the

consequences of false positive screening tests in which healthy individuals without the virus have been deemed possessing it? Has the member imagined the emotional toll this would take on those healthy individuals?

What about false negative tests in which actually infected individuals show negative test results because of the lag period it takes to develop the antibodies? Has the member imagined the false sense of security that would result from this situation?

I wonder if the member has imagined the enormous cost it would entail to test everyone. This is a member of the party that pontificates daily in this House about cutting government costs. Has the hon. member imagined the message we would be sending our tourists and the international community if this motion were to be adopted?

If the member's chief motive is to protect the health and safety of Canadians his proposed course of action would fall flat because it is not based on knowledge of how HIV is transmitted from person to person. If the motive behind this motion is to prevent unnecessary strain on our health care system, the hon. member should recognize that this should be viewed in the light of our overall medical admissibility criteria that already exists.

We would have to ask one fundamental question: Are people carrying the AIDS virus but without the disease not different from those suffering from the disease or any other chronic health condition in relation to cost to the health care system? There is a mountain of difference.

This government is not dismissing the concerns Canadians have about AIDS, its virus or HIV testing of applicants for immigration. It is addressing them in the most constructive and progressive way possible, by conducting a thorough review of all medical testing for applicants for immigration with the benefit of the best expert advice and consultations. When that review is complete the government will take whatever action is necessary to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to preserve the integrity of our health care system.

However, until the review is complete any action of the sort proposed by the hon. member would be premature and unwarranted. Unfounded debate and an uninformed decision by this House would merely foster the kind of misunderstanding and fear about HIV that we should be working to overcome. We must refuse to assist wittingly or unwittingly in perpetrating the myths and fears that too often harden people's hearts and make outcasts of those who most need our human compassion and understanding. We should formulate public policy based on fact not fear, on evidence not speculation, on reason not political propaganda.

I know the hon. member opposite who introduced this motion would like to share the sentiment of this government and that of this member for Winnipeg North.

In conclusion, I would request that the member in all sincerity withdraw his motion until such time as we have all the scientific evidence we need to make a reasoned public health policy that Canadians want.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell this House about one of my heroes. This hero is Joseph Lister. Joseph Lister was the founder of antiseptic surgery and a pioneer in preventive medicine. He was a surgeon of some note in Edinburgh. Lister noted that in his surgical suite 50 per cent of the people on whom he performed amputations died. They passed on of an illness called sepsis. Sepsis was something that Lister did not understand.

Lister noted that carbolic acid seemed to make a difference in the cleanliness of the wound after he was done. That carbolic acid and Lister's thoughts about microbes, the brand new microscope that was just available and Louis Pasteur's work on pasteurization went together to form the basis of scientific medicine.

In a very short period of time in his life, the mortality from amputations went from 45 to 50 per cent down to 5 per cent. It is very interesting that Lister had his thoughts and ideas denigrated by much of the medical community when he first presented them.

This surgeon who is now looked on as the benchmark of surgical treatment was laughed at. During his lifetime he was able to see matters change and he became the founder of modern antiseptic surgery.

I also would like to say that modern medicine can be criticized. Modern medicine has had an effect on another type of mortality, infant mortality. Statistics show that in 1930 in Canada 89 of 1,000 babies died. In 1991 but six of 1,000 babies died.

The reason I brought this up is that modern medicine undergoes evolution and change. Thought processes alter and move. I have listened today to rather eloquent arguments for how we should ignore medical information. I stand here to say that we do so at our peril.

My good associate for Calgary Northeast believes that immigrants with AIDS should be inadmissible to Canada. I want to talk about the other medical reasons we do not admit immigrants to Canada.

I am going to compare the diseases that we do not allow people in for to HIV. One is venereal disease, which is discovered by a blood test. It is not contagious. It is infectious by sexual contact. It is treatable and is seldom fatal if treated. It is

not visible except in advanced stages. It is cheap to treat with two medicines, amoxicyllin and probenecid. But you do not come into Canada if you have VD.

Another disease is hepatitis. It is found by a blood test. It is infectious by blood to blood contact. That is, the nurse who happens to be pricked in the finger when she has taken blood from a person with hepatitis can get hepatitis. It is not visible unless the person is jaundiced or yellow. It can be fatal in some cases. It is difficult to treat at moderate cost.

Another disease is tuberculosis. It is discovered by a Mantoux test or a scratch on the skin. It is infectious. In the true sense of word it is contagious by cough or sputum. It is treatable, rarely fatal. It is fairly inexpensive to treat as well.

If an immigrant has any one of these diseases he or she is inadmissible. I am sorry, they cannot be admitted to Canada. What other diseases would cause denial of entry into Canada? Parasites, leprosy, and the list goes on.

I would like to quote the parliamentary secretary to the minister from Hansard some time ago. This is an interesting quotation on the same subject. I also want to talk about something the hon. member raised with regard to the fact that people coming into Canada are not tested for HIV and that the minister promised to do something about it four weeks ago. The hon. member should know-I thought he knew, maybe he does not know that the enabling legislation and regulation on medical matters under this department's aegis has remained unchanged for 40 years''. She went on to say:There should not be precipitous moves on an issue like this. Be careful. Go at it slowly. Do not move quickly''.

In my view if this member had not brought this issue forward it probably would have been hidden under another 40 years of deadwood and backwoods thinking.

Where is HIV if we compare it to the other illnesses that do not allow people to enter Canada? How does it stack up in terms of the criteria I mentioned before? It is found by a blood test. It is contagious by blood to blood contact. Notice that I said blood to blood contact. It is not visible except in very advanced cases. It is fatal and has no cure. It is very expensive to treat. Various comments have been made here today about the cost. The best estimates I have are costs that range between $50,000 and $250,000 for an individual who has the disease advanced enough to require direct medical care.

How much does venereal disease cost to treat? About $25 for the test, $50 for the medicine, $100 for a doctor's visit, $25 for a retest, $50 for the clinic and the pharmacy, in total about $250. TB is estimated at $1,105. Not a good comparison there.

Why is HIV different from other diseases? I want to be very frank about this. HIV is different because the medical issue has been pushed aside by the human rights issue. This disease is not being treated strictly as a medical issue, it is being treated as a human rights issue.

When the disease was first discovered medical people called it gay men's disease. Why? Because it was discovered to be primarily a disease of gay men. There was an outcry that would not allow the medical profession to call it what it was. Change the name. As the disease became better known and better understood it was found to be more common in the Haitian community. There was an outcry from the Haitian community. "You cannot discriminate against the Haitian community because it is more common in our citizens. You cannot mention that". But medical practitioners must mention that. How could they hide their heads in the sand and say that it does not exist?

We know that intravenous drug users often end up with HIV. We know that the sad and sorry hemophiliacs who must have blood products given to them often end up with the disease. We know that those poor unfortunates who contact it in surgery and other blood to blood contact also get the disease.

Lister would have looked at this issue and thought that Canadians had gone mad. We understand the source. We understand the mechanism. We understand the diagnosis. We know the cost and we know the risk.

I have treated people for illness all my adult life. Common sense tells me to deny entrance to those who have the other diseases. Common sense tells me to deny entrance to Canada for those who have AIDS.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today says that the Immigration Act should require all prospective immigrants to be tested for HIV and include a positive result as grounds for inadmissibility.

The motion seems quite straightforward, but it raises a multitude of questions, and as we analyze these questions, the subject becomes very complex indeed. The first question is why in some cases, as you know, we already screen prospective immigrants for HIV, in accordance with existing guidelines. Applicants who test positive may be considered inadmissible on medical grounds. We must therefore ask ourselves why our current practice is not acceptable, if such is the case.

At the very least, we should take a good look at the current policy on inadmissibility on medical grounds. By law, all immigrants and certain visitors shall produce their medical records and undergo a medical examination. The legislation does not list diseases that justify inadmissibility on medical grounds. The simple fact of having a disease does not in itself constitute grounds for refusal under the Act.

Grounds for refusal tend to be based on the consequences, that admitting an individual would have on Canada, whatever the nature of his medical problems.

The act requires medical officers to determine inadmissible those applicants who would likely pose a threat to public health or safety or create excessive demands on Canada's health or social services.

While there is much that we do not know or understand about HIV, expert medical opinion does agree on one thing: A person with HIV does not represent a threat to public health or safety merely because of the infection. I would hope that most Canadians understand by now that one does not get HIV or AIDS just by being around someone who tests HIV positive.

Refusing admission to applicants with HIV would have to be based on any excessive demand they might place on health or social services. This requires a judgment to be made in each individual case. It seems to me that the question of whether or not a person with any specific illness could create an excessive demand depends on many factors: the severity of the illness, how far it has advanced, prognosis for recovery or deterioration, the standard treatment, and so on. Making that kind of assessment requires a great deal of expertise applied on a case by case basis.

Members of this House should recognize that the motion we are looking at today calls for a significant departure from current policy and practice. It singles out a specific disease. It asks that we name that disease in the act and it suggests that the act should automatically exclude people with that disease without any reference to an expert medical assessment of consequences.

For the time being, I will not ask whether we know enough about HIV to adopt such measures. I merely want to point out that it would be unprecedented in the recent history of Canadian immigration. This measure should not be adopted without serious study and it should not be adopted until its potential benefits, if any, can be properly evaluated.

The physician is not obliged to test for HIV, either by the Act or the regulations, but he may do so if he has reason to believe that the virus may be present.

If an applicant's medical records or a medical examination point to the possibility of HIV infection or even a health condition that causes the physician some concern, the latter may order further testing to make a better assessment of the individual's condition.

As things stand now, testing for HIV does take place when there is reason to do so. Under current guidelines immigrant applicants found to be HIV positive are usually considered to represent an excessive demand on our health and social services. They are deemed inadmissible.

The point I want to make is not to denigrate the motion. The point is we do have an ability now to look at this and we should examine whether our current legislation is satisfactory. If it is not, we should examine this further.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)