Debates of Sept. 23rd, 1994

Petitions

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my third petition is signed by 115 residents of Scarborough Centre who request that Parliament ensure that current provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting doctor assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and Parliament enact no laws that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions from Simcoe Centre to present.

The first is a petition on the issue of abortion. The petitioners request that Parliament reconsider amendments to the Criminal Code.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on the issue of euthanasia. The petitioners request that current laws regarding active euthanasia be enforced.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition requests that the Government of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation.

The petitioners fear that such an inclusion would indicate a societal approval of homosexual behaviour. The petitioners believe that the government should not legitimize this behaviour against the clear wishes of the majority.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present petitions signed by over 800 people in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin.

My constituents from many communities including McLeese Lake, Alexis Creek, Anahim Lake, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Tatla Lake, and 100 Mile House all call upon the government to refrain from passing any legislation that results in additional gun control laws.

I concur with these petitions.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present two petitions duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions on behalf of the constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding areas.

In both these petitions the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide remain in force.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition representing the views of some of my constituents which I wish to present to the House.

The petition calls on the government to enforce the existing provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide. It also asks that no changes be made to those provisions that would sanction or allow assisted suicide.

On behalf of these concerned constituents I am pleased to table this petition in the House.

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

Mr Speaker, I have two different petitions to present to the House today.

I have the honour to present a petition from the Netherlands Reform Congregation in my riding regarding the subject of euthanasia. Hundreds of Canadians are in this way sending a message to parliamentarians that physicians in Canada should be working to save lives, not to end them.

I heartily concur with their statement and I trust that the Senate committee conducting hearings on this issue will listen to our collective voices.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have the honour to present is from 89 of my constituents who are concerned about enshrining the undefined phrase sexual orientation in federal human rights legislation.

They say privileges that society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex relationships.

I concur with my constituents.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I hope there might be consent to revert to presentation of reports by interparliamentary delegations to permit the very distinguished member for Ottawa-Vanier to present a report that he has on a recent meeting of one of our interparliamentary organizations.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Jean-Robert Gauthier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I was a little distracted; I was here but not quite present.

Pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian section of the International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians, concerning the 20th regular session held in Paris from July 10 to 13.

Question Passed As Order For Return

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 67 raised by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 67 be made an order for return?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 67-

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

With regard to the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIPP) administered by the Department of Industry, ( a ) which companies have been awarded financial assistance since January 1, 1994, ( b ) what type of financial assistance (grants, repayable loans with or without royalties, tax benefits) did these companies receive, ( c ) what was the amount of financial assistance that each company received, and ( d ) what criteria did the companies receiving assistance have to meet in connection with government requirements promoting defence conversion?

(Return tabled.)

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I move that the remaining questions stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion. That Bill C-49, an act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act and to amend or repeal certain other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Department Of Agriculture Act

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will now continue the speech I started before Question Period. I may recall that I was commenting on the bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, which proposes to change the name of the department and define certain powers, duties and functions with respect to research on and processing of agri-food products.

I indicated that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill, but I note, after reading the bill and listening to the minister, who explained the role played by his department in the agricultural industry in this country, that there is considerable potential for overlap.

If we look at what the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada are doing in the agricultural and agri--

food sectors, there are many activities that are practically identical. The Government of Quebec also supports farmers, promotes market development, supports research and also supports activities connected with the inspection of agricultural products.

It is, more or less, what the federal government is going to do as well. This is a typical example of overlap. And if we consider that historically, federal spending on Quebec's agricultural industry has always been less than Quebecers would consider their fair share as part of the Canadian federation, this may be yet another instance of Quebecers paying twice for the same service. They pay for agricultural research and development activities in their province and, since they pay federal taxes, they also pay for what is being done elsewhere.

If federal spending in Quebec could be said to be more or less on a per capita basis, we could say that we are not paying more to get the same services or services that are almost identical to what the federal government can offer. However, that is not the case.

If I am not mistaken, federal spending on agriculture in Quebec has never exceeded 20 per cent, and has often been considerably less.

I am not surprised, because this has been going on for quite some time in Quebec, but I am surprised that the minister failed to include in his bill a number of provisions to keep to a minimum any overlap with activities in this sector that are covered by the Government of Quebec.

I feel very much involved in this particular debate. As we heard during Question Period and statements by members, in the past three years, and especially during the 1992 referendum in Quebec, Quebecers have paid for the referendum they held under Quebec's legislation and also paid for the referendum held in the rest of Canada. Since Quebecers pay taxes like everybody else, part of the money spent by the federal government on the referendum in Canada-Regina and Toronto and St. John's, Newfoundland-came from taxes paid by Quebecers. They paid for this referendum and they also paid for their own referendum. This is an obvious case of overlap.

Quebecers understood their Premier had received assurances from the Canadian Prime Minister that they would get the money back. Quebecers believed Premier Bourassa. They did not necessarily think Mr. Bourassa was lying. Mr. Bourassa spoke from his seat in the National Assembly. Today, we are told that the word of the Premier of Quebec is not enough to prove that the federal government owes money to Quebec.

That is why I would have liked to see in the agriculture minister's bill provisions stating that the Department of Agriculture will consult with the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture in order to avoid overlap, to ensure that there are no cases where Quebecers will have to pay twice.

I would have liked to see that in the bill because I realize that if it is not written in black and white before a witness and recorded by a notary, when provisions are not perfectly clear, nothing ever gets done. So we say that even if promises were made by a prime minister, there is no guarantee if it is not in writing.

That is why I would have liked to see in the minister's bill clear indications that real efforts will be made to avoid overlap so that Quebecers will not again-as in many other cases-have to pay twice for the same service.

I will not keep the House any longer. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois endorses the spirit of the bill. We will review it in committee. In particular, we will ask that the matter of inspectors be clarified. The definition of "inspector" in French seems slightly different from that in English.

Bloc members will ask for clarifications in committee, because it is very important to convince and assure Quebec francophones that the French version of a bill says the same thing as the English version.

I thank you for your attention and let me assure you that our Bloc colleagues who sit on the agriculture committee will see to it that this bill is improved in the interest of the people of Quebec and Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, at first glance one would look at this bill and pass it off merely as simple housekeeping. Certainly as a Reform member I am in favour of any bill that would streamline and make this department more efficient.

However a couple of aspects of this legislation give me some concern. First, there is a new section on inspection services. It states: "The minister may designate any person as an inspector for the purpose of providing the inspection services that the minister considers necessary for the enforcement of any act of which the minister has any powers, duties or functions".

I certainly have some questions about this. Does this create another level of inspection police in Canada? For example, will this give the minister, through an appointed inspector, the latitude to enforce any laws in his jurisdiction of agriculture?

The second aspect is the repeal of section 6 which currently states: "The minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of that House after January 31 next, following the end of the fiscal year a report showing the operations of the department for that fiscal year".

The questions I have in that area are, first, how much will it save? If it could save significant dollars I would be the first to admit that I am in favour of that. Second, will the standing committee be able to examine fully the report given by the minister without it being laid on the table in the House?

Forces in the world today may radically change the way agri-business is carried on. New trade deals, safety nets, farm debt, to name but a few, will drastically alter agri-business over the next few years. We have a great opportunity here. Rather than just do a facelift on the department by giving it a new name, why does the government and the minister not sit down and do a major overhaul from the ground up?

We are prepared to help in this process but not in the fashion that has been suggested. Let all of us in the House, especially including the minister, go back to square one and develop policy that has been built from the grassroots.

I believe we must do more than just tinker with an agriculture bill and change the department's name. We are facing a crucial time of rapid change: on our farms, in our support business and in both levels of government and their responsibilities regarding agriculture. We are at a time of change, perhaps greater than the dominion land settlement and the emergency action taken during the great depression. We know what the current changes are. They are global trade arrangements. They are new markets. They are new biotechnology. They are less government money. They are greater worldwide food demand. They are the need to look after our environment.

In order to meet all these challenges we must do more than just tinker. We must look at what I refer to as a reconfederation of agriculture. This is our vision. I believe this vision should have three components to it.

First, as Canadians we must encourage each other to appreciate our safe and affordable food supply more. What is more important to our daily lives than food? Yet we take our abundance of supply so much for granted. Many people in other parts of the world have had massive natural disasters or destructive military conflicts that have created food shortages and famines. Thankfully we have never suffered that in Canada.

We must appreciate our food supply more. Surely we should not only see the agri-food department in terms of statistics and figures. While the industry is only 8 per cent of GDP, what is more important in our daily lives than our daily bread?

We as leaders should be talking to people about this. This is what the minister of agriculture should be doing. I would like to see him use this upcoming Thanksgiving season to give a speech to Canadians on the blessings and the importance of a safe and abundant food supply and then to encourage his fellow legislators at all levels to make sure that we protect the resource of farming and food production. This is the first element of a vision statement.

Second, we must realize how important it is to have good legislative policy for our farmers, those who produce and process our food. The basic thing we must strive toward is to make farming profitable again. Our policies must be geared toward this.

It is discouraging to know that farmers' real net market income in 1991 was only half of what it was in 1971. On top of that farmers as well as other Canadians have faced tremendous inflation in land prices, equipment prices, building prices, et cetera. Personal income and property taxes have gone up dramatically. How can farmers survive in this economic climate? Support programs have had to compensate.

Farmers want an economic and fiscal environment in which they can make an honest buck on their own. We do not want handouts. We do not want government as a senior business partner. Get out of our pockets and get off our backs, is what farmers are saying.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Right on.

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

This is the direction in which the government should be going.

The third component of our vision is that we must redefine the role of the federal government, the provinces and industry in agriculture. There must be a more clear, more precise division of responsibilities.

Our party went on record in May during debate in the House on what we feel the new arrangements should be. We are doing more work on this. Experts have told us that a brand new arrangement could be made without any opening up of the Constitution. We would need to talk to each other as players and negotiate a new and better relationship but we must streamline and stop the overlap and duplication.

We propose that the provinces have the regulatory responsibility for the management of the physical resources; land, water, crops, livestock and the training and education of human resources, youth, farmers, processors, et cetera, all the players in the system. The federal government would have responsibility for trading relationships, fiscal and monetary policy and support programs that will agree with our trading agreements. The industry would be left alone to make the vast majority of decisions related to production, processing, marketing and transportation.

This arrangement needs to be fleshed out in a lot of detail. However, I sense a real momentum and a desire building in the country to get into this. I would suggest that we take the agriculture sector and work in this direction.

I want to point out to the minister of agriculture that I appreciated his opening comments and his remarks with regard to this bill. He mentioned a five point vision. I talked about a three point vision. In many ways both of those visions have a lot of similarities.

He talked about the cross-country consultation that is being planned. I ask the question: How do you do this? How do you go to the farmers in this country and get a reading of their feelings and ask their direction? It is very difficult.

I want to encourage the minister today to become involved. There is no other way that consultation like this can work without the full co-operation and the full involvement of the minister and his complete department.

The last thing that farmers need is another consultation process with a report that gets put on someone's desk, never to be looked at. In the last few months I have had the opportunity to look at such reports. Many of them were very well done. Many of them laid out plans and policies that should and could have been implemented by all governments but they were never looked at. We cannot afford that type of consultation process any more.

The minister stated in his opening remarks that the industry has changed in the last 25 years. I certainly agree with that. We need, as the minister pointed out, a common vision for farmers and consumers right across the country.

As a farmer I can remember many times my father telling me that you must be prepared. You must be ready for any eventuality and that you must leave your options open. It reminds me of going out to do a day's field work with the tractor and not having any fuel in the tractor. You may leave the yard with the best intentions in the world of doing a full day's work, but an hour later you run out of fuel and your mission cannot be accomplished. It is simply impossible.

We must drive into the next century and not be pulled into it by other market forces. We must take the initiative as government and as industry and drive ourselves into the next century with good policies created and established at the grassroots level.

In closing I go on record again as saying that the Reform Party is most happy, most ready and most willing to co-operate with the government to build that policy. Hopefully together we can develop a policy that is good, that is right, and that is something farmers want for the next century.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's presentation and I would like him to elaborate on this: would rural development, in which agriculture is surely a very important factor, not require a much broader approach, which, as he mentioned when he talked about co-operation between consumers and producers, would also require a comprehensive approach?

As it is, much of what the federal government does hurts rural communities now, for example with Canada Post and with railways. In many cases, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and I would like the hon. member to say whether the federal government should take a different approach. What should be done to ensure that what the government does through these national corporations carries out the desire for action expressed by the Minister of Agriculture, instead of having a negative effect which destroys this good will with an excessively centralizing approach that often wipes out the efforts of local communities?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I apologize to the hon. member, I was mistaken. There is no period for questions and comments after a speaker for a party has spoken. It is all my fault. Can we take it as a representation or is there unanimous consent to let the hon. member ask this question?