Debates of April 4th, 1995

National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We will suspend the sitting until 6.30 p.m.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.24 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 6.28 p.m.)

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

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, I questioned the Minister for International Trade about the trade dispute between the U.S. and Canada over goods subject to quotas, such as poultry, eggs and dairy. At the time, the trade minister was unable to give farm producers the assurance that Canada's position will prevail over that of the U.S. Canada's position, according to which the GATT Accord takes precedence over NAFTA regarding agricultural commodities subject to quotas is steadfast and flawless.

Since the Americans never challenged the tariff structure submitted by Canada during the Uruguay Round, particularly with respect to yogurt and ice cream, it would be very difficult for them to come and ask Canada for tariff concessions for these commodities now.

That being said, the restructuring necessitated by the shift from a quota system to a tariff system will particularly affect dairy producers, 50 per cent of which are found in Quebec.

Throughout this transition period, dairy producers will have to contend with the federal government's decommitment in several areas. Of course, this decommitment will have a major impact on them, as it will affect their competitiveness in the short, medium and long term.

First, in the short term, the federal government's decision to reduce by 30 per cent, over the next two years, its subsidies to industrial milk producers will result in significant losses for these producers.

Indeed, the Quebec federation of dairy producers estimates that these cuts will result in a 15 per cent loss of revenue for industrial milk producers. This translates into a loss of $3,775 for a medium-sized dairy farm producing 25,000 hectolitres of milk.

These losses, which will result in a shortfall of close to $34 million for the Quebec industry, will also be felt when, as is the case now, there is a need to invest in modern infrastructures to compete with American producers.

Incidentally, dairy producers, unlike western farmers, will not benefit from any compensatory measure following this reduced federal assistance. Again, this shows the double standard applied by the federal government.

The withdrawal of federal support to the dairy industry will also have an impact in the middle and in the long term, since several so-called green programs, under the GATT, will be eliminated. These programs deal with genetic evaluation, milk recording, dairy animal improvement, and research.

Reducing or eliminating funding for these various programs will have very serious repercussions, because these moves not only threaten the programs that already exist, but they also affect Quebec's and Canada's ability to remain leading innovators in the dairy industry on the world scene.

While we are cutting that which would allow us to stay on the cutting edge in this sector at the very centre of our economy, the Americans are planning to invest more than $600 million over the next five years in so-called green farming programs under the terms of the Uruguay Round agreements.

What logic did the federal government use when it decided to cut research and development programs in the dairy sector, although studies show that for each dollar invested in genetic improvement or in quality control in the dairy sector, Quebec and Canada taxpayers reap seven dollars in benefits?

No, dairy producers vigorously oppose any funding cuts to so-called green programs because the industry regards them as a priority. Obviously, there is no way that I or the Bloc Quebecois can support such acts on the part of the government and that is

why I am behind the dairy producers all the way when they petition the federal government to stop dismantling their industry.

Not only is the government jeopardizing the future of our dairy producers, but it also seems that its incompetence is robbing the dairy industry of its means to grow in an increasingly competitive world market.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the comments of the opposition this evening. However, I must remind the member that his comments in no way, shape or form are related to the question he asked in the House. That is what I will be responding to because I believe that is what his constituents want an answer to.

The United States has requested a NAFTA chapter 20 consultation concerning the application of Canada's World Trade Organization tariff equivalents to U.S. dairy and poultry products. The initial round of consultations took place on March 1 in Ottawa.

We in Canada have consistently maintained that both the FTA and the NAFTA make clear that Canada has preserved all its GATT rights with respect to supply-managed agriculture goods, including the right to apply the World Trade Organization tariffication provisions to U.S.-origin agricultural goods. In our view, Canada's approach to tariffication of dairy and poultry products is fully consistent with our international trade obligations under both NAFTA and the WTO.

With respect to ice cream and yoghurt, in response to the 1989 GATT ice cream and yoghurt panel report, we indicated that Canada would implement the panel findings in the context of the Uruguay Round. In the Uruguay Round, Canada and all other WTO parties agreed to tarrify their import restrictions. In our view, Canada's tariffication of quotas on ice cream and yoghurt addresses the GATT panel report of 1989.

I can assure this House, all the dairy farmers and the opposition that we will continue to strongly defend Canada's tariffication approach on all supply-managed commodities.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

On March 27 of this year, Statistics Canada released its study on 39 medical procedures performed in hospitals across Canada. One of the procedures studied was hysterectomies. The hysterectomies that are performed on the women in my riding of Cumberland-Colchester are at a very high rate, as a matter of fact an alarming rate, the highest in the country. We have almost 1,137 hysterectomies performed per 100,000 women, when the national average is approximately 437.

In the county next to mine, Annapolis Valley, the rate is 137 per 100,000 women. That is a significant spread. Ten times more hysterectomies are performed in Cumberland County than in Annapolis County and they are in the same province of Canada.

This is a health issue. We know there are major causes of female problems that warrant hysterectomies. The number one cause is cancer of the ovaries, the cervix or the uterus; trophoblastic disease is another cause; fibroids; endometriosis; birth control in women where pregnancy would have meant certain death; and a few other reasons, such as Down's Syndrome, resulting in mentally handicapped children.

Hysterectomies are a very normal procedure, but they are an invasion of women's health. That concerns me very definitely and very sincerely.

We have tracked down the sincerity and the integrity of these numbers. They originated in the Department of Health in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and they have been tracked to the hospitals. The numbers have great significance, they have integrity and they are valid.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is, will we investigate this phenomenal anomaly, which is very significant to the invasion of women's health? Whether it is due to overzealous doctors looking for cash crops on surgical procedures or whether it is due to fundamental underlying health problems for the women of Cumberland County, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to pursue this great anomaly.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks a very interesting and a very pertinent question. It is one in which we are very interested at Health Canada, mainly because it has to do with the issue of the health of Canadians and of Canadian women.

Before I speak any further on the issue, I want to tell the hon. member that the issue of the number of services delivered has to do mostly with provincial governments and the medical profession. Therefore, that is not something I can comment on. At the same time, I can tell the hon. member that variations by region and by area may sometimes have some very valid reasons in specific interventions in health.

Be that as it may, the federal government is very interested in overall health care servicing: the type of services we get and the quality of services given across the country. We are working with provincial governments and with health care providers to find out how it is we can improve the quality of care and the appropriateness of service.

For example, the Minister of Health has just given money to the Canadian Medical Association to provide Canadian clinical practice guidelines. We need to look at the appropriateness of care to set clear guidelines and priorities for care so that we are

doing the right things to the right people at the right time. This kind of thing is what we are interested in dialoguing on, an evolving evaluation of care, et cetera.

With respect to the issue of women's health, that is of great concern to us. The minister has committed herself to looking at health issues. We have not done enough research and enough work on women's health issues to be able to assess hysterectomies, the validity of them, when they should be done and how often they should be done. We are going on very old data. We need to set up centres of excellence for women, which we are committed to, which will investigate, do the research, get the data and look at the appropriateness of care for women in this country.

I am glad the member asked the question because we believe it is something we need to look at. We have already embarked on the kinds of dialogue we need with the providers and with the provinces to ensure that we provide appropriate care in this country.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, on March 30, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development a question on the effectiveness of his Youth Strategy. Of course, since his answer was not satisfactory and contradicted his own department's assessment of his own program, I would like to get back to this matter. Allow me to reiterate my quotes, taken from page 2-41 of the Estimates for the Department of Human Resources Development.

The first one stated that program evaluations revealed no significant improvements in terms of job opportunities compared to what could have been anticipated without the Youth Strategy program. The second quote, a little further along, indicated that the Canada-New Brunswick Youth Strategy also increased participants' dependency on social assistance. Still further along, the Strategy is described as not obviously affecting dependency on social assistance in Newfoundland. Participants and non-participants alike were more dependent on social assistance after the program. Considerable money was spent.

For example, the Canada-New Brunswick agreement provides that $120 million will be spent. The Youth Strategy program in Newfoundland will spend $56.6 million. If I have the time, I would like to give you some statistics for Quebec to show that young people's dependency on social assistance increased not only in New Brunswick and Newfoundland. I will give some statistics for Quebec.

In 1991, Quebec had 116,000 welfare recipients under 30 years of age. In 1995, we now have 140,000 young people on welfare, of whom 74,000 are under 25, if we want to correlate this with the figures from Statistics Canada used by the Department of Human Resources Development. I find it hard to understand, and I hope the parliamentary secretary will be more persuasive than his minister, that although according to a document prepared by the department, an internal assessment of this program shows there has been an increase in the number of young people on welfare, the minister says it is the best program in the world. I find that hard to believe.

There is also the fact that last year, we had cuts in unemployment insurance totalling $2.5 billion. Bill C-17 increased the waiting period for unemployment insurance benefits, reduced the benefits themselves, and also reduced the benefit period. As a result, there has been a significant increase, in Quebec and other provinces as well, in the number of people who go from unemployment insurance to welfare. The most frequent casualties of this situation are young people, because they have 40 per cent of the insecure jobs in Canada and are the first to be unemployed, and thus the first casualties of cuts in unemployment insurance. Their only alternative is welfare. I wish the parliamentary secretary would be a little more forthcoming than his minister about the assessment of this program.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for the sincerity expressed about young people. I know he is a member who truly cares about young people.

Going back to the original question about the programs in Newfoundland and New Brunswick, he said: "The results were devastating". That is why the Minister of Human Resources Development has decided to discontinue this ineffective initiative and to focus on what really works in this country for young people.

It is also important to remind the hon. member that this initiative dates back to the Conservative years. Our approach toward young people has changed quite drastically to the point at which if we look at budgetary items related to youth employment we have seen an increase over last year even though we must consider our fiscal situation.

The youth internship program is exclusively designed to help young people make the transition from school to work. Over 2,000 young Canadians will have benefited from our sectoral streams. By that I am referring to the programs launched in the environment, in logistics, in Canadian auto repair and services, electronics, electrical, manufacturing, tourism, all jobs with a

future. Also in the community and school based stream approximately 80 projects have been initiated. Over 4,000 participants have participated.

The funding for youth internship programs has been increased to $118 million in 1995-96 from the 1994-95 figure of $25 million. This speaks to the excellent record the government has established in the area of youth.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.46 p.m.)