Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1999

The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, October 28, 1999, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 51

[The Speaker]

Order, please. May I gently remind members that our practices in the House of Commons are such that when the Speaker has begun to read whatever the motion is that day, if members are not past the curtains and in their seats, they should not be voting. Similarly, if a member has voted, it is always best to remain in his or her seat until the vote is taken because it causes a little of confusion. I would appreciate it if we could do that.

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 52

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion defeated.

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

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, on September 21 of this year a terrible earthquake struck the island of Taiwan. That earthquake left more than 10,000 people either killed or injured and over 100,000 people homeless.

Immediately following the earthquake many countries sent rescue teams to assist in the process of search and rescue. Those countries included Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Japan, Singapore, Israel and many others. Sadly, Canada was not one of those countries that responded with a search and rescue team.

We actually have an outstanding search and rescue team in Canada. It is based in Vancouver, the Vancouver Urban Search and Rescue Team. The Government of Canada did not see fit to send that team to Taiwan to assist in the rescue process.

In addition, the Government of China interfered in an outrageous way with the provision of humanitarian aid to the people of Taiwan at this very difficult time. It interfered in a number of ways. It rejected the request of the Russian rescue team to enter Chinese airspace, which resulted in a lengthy delay of some eight to twelve hours. It insisted that all relief had to be channelled through the International Red Cross of China. Finally, in a very insulting way, the Government of China thanked the world community on behalf of Taiwan for the very generous response that many countries had made. This was an unacceptable insult to the people of Taiwan and indeed to the Government of Taiwan.

Not only the Taiwanese Canadian community but many others were outraged at the failure of our government to respond. The Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society, for example, sent a very strongly worded letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs stating on behalf of the society its great disappointment and anger at the failure of the Canadian government to put the value of human lives and dignity above relations with the Government of China, particularly trade relations.

I want to note as well that when I raised this question in the House of Commons on October 18 the Minister for International Co-operation stated that aid to Taiwan was not affected at all by China. That statement is totally false. In fact, as I have demonstrated already, China did blatantly interfere.

I am calling today on the Government of Canada to acknowledge that our search and rescue team should have been sent at that time to ensure this mistake is never repeated, to call on the Chinese government to stop its interference in circumstances such as this, and to review more generally our policy with respect to Taiwan's participation internationally.

Taiwan has applied to join the World Health Organization and yet I have received a letter from our Minister of Foreign Affairs stating that only if China agrees, only if Beijing agrees, would Canada be prepared to support Taiwan's involvement in the World Health Organization.

My colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre and my colleagues generally from the New Democratic caucus have called on the Government of Canada to facilitate Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization. We support full participation, but at the very least Taiwan should be permitted to participate as observers initially in that organization.

I urge the government to show leadership to recognize Taiwan within the World Health Organization, to ensure that the search and rescue team of Canada is dispatched in the future and finally to show far more leadership in recognizing—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Co-operation.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, Canada has a long tradition of responding to humanitarian emergencies resulting from natural disasters throughout the world.

This is done, depending on the nature of the disaster, through a variety of channels. These include financial assistance, emergency food aid, relief supplies and the deployment of disaster response teams from the Department of National Defence. For example, CIDA today approved $150,000 for shelter materials, emergency medical supplies and basic supplies for the victims of the cyclone in Orissa, India.

Now that the capacity for search and rescue is being developed within Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency is interested in exploring the notion that Canada further develop its international search and rescue capability as another way we can respond to humanitarian disasters.

On October 1, CIDA officials discussed the feasibility of future international deployments of the Vancouver search and rescue team with members of the team, the city of Vancouver and the Government of British Columbia.

The city of Vancouver indicated its intention to put together a proposal. The Government of British Columbia undertook to prepare a memorandum of understanding. We hope to receive these documents shortly.

In addition, as part of these efforts, the Government of British Columbia indicated that it would prepare, in co-operation with CIDA, Emergency Preparedness Canada, and the United Nations, a plan for the purpose of holding a simulation exercise to assess the Vancouver team.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am taking part in the debate this evening because of the conflicting signals that are being dispatched across the way by government officials, ministers, and the Prime Minister surrounding the agricultural income disaster assistance plan.

One movie I enjoyed was called Cool Hand Luke . There is a great line in that movie when the warden says to Paul Newman: “What we have here is a failure to communicate”. Truer words were never spoken when it comes to this program. I would like to give a few examples to support that.

When the minister of agriculture was in the province of Saskatchewan at Prince Albert last July, he refused to meet in any meaningful way with the farmers of Saskatchewan who had very grave concerns about the AIDA program. When the Prime Minister was asked by my leader to go out and inspect the flooded regions of Saskatchewan and Manitoba last July, he declined that invitation. So far as I know he has never gone there or flown over it to inspect it.

When the premiers and the farm lobby from Saskatchewan and Manitoba came last week to meet with officials in Ottawa, they were what can only be politely described as sandbagged by government officials. All of a sudden there were new numbers. They would not release the numbers.

Those numbers have been released as of today. For the record, it says that Saskatchewan remains significantly below the previous five year average and is expected to remain significantly below the previous five year average in the year 2000. Nevertheless that was reason enough to say that they could not give them any more money at this point because the numbers did not jibe.

Today I had an opportunity to meet with alfalfa dehydrators from Alberta and Saskatchewan. These folks are diversifying. They are doing value added, primarily in the two western prairie provinces. They are doing exactly what the government wanted producers to do, to diversify, to do value added and to have more folks working in that part of the world, rural development.

International prices on alfalfa have dropped far below their cost of production. The Europeans are subsidizing to such an extent that our folks cannot compete. Once again there is no additional money for an industry that is not yet mature but has been growing and has had a strong track record. We simply cannot compete with European subsidies. It is another example of a failure.

The AIDA deadline was extended yesterday for farmers in four provinces, including Manitoba and Saskatchewan, who had significantly expanded their operations. My office had a call this morning from a farm family who did not even know there was a program under AIDA for significant expansion. We were running around frantically yesterday because the deadline was November 1, only to find out after they got the forms in the mail that it has now been extended to December 31. They were running around literally like chickens with their heads cut off.

There are half a dozen examples of glaring failures to communicate effectively with the western Canadian agriculture sector. My point is that unless this is rectified immediately it will result in a very large problem in western Canada.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I would like to confine my discussion tonight to the question that was asked on October 19. I know a lot of things have happened since then to which the member for Palliser has alluded.

We are also concerned. I know he is very concerned about farmers in his home province of Saskatchewan. That concern is shared by the government. The government understands that we need a national approach. We are looking to all shareholders to work together to decide on the best course of action.

The Government of Canada and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food want to work in partnership with all provincial governments to address the income situation facing farmers in Canada.

The minister of agriculture continues to work with concerned farmer organizations and is listening to their advice on program design issues for existing programs as well as for the long term direction of safety nets.

The government has programs in place that have helped and continue to help farmers across Canada and particularly those on the prairies. The NISA and AIDA programs put money in the hands of farmers who are in need. For example, in Saskatchewan 55,900 producers have about $1.1 billion in their NISA accounts. To date, over 12,300 producers in Saskatchewan have withdrawn $113 million from NISA this year. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada estimates that AIDA will provide approximately $170 million in Saskatchewan for the first year of the program. Across Canada we have been providing this kind of support.

Members can see that when the NISA withdrawals are combined with the AIDA payments, the government is helping farmers through these difficult times.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.26 p.m.)