Bob Speller

[Juno Beach Centre, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Prime Minister and many Canadian vets are taking part in ceremonies to open the Juno Beach Centre in France.

As we watch the ceremonies unfold tomorrow and the Prime Minister honours the bravery and valour of all those who served in the second world war, all Canadians should be proud.

What the Prime Minister and my colleagues in the House should know though is that $7,000 of the millions it took to build this memorial was raised by the 2853 Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps in Simcoe, Ontario. This is a group of 20 young individuals who went door to door around my riding explaining to people the need for such a memorial.

I want to show our appreciation here today in the House of Commons for the work that these 20 young individuals did. Also I hope my colleagues will join me tomorrow in celebrating the 59th anniversary of D-Day and to salute the efforts of over a million Canadians who served in the second world war.

[Public Service Modernization Act, June 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to refer to comments made previously by some of my colleagues. They essentially stated that they thought that the bill was going in the right direction. However they, like myself, have heard over the last couple of days from constituents who are concerned with the fact that the oath of allegiance would be taken out of the legislation.

I certainly have received a number of phone calls, e-mails and faxes from constituents who feel that part of the traditions of Canada, part of what we particularly in rural Canada have believed, are somehow slipping away and that their voice on this is not being heard. I want to assure them, as I can assure all Canadians, that we on this side of the House have heard them. I have had the opportunity to speak with the minister on this issue, as have a number of my colleagues. We will be looking at this issue further.

Recognizing all that the member said about the importance of protecting people who may want to speak out at times but also making sure that the government can function in certain ways, what does he feel about the practice of an oath of allegiance, particularly in terms of a civil servant giving a commitment to the head of state of a country?

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak this evening in this emergency debate. I congratulate the Speaker of the House for allowing this debate because it is very important. It is one that members on all sides of the House feel is a very serious matter and is one that was supported unanimously in the House.

Coming from a rural part of southwestern Ontario I share with members, particularly those from the west, my colleagues from the Alliance Party and the Conservative Party, as well as my colleagues from the Liberal Party, who have shown tonight by being here that they support the cattle producers and agriculture across this country. All hon. members recognize the importance of this industry to our country.

There is no question that we in southwestern Ontario may not see the size of the farms and the ranches in western Canada, but we certainly sympathize with those in the west who are struggling through these hard times with the BSE problem. I too recognize that even in my own riding there are producers who are uncertain about their own futures given the severity of this problem.

Canada is one of the leaders in beef production. Canada is one of the top 10 beef producers in the world. In Canada three billion pounds of beef create some $30 billion in economic activity in this country. This is significant not only for agriculture but for the country as a whole. It has a major economic impact in this country. I think that is why the Speaker agreed to have this emergency debate tonight.

Members have spoken eloquently about the safety and the security of the Canadian food system. That security is being upheld at this time by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It plays a very important role in Canada in assuring Canadian consumers that the food on their plates is safe. It also allows people throughout the world to understand that we in Canada go over and above what is called for in making sure that the food our consumers eat and the food that we export is some of the safest and cleanest food in the world.

It was mentioned earlier that we double the international standard of testing of animals for BSE. It is significant to let all Canadians know that what we do as Canadians and what we have asked our government departments to do is to make sure that we go over and above the international standards for testing for BSE. I believe that is a very good approach to take in terms of making sure that our food is safe to eat.

That becomes important in terms of our exports. It becomes important in terms of making sure that our international markets, those countries in the world that have chosen at this time to stop Canadian imports of beef into their countries, recognize that the standard we have set will be no different for Canadians than what it is internationally. We will not ship outside the country anything that we believe is not fit for human consumption. Our standards go well beyond what the world would expect for this.

I want to take this opportunity to agree with the Minister of Agriculture. The help from our close colleagues in the United States has been very helpful in terms of moving forward to make sure they are sensitive and understand what it is that we actually do. Even though some people in the United States may question our standards, I do not think those questions have been coming from the U.S. administration or Ann Veneman, the American secretary of agriculture. I think those other questions were more politically motivated.

When we look at the facts and what we do, and our American friends have been here and have looked at what we do, I think the standard they would look at is to make sure that we can trace all the way back to make sure there are no other animals infected with this.

It was good to hear earlier that when the first tests of the initial herd came back there were no other cases. That is significant, as we said earlier. What will be more significant and take a little bit longer is when we are able to trace back all the way and assure our friends. I am glad they were here to see what we do. I am sure they will do what they can to make sure the border between Canada and the United States is open.

As with a number of other trade products, around 80% of our beef is exported to the United States. The Americans know that our beef system in North America is integrated. It is a system where beef travels back and forth across the border. It is one I know that the Americans also want to make sure is opened as quickly as possible.

I know it has been mentioned before but I think it is very important to reiterate what it is that Canada does to make sure that we do not have a spread of BSE. In 1992 Canada created the BSE surveillance program. It has tested nearly 5,000 cattle since the surveillance program started. As I said, that level far exceeds the international standards in this area. It made BSE a reportable disease and any suspected case of BSE must be reported immediately to a federal veterinary. In 1997 it banned the feeding of rendered protein products from ruminant animals to other ruminants, meaning other cattle and sheep. It made sure that since 1997 that did not happen. As we know, it was believed that was one of the leading causes of this happening and certainly led to the spread of BSE in Great Britain. It also created a cattle identification program, or tagging for cattle and bison, making it possible to trace individual movements of a herd from origin to slaughter. I want to assure Canadians that we can trace back to when the piece of beef came from the producer right to the plate. That is significant. I believe it will assure all Canadians that we have a very safe system.

As the Prime Minister did and as other politicians have done, I recently bought beef and served it to my children, not only because it is good tasting and not only to show solidarity for our beef farmers, but because I believe, having travelled across this country and having talked to Canadians and seen the market in action, that we do have the safest and most tastiest beef that any country can produce.

I hope all Canadians will take the lead of the Prime Minister and others in this House and buy some beef. It will show solidarity and support, not only for beef farmers in this country but for rural Canadians and indeed all Canadians who I believe hope this situation will be ended as quickly as possible.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, it is real pleasure to speak this evening to an issue of importance to the people in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant. I am speaking about first nations health care.

The minister is well aware of the significance and the importance of health care to the communities in both the rural and remote portions of Canada and the important role that Health Canada plays in delivering health care services to these communities.

The hon. member across the way said that it was substandard health care. Frankly, I would agree that our aboriginal communities have many difficult problems and one of those problems is in the area of health care. I also believe that the Government of Canada can and should do more in this area.

We on this side are continuing to dialogue with the minister and the department to make sure that the proper resources are brought forward in this area, which I think we in Canada have been lacking for a number of years. However the hon. minister will know that there are success stories.

Before I go on I must inform the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

First nations and Inuit health care is provided by the Department of Health through Canada's first nations and Inuit health care branch. It tries to improve the health outcomes of first nations and Inuit. It also tries to ensure availability and accessibility of quality health services and support a greater control of the health system by building partnerships, which I believe is critical.

As the hon. member across the way said, there are challenges. We on the government side recognize those challenges. I know the department and the minister are working very hard to make sure the health services provided to the aboriginal and first nations communities are at a standard that is expected in other parts of this country.

As I said earlier, I think much more effort needs to be made. I know the Minister of Health agrees with me in that area. In fact, the population that Health Canada serves includes 721,000 status Indians, eligible Innu and Inuit residing here in Canada. Of those, about 397,000 are living on reserves or in Inuit communities.

Our challenge is to ensure that those others, those who live outside the communities that are the responsibility of the provincial departments of health, are still provided those services and have access to those services.

It is important to note some of the unique characteristics of the services that we do give to our aboriginal clients. For instance, the population of first nations is growing at a rate of about 2.2% a year. This is more than 2.5 times the Canadian rate. The aboriginal population is also on average younger.

In addition, 70% of first nations and Inuit live in communities with populations of less than 1,000. In fact, some have less than 500 people. These are small communities in remote parts of the country. As I have said, there are challenges in these communities.

However, despite these demographic statistics, the general health of our aboriginal people is better today than it was 50 years ago or even 10 years ago. These overall improvements, I believe, have been attributed to the noticeable improvements in their living conditions and in investments in disease prevention, but more particular, the importance of investing in public health in these communities.

Canadians still need to recognize that there is a significant gap in health status between our first nations and Inuit compared to the broader population. As I have said again and again, I believe much more needs to be done.

To address this gap Health Canada's first nations and Inuit branch has undertaken an extensive analysis of the situation and the services needed in these communities. Results from this analysis noted that rising drug costs and a shortage of health care professionals are specific challenges being faced by these communities. It is not a challenge that is unlike other parts of rural Canada, but it is particularly significant in the remote parts of this country where it is hard to get a health care provider to provide the service. We talk about distance learning and distance medicine and I know there are things we can do to help deal with these problems. Health Canada, in partnership with other departments, is looking at unique ways in which we can deal with the situation of the remote parts of the country.

It is such factors that really challenge Canadians today and challenge Health Canada in its ability to provide effective health programs and services to our first nations people. However I believe that the important groundwork has been laid.

When the premiers and the Prime Minister came together for the recent 2003 health accord, which was endorsed by all of them, they looked at health care for Canadians and particularly our aboriginal peoples. It constituted an important milestone in recognizing that there are specific aboriginal health care needs. It should be noted that the first ministers understood that they needed to work together to address the gap in health care services between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

It is also critically important to know that Health Canada is committed to continuing this collaboration, particularly with first nations people themselves. Who knows better about their communities and the people within their communities than the first nations themselves?

Mr. Chair, coming from the same part of Ontario that I come from and representing the largest native reserve in the country, the people of the Sixth Nations, the Grand River or the New Credit, I am sure you know how important it is to dialogue with the people of our first nations in order to understand better those things we can do to help improve the livelihood of these aboriginal communities. Health Canada needs to continue to support a collaborative approach to health care across this country. There are important aspects of what is needed to be done that is known among first nations and Inuit people themselves.

On behalf of my constituents I will continue to dialogue with the minister and work with her departmental officials to make sure that all Canadians, not only in my communities but all communities across this country, rural and remote, have equal access to the health care services that the Government of Canada can provide along with the provincial departments, and make sure that first nations' voices are heard within this dialogue.

[Journey of Hope and Healing, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on May 4, 2003, Mr. Rick Casey, a resident of Paris, Ontario, will begin an 8,000 kilometre bicycle trip across Canada to increase awareness of the need for community support for people with mental illnesses. Rick will travel across Canada without a support vehicle or companion riders. His amazing journey will lasthave lasted approximately 120 days when he reaches Cape Spear, Newfoundland.

Mr. Casey's goal is intensely personal. In September of 2001, Mr. Casey's 19 year old daughter, Kyla, died of a pulmonary embolism while a patient in a mental health unit. Mr. Casey's self-described “journey of hope and healing” represents his determination to find meaning in his family's tragic loss.

I ask all hon. members to join me in wishing support and encouragement to Mr. Casey as he completes his journey of hope and healing.

[Petitions, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with child pornography. The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all the necessary steps that are available to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia are outlawed.

[Petitions, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present two petitions.

The first deals with Bill C-250. The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect the rights of Canadians to be free and share their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the issue of Kyoto, particularly as the member of Parliament representing the riding of Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, which has large emitters such as Stelco steel, Ontario Power Generation and Imperial Oil. Also, on the other side, I represent a very rural agricultural area that grows a lot of corn and provides a lot of opportunity in the agricultural area in terms of ethanol and biomass, which is also a product of this agreement and is particularly important within the action plan that Canada has put forward.

It is also a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, as you know, with both of us having been elected in 1988, to really come back to a similar debate we experienced after first being elected, and that was the free trade debate. Both of us sat through that debate and a lot of what is being said in this debate on Kyoto is not unfamiliar to me. It is very similar to what we heard in 1988, but from different sides. Back then it was really the business community, the manufacturers, that were saying that Canada had to look forward, to move forward on the issue and not be scared by all of the comments that were being put forward at that time, probably by many environmentalists. This time we are hearing from the other side. It is the environmentalists who are telling us to take a so-called leap of faith and move forward on these issues. It is a pleasure for me to delve into this sort of debate in this place.

We heard earlier in this debate from the Leader of the Opposition that the science on climate change is debatable. I would like to question that, because it is certainly an easy comment for the Leader of the Opposition to make that somehow not every scientist in the world agrees with this. That is probably the case. Not all scientists do agree with this issue, but I want to speak about a large majority of the scientists.

I want to speak about the scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That panel reported in 2001 that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years was attributable to human activities. Its credibility has been endorsed by 17 national science academies, which concluded, in a statement published on May 18, 2001, on the work of the IPPC that:

The work of the...IPCC represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize the IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

There is a large amount of science out there, and large numbers of pure science people who really do believe, and have done the science, to say that the world is changing, that our climate is changing. There is a strong consensus. It is generally accepted, in fact, that the average temperature of the globe has increased about 0.6° Celsius since the late 1800s, over both land and sea. This was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations environmental program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The global climate is affected by many other factors, including solar output, volcanic emissions, aerosols and of course what we are talking about here today, CO

2

emissions. But none of these natural factors affecting climate change seem to easily explain why the globe is warming.

The majority of scientists now believe that the cause of the recent global warming is the human discharge in the atmosphere of large quantities of carbon dioxide or CO

2

In Canada we are already feeling the effects of climate change. I ask those who question it to look out the window. The hon. member from western Canada who just spoke can clearly see the effects of climate change in recent years .

I know that many feel we might get a warm day here or a cold day there but they really do not see the impact. However, scientists around the world, who look at the numbers and study them, have definitively concluded that there is an impact and there is an impact here in Canada. We have had a larger number of heat waves with increasing intensity and the related health problems caused by them. The water levels in the Great Lakes have been declining. Fish migration has changed. The polar ice cap is melting. The forests in British Columbia have become infested with insects. We have had hotter summers and higher levels of smog in major urban centres. We have had more extreme weather events, such as droughts on the Prairies, ice storms in eastern Canada, and flooding in Quebec and Manitoba. As climate change related events such as these become more frequent, they will have a profound effect on our economy, our health and our quality of life.

The question, though, that we need to concentrate on is how to make Kyoto best work for Canadians. For me in my area, I need to know how this plan will deal with large emitters, in particular on a sector by sector basis. We said as a government that we do not want to disadvantage any sector. It is important that we remember this.

One of the areas I have worked on, as a member of Parliament representing the steel industry, is a plan for the credit for early action of the industry because that is an industry that in fact has taken early action. I am glad to say that it is now sitting down and working with government to make sure that this is recognized and that it does become a reality. I feel that it would be important to encourage, and not discourage, these companies from taking early action and that this should be enshrined in any implementation strategy.

There was a question from many, particularly those on the other side, as to how we can rush into ratifying the Kyoto protocol when we do not know what its economic impacts will be. In this plan we clearly state that we do not need to, nor will we, export jobs or opportunities to meet our climate change goals. Our government is committed to the 1997 agreement of the first ministers that no province and no region will bear an unreasonable share of the burden for climate change and that business in Canada remains competitive in the global marketplace.

The plan, I believe, meets this test. Canada's gross domestic product will grow by about 17.5% as a result of the way the economy is moving over the next eight years. It is believed that will be about 0.4% less growth than we might have expected otherwise. The projected impact on employment is estimated to be about a five or six week delay in job creation. Approximately 1.32 million jobs are expected to be created over the period from 2002 to 2012. Using the most likely scenario, this would be reduced to about 1.26 million jobs. This means a forgone employment growth of not more than 60,000 jobs, which is about a month or a month and a half worth of job creation as we have created jobs now.

As I said earlier, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Burin—St. George's.

I will conclude by saying that there will be many opportunities also in Kyoto. Certainly within my community of Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, the farming community can look forward to us promoting within this plan ethanol, ethanol related and bio-related answers to some of the problems we have today.

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member, with regard to home care and pharmacare, that I support her view that there should be a role for the federal government. I have been promoting that idea for a number of years.

As she said, it is a collaborative effort. It is an effort where the provinces, federal government and municipalities need to take an important role. With that collaborative effort comes certain responsibilities. It is not for me to say who would best do what. That would be done through negotiation and dialogue with the different levels of government so that each level of government can use its expertise. I support her idea that we must do more in that area.

In terms of restoring federal spending, that seems to be a debate put forward by the premiers in ads on TV saying they are only spending so much. There are different views on what is real spending from different levels of government.

The Prime Minister has said that our levels of spending are back up to what they were. It was in the neighbourhood of 40% to 44%. When the provinces decided that they wanted the system changed to tax points because it would benefit them, the federal government agreed. When the provinces received all the money, they have now come back and said they are not getting as much money.

We changed the system to benefit the provinces. It is not a question of who spends what. Canadians want to ensure they have affordable and accessible health care. All Canadians, no matter where they are from, no matter what their spending power, no matter what their income, should have accessible health care available to them. I am sure through efforts such as healthy living we will be able to do that.

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I rise today to participate in the debate on the future of the health care system in Canada. I rise today as the member of Parliament for the riding of Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant in southwestern Ontario, a rural riding that may reflect different realities than other ridings throughout this country. We have a very large agricultural base. In fact I represent about 70% of the tobacco farmers in this country and their lifestyles reflect also a lot of the health realities in my riding. I represent a riding that has the largest first nations reserve in the country, the people of Six Nations. Again it is a different microcosm of lifestyles and health problems that face that community.

I speak knowing that a lot of the services we receive in rural Canada, and even in parts of southwestern Ontario that I would say are not remote, are not at the same level of service as is reflected in some of the urban centres across the country. The rural caucus of the Liberal Party made sure that Mr. Romanow in his deliberations was aware of some of the unique circumstances that we face in rural Canada.

Today I want to talk about the commitment of the government to health care. The Speech from the Throne made it very clear that the renewal of our health care system is a key priority for the government. The throne speech said that no issue touches Canadians more deeply than health care. Our health care system is a practical expression of the values that define our country. If I talked to Canadians, particularly people throughout my riding of Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, and I asked them what their key concern was, I would say it would be health care and the future of health care in this country.

The commitment of the government is to ensure that there is a comprehensive system of health care that remains publicly administered and in particular, universally accessible. As most of my colleagues know, just last week the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology tabled its report “The Health of Canadians--the Federal Role”, the Kirby report. I encourage all Canadians to look at that report. The committee consulted with Canadians, as has Mr. Romanow. The committee has made specific recommendations that I think should be part of the debate on health care and the future of health care in this country.

In late November, which is just a few weeks away, the Romanow commission will table its report on the future of Canada's health care system. Members of Parliament are anxious, as are the rest of Canadians, to get to the task of setting health care right for the future. The recommendations in both the Romanow and Kirby reports will assist our government in our efforts to do this. The Prime Minister will then sit down with the premiers of the provinces once again, as he did a few years ago, and try to work with them in terms of setting up a future role for health care in Canada.

The Speech from the Throne refers to the 2000 first ministers meeting when an agreement was reached on health care that reinforced our collective commitment to the principles of medicare, to work collaboratively to reform our system and to measure the report of our progress.

Health care renewal is by no means the single area of focus of the Government of Canada. Another issue to which we committed in the Speech from the Throne was healthy living. I do not have to tell members of the House that increased levels of physical activity, healthy eating and other preventive measures would translate to a better quality of life for all Canadians, indeed probably a better quality of life for most members of Parliament, including myself.

The burden of chronic disease on Canadian society is enormous. Currently two-thirds of all deaths in Canada result from four groups of chronic diseases: cardiovascular, cancer, diabetes and respiratory diseases. In consideration of this the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health agreed in their September 2002 meeting to work together on short, medium and long term pan-Canadian healthy living strategies and to emphasize nutrition, physical activity and healthy weights.

One key to effective, affordable and responsive health care is for governments, the health care community and individual Canadians to concentrate on the promotion, maintenance, improvement and particularly the prevention of illness. While many health promotion and disease prevention efforts have been successfully underway in many jurisdictions for some time, a more concerted pan-Canadian and integrated approach to healthy living is necessary to make substantive changes in the health outcomes of Canadians.

The aims of the healthy living strategy are to promote good health, to reduce the risk factors associated with diabetes, cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the burden and the costs that they put on our health care system.

The Government of Canada will be working with provincial and territorial colleagues to develop short, medium and long term pan-Canadian healthy living strategies that will address these issues. Together with the provinces and territories, we will hold a healthy living summit to bring together health and other sectors of government, non-government organizations, health specialists, first nations and Inuit, business and other stakeholders to the table. It is key, to get these changes, that we need to involve all Canadians because all Canadians have a stake in a healthy Canada.

A series of initial consultations with these stakeholders will precede the summit. The summit will provide an opportunity to set out specific strategies to support healthy living in various settings, one being healthy communities, including rural, remote and northern areas.

As I said, we in rural Canada need to feel we are involved in this process. I know Mr. Romanow was very attentive to the remarks that the rural caucus put forward to him. I think the premiers, the ministers and the public servants working in this area need to recognize more fully that rural Canada needs to have a larger say in these sorts of issues.

In June 2003 ministers of health will be presented with a proposed collaborative strategy for healthy living. It will include an overall vision for action; short, medium and long term objectives; key components, interventions and deliverables; and indicators for measuring progress in the short, medium and long term.

Over the long term the strategy will address a range of health care issues while initially focusing on building on health care promotion and disease prevention efforts which have been successfully underway in jurisdictions for some time.

The government is dedicated to collaborative solutions to ensure that the health of Canadians is maintained and that opportunities to improve health care are available to all Canadians no matter where they live.