Lynn Myers

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

You guys would not agree to having it extended.

[Diabetes, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, November is diabetes month in Canada. Diabetes is a chronic disease that has no cure and is a leading cause of death by disease in Canada.

People develop diabetes when their body no longer makes any or enough insulin or is unable to properly use the insulin it produces. There is also a possibility for women to get diabetes temporarily during pregnancy which greatly increases the chances that they will develop it permanently.

Insulin is a hormone made by the pancreas which breaks up the sugar we eat so it can get into our cells and provide our body with energy. For those with diabetes this process does not occur naturally and they are forced to get insulin injections to maintain the proper balance of sugar in their blood and in their cells.

As we all know, diabetes is a horrible disease and there is much research and work to be done in this area. National diabetes month gives all Canadians the opportunity to learn more about this disease. We must continue to put money toward research to find a cure for diabetes and at least until we find that cure, to find methods to improve the life of those battling this disease.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for the question. I reject outright his premise that we did not have a broad consensus in terms of where we are going. It is not a narrow vision. It is, rather, in the best interest of our great country and of all Canadians.

I have been amazed by the Tories since 1997. I was doing some research on this very important area. Two years ago the Tories called for cutbacks of $35 million from Transport Canada, and here they are today wanting to argue the other side. Can we imagine calling for those kinds of cutbacks and now arguing the other side?

I was reading not so long ago in the Montreal Gazette that the member for Cumberland—Colchester accused the minister of changing the ground rules to favour the Onex takeover bid. It is truly amazing that those Tories who wreaked havoc when Mulroney was in power are trying to do things today which are totally at odds with what we as a government are doing in a very effective and promising way for Canadians. Such nonsense will not be tolerated by the Canadian people.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

It is important that we on the government side, however we do it, elucidate clearly what we are saying and how we are going about this very important process, unlike the sovereignists opposite who seem to flail around and do not quite focus on this all important issue. I can tell the House that we have nothing to learn from those people over there.

I think back to the 1980s when Quebec Air was nationalized by the then Parti Quebecois. What did it do then? Did it consult with the people? Did it take a look at what should happen? No, it barrelled ahead and did all kinds of outrageous things.

Now those members on the other side are trying to tell us what we should do now. It is outrageous that they would sit in their seats and try to make that kind of pretension because they do not practise what they preach. All they do is flip-flop around and make all kinds of nonsensical issues in the best interest not of Canada, not of Quebec, but of their own small minded way.

Canadians will have no part of that because they saw through them in what they did with Quebec Air in the 1980s, and what they are preaching today is nothing but phony, phony, phony.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion to affirm the 10% limit on individual holdings of voting shares in Air Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

I want to remind the House that on October 26 the transport minister issued a policy framework for the restructuring of the airline industry in Canada in which the percentage limit on individual holdings of Air Canada was addressed. In his remarks to the Standing Committee on Transport the minister reiterated the government's willingness to consider increasing the limit to a new level, to be decided following input from parliamentarians, if such a measure were to contribute to achieving a healthy Canadian controlled airline industry.

That is important. A healthy and viable industry is one in which airlines are financially fit and competing both domestically and internationally. However, in view of the circumstances in the air travel marketplace, a restructuring of Canada's airline industry resulting in one dominant airline appears likely.

Confronted with the probability of major changes to the airline industry, Canadians have been very active and vocal in expressing their views and concerns, and rightfully so. The transport minister and his officials have met with numerous direct stakeholders, have consulted with interest groups and members of the public and have received views through correspondence and other ways of getting in contact. A wide of variety of important concerns have been expressed by Canadians confirming the need for a clear government role in any restructuring of the airline industry.

I am proud to say that the government has listened carefully to Canadians and has developed a framework outlining our approach to protecting the public interest.

One aspect of the public interest that has received substantial attention is the predicted lessening of competition as a result of a major consolidation of airlines. Most Canadians want Canada's airline industry to be competitive. We have heard that and we have listened. They believe that competition is an effective way to ensure reasonable airfares and good quality air service. The government continues to agree with Canadians in this regard.

Early in the process the transport minister solicited the assistance of the Competition Bureau. The commissioner of the bureau submitted his report on October 22 to the Minister of Transport. The commissioner's analysis and recommendations were thoroughly considered by the minister, as a study of the policy framework will show.

The government is committed to fostering as much competition as possible in the airline industry in Canada. That is precisely what we are doing. We are convinced that reducing the barriers to market entry for new carriers and encouraging existing carriers to expand into new markets will mitigate the expected lessening of competition that may result from a consolidation in the industry. That is why the Minister of Transport announced the government's intention to take policy and regulatory steps to address competition issues.

Frequent flyer programs, for example, that have a significant influence on the air services that consumers choose, are a concern for competition. Other carriers would be greatly disadvantaged if they could not offer or redeem points in a dominant carrier's plan. The potential negative effects could be mitigated by allowing any domestic carrier to purchase points in the dominant carrier's frequent flyer plan at a reasonable cost, or by the dominant carrier's participation in independent loyalty programs.

The great majority of flight bookings still go through travel agents. If agents are constrained from booking on other airlines for fear of not achieving the target set for their override commission by the dominant carrier, competition would be undermined. The government will examine ways to address the anti-competitive effects of this issue while recognizing the potential impact on travel agent revenues.

Any restructuring of the airline industry is expected to include some rationalization of services, particularly in the domestic market, such that the dominant carrier may no longer need all the aircraft in its fleet. These aircraft, already certified for safe operation in Canada, might be very attractive to other Canadian carriers. There is a risk, however, that the dominant carrier would prefer to divest any surplus aircraft offshore. If rights of first refusal for surplus aircraft on reasonable commercial terms were offered to an interested party in the domestic market during the restructuring process, this could assist in fostering more consumer choice.

Independent airlines may have little choice but to work with the dominant carrier when their passengers need a connecting flight to get to their final destination. A smooth exchange of passengers and their baggage, however, requires the co-operation of the dominant airline. If access to feed traffic and interlining were offered to unaffiliated regional and chartered carriers on commercially reasonable terms, this could help regional carriers to continue to function effectively. This is certainly a goal of the government.

Both major airlines have developed close commercial relations with regional affiliates or partner airlines to ensure that smaller communities are well integrated into their network. After all, that is what Canada is all about.

In these arrangements it is common for the larger carrier to provide such essential services as airport slots and facilities, aircraft leases, reservation systems, ticket processing, revenue collection and accounting. However, it is not clear whether all of the smaller regional carriers will remain connected to the dominant carrier in any restructuring. If any do not, they will need a period of adjustment so that they may replace essential services previously provided by larger partners.

For regional carriers formerly dependent on one of the two major carriers for essential services, if the dominant carrier were to continue to provide these services for a reasonable period of time at prices no less favourable than currently in place, this would help ensure continued service. Where feasible, the dominant carrier might also continue to provide items acquired through volume purchasing such as fuel, spare parts, aircraft leasing and insurance for a reasonable transition period.

Preventing excessively aggressive competition activity by a dominant airline will be a priority for our government, as will be ensuring smaller airlines reasonable access to airport facilities and services and to computer reservations systems.

The government has made it clear that in the new process the Competition Bureau will review any specific proposed merger or acquisition with regard to competition issues. The results will be taken into account by the Minister of Transport who will make a comprehensive recommendation to the governor in council.

These government initiatives regarding airline competition, in my view, are measured and reasonable to accomplish the policy objectives. Certainly they are in the best interests of Canadians wherever they live.

In closing, as stated in the government's October 26 policy framework statement, regardless of how things evolve in terms of airline industry restructuring in Canada, the government is intent on ensuring that the public interest remains paramount and is protected. The government is confident that the entrepreneurial spirit of Canada will remain strong and that competitive air services will develop and provide real options for travellers.

The government is also confident that the House and Senate standing committees will provide useful advice on the implementation of remedies for competitive issues. As well, these committees have been requested to provide their views on this issue.

I believe that parliamentarians in this House should be given a chance to provide views on this important issue. I oppose the hon. member's motion to make a decision on the issue today. We need to let the process take its course. I think that is what Canadians want and it is what all of us need.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

We on the government side have strongly supported the Canadian Wheat Board over the years and will continue to do so in a very effective and strong fashion. Recently the kinds of changes that we have implemented support the Government of Canada's position in this all important area, fully understanding how important that wheat board is to Canadians.

I fail to understand from the Reform Party where exactly its principles are and what is left of them when it comes to agriculture. I was astounded to listen to the Leader of the Opposition, or more to the point not to listen to the Leader of the Opposition through the whole last session of parliament. How many questions were asked in this House by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to agriculture? The answer is one. Imagine, of all the questions that could have been asked, only one measly question was asked about agriculture. The Reform Party really has to get its act together with respect to this all important area.

I was surprised that the very person who is moving this motion today, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, was quoted not so long ago as showing compassion for our pork producers when the bottom fell out of the market. He told the CBC program Politics on November 30, 1998 that cattlemen do not go crying for aid every time the price of cattle goes down and neither should the hog industry.

Where is the compassion? Where is their sense of what is right for the agricultural sector? It is not there and Canadians see through it every time.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the member opposite for the question. He speaks of vision, leadership and direction.

Need I point out to him that in 1997 the New Democratic Party had a shopping list of $17.6 billion in additional spending? How much of that was geared toward subsidy for agriculture? How much was geared to help our farmers? A measly $11 million.

Imagine that they would now support leadership and direction when they had absolutely nothing to say about agriculture and the supports necessary.

Shame on the NDP.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity to enter this debate to provide some of the details on the government's response to this very serious financial situation facing Canadian farmers.

I feel very strongly about this issue for two reasons. First, in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington approximately 30% to 35% of the wealth generated is as a result of agriculture and agribusiness. Second, I still live on the family farm and therefore have firsthand experience about what it is like in this kind of situation. It is very important that we detail it in an effective and progressive manner and that is precisely what we are doing today.

While overall the agriculture and food sector is strong and makes a significant contribution to the Canadian economy, the government knows very well that the past year has not been an easy time for many of our producers and farmers. As the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explained recently, Canadian farmers encountered problems last fall when the prices in the Asian economy hit North America. That situation was compounded by declining commodity prices, a low Canadian dollar and unusually difficult situations that occurred, especially the flood and drought conditions in certain areas of the country. All these things combined to make for a serious impact on the income of many producers, particularly those in grain, oilseeds and hog operations.

In response to that situation the government moved to the aid of Canadian farmers by introducing the agriculture income disaster assistance program, AIDA. Funded 60% by the federal government and 40% by the provinces, AIDA is providing $1.5 billion over two years to those farmers in need. That funding is in addition to the $1 billion the federal and provincial governments contribute each year to the safety net programs, including crop insurance and the net income stabilization account which cushion farmers during difficult times, and those programs which invest in marketing research and other initiatives which serve to strengthen the sector.

Working closely with farm organizations and farmers themselves, the federal and provincial governments designed AIDA to be a national program which would be as inclusive as possible, open to all farmers in all commodity areas in every region of Canada.

AIDA uses an individual producer's revenue and expense information from tax returns to calculate payments. The applicant's gross margin, that is, the allowable revenues from all commodities minus allowable expenses, is compared with the average from the three previous years to determine the amount of assistance available through AIDA. The farmer is entitled to a payment that brings his or her income up to 70% of the previous three year average.

AIDA was also designed so that governments could offer assistance to new or beginning farmers. That is crucial because we need to help our young people in this regard. Special procedures were put in place so that producers who had just started were able to apply for the program even though they may not have had the historical information necessary for the calculations.

AIDA has proven successful in helping Canadian farmers to withstand the current crisis. The numbers speak for themselves. Up to October 20, over 54,000 applications had been received. More than $220 million is now in the hands of more than 16,000 farmers across the country, with average payments amounting to about $14,000 per producer.

Saskatchewan is perhaps the province most affected by this crisis. I was in Saskatchewan this past summer and saw firsthand the kinds of situations the farmers are facing. More than 6,800 farmers in that province have been paid over $72 million. In Ontario where the provincial government is administering the program, more than $61 million has gone out to 4,200 producers.

The impressive number of applications means that Canadian farmers will use most, if not all, of the $600 million available to deal with reduced incomes in 1998. This money will ensure that farm incomes for 1998 are brought close to the previous five year averages.

In a move to ensure cash continues to flow to those farmers in need, the government has also made advance payments available from AIDA 1999. This allows farmers to get 60% of their estimated entitlement without having to wait to file their income forms next February. A total of $900 million in funding is available in 1999, the second year of the AIDA program.

In provinces where the Government of Canada is delivering the AIDA program, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, application forms for 1999 have been available since the beginning of September. I encourage all of those who need money soon to submit an application as quickly as possible.

There are those in the opposition who want the government to throw out this successful program and replace it with an acreage payment. Some on the prairies are demanding up to $80 per acre. The Government of Canada has not and will not implement such a program for three very good reasons.

First, acreage payments would go to all the producers regardless of need. This would not be fair to those who have suffered from some of the worst declining market conditions for a long time. Again the AIDA program is targeted at those in need.

Second, if we were to cover all land, an $80 per acre payment would cost up to $5.2 billion in Saskatchewan alone. To be fair, the payment would not just be offered to Saskatchewan producers.

Third, any ad hoc programming that is not disaster based and that does not treat all farmers equitably would violate our international trade obligations. If we were to implement this type of program we would be subject to countervail activity from our major trading partners, especially from the United States. The government cannot act irresponsibly in this regard and it will not.

AIDA is trade friendly because it treats all farmers in financial need equitably regardless of what commodity they grow or what province they live in. However the Government of Canada realizes that AIDA is not working for everyone. We realize that some producers have had several back to back years of low income, primarily due to repeated drought or flooding conditions. It is for this reason that the minister's national safety nets advisory committee was asked to recommend changes for the second year of the program. That advisory committee incidentally is made up of representatives from all the major farm commodity groups. The government is now considering its recommendations and will proceed accordingly.

The Government of Canada is committed to Canadian farmers, as well we should be and as we are. We are working to improve conditions for producers on many fronts including in the upcoming World Trade Organization talks where we will put forward a strong position which represents the broad trade interests of the entire agriculture and food sector.

We will continue to support farmers with effective and flexible safety nets. Dialogue continues with the provinces and farm groups on options for the long term renewal of a safety net package and a permanent disaster program. We will continue as we should to push for changes on the international front to level the playing field so that our farmers can compete on the same footing as their American and European counterparts. World Trade Organization talks in Seattle in December will be a major stepping stone toward our goal of subsidy elimination.

We will continue to invest in research and development so that the industry will be further strengthened by adopting new technologies which enhance food production and help the industry to develop new products and technologies that allow new uses to be made of existing products. In addition we will continue to support diversification in an effort to foster self-reliance and improved competitiveness.

All of our efforts will result in a strengthened agri-food sector and a strong and vital rural Canada. That is what all of us on the government side are working toward. We think it is important. We understand the importance of rural Canada to this great country of ours.

As the Speech from the Throne indicated, this government is committed to building a higher quality of life for all Canadians. That includes helping the agricultural sector to deal with this very difficult income situation. We know that AIDA has made a difference and has made significant contributions so far and will continue to do so in the months and years ahead.

I applaud the government. It is appropriate that we let it be known to Canadians wherever they may live in this great country of ours that is the position of the Government of Canada.

[United Nations Day, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on October 23, the eve of United Nations Day, citizens around the world are organizing a vigil. Their goal is to put pressure on their respective governments to provide adequate funding for the United Nations.

Many national governments do not pay their dues to the United Nations, which seriously weakens many organizations in that body. For example, the United States alone owes more than $1 billion in dues. Canada is in the minority, having no debt toward the United Nations.

This vigil has been organized for the past three years. In 1998 it was hosted in 42 cities around the world. This year the event is called the millennium mobilization, to recognize the entry of the United Nations into the 21st century. It is an organization which has done much to help our intergovernmental relations, to help rehabilitate war torn countries, and to fight poverty and starvation.

The United Nations needs not only moral support from its members but also financial support to continue its projects and programs. Therefore I urge all members of the world body to contribute accordingly.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question. I have read the existing legislation and I am also very cognizant of the new proposed legislation.

When the government launched the strategy to look into the whole youth justice initiative and the renewal we are now presenting we certainly looked at the Quebec model as a model that had a lot to offer in terms of what it represented for Canada and Canadians, wherever they are.

So it is that we incorporated those kinds of facets into the new legislation, recognizing that we have a lot to share and a lot to offer. We did so in a spirit of co-operation, knowing that for young people across Canada we could bring the best from all areas including Quebec and do so in a very positive way.

That is exactly what we have done. We have done the kinds of things that are necessary for our young people to put systems in place that benefit them and society as a whole.