Dennis Mills

[Supply, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Shefford.

First, I have been listening to the debate in the House today and I listened last week when we talked about challenging the renewal of the health care system. It seems to me that the debate has always emphasized that the Government of Canada should simply write cheques to the provinces. I do not believe that is the way to go. As we design a new health care system in this country, those issues around prevention, causing Canadians to become more physically fit, would reduce health care costs dramatically.

Surgeons appeared before the committee last year and they told us that for every 10% of Canadians who increased their physical activity we could decrease health costs by about $5 billion annually.

The importance of nutritious, healthy food is a challenge in the country because, by and large, we are all insensitive to the issue.

As we begin this exchange and the resolution of our health care system, it is important for the government to send signals to the provinces that prevention must be very high on the list. I believe that in the area of prevention called the food we eat, we have to repair and rebuild our food source, and that is the family farm of this country. I appeal to the member from the Progressive Conservative Party to join us and help us build a national food plan which will be the envy of the world.

[Supply, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party today put a motion on the floor of the House condemning the government for its failure to provide Canadians with a long term sustainable plan to address the crisis in our health care system. First of all I will say that I reject the opposition motion and then I will put forward a plan that I think is central to the renewal and the revitalization of the health care system in Canada.

The national food plan which I am putting forward is something I have been working on with my colleagues in the greater Toronto caucus and my colleagues in the western and rural caucuses. We have been working on this idea for a few months and today we begin the campaign to promote it.

I feel it is important to put this idea forward in parliament because there is no greater fundamental to a healthy society than a healthy food system. We need a healthy food system which works for the benefit of all Canadians. If we do not have a food system that works as well as it can, then we cannot achieve our goals in continually working to build and strengthen a healthy society.

Key to our health is the food we eat. Fundamental to the food we eat is the quality, the affordability, the safety, the access and the security of that food.

Before I move into the details of a national food plan, I want to recognize an organization that has contributed a lot to developing this idea, FoodShare of Toronto. Debbie Field and her team understand the importance of a healthy food system to a healthy society. The team works each day to make sure that low income families, seniors and children have access to nutritious, affordable, safe and high quality food. They distribute the good food box to thousands of residents throughout Toronto. We salute them for their work.

Food is a key determinant of our health as a society and the production, distribution, ownership and control of our food system is something which my colleagues and I are very excited about presenting today through a national food plan.

We must begin with the source of our food, and of course that is the farm. I begin by discussing that source and the beleaguered state of the family farm in Canada. I will describe the loss of our processing sector and conclude by outlining some of the key components.

The farm crisis in the country is real. Never during times of prosperity have we seen a farm crisis of this magnitude. Some people blame the farmers. The message is that farm incomes are low because farmers are doing something wrong. Today the reality is that farmers are growing chick peas and lentils, they are raising wild boar, they are using genetically engineered seeds and high tech seeding equipment, but for all of this investment and innovation farmers have been rewarded with the lowest net farm incomes since the 1930s.

The farm crisis is hitting farmers all around the world, so that when one looks at the worldwide nature of this crisis it is hard to believe that our Canadian farmers are to blame or that our farmers alone can solve the problem. We must be aware that farmers are not the entire agricultural community. Farmers are one part of the larger agri-food sector, which includes input manufacturers, food processors, meat packers, restaurant owners and others.

Just think about the food processing sector. From milling to malt, from pasta to beef packing, foreign ownership and control of our food processing has been increasing. The global agricultural system is not serving our farmers as predicted nor is it serving the Canadian economy. It is not serving Canadian consumers either. For example, the price of corn has not changed in 20 years, but the price of corn flakes has tripled. Wheat prices have not changed either, but bread prices have tripled. This says something about the efficiency of our farmers.

Canada's farmers are so efficient that they can produce food for the same prices they did 25 years ago. In contrast, processors and retailers have tripled the prices they charge for their services.

Canada's food system, indeed the world's food system, while working to the benefit of some, is not working to the benefit of everyone, least of all family farms. The main reason I believe that we are in this position is because we do not have a national food plan. A national food plan is central in renewing the health care system of the country.

We need a plan that will safeguard the family farm, maintain Canadian ownership of our strategic food processing sector; one which will create jobs, protect food safety and ensure that farmers receive a fair share of the consumer's grocery store dollar. We need a food plan that puts the needs and interests of farm families and the urban families who eat the food at the forefront of our concerns.

First, we need to maintain Canadian control of key industries. Canada is about to lose its railways. We may also lose control of our grain companies. We are down to one company that is making tractors in this country. It is outrageous with the land mass we have and our commitment to agriculture that we may soon cease to make our own tractors.

Former Conservative Alberta Premier Lougheed recognized that in a recent speech when he said “Democratic control requires control over one's economy”. We are losing that control. We must take immediate and decisive action, both with regard to agriculture and the larger Canadian economy.

We must act now and immediately to renew the Competition Act. That act must assess large investments in Canada on the basis of their effects on Canada's farmers and Canada's food production system. To remain within the parameters of existing and international trade agreements we must use the tax system to create incentives for broad based co-operative ownership of vital food processing companies, co-operative ownership by Canadian farmers and consumers. This would ensure that these companies remain Canadian owned and controlled. This is central and this is related to the redesign and reconstruction of the health care system in this country.

With regard to our railways, the federal government should examine its options under the existing trade agreements. Canadian railways transport our food, serve remote communities, act as a link in our national defence system and transport Canadian minerals and forestry products. Surely when it comes to key strategic infrastructure such as our railways the Canadian government has options other than merely watching helplessly as those companies pass from Canadian hands.

Another component of our national food plan would be to ensure that farmers receive a fair share of the consumer's grocery store dollar or the restaurant dollar. There are several ways to do this. As a first step, one which will cost little or nothing, I would propose legislation which requires that every grocery item bear a prominent label listing the farmer's share of the retail price. I believe that Canadians would form a new understanding of the farm income crisis if they were reminded every day that the farmer gets only a nickel from the $1.40 loaf of bread and only 14 cents on a $15 case of beer.

I want to salute a former minister of agriculture who is in our Chamber today, the hon. Ralph Ferguson, for all the tremendous work he has done on “Compare the Share” in Canada. It has just been unbelievable. We challenge the grocers of Canada to deal with the challenge of giving the farmers their share.

The linkage between food and health care is undeniable. Because I have only had 10 minutes today, I want to refer listeners to our website, www.nationalfoodplan.com, because I am hoping that Canadians will realize that as we rebuild the health care system we must have a sound system for food in this country.

[Supply, March 17th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sharing my time with the Minister of Health. I appeal to the House, so that my speech would not be interrupted, that I could proceed right after question period. That would give an extra three or four minutes for the question period, if the House would agree to that.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of serving in the House for three terms. I have always thought that this was one of the greatest honours and privileges of my life.

I have always considered this was the nation's boardroom, the boardroom of Canada. This is the chamber where we come together to build a better Canada. Mr. Speaker, you are the chairman of this board. This is not the Prime Minister's chamber. This is not the chamber of the Liberal Party or the chamber of the Bloc Quebecois. This is the chamber of Canada.

In the last six years something different has happened in this Chamber. Through the democratic process duly elected members from the province of Quebec have come here to say they are not here to build Canada but to begin a separate country called Quebec. There have been times when I found it very difficult to deal with this situation, but I have always tried to the best of my ability to work with members of the Bloc Quebecois on certain social issues where I felt we were together and on which I think they have done a great job on behalf of all of Canada.

Last week during debate on Bill C-20 the Bloc Quebecois put forward 1,000 amendments.

Had you not been fair, Mr. Speaker, you would have ruled many of them out of order. You made this entire chamber of Canada submit to the right of those members of parliament to put all their motions through. In summary, I want to say that action ratified your fairness in this Chamber and I continue to support you.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

You are right, Mr. Speaker. The Right Hon. Prime Minister, who of course is now in his eighth year, has put this bill before the Parliament of Canada. Quite frankly this bill is a crafted jewel. I think this bill will go down in history as one of the best things the Prime Minister has ever done.

I say that because I listen to my constituents. Not just in my community in Toronto but right across Canada there is a general feeling that the debate on Quebec's separation has gone on long enough. One of the reasons the debate has gone on so long is that the separatists, the sovereignists, the indépendantistes, whatever we want to call them, have constantly used clouded questions, shall I say every trick in the book, to try to confuse their own communities.

The beautiful thing about this legislation is that for the first time we have the rules that will actually decide Quebec's right to sovereignty. No one will deny that right, but some basic rules will have to be respected: one, a clear question; two, a majority; and three, we have to make sure if those conditions are met that the political actors are put together to make that secession possible.

I have not met anyone yet who is against the notion of a clear question. Why the Bloc Quebecois would argue the point with hundreds and hundreds of amendments on a simple clause is really beyond me.

It was very interesting when we listened to witnesses. Some of the most respected leaders from the province of Quebec came before us and said that this bill is in order. Some members said that maybe they would challenge the process. Maybe they would like us to take a little longer and debate it. That is a fair comment but we are elected to lead. We are elected to govern. The leadership that is in charge right now has said that we have debated this bill long enough. It has three clauses. Let us get on with it and we will be accountable for it.

One of the leaders who appeared before us was the former prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Joe Clark. He did not support the legislation. He felt if a situation ever did arise where a group of sovereignists were so effective and so passionate that there should be an environment where ambiguity could buy the Government of Canada some time so as to delay the process of negotiating the secession.

I thought Mr. Clark's point was a good one. However he failed to realize that in this bill, in the third clause, we have actually enshrined a structure whereby lots of time can be taken before a secession would be possible. In other words, we could argue that clause 3 creates an environment of debate and ambiguity. The reality is that it will take us years before we can decide on the ground rules. Maybe in that period of time people in Quebec will have had the opportunity to assess if they really do want to leave this great country.

That is one of the special features of this bill. Even if there was a clear question and even if there was a clear majority, it would literally take years and years. There are people who essentially at the moment are focused on ripping this country apart. It would give us time and it would give the political actors in Canada the time to possibly drag this out until we put the right type of people in place through the electoral process.

That is one of the genius components of the bill. One could argue it actually enshrines ambiguity. That is the irony of it: the clarity bill that enshrines ambiguity.

I want my friends in the Bloc Quebecois to know that I have spent most of my political life working with people not just from my province and other provinces across Canada, but men and women from Quebec. There is a lot more to achieve by their constituents being part of this great Chamber and being part of this great country rather than continuing to knock on the door of separating them from this great nation.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I listened to many members of the Bloc Quebecois talk this afternoon to this bill. Listening to them, I have the feeling that they feel that unless people are from Quebec they cannot really relate to their vision of where Quebec should go, and unless people totally support their view of this bill, then those people have had no association with or understanding of their province.

It was 20 years ago this month that I was invited to Ottawa to work, and that invitation came from a Quebecer. That Quebecer was sitting in the House of Commons with 74 out of 75 members coming from Quebec. That member of parliament, the then prime minister of Canada, went on in May of 1980 to decisively win the first referendum in the province of Quebec with a vote of almost 60-40.

In 1984, after Mr. Trudeau resigned, I decided to support another Quebecer who had served the parliament of Canada for many years. The Right Hon. Jean Chrétien did not win the leadership of the party then, but—

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Members of the New Democratic Party point to our Minister of Health and ask for lump sum transfers of money to the provinces, but that is not the right way. I think the Minister of Health has it right. He has said that he will sit down with the provincial ministers to negotiate a plan.

This is not a partisan issue. I would appeal to all members to approach their premiers and let us cause them to think creatively on how we can bring down health care costs. Let us get into the prevention business. Anybody can write a cheque.

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

That is what the motion says. The motion says, announcing within one week of the passage of the motion a substantial and sustained increase in cash transfers. The NDP did not even put an amount on it. It did not put an amount on what it would give. I would not give my dear friend Brian Tobin a blank cheque.

Let us stop talking about money and start talking about creative ideas. What about mobilizing people to become more physically active? What is wrong with that?

I say sincerely that I do not believe there is a single member of parliament who wants to be sitting here with a fragile health care system, and we all admit it is fragile.

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

The member for Saint John is another member for whom I have immense respect, but I say to the members opposite that this is not just about sending money to the provinces.

In my community, in downtown Toronto, a young man died in an ambulance because he could not get admittance to a hospital.

When my constituents listen to us talk, I think most of them would be lost in all of these numbers: billions here, hundreds of millions there.

In no way, shape or form am I trying to put down my constituents or members, but I think we are going at this issue the wrong way. The member for Durham talked about this the other day. We should be talking about re-engineering the health care system. We should be going back to Emmett Hall's report to give our whole system a health check. I have not heard one speech in the House today which mentioned health prevention. How much emphasis do we put on health prevention in the debate today?

I will give a couple of specific examples. A year and a half ago, in our sport committee where we were looking at the importance of having a physically active nation, we were told that men and women should spend at least half an hour a day doing some physical exercise. The best doctors in our country appeared before us. Those surgeons had studies that were ratified not only by our best, but by the best in the world, which stated that if we could increase Canadians' commitment to physical activity an additional 10% we could put downward pressure on health care costs within 18 months to the tune of $5 billion annually.

As a government we have a responsibility to mobilize the people of the nation to become more responsible toward themselves and to become more physically active. Again I will go back to my colleague from Durham. This is not just about giving Premier Harris or Premier Tobin blank cheques. It is not about that.

I would not give anybody a blank cheque in this area because it would delay the process of re-engineering the system. We need to go back to Emmett Hall's report, take some of those principles and reapply them.

What about the whole realm of alternative medicine? What about mental health? What about the environment?

When will we talk not only about sending cheques here or sending billions there? When will we have a debate on the creative things we can do as members of parliament, as the House of Commons of Canada, which we can bring to the ministers of health and the premiers of the provinces? We all have a part to play. I do not think we are talking about it enough in the House. All we want to talk about is sending cheques here and there. Is that what the House of Commons has become, a cheque writing machine?

We have many intelligent men and women in the House and we should be using our brains to put forward creative ideas. Where are the creative ideas on fixing the health care system? To quote my colleague from Durham, we should be re-engineering the system. Is there anyone who disagrees that we have to re-engineer the system?

We have heard the notion of Premier Klein wanting to privatize the system. Let me tell my colleague from Cape Breton that with all of the eye surgery that was done in the province of Alberta, all the analyses show that private clinics cost more. One of the things that makes this country great is the fact that everybody has access to the health care system. That is one of our trademarks as a nation.

The notion that we would create an environment where premiers would be allowed to experiment with private health care boggles my mind. NDP members would give blank cheques to Premier Harris and let—

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to participate in this debate. I have always held a very high level of respect for the New Democratic Party and its commitment to this issue, but the notion that it would, without any discussion or exchange of ideas, want an immediate, substantial and sustained increase in cash transfers to the provinces absolutely boggles my mind.