Dick Proctor

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me as well to speak to Bill C-54, an act to promote physical activity and sport.

As we indicated yesterday when the bill was being discussed, we are in support of the bill, as are all the opposition parties.

At the outset I want to pay tribute to the current minister of amateur sport and the previous minister of amateur sport, both of whom are in the House today, and indeed the member for Toronto--Danforth who chaired the committee and who has contributed a lot to the point that we are at here this afternoon.

I believe that both sport and physical activity, in whatever forms they take, are extremely important. There is a strong connection between sports and physical activity and good health and self-esteem. That applies not only to all of us but to young people in particular.

As an aside, I had the privilege, as the member of parliament for the district, of being at Notre Dame college in Wilcox, Saskatchewan on Saturday where about 65 students were graduating. It was fascinating for me to see the number of students who received both academic and athletic scholarships and bursaries totalling more than $1 million. It is an incredible amount of money. It is a real tradition. However Athol Murray College of Notre Dame is not just a sports factory. Many students received scholarships and bursaries based on their academics.

There is a motto at the school that I think is good for the students and certainly good for everyone who was in attendance. The motto reads as follows:

What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are far less important than what lies within us.

I think that is particularly true for young people.

The proposed legislation is an act to promote physical activity and sport. The bill is intended to replace and update the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act of 1961. It is intended to bring people, organizations and governments together with the goal of encouraging, promoting and developing physical activity and sport in Canada.

The bill would replace the old act which was passed in 1961. It positions physical activity as a critical determinant of health, which is extremely important. It responds to the expectations of the sporting community. It harmonizes with other industrial countries and entrenches the government's objectives related to physical activity and sport, and facilitates alternative dispute resolutions in sport.

The bill recognizes the importance of physical activity, as I have indicated. It increases the awareness of benefits of physical activity by encouraging participation and the co-operation among levels of government, people engaged in physical activity, the sporting community and the private sector.

I think the vast majority of us who compete in the political arena have probably grown up competing in the sporting arenas, as do our children. Unfortunately there are far too many of us who are not as physically active as we should be--

I do want to pause here to say that there are some individuals who would like to participate in sport and are unable to participate in sport because they are not in a financial situation to do that.

I was listening when the minister in his address this morning said that sport is everyone's business. It should be everyone's business but unfortunately there are people who lack the financial resources to participate in an organized sporting activity, and I think that we need to be concerned about that.

I now want to talk a little about the other side of the inactivity that leads to obesity. We are told that at least 13% of Canadians, more than 3 million people, are obese. That is defined as having more than 30% body fat. This number, as discouraging as it is, tripled between the period of 1985 and 1998. It is not only as a result of diet but of a general lack of physical activity. As we all know, this has significant health implications. People carrying too much weight are far more likely to develop cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and cancers. It is estimated that direct medical costs attributed to obesity in our country are almost $2 billion a year at $1.8 billion.

It is an extremely serious problem and it is important among our young children. The International Journal of Obesity indicates that about 30% of Canadian children fall into that category. That is a rate that is significantly higher than for children the same age in countries like England, Scotland and Spain. Again, the culprits appear to be diet and a lack of exercise and physical activity.

Too often parents, working long hours to make ends meet, have less time for their children than perhaps my parents did or those of my generation. Families today seem to be so harried that they often do not have the time or the energy left to cook meals in the evening and they end up taking the children to a drive-through. Children are more often kept in doors these days because parents consider the streets to be unsafe.

We have far too often become a nation of compulsive television watchers, couch potatoes and computer junkies which has had a negative impact on our health and on the costs and stresses of our health care system. This is something that the royal commission on health looked at very actively in the spring and will continue to do so into the fall.

We support any attempt to encourage and enable people, young and old, in the country to become more active. I acknowledge that the bill moves us in that direction and that is one of the main reasons we support it.

The bill is intended to bring people, organizations and governments together to encourage, promote and develop physical activity and sport. The minister has told us that the bill would position physical activity as a critical determinant of health, and our caucus fully supports the goal. We hope the legislation meets the minister's description of it.

The preamble indicates that sport and physical activity should be forces that bind Canadians together enhancing, among other things, the bilingual reality of Canada. We were pleased to see there were amendments to that effect in the bill as it now stands. We want to do whatever we can to ensure that there is more significance given to language so that it is not just the French Canadian athletes who are forced to learn English in order to participate on a team or in the sporting event at hand.

I want to make a few comments on the sport dispute resolution centre. The athletes have asked for this. There are an increasing number of disputes to be arbitrated. Current mechanisms are limited. As we look at the legislation the centre appears to be at arm's length, meaning that arbitrators and mediators are not employees of the government. The dispute resolution centre would be a not for profit centre. Sports organizations have asked for the centre and I am pleased that the bill does create such an organization. The board of directors would appoint its own executive director. I believe this was also a change that was made as the bill went through the committee process.

While I support the bill, its actions, not its words, will be more important. We recall, and others have alluded to it before, ParticipAction was created in 1971 to promote physical fitness in Canada. It did a fine job over the years of encouraging ordinary Canadians to become more fit. The federal government put up most of the money at first but, as in so many other areas of our lives, it seems to have backed away more recently.

There was federal support of more than $1 million a year in the 1970s, but by the year 2000, when it effectively ceased to exist, ParticipAction was receiving less than $385,000.

In conclusion, we can stand and debate legislation and we can pass legislation, but without the commitment from the government and the resources to support that commitment, we will not succeed in making Canadians fitter and more healthy or have more of them stand on international podiums. I hope that once we pass the bill the government will show its commitment to follow up with real, significant action.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a cost sharing formula that does not recognize provincial fiscal capacity is simply unfair to the provincial taxpayers.

Because of the large agricultural sector in Saskatchewan it currently provides $430 per capita, over three times the average of other provinces. The federal government owes it to provincial taxpayers across the country to make sure that its policies are fair,and 60:40 cost sharing based on cash receipts is simply not that.

The unfairness of 60:40 cost sharing can also be clearly demonstrated by looking at the fiscal implications of each $100 million paid to Saskatchewan farmers for agriculture programming. The federal per capita cost is $2 but the provincial capital cost is $40, 20 times as much. How is this fair to Saskatchewan? It simply is not.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, farm organizations and provincial governments have been pleading with Ottawa to provide compensation to cover off the huge U.S. farm bill which provides massive subsidies that will drive down international prices for grains, oilseeds and soon for pulse crops. These subsidies have the potential to drive thousands of our farmers out of business.

Our caucus has been calling on the agriculture minister and the Prime Minister for a trade injury compensation package worth $1.3 billion. The constant answer we receive back is that Canada's pockets are not as deep as those in Washington or Brussels. That statement was true at one point. In 1994-95 when we did have a significant deficit, our farmers were asked to make a sacrifice and indeed they did. That deficit has long since been eliminated and Canada has been rolling up some reasonably healthy surpluses in past years. However our farmers are not being assisted as a result.

It is also irrefutable that the United States federal government is providing full support for its farmers. It does not ask Montana or North Dakota to provide assistance.

When we make the point that we need a trade injury package, more often than not the agriculture minister tells us that he does not intend to pick on any particular province, but inevitably he then turns around and picks on my home province of Saskatchewan. I simply want to put a couple of facts on the record this evening.

We have gone from 100% federal support to a 60:40 arrangement and it is based on cash receipts. This means that relatively successful sectors like supply management which exists on dairy products, poultry and the like, which some provinces like Ontario and Quebec have a lot of, also have most of the cash receipts. Saskatchewan ends up with most of the risk. That is a result of the Fredericton formula.

The province of Saskatchewan takes the position that it should flow on the basis of public policy need. If it is to address risk, it should go where the risk is. The federal government has refused to take a public policy position and is prepared in the end simply to live with the position of the majority of the provinces.

Hypothetically let me say that a $1 billion aid package was to be announced this week with $400 million of that payable by the provinces. It would cost Saskatchewan $88 million, the same as it would cost Ontario except that Ontario has 12 or 13 times the population. The per capita injury to Saskatchewan would be much greater. It is simply not fair.

When the federal government insists on 60:40 cost sharing, it is asking some provincial taxpayers who already face significant demands for health care, education, roads, policing and social services to pay a significantly disproportionate cost. This is especially true in provinces with a large agricultural industry relative to its tax base. The federal government owes it to provincial taxpayers to make sure its policies are fair. The policy of 60:40 cost sharing is simply not fair, particularly when it is based on cash receipts.

The following figures are drawn from the federal department of agriculture. The federal government provides $100 per capita. Saskatchewan, because of 47% of the arable land and one million population, provides $430 per capita, four times the federal level and over three times the average of all provinces.

These are the facts about agricultural spending. I simply wanted to put them on the record.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, June 17th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will be extremely brief because we in the NDP caucus are in support of the bill. It is my understanding that we are talking about the motions in Group No. 1 and that there will be an opportunity perhaps tomorrow to make a more substantive intervention.

I congratulate the Bloc for its insistence on including the Official Languages Act but also to correct the Canadian Alliance for saying it was at the insistence of the Bloc. The member may technically be correct but I can assure everyone that this party and I suspect another party in the House would have been equally adamant that there be full recognition of the Official Languages Act in part as a result of the appearance of the commissioner of official languages before the committee some several weeks ago.

We are pleased to see that addition in Motion No. 4. We support all of the aspects of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased if somewhat surprised to be taking part in the debate today. I welcome the opportunity nonetheless.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food I too want to say at the outset that with the exception of recommendation 14 this is a good report. The report was issued after the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food had travelled to virtually all the provinces of Canada to hear directly from farmers, consider and weigh their concerns and produce a report. The report became public this past week.

The previous speakers have gone through a lot of the comments. They have pointed out the good things in the report such as its recommendations to enhance crop insurance, improve the net income stabilization account and introduce a trade injury compensation package to offset the negative effects on our primary producers of things like the U.S. farm bill and the common agricultural policy in Europe.

A number of things in the report are worthy of comment. Recommendation 14 has been the focus of debate, as it deserves to be. I will read what it says for the record and then note the objection that has been added at the bottom. It reads:

Whereas additional on-farm activities and local value-added processing are an excellent way to give farmers more influence in pricing, the Committee recommends that the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board authorize, on a trial basis, a free market for the sale of wheat and barley, and that it report to this Committee on the subject.

The bracketed comment at the bottom by the critic, myself, says:

I object strongly to any suggestion that the Canadian Wheat Board be asked to authorize use of an open market for the sale of wheat and barley, even on a trial basis. This would undermine the Board’s effectiveness as a single desk seller, it would reduce returns to farmers, and eventually it would destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Malpeque. He is extremely knowledgeable. As a former president of the National Farmers Union he has spent years in the trenches, has met with farmers and understands the Canadian Wheat Board and marketing of grain far better than I. He indicated in his remarks that he was disgusted. That was the word he used.

At the same time I think the hon. member would admit, at least privately, that he is a bit embarrassed about what has happened. What has transpired, unfortunately, is that some members of the Liberal government on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food have been snookered by members of the Canadian Alliance into doing this on a trial basis.

I will provide some background. As Canadians know, there are not a lot of Liberal members from western Canada in this parliament. Despite the Liberals' large majority, there is but one Liberal member from western Canada on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I am not native to western Canada. It is not where I grew up. However it is where I have lived for some time and I have come to understand, at least a bit, the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board.

In this instance what transpired is that we had two standing committee treks to western Canada to meet with farmers. We met with them in 1999 and then we went out again in February 2002. There is a crisis on the prairies in agriculture, especially in the grain and oilseeds which is the bulk of what happens in the eastern prairies. Some members of the committee felt that because there was no improvement from 1999 to 2002 it was important to look at doing something different and more radical. When recommendation 14 came along, and before we got to discuss it, some members on the government side were already thinking that the Ontario Wheat Board seemed to be working all right. There was not a lot of criticism.

Yes, we heard criticism of the Canadian Wheat board when we met with farmers. We also heard compliments about the work of the board, the fact that the status quo does not exist with the board and it is prepared to make some changes and to look at changes. Some members on the government side thought it was time to shake the pot and stir things up and do this on a trial basis, as recommendation 14 says, with the assumption that if we did not like what we found out in the trial, we could revert to standard operating procedure.

As the member for Malpeque notes, we cannot put the genie back into the bottle. Once it is out, it is out. As western Canadians know there have been nine attempts by the U.S. government to derail, sidetrack and eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board. It has failed on every one of those occasions. With this recommendation that has now been approved by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, if the wheat board were foolish enough, which it will not be because it has already indicated that this is a non-starter from its perspective, it would never be able to go back to business as usual after any kind of trial period.

The Canadian Alliance members on that committee, and I have respect for them, have duped some members on the government side on this particular issue. There is no question in my mind that the goal of the Canadian Alliance members is to eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board. That is not what they say. They say they see a role for the Canadian Wheat Board but they also believe in freedom of choice and to do that, they think that there should be dual marketing.

Dual marketing is the thin edge of the wedge because we cannot have orderly marketing with single desk selling at the same time as we have dual marketing. When we open it up on a trial basis it is impossible to reverse the process, particularly when the Americans are as adamant about state trading enterprises such as the Canadian Wheat Board. They would never allow that to happen.

The reality is that on the current composition of the board we do have some regional realities. There are also some tensions within the cabinet itself on this issue. It may be, for example, that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board was perhaps not informed about this recommendation in time to have an influence with the backbenchers who sit on that committee. The minister of agriculture may not be as opposed to this so called trial period. That is telling and unfortunate in this instance.

Again, regional politics creeps into this. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board does hail from one of the great grain growing areas in western Canada. The current minister of agriculture comes from the province of Ontario and he feels that perhaps the Ontario Wheat Board, with the freedom of choice, is more palatable and worthy of a trial basis.

If we check with farmers on the Ontario Wheat Board, and the member for Malpeque was correct, they are not achieving the premium pricing. Yes, they do have flexibility but if we were to check with them, when they are selling on the spot market, they would not be receiving a premium price for the product. The Richard Gray study is accurate on this, $160 million comes in value added to the Canadian Wheat Board and flows through the Canadian Wheat Board to our farmers.

Shortly after I was first elected I had the opportunity to visit Chile. The member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands made reference to it. It was at the time when some of our farmers had been put in jail for violating and crossing the border to sell their product in the United States. I got into a discussion with an adviser to the Chilean minister of agriculture.

We were talking about grain and selling Canadian Wheat Board grain. He made two comments. His first comment was that he did not agree at all that Canadian farmers should be jailed for attempting to cross into the United States to sell their product. He felt that was wrong and I concur with that.

The other thing he said was of great interest. He had gone to various millers in Santiago and asked them why they would pay a premium price to buy wheat for milling purposes from the Canadian Wheat Board when they could buy it cheaper from the Cargills, the ADMs and the Louis Dreyfus companies. The answer he received was because they could sleep better at night as business people.

The millers know exactly what they are getting when they buy through the Canadian Wheat Board. If the wheat board says the product is x % protein, x % gluten and all the other ingredients, that is what it is. Whereas when they buy an American product it is less certain about what it is that they will receive. They are interested in satisfying their consumers on this front. It is important they get the product they want in order to bake goods to the best of their ability. That for me, as someone who does not hail from the prairies originally, was an important piece of news and one that I carry around with me.

The other reason there will be Liberal members who will be unhappy with this recommendation is that it is the opposite of what is in the interim report of the Prime Minister's task force. Recommendation eight in the report favours orderly marketing and single desk selling. Obviously recommendation 14, which calls for a free market on a trial basis on the sale of wheat and barley, is not orderly marketing. Given that the Prime Minister's task force only came out with its report a month ago and there are members on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food who are also members of the advisory task force, it is hard to fathom how they managed to be on both sides of this issue in two separate reports.

I feel the cat is among the pigeons as a result of recommendation 14. I mentioned the nine trade disputes that the Americans have launched against state trading enterprises and I have spoken of the $160 million in benefits.

There are a couple of conflicting principles. The member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands who brings a lot of credibility to the standing committee because of his experience as a grain farmer talked about the need for value added. We can all identify and agree with it.

The problem we have when it comes to the board is that the other principle the board has is to maximize the return for farmers. As the member for Malpeque indicated we cannot sell lower to an individual or a group of individuals to make it attractive for value added and at the same time maximize the returns for everyone else. Those two principles are in conflict. We have been aware for several years that prairie pasta plants have been trying to get started in western Canada to ship more product out as value added rather than to ship bulk to Thunder Bay or to Vancouver.

The wheat board is working on that issue. It has not resolved it. It is a work in progress. It would have to be conceded by everyone that there are two conflicting principles and it is tough to square that circle.

The concern is that to some extent we have thrown the baby out with the bath water with this trial period. It will be used against the Canadian Wheat Board. There is no question that the opponents of the wheat board, and there are many, not just the Canadian Alliance but the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and a number of others groups, will use this report. They will waive it around and say that this is the way of the future.

We cannot have an open market on a trial basis. NAFTA chapter 11 is clear. If we turn over wheat and barley marketing, and the profits that go with it, to transnational grain companies we cannot reverse that decision unless we pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to those companies for lost future profits. The open market is not a path that Canadian grain farmers can go down and look around. It is more like a cliff that they can jump off. It will either be the Canadian Wheat Board or it will be Cargill, ConAgra, Archer Daniels Midland and there is no going back.

All the evidence we have shows that the wheat board does not decrease prices paid to farmers, it increases prices. The recent benchmark study by the board, the auditor general's report, the Kraft, Furtan and Tyrchniewicz study of a few years ago on wheat marketing, and the more recent grain report on barley marketing, every credible independent study demonstrates that the board increases the incomes of farmers.

Furthermore, the vast majority of farmers consistently vote for a strong, effective wheat board with its single desk selling power. That is an extremely important point.

The board has elections every two years on a regional basis. There will be elections coming up, for example, again this fall. It will be up to the farmers themselves to vote. If they vote for an open market system then that is what Canadian grain farmers will get. So far they have continued to vote by a majority for single desk, orderly marketing. That is the current law. That is where it should be. It should be with the farmers and not with politicians as to what happens in that regard.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, 13 months ago this Indian affairs minister promised that his department's consultative process on this initiative would reach every aboriginal person in Canada.

It has proven to be 99% wrong in the province of Manitoba, where only 1% of the aboriginal population in that province has participated.

What assurances could the minister give today to skeptical first nations people and ourselves that this top down initiative will in no way jeopardize the current framework agreement?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first nations people from across Canada are gathering in Ottawa today because they want positive and progressive changes to their lives and their communities and oppose the minister's heavy-handed first nations governance initiative that has proven to be so divisive.

In light of this widespread opposition, why will the minister not agree to delay the tabling of this governance act and instead take the summer to repair the considerable damage his “my way or the highway” approach has created?

[Canada Pension Plan, June 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Speaker is a very knowledgeable parliamentarian and he will know that in the last minute or so the member has used the names of MPs as opposed to their ridings or their portfolio. He will know that is not acceptable parliamentary language.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. Yes, I do think more education and more information should be available, but I have to note that I think we see some improvements in this regard. I think the word is slowly getting out about pesticides.

I think the member raises an important point, because we are talking about agriculture primarily but in our urban areas we admire the lawns that look so green and beautiful and are devoid of dandelions and other weeds. However, I think people are beginning to rethink that, to recognize that this has a cost and that it is perhaps dangerous to young children who play in parks and gardens that have had pesticide use or when children play with their pets that have been running around in those places.

It is an important point. I do believe more should be done, but I think some things are beginning to be done.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. He essentially asked about GMO wheat, for example, without using pesticides. There are some real concerns about GM wheat. It has not been licensed for use in this country. The Canadian Wheat Board came before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and said that 65% of its current customers have indicated that they would not buy a GM wheat product. It may receive a bill of approval, but if consumers do not want it then I think our Canadian farmers will be very reluctant to grow it.

On the broader question of soil degradation and so on, a lot of people in the organic industry are convinced that going organic is a much better way to ensure that the soil of our arable lands will be better protected and that we will ensure sustainable agriculture with more of a commitment to organic farming methods.

Just before I take my seat, let me say that I think some of these biotech promises deserve further scrutiny. For example, we are told of GM rice to which vitamin A can be added to help children in third world countries who may otherwise suffer eyesight problems at an early age. However, when we look at it a little more closely we realize that for that product as it is currently available to be of any significant use in assisting on the eyesight front, an individual would have to consume more than four pounds of rice a day. I dare say that there would be very few people who would be able to eat that much in one day to help with their eyesight.