Dave Chatters

[Petitions, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition this afternoon containing 50 pages and a thousand names of my constituents. The petitioners ask parliament to amend the Canadian Food and Drugs Act to define herbal products and health food products as food rather than drugs and to protect their access to these products.

[Drunk Driving, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember a sad anniversary. One year ago on April 19, my very own son's birthday, three people were taken from the world in a head on collision between a pick-up truck and a Greyhound passenger bus on highway 43 just outside Fox Creek, Alberta. As is too often the case the driver of the pick-up truck was impaired.

On this anniversary a group of family, friends and Greyhound bus drivers gathered to remember. On behalf of the official opposition, and I am sure all members of the House, I extend our message of condolences to their families, friends and colleagues.

Let us remember their message: when you drink and drive someone is going to die.

[Petitions, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of my constituents in and around the Athabasca area. These petitions are two more in a series of petitions presented by myself and other members asking the House to reconsider the provocation defence in the Criminal Code. The petitioners believe that the provocation defence unjustly changes the focus of the criminal trial from the behaviour of the accused and his or her intention to murder, to the behaviour of the victim. Certainly I concur with the petitioners.

[Liberal Party Of Canada, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government endlessly talks with great arrogance about holding itself to a higher ethical standard, but its actions show a different story.

In Liberal opinion, part time farmers in western Canada who were affected by natural disaster do not deserve the same compensation as farmers in Ontario and Quebec.

They label us as anti-Canadian because we did not give a speech at the rally in Montreal just before the last referendum. Reformers were there, Mr. Speaker, but the reason you did not see our leader on the podium is because the Liberals did not allow him to be on the podium.

Then there was the Liberal rejection of the Canadian flag on our desks. I thought nothing could top this. But yesterday the Prime Minister took this honour. During question period yesterday the Prime Minister said that my colleague from Peace River was a beggar and was not worthy to sit in the Senate. Is that because my colleague does not golf or have a financial connection with the Prime Minister?

Actions speak louder than words. Liberal actions show their arrogance. Is this the politics of division that the Liberals speak of so often?

[Hobby Farmers, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know how to express my disappointment at the response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence to this issue. Either he misunderstood issues in the motion or he chose to ignore them almost totally.

It is wonderful news that the Department of National Defence and other departments are considering changes to the way disaster relief funding is provided to small businessmen and to farmers.

Another fundamental issue that he refused to even acknowledge was that there was a flood in northern Alberta and that the Alberta government applied for special funding for disaster relief for part time farmers and small business people. That request was denied to farmers and small business people in northern Alberta on two occasions, once the same summer and now this winter, for whatever reasons. I have to assume because they were in a different part of the country that special funding was provided. That was a sad day for Canadian unity, for equality and for fairness across the country. I was certainly disappointed.

While the flood in my part of the world was nowhere near the magnitude of the Saguenay or of the ice storm, certainly I know of farm families that were destroyed and are no longer families. I know of farmers who committed suicide because of the economic and personal hardship they suffered because of the disaster. To simply brush them off as not important and not worthy of the same kind of consideration as farmers in Ontario and Quebec is simply wrong, unfair and unworthy of a government that has responsibility for all Canadians.

I heard from the member of the Bloc Quebecois Party and others that there was some desire to have the issue go further. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to refer this subject matter to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for further study and recommendations to the minister.

[Hobby Farmers, March 18th, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the definition of hobby farmer stated by Disaster Relief Canada should be split into the following two definitions: ( a ) Hobby farmers: individuals who seek careers outside agriculture and have farms for recreational or investment reasons; and ( b ) Junior farmers: individuals who intend to become fulltime farmers, but currently are forced to seek off-farm income to build an equity in their farming business.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this evening to rise to debate private member's Motion No. 11. It came about as a result of a situation in my riding in the summer of 1996. I introduced a similar motion in the last Parliament which died on the Order Paper and, therefore, I have reintroduced it in this Parliament.

Since I first drafted the motion circumstances across the country have brought new relevance to the whole issue of how farmers, particularly part time farmers and small businessmen, are compensated in instances of natural disaster.

In the summer of 1996 there was a situation of serious overland flooding in the northern part of my riding.

In my part of Alberta and in many parts of Canada part time farming has become a way of life because the economic realities of farming demand that many farmers, or members of their families, take off-farm employment to supplement their farm income in order to survive. The very fact that they demonstrate the determination and the willingness to do this has brought about a situation where they are ineligible for disaster relief funding under the criteria of the guidelines of national defence.

It has created a serious and almost ridiculous situation where a farmer or a businessman on one side of the road receives disaster relief funding to compensate him for damages to his property, while his neighbour across the road is denied that funding.

I do not want to get into a debate over whether or not the natural disaster was worse in one area than in another. I firmly believe that the effect on the individual is the same, whether you are an individual among thousands or an individual among hundreds. My heart goes out to everyone who suffered through the Red River flood in Manitoba and the Saguenay flood in Quebec, as well as this winter's ice storm in Ontario and Quebec.

The very occasion of a natural disaster has a devastating affect upon Canadians. It robs them of their valued property and possessions. It certainly takes away their financial security and their peace of mind.

I can sympathize with those individuals, having operated a farm for probably 35 years. During many of those years I had to take off-farm employment in order to build equity in my farm.

I know what it is like when you are young, you have a dream, and you and your family work your hearts out to build that dream. In a matter of hours those dreams can be wiped out and destroyed by a natural disaster. That kind of loss, in itself, is enough to destroy families. Many families in my area have been destroyed through no fault of their own, but through circumstances which arose as a result of these natural disasters.

We have to stop and imagine the anxiety and distress that would be added to the suffering because of the uncertainty over whether or not these farmers would receive assistance through Disaster Relief Canada.

In the last three years farmers across this country have suffered serious damage to their farms and businesses due to the flooding of rivers and streams all across the country.

Extensive media coverage made all Canadians familiar with the Saguenay flood in Quebec, with the Red River flood in Manitoba and, of course, with the ice storm in Quebec and Ontario.

Certainly less attention nationally was given to the floods of 1996 and 1997 in northern Alberta. It was the flood of 1996, which occurred during the same summer as the Saguenay flood, which motivated me to draft and to introduce this motion.

Following the flood in northern Alberta my office was bombarded with phone calls from farmers who were seeking assistance and disaster relief. The majority of the phone calls came from part time farmers who were not covered by Emergency Preparedness Canada because they earn more than half their income off-farm. The federal government's response to their pleas was nothing short of a slap in the face.

My constituents were forced to sit by and watch as side agreements were made to compensate hobby farmers affected by the Saguenay flood, the ice storm and the Red River flood, although there seems to be some confusion about whether part time farmers did receive compensation for damage caused by the Red River flood. Certainly that was the case in the Saguenay and in the areas affected by the ice storm. Individuals in northern Alberta, in 1996 and 1997, were denied that funding.

It is for this reason that my motion asks for the definition of a hobby farmer to be divided into a hobby farmer and a junior farmer under the Emergency Preparedness Canada guidelines.

The current definition assumes that all farmers earning less than half their income from their farms have those farms for recreation or investment purposes.

In my riding it is more often the case that so-called hobby farmers are part time or junior farmers who intend to become full time farmers but who are forced to seek off-farm income to supplement farm income.

In the case of the ice storm, the part time farmers in question were the maple sugar producers whom I visited shortly after the storm. They have an extremely short season and under the current system are penalized for having the drive and ambition to seek additional work during the off-season.

Ironically, the majority of part time farmers reinvest their off-farm income into their farms to build equity, to accumulate capital and quota until they are able to maintain a full time farming operation.

The advantage of splitting the definition is clear. Hobby farmers who own farms for recreation and investment purposes would still be excluded from disaster relief programs, while part time or junior farmers would automatically be included in federal disaster relief programs.

Part time farmers would no longer have to wait for or rely on side agreements that are negotiated entirely at the discretion of the Treasury Board. This would eliminate the problem of regional inequality whereby some part time farmers, like those affected by the ice storm and the Saguenay floods, are given assistance while others are not.

Northern Albertans were denied additional assistance by the Treasury Board, while part time farmers in Quebec and Ontario received it for reasons known only to the Liberal cabinet.

Presumably the smaller magnitude of the Alberta flood in terms of dollars and cents was the reason. However, whether 200 or 2,000 farmers were affected, the impact on the individual farmer is the same.

How can it be justified to a part time farmer in Alberta that he will not be helped because not enough people were affected? It makes no sense that a person be given assistance for damage done by what was clearly a natural disaster while his neighbours across the road or his colleagues in other parts of the country are denied the same.

The devastation to the individual farmer in Alberta was, most assuredly, equal to the devastation experienced by the individual farmer in southern Manitoba, Quebec or Ontario.

The Liberal government is proud of the compensation given to the part time farmers affected by the Saguenay flood as it was the first time part time farmers have ever been included in a disaster relief agreement.

However, this move is only commendable if it is applicable to farmers across Canada under similar circumstances. Otherwise, it is little more than a divisive tool that deepens the gap and increases regional tension among Canadian provinces.

The divisiveness of federal policies was one of the primary reasons for the formation and continued existence of the Reform Party. Any policy or legislation that allows one farmer to be helped while another is ignored under identical circumstances hinders Canada's growth as a strong and united country.

Therefore in order to ensure equality, legislation should be in place to prevent the need to negotiate on a case by case basis.

Let me give an example of one of the many part time farmers who would stand to benefit from this motion. I received a call from one farmer who started a grading business on the side to supplement his farm income. This farmer is by no means wealthy or a foreign investor or keeping a hobby farm for investment purposes. Rather, he is a farmer with 200 head of cattle who wants to raise his income in order to be able to keep his farm going so he took an extra job. Unfortunately, because more than 50% of his income comes from his grading business, this farmer is ineligible to apply for assistance under Disaster Relief Canada.

The farmer's hay and alfalfa fields were the only feed he used for his cattle. His other flooded fields were used for grazing his cattle. Without some sort of relief, this farmer was faced with selling or slaughtering his cattle because of his inability to feed them. Flooding also resulted in limited work for the graders.

Therefore this farmer, like so many other affected part time farmers, felt that he was financially destroyed. Certainly this is only one example among hundreds of similar stories from my constituency as well as Peace River to the west of my constituency.

In a letter to one my constituents, the executive director of Alberta Disaster Services expresses his dissatisfaction with the current criteria for qualifying for assistance. He too has received many phone calls from frustrated farmers forced to give up their farming business. The eligibility criteria are outdated in light of the current reality.

The current reality is that the agricultural community has changed significantly and has come to depend on the contributions of part time farmers. It is becoming increasingly difficult for families to live on farm income alone.

In the last three years over 300 part time farmers in northern Alberta have applied for disaster relief funding and have been denied eligibility under the program. While the numbers seem to be dropping year by year, I think that is more a result of farmers becoming more aware of their ineligibility for the program than a drop in damages.

The recent ice storm reminded Albertans once again that everyone is not treated equally in this country and certainly not under Emergency Preparedness Canada guidelines. This needs to be remedied.

The only clear solution, therefore, is to distinguish between hobby and part time farmers and businessmen and to amend the guidelines to ensure equal assistance for all part time farmers and small businessmen in the event of a natural disaster. This assistance should be automatic as it is with full time farmers and businessmen and not decided on by a partisan body like the Treasury Board.

At this time I would like to point out that even the hon. members opposite have noted the need to reassess existing eligibility criteria. In the fall of 1997 I was told that Emergency Preparedness Canada was in the process of reviewing eligibility criteria in consultation with a working group from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. I sincerely hope these discussions are progressing quickly.

Changes need to be made as soon as possible because, as we have been recently reminded, one can never be certain when or where another natural disaster will occur. I also sincerely hope that the hon. minister of agriculture, as he has assured me, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada are actively pursuing equitable access to relief for all farmers.

It is most important that all members of this House, especially the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, give this motion fair and serious consideration. Through the division of a single classification into two separate classifications, this motion will do two things. First, it will ensure fairness. It is unfair to continue to lump part time farmers with the owners of recreational farms. Part time farmers need to be recognized for their unique contribution to agriculture and must be protected against natural disasters that will adversely affect their farms.

This motion will also establish equality between part time farmers no matter what the disaster or where the farm is located. It will prevent the bitterness and resentment arising from perceived regional favouritism.

To emphasize this equality it is also important that the government retroactively compensate those part time farmers and businessmen overlooked since the Saguenay agreement with part time farmers, including those denied assistance after the northern Alberta flood. I believe this motion addresses the suffering of all part time farmers and businessmen affected by the natural disaster and it is an important step in securing the future of part time farmers in Canada.

Therefore I conclude by asking every member of this House to give this motion his or her full attention, consideration and support.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member talk about how reprehensible the stunts that have revolved around this issue are and how offensive they are to her. I would ask her if that is the case, speaking for herself or her party, why all the flags were waving on that side of the House on the day the incident took place. It was a Liberal member, I believe, who distributed the flags. It was a Liberal member who started to sing O Canada during the debate. What has her party done to discipline those individuals for this reprehensible display that they started?

[Canada-Yukon Oil And Gas Accord Implementation Act, March 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the member's response when she says that eventually the Yukon territory will become a province. I support that idea wholeheartedly.

However, under the terms and conditions of the bill and the direction it is headed, Yukon will forevermore be some kind of second class province. It will not have the jurisdiction or the power of other provinces. I am amazed the member representing Yukon who sits in opposition to the government does not seem to raise that issue or does not seem to be concerned about it.

I would have expected, both being a member for Yukon and being in opposition, that she would have demanded of the government that the bill allow Yukon to become a province with the same kind of status as Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and all other provinces.

[Canada-Yukon Oil And Gas Accord Implementation Act, March 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the previous speaker, particularly because she is the member for Yukon.

I listened carefully to her speech and did not hear any reference to a number of issues I raised in my speech. Would the member indicate her response on behalf of Yukoners to the cap on resource revenue? The Yukon is being capped at $3 million. Anything above that, up to 80%, will be going back to the federal government.

Another provision I also raised was that the federal government retains the power to unilaterally take back control of oil and gas under certain circumstances.

I wonder if the member would respond to those two issues.

[Canada-Yukon Oil And Gas Accord Implementation Act, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at long last to rise and speak to Bill C-8, the Canada-Yukon oil and gas accord implementation act.

This bill has been around for a long time. It was allowed to die at the end of the last Parliament only to return in this Parliament to be bounced on and off the Order Paper again and again. I can only assume that the hesitancy of the government to deal with this bill has something to do with the dismal progress being made in finalizing the Yukon land claims that are before the government and that in fact were passed in the last Parliament.

Generally, I and my party support this bill and the principles involved simply because all the stakeholders involved in this process generally support the bill. The principles of the bill are to be applauded. However we certainly do have some concerns with this bill, as we do with so many other bills that the government introduces and deals with in this House. The bill goes part way toward achieving its objectives but unfortunately not all the way.

This bill reflects the government's recognition of the important role of northern oil and gas exploration in the political evolution of the Yukon Territory. Canada's territories are the site of one-quarter of Canada's remaining discovered petroleum and half of Canada's estimated potential oil and gas resources. Control over oil and gas exploration and development is the key to the economic well-being of the territories.

This bill is important to the economic future of the Yukon and is in fact in accordance with many of Reform's positions on issues.

First of all the bill calls for the devolution of province-like powers to the Yukon Territory. By transferring administrative and legislative control over oil and gas to the Yukon Territory, the federal government is demonstrating some degree of commitment to the Yukon Territory's political evolution. We support any effort that increases provincial or territorial control and decreases federal control over natural resources, including oil and gas.

Second, this bill concurs with Reform's belief in the equality of all provinces. While Reform supports increased power for the Yukon government, the powers held by the territory should not exceed those held by the provinces.

This bill does not transfer any powers greater than those held by the provinces under sections 92, 92(a) and 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867. As has been reiterated, this equality among provinces is absolutely essential to the equal treatment of all Canadians.

While Reform is supportive of this legislation, certain aspects of the legislation raise important questions. It appears that through the devolution of province-like powers, the federal government intends to move the Yukon Territory toward provincial status. If this is true, it is important that the federal government start treating the territory as a province. This means that like other provinces the Yukon government should have some negotiating power in the settlement of aboriginal land claims.

Instead of giving the Yukon government the opportunity to participate in the negotiating process however, the government is retaining the authority to override any territorial government objections to the way in which land claims are settled. The federal government is doing this by retaining the right to take back control of Yukon lands for the settlement and implementation of land claims.

In recognition of the unique situation in the north, I would agree it is important that this legislation respect aboriginal land claims and settlement rights. It is also important that the legislation not diminish aboriginal treaty rights nor conflict with existing wildlife, environmental and land management legislation under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The issue here is not so much the protection of aboriginal rights as it is an issue of heavy-handed control by the federal government. If the government were to settle a land claim in any one of the 10 provinces, one can be certain that a provincial government would be very active in the negotiating process. Why then would the government withhold that same negotiating power from the Yukon government?

While the federal government protects the interests of First Nations peoples in the Yukon, the territorial government should have the opportunity to protect the interests of all residents of the Yukon Territory, native and non-native alike.

This provision also hinders future oil and gas exploration development. Oil and gas companies may be slow to invest in exploration and development projects that at a later date may be affected by the settlement and implementation of land claims.

It had previously been anticipated that negotiations for all of the Yukon First Nations would have concluded by February 1997. This anticipated date was then extended to July 1997. As of today, only half of the Yukon First Nations have reached agreements while the remaining seven agreements are still being negotiated.

In order to instil confidence in potential investors, the government must develop and adhere to a strict time line for land claim resolution. I would therefore urge the government to resolve these land claims as expeditiously as possible with the full participation of the Yukon government so that potential investors can confidently proceed with oil and gas development in the Yukon Territory.

There are also concerns regarding the government's retention of the right to take measures in the event of a sudden oil supply shortfall. This would be in compliance with Canada's international obligations as outlined in the International Energy Agency oil sharing agreement.

The same international obligations were responsible for the introduction and implementation of the national energy program. Westerners need not be reminded of the disastrous impact the national energy program had on Alberta's economy during the last so-called energy crisis.

Because of the very nature of the north, the Yukon economy is extremely dependent on oil and gas revenues. It will therefore suffer even greater hardship should the federal government deem it necessary to implement controls like those espoused during the last energy crisis. There must be some commitment by the government to consider the impact of its actions on the Yukon economy and on the social and economic well-being of the Yukon peoples in the event of an oil supply shortfall or energy crisis.

The legislation affecting the Yukon in this respect should set the precedent for other provinces, resulting in amendments to the existing legislation that would protect all provinces from economic disasters like that brought upon Alberta by the national energy program. If the political evolution of the Yukon territory is to proceed, the federal government must commit to consultations with the Yukon government to find a co-operative solution to any energy shortfall.

The most positive aspect of this legislation is the economic power it confers upon the Yukon Territory. Not only will the Yukon government have jurisdiction over exploration, development, conservation and management of oil and gas, but over resource revenues.

This legislation allows the territory to raise revenues by any mode or system of taxation in respect of oil and gas in the territory. It also gives the territorial government control over the export of oil and gas from that territory. This bill will reduce the Yukon Territory's economic dependence on the federal government, allowing it to develop its own economy like the Canadian provinces.

However, there are concerns regarding the sharing of resource revenues with the federal government. The federal government still intends to collect a portion of the annual oil and gas revenues beyond an initial amount of $3 million to offset transfer payments to the territory which differs from the process of equalization in the provinces.

Also, I might add that this same provision does not apply in the First Nations land claims settlements in the Yukon. The First Nations collect all of the oil and gas resource revenue from oil and gas development within their territory.

The government's share of the Yukon Territory's revenues after the initial $3 million could go as high as 80% of those revenues. I doubt that this level of revenue sharing would ever be tolerated by the existing provinces.

Despite its shortcomings, this legislation represents an important first step in the political evolution of the north and has received support from all the concerned parties. This legislation is part of a greater process that involves the devolution of control not only over oil and gas but over education, health care and economic development in the Yukon Territory.

This legislation has the potential to lead the Yukon government down the road of political evolution, but only if the federal government is committed to treating the Yukon as a developing province and not some second class political entity.

For these reasons we support this legislation but with some reservations about the method of implementation.