Nelson Riis

[An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speeches of my colleagues on this private member's bill today and I found their arguments to be interesting.

I appreciate that there are two points of view on this issue, but I want to add another voice to the discussion this morning regarding property rights, which refers quite directly to the recent talks of the World Trade Organization in Seattle.

It seems to me that we have gone out of our way in providing property rights to certain kinds of corporations. Under the NAFTA and the provisions of the WTO, in the future more rights will be given to corporations to overrule the decisions of duly elected representatives of parliaments and legislatures.

At the top of the list is the present initiative of Sun Belt Water Inc. of California, which wants to export fresh water from Canada to California. Because the provincial government of British Columbia passed legislation which prohibited that particular initiative from proceeding, Sun Belt is suing the federal government, on behalf of the British Columbian government, under the provisions of the NAFTA for what it says could be as much as $10 billion in lost profits.

This is the ultimate in property rights being represented. A company is saying that because elected Canadians, in their wisdom, chose legislation, in their judgment, to protect the welfare of future generations and the health of Canadians, it has property rights and it will sue for lost revenues that it would accrue in the future. This is the ultimate in handing over rights to private corporations which will clearly, in many cases, go against the decisions of duly elected representatives of the people of Canada.

Let us be more specific. I could mention the legislation that we were driven into to protect patent rights for multinational drug companies. We were under incredible pressure to regulate and to legislate in favour of multinational drug companies to give them a 20 year monopoly on any new drug. We could debate whether 20 years is reasonable or whether it should be 2, 10, 50 or whatever, but there was absolutely no choice that the intellectual property rights of international drug companies required us to pass legislation guaranteeing them monopoly rights on new drugs for 20 years. One has to admit that is a very good deal.

I think you will remember those days, Mr. Speaker. The feeling was that we had no choice. We were driven into legislating in favour of protecting intellectual property rights that would benefit multinational drug companies against the best interests of the consuming public. When there is a monopoly drug situation, obviously there is not going to be any competition in the marketplace and people will be gouged. I do not think the evidence has ever been refuted. It is clear that because of the lack of competition by generic drug companies the prices for our drugs in this country are significantly higher than they normally would be or than they need be, which causes incredible pressure on our health care system, to say nothing of the consuming public in general.

When we talk about property rights, particularly as they focus on the corporate sector, this is getting close to Mecca. This is as close to corporate heaven as one could possibly get. I could read all sorts of examples other than all the national drug companies that have been handed this incredible property right.

There was a controversy over some of the big forest companies and their forest practices. People were saying that the legislation needed to be changed to stop the abuses of various forestry codes. The American companies said they would sue us for their lost profits if we imposed legislation to protect Canada's forests and stopped them from their cutting rights as they understood them.

Clearly, American corporations have great property rights, much greater than Canadian corporations. I could throw in Mexico as well. We have not been challenged by many Mexican companies but we have been by American companies.

Let me be more specific. In an article a little while back Time Canada Ltd. said that it would not have to make good on a threat to sue Canada for its pending magazine legislation. We can debate magazine legislation and cultural legislation, but the reality is we have been interested over the years in strengthening our cultural sector through legislation to give Canada's cultural industries a bit of a hand up and assistance to enable them to get under way to compete in the international markets. However, we have been reminded time and time again that if we assist our corporate sector particularly when it comes to culture, that they will sue. They have the right now under NAFTA to do just that, and they want to expand that to include all 134 countries under the WTO. So there is time.

I want to quote my friend Dalton Camp.

[Petitions, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present another petition signed by quite a few petitioners from Kamloops.

Our founding fathers depended upon God and exhibited faith in God for wisdom and guidance as they established this dominion. To exempt one of the greatest resources of our founding fathers who possessed faith in God is a disaster they personally want to avoid.

Therefore they call upon the Parliament of Canada to do whatever is necessary to keep our heritage intact, which includes the reference of our founding fathers to the supremacy of God in the constitution.

[Petitions, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present a petition with a long list of rationale.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to take whatever action is necessary to see that the Senate of Canada is abolished once and for all.

[Environment, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who will remember back in February of this year when the House of Commons, with the government's support, supported a motion calling for federal legislation banning bulk water exports. That was a motion of the House that was virtually supported by all political parties. The Prime Minister will certainly be aware that Canada has the constitutional authority to regulate international trade and to ban bulk water exports.

Why does the Prime Minister not do what all Canadians actually want him to do, show leadership on this issue and introduce the appropriate legislation that the House called for?

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 29th, 1999]

My friend says “the national agricultural policy”. He is always promoting agriculture, but I suppose people want to come here to see agriculture, certain kinds of exotic animals and new strains of wheat and barley. We could get kind of carried away here. Watching wheat grow can be quite an attraction, particularly for my friend from Regina.

In closing, we look forward to enhancing the tourism sector of the country as a way of providing employment opportunities to Canadians who are currently unemployed or underemployed and would like to do something in an exciting field.

To do that I will simply propose that we as the national parliament do whatever is necessary through this legislation and through other initiatives to ensure that we go out and market abroad the natural and cultural features of our great country to attract people from around the world to visit Canada.

They are coming anyway, but we could enhance those numbers significantly with a real marketing campaign at the national level, to be complemented by campaigns at the provincial and territorial levels. They would also invest in creative initiatives to attract people once they arrive in Canada to spend time, whether it is in Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Yukon or British Columbia. For sure they could come and spend time there.

Once they get into the provinces then it is up to the regional boards, the regional organizations, the chambers of commerce, the boards of trade and the tourism boards to attract people into those areas to visit their points of interest.

Common to all this are the tourist operators themselves. Mainly we are talking about small businesses. They are the main providers of entertainment to visitors to our great country. With those kinds of partnerships I can only imagine how successful we could be. We are already reasonably successful, but we could be really successful with that kind of co-operation.

I think Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction. When we have a board of up to 26 people representing the industry from the private sector, some bureaucrats and so on, we have to wonder if it is the way to approach the situation. However, let us give it the benefit of the doubt. Also, as the legislation goes through committee, let us include an opportunity to evaluate the legislation three years hence. Is the legislation effective? Is the legislation doing what we set out to accomplish? Is it doing what the government has said it could do?

Whatever legislation passes in the House costs taxpayers money. It is important that a review is built into it so that it is evaluated on a regular basis. With that protection I can speak for my colleague for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre and the New Democratic caucus and say that we will be supporting the legislation with enthusiasm as a major step in the right direction, but only a step.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have mixed feelings about this debate. We are debating at second reading Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian tourism commission.

The bill states that the enactment will establish a crown corporation to be known as the Canadian tourism commission. Clause 5 states:

The objects of the commission are to

(a) sustain a vibrant and profitable Canadian tourism industry;

(b) market Canada as a desirable tourist destination;

(c) support a cooperative relationship between the private sector and the governments of Canada, the provinces and the territories with respect to Canadian tourism; and

(d) provide information about Canadian tourism to the private sector and to the governments of Canada, the provinces and the territories.

It is difficult for anyone who has an interest in the future of tourism in our country to oppose this legislation. I appreciate that there are other priorities that we should probably be dealing with. I want to say that tourism is a significant economic priority that ought to be pursued.

We know what is swirling around the countryside. We know that this week delegates from more than 100 nations will meet in Seattle to discuss the World Trade Organization's new round of negotiations. Reports tell us that there are tens of thousands of people in the streets opposing that initiative. I hear from my friend from Esquimalt that he is concerned about other social issues, like homelessness, the lack of affordable housing, the aging population and the implications that that has for housing, health care and other social programs. There are one and a half million children living in poverty. We could look at the pulverizing the Canadian cultural sector is taking, to say nothing about agriculture, fisheries, forestry and the fact that our water is being threatened in terms of exports. There are huge national issues before us and today the government is saying that it wants to discuss Bill C-5 to set up the Canadian tourism commission.

It has to be seen in that context. I would just as soon be talking about a lot of other things, but if this is all we have to do for the rest of the day, then so be it, this is what I will talk about and I will talk about it with some relish.

My colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre gave a very eloquent presentation the other day. I would encourage anyone who was not here to see it, listen to it or watch that very creative and thoughtful performance to read Hansard . I would think it is probably the kind of speech in Hansard that one would want to clip out and place on a placard in one's bedroom.

Some of the details of Bill C-5 do not have to be covered. I want to say that there are other aspects of tourism that we should consider. At the top of the list, in my judgment, would be to complement the work done by the commission. We should be using more staff from our embassies, consulates and high commissions. These Canadian men and women, and nationals from the respective countries, represent Canada on extremely limited budgets. They do the best they can to represent the Canadian tourism sector and to encourage people to visit Canada.

I have visited half a dozen embassies and high commissions in the last few years. I was always impressed with what individuals have been able to accomplish on such small budgets. I cannot help but think that for an extra few dollars and an extra few staff persons to promote Canada, this would be an obvious thing for us to be doing. I want to flag that as the number one priority, that somebody, somewhere, perhaps even the commission itself, should give consideration to using our overseas representatives in a more creative and productive way when it comes to tourism.

The other thing to recognize is that Canada is a vast country. We are the second largest country in the world. When tourists come, they visit all parts of the country. In many parts of the country the attractions, the tourism infrastructure, are provided by very small operators. Often these small operators have a very difficult time accessing capital for tourism ventures because of high risk, seasonality or because they are located in remote areas.

Banks and other lending institutions like to lend money to very secure investments in the big urban centres. When we start talking about a ski hill in a remote location, a tourism development in Cypress Hills, or tourism facilities in all parts of the country, accessing capital is a major problem.

I suggest that we find some mechanism to assist those entrepreneurs, those business representatives who are prepared to risk their capital to build the necessary tourism infrastructure in the rural parts of Canada, to access capital at a reasonable rate and under reasonable terms.

When I say reasonable terms, I mean when an entrepreneur establishes a tourism facility in a remote location in the high Arctic, for example, or in the northern part of Saskatchewan, British Columbia or elsewhere, often the return will take two or three years before it really starts to make any significant inroads in terms of being a profitable operation. That does not make the banks and other lending institutions very happy. We have to find more progressive ways to get capital into the hands of those entrepreneurs.

I have a proposal that I would like to put on the table, and that is that we consider the establishment of what I like to call tourist bonds. They could be in the form of Canada savings bonds. People could invest in the tourism sector, knowing that the moneys generated by those particular bonds would be earmarked and dedicated to developing tourism infrastructure in the more remote parts of the country where people have difficulty accessing capital.

I see my friend from Cariboo here. I think he would support such a notion. If we could find some way to establish a source of capital for entrepreneurs in the rural and distant parts of the country, we would be doing people a real service. It is something they would appreciate and make maximum use of.

The other area we have to consider is the whole issue of transportation infrastructure. Let us face it, at the moment Canada's two major international airlines do a lot of promotion for Canada. Obviously they are promoting their services as well as Canada, but Canadian Airlines and Air Canada, as well as VIA Rail, attract visitors worldwide. Once they are here then other agencies can take over and provide the necessary promotion and information.

If we are serious about the tourism sector, it is important to enhance the tourism travelling infrastructure of the country: the highway systems, the regional airlines and in particular the rail systems.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my friend from Esquimalt make his presentation. The Gods will strike me down, but I actually agreed with a good part of it. There were some parts I did not agree with but I do agree with his sentiment.

My hon. friend for Cypress Hills—Grasslands makes the case for the need for highway infrastructure. Anybody with a brain would acknowledge that we are the second largest country geographically in the world. The cost of transportation is factored into everything we purchase. Having a national highway grid system ought to be a national priority. The federal government ought to take some pride in building, establishing and maintaining a major national grid system.

The reality is that although the federal government collects volumes of money from gasoline and other fuel taxes, it puts virtually no money into the highway system. The minister of highways is not a stupid person. The government is not made up of stupid people. It is made up of people with intelligence, many with university degrees and sometimes many degrees.

Could my hon. friend explain to me why it is that intelligent thoughtful people make such an obvious mistake?

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend from Témiscamingue and must say that I support much of what he said. I also acknowledge that some of the concerns he raised were legitimate ones, particularly from his perspective.

Let us look forward with some vision in the next few years to a commission where the federal government would take its responsibility for introducing Canada to the world. I think we all agree that as a country we have an attractive tourism potential that is almost unique in the world. We are a country with pristine landscapes from coast to coast that are vast, open territories, to say nothing about a variety of enhanced cultural benefits to the landscapes.

Would my friend from Témiscamingue say that there is a place for the federal government to play a role in setting aside some large perspectives in terms of attracting people to come to Canada for a variety of purposes based primarily on tourism, that within that context provincial governments would take up the challenge to promote their provincial benefits to the tourism sector, and that within the provinces, the regions and the various boards of trade, chambers of commerce or tourism development companies would take it upon themselves to promote their own sub-regions in terms of tourist potential?

This would entail the Canadian government going out on a large, national campaign, leaving it up to the provinces and territories to do provincial and territorial campaigns and leaving it up to a whole set of sub-regions to promote the benefits of their particular areas. It would be the best parts of different levels of governments working together. Of course all of this would include the private sector in terms of the facilities for tourism they would be providing.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly keen to participate in the debate on Bill C-13.

I have listened carefully to the debate as it has unfolded today. It has been a thoughtful debate. There are some clear differences being stated among the political parties.

I will begin my few remarks today by reminding members of parliament that between 1994 and 1997 the government continuously cut its investment in health research. I remember at the time that the health care sector was appalled that the government would cut research funding.

Once a research program is stopped, we cannot simply add a few dollars and start it again. There are professional researchers and scientists who often invest their entire lives in projects. It is not simply a matter of turning on the taps and returning to the research project. Long term preparation is carried out by the people who do this research.

The cuts that came between 1994 and 1997 dealt a death blow to much of the scientific research in the health care sector. My doctor friend from Winnipeg would be only too sensitive to this issue, but I think he would agree that those cuts were lamentable. Today, with Bill C-13, we are admitting that there were some really serious cuts, that those cuts were not just minor skin wounds, that they amounted to major surgery in the health care research system.

During these years per capita funding of health research fell from $9.14 to $7.92. Canada, as a result, became less competitive in its funding levels compared to most other industrialized nations, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France and others.

These cuts had several effects. They drove researchers, including established professors, recent research graduates and post-graduate students, across the border in search of sustainable funding. My colleagues in the Reform Party, whose views I always respect—I do not agree with them, but I respect that they have a right to hold whatever view they want—are concerned that it was the salaries provided to the researchers, doctors and professors which drove them to leave Canada.

I would not deny that is a factor, but the scientists I have met, the medical researchers I have spent time with, say that one of the reasons they were leaving Canada, were contemplating leaving Canada or had actually left Canada was not so much because of the taxation system, but more because the facilities available to them in these other jurisdictions would enable them to do what they were professionally motivated to do. In other words, if they were serious scientists and there were no decent research labs, facilities and programs in Canada, they would almost be forced to go elsewhere to carry out the research to which they had dedicated their lives.

Coupled with the large scale withdrawal of federal funding from core social programs, the cuts in health research diminished the capacity of our health care system to care for patients and stifled the application of new research findings.

We can imagine the frustration that must have been felt and that is still being felt by serious professionals in the health care field who know that their patients should be receiving these kinds of treatments, who know that their patients should be benefiting from this kind of research, but because the research is being developed in other jurisdictions it is often not available to them because of the cuts which have been made to our health care system.

The withdrawal of federal funding from post-secondary education and cuts to health research drove many university administrations to foster commercial research partnerships with industry. We have to acknowledge that this has a whole set of concerns which we ought to register.

These partnerships, in many cases, have decreased academic freedom due to an emphasis on applied research, a trend in self-censorship among university professors and the privatization of research findings for the purpose of profit. All of this is fine. We appreciate that there are various kinds of research, but much of the kind of research which we see as being necessary, particularly in the field of medical research, is not something on which we can easily put a price tag. The benefits may be seen many years into the future and may require pure scientific research as opposed to applied scientific medical research. Once we start with commercial research partnerships, naturally the commercial sector will want to see some likelihood of profit in the foreseeable future. These are very serious concerns.

We support the general thrust of this legislation. It is long overdue. It is a step in the right direction and it is an attempt to correct some of the past mistakes made by this and the previous government. The government has endorsed this new model of health research funding, the Canadian institutes of health research. By and large, we welcome this as a replacement to the Medical Research Council.

We support the new money that will be put into the system. By doubling the 1997-98 levels of research funding to $500 million in the year 2001-2002, Canada will regain some of the ground that it lost to Liberal government cuts over the past six years.

Clearly this legislation, in its support for researchers and academic programs, will go a long way in alleviating the problem of the so-called brain drain in Canada, but the legislation, in our judgment, needs to go even further.

We have a certain reservation that our funding levels under this particular research program will remain disproportionate to funding in the United States and other industrialized countries which put a much higher premium on research and development. Again, while this is a step in the right direction, let us not say that it is adequate. Much more needs to be done if we are to maintain and regain our rightful role in the world of scientific research.

Let us face it, we have to accept our responsibility. We are a major industrialized nation and people look to us to work with them so that scientists and researchers from different parts of the world can complement each other's work. Canada has been letting go of its traditional leadership role that it could be playing.

We want to suggest that a more likely figure for consideration by the government would be $750 million annually or 1% of the total annual health care expenditure. Surely there is no one in the House who would say that spending 1% of the total health care budget on research, which will improve the health of Canadians now and in future generations, is an excessive amount when we will be in a surplus situation with $90 billion over the next five years. We would like to put that on the table for consideration.

We are also rather enthusiastic about the nature of the research which will take place in the social context. The multidisciplinary, multisectoral and cross-regional approach of the bill ideally will contextualize hard research, acknowledging social, cultural and environmental influences on our health. Our reservation is that this emphasis needs strengthening so that there will be a central focus in the causation and prevention of ill-health, in particular on social and environmental determinants.

As a bit of an aside, this is why we are concerned about some of the provisions of the NAFTA and of potential changes as a result of the World Trade Organization talks, which may hinder us as legislators in passing laws that would protect the health of Canadians in the future.

If we disrupt the profit flow of American research or drug companies, or companies offering various aspects of health prevention, we could possibly be liable to compensate them for their lost profits as a result of the trade deal. We see once again a mixing of the NAFTA and the WTO into something as fundamentally important as medical research.

We also support the whole issue of applied research, in that the goal of the legislation is to apply research and to connect health researchers to health providers in a significant way.

Our reservation is that this initiative be more than an empty gesture on the part of the government. Social transfers to the provinces need to be restored. How will new research results be applied without adequate health care funding, equipment and the necessary staff?

In spite of our enthusiastic support for the major thrust of this legislation, we are concerned about the commercialization aspect. We are concerned about the governing council. My colleague from Winnipeg indicated our concerns in that regard in her last presentation.

There is the whole issue of ethics. The government has made ethics explicit in Bill C-13, saying that health research should take into consideration ethical issues. That sounds pretty wimpy to me. We have to get a lot tougher than that and say that we will either take ethical issues into consideration or not. We should not sort of consider them. It is a little weak in the wording. The words “consideration of ethics” are completely inadequate.

This bill is a major step in the right direction. Our concern is the level of funding provided for scientific health research. In order to keep the balance appropriate we need to re-establish those serious levels of transfer payments for health care to complement the good work that ought to flow from this legislation.

[Petitions, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, from a number of constituents who are once again calling for the abolition of the undemocratic Senate. I will not take the time of the House of Commons to go through all of their reasons, as there are many.

The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to take whatever steps are necessary in the House of Commons to abolish the Senate of Canada once and for all.