John Harvard

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I am very pleased to participate in this debate and to speak about one of the principal strengths of Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector, its innovativeness.

The sector has long been a leader in forward thinking and strategic planning. The agri-food sector demonstrates a keen business sense and a healthy enthusiasm for competition. Staying at the forefront of developments in this sector is a constant process, a process of adapting to changing conditions, of adopting new technologies and improving one's position in the marketplace.

Clearly if we are serious about this effort we have to put the money where it matters. Research is a critical investment. The work done by scientists in the agri-food area provides the foundation on which farmers are able to build a competitive business that returns them a reasonable income.

For example, a recent study by the Government of Canada called “The Economic Benefits of Public Potato Research in Canada” found that from 1971 to 1995 public research on potatoes returned $10 to the industry for every $1 invested. Other studies have shown that the return on investment in cereal research is 30%. That means for every dollar we spend we make $1.30 through things like increased exports, higher quality products and lower production costs. This is a very important figure when we consider how important and competitive the world market is for cereals.

With its commitment to both basic and applied research the Government of Canada is working hard with the agri-food sector to make that return grow. Canada's agriculture and agri-food research capabilities amount to a success story. They are key factors in helping our agriculture and agri-food innovate for further economic development and environmental sustainable. With the inevitable downturns that are a fact of life in the market system the strength of the connections between the research and technology development community and the wider agriculture and agri-food sector has never been more important.

In Canada public and private spending on research in the agriculture and agri-food sector amounts to $1 billion, and $350 million of that comes from the Government of Canada. If we think research is expensive just try competing without R and D against the likes of the United States, the European Union and our other main competitors. It will not work.

Producer organizations representing farmers in many commodities are participating in steering committees on research and development at the national level of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's research branch as well as at individual research centres across the country. This means that producers are playing a direct role in the direction of research and technology development activities. These activities will lead to new products and new processes to enhance productivity, open new markets and add value to agricultural products.

Through programs such as the matching investment initiative and the Canadian adaptation and rural development fund, producers have contributed both input and funding to support research and technology development activities in a wide range of areas, from biotechnology to environmentally sustainable farming practices. They deserve praise for their proactive efforts.

Research activities are supporting diversification by developing, testing and adapting new crops and techniques to Canadian conditions. Scientists are working to develop new applications for existing crops such as varieties of wheat better suited to pasta. From cranberries to canola, Canadian farmers have access to expertise and advice from researchers on lucrative new crops or niche marketing opportunities.

Research is also helping farmers lower their costs of production, whether through new soil conservation methods or high technology for livestock grading.

Research also facilitates the transition to a more global market. We are in a difficult stage of that transition right now, no doubt. The current situation has been shaped by an almost unprecedented combination of events. But both the sector and its partners in the federal and provincial governments remain actively engaged on all fronts to see that the farm income support system continues to work well and to evolve. That is what the meeting the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has called tomorrow is all about.

In the background, research and technology development activities across Canada are laying the groundwork for future success. That helps explain why Canadian agriculture is among the best in the world. Our expertise in things like irrigation, tillage, crop breeding and disease control is no accident. It is the product of hard work and investments on the research side.

Agriculture is high tech. Farmers make great use of technology. In wise and skilful hands the tools of technology can bring rich harvests. Go to any region in this country and look at its farms and its processing operations to get a measure of that.

Moving technology from the lab to the farm requires a close and ongoing relationship between Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's 18 research centres and producers in their regions.

Here are some examples for my hon. colleagues to consider. At the Lacombe Research Centre in Alberta, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is involved in a study using computer vision technology to accurately grade beef.

At the Saskatoon Research Centre the Canola Council of Canada is working jointly with federal researchers on a study using the latest biotechnology methods to improve the quality of canola oil and meal.

At the Horticultural Research and Development Centre in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, work has led to diagnostic standards to correct mineral deficiencies for peas, beans and corn.

The Fredericton Research Centre, in a project supported in part by the New Brunswick Potato Agency, has developed a technology to improve blight forecasting.

These are just some examples, and they dramatically illustrate the point that whether it is new approaches to crop and animal production or learning how to control weeds and combat diseases that can cripple a harvest, what is accomplished at research centres will positively affect us all.

Increasing production is a great thing but we know that we are living on borrowed time if we ignore the long term quality of the soil, water and air. Using water and fertilizers more effectively means improved soil structure, conservation of water and a reduction in the so-called greenhouse gases that are behind global warming.

Hon. members wish to debate the current situation in agriculture, but I would think we should broaden the debate to focus on now and the future, because research is helping to shape the future of agriculture. In many ways it is helping to ensure there will be a future for agriculture.

In assessing the current situation we must not lose sight of what is being done to build on the many strengths of Canadian agriculture, and there are many strengths. Without question the agriculture and food sector in Canada is leading the way in setting priorities and making decisions and investments that will generate long term benefits at all levels of the food system, from producers to consumers.

[Canadian Wheat Board, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this summer the House made what amounts to the single biggest change in Canadian grain marketing in 60 years. For the first time producers will directly elect 10 of the 15 directors to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Can the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board tell the House how this historic election process is progressing?

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, do you not just love it? Do you not love the hypocrisy of the Reform Party? It is the party that loathes the heavy hand of government, the party that loathes state intervention, the party that loathes regulation, but when it comes to rail line abandonment, which is a very legitimate issue and concern on the prairies, what does the Reform Party want? It wants state intervention. It wants more regulation. It wants more heavy handedness from the government. There is absolutely no party on the face of the earth that is more hypocritical than the Reform Party.

[Merit Principle, October 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I want to say off the top that I am at a loss to understand why we are even having this debate.

This government fully agrees with the member for Wetaskiwin that Canadians should be hired on the basis of merit. It is precisely because we believe profoundly that all qualified individuals should be given an equal chance to gain employment that we supported amendments to the Employment Equity Act in 1995, amendments I might add that enjoy widespread public support.

Employment equity simply means that everyone is treated fairly, not preferentially. It means that all qualified job candidates regardless of gender, race or physical and intellectual capacity will be given equal consideration for recruitment and will be retained and promoted on the basis of merit. Employment equity ensures that all individuals are given a fair chance to prove their merit and are not penalized because of their physical appearance or gender.

As we all know, women, aboriginal people, members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities do not always receive a fair shake when applying for a job. Excluding qualified people from employment opportunities results in enormous economic waste and social disintegration. Employment equity is about human decency, fairness and equality, the cornerstones of a true democracy. Equality regardless of race, gender, disability, creed, marital status or family conditions is a right which is guaranteed by the constitution of this great county.

The economic arguments for employment equity are equally compelling. The many private sector employers who appeared as witnesses before the parliamentary committee that reviewed Bill C-64 said repeatedly that promoting employment equity gives them a competitive advantage. These employers said that effective employment equity policies and programs help them attract and retain employees from all backgrounds. This in turn facilitates their entry into more diverse domestic and international markets. Far from being a burden to business, employment equity enlarges the pool of qualified workers from which businesses can draw while increasing their access to new markets.

Improving the lives and opportunities of Canadians also enhances this country's economic performance. Employment equity removes barriers to full participation in Canadian society, barriers that have been insurmountable for far too long.

Let me remind the member for Wetaskiwin that the act clearly stipulates that no employer can be required under any circumstances to hire or promote unqualified individuals, nor are employers required to create new positions in order to satisfy some arbitrary equity targets. What the act does do is it vigorously supports and promotes excellence in the workplace by ensuring that all Canadians have an equal opportunity to make a contribution to our economy and society.

This progressive approach helps Canada keep pace with changing times, changing demographics and a changing economy. It enables us to ensure both the spirit and practice of legal and social equality. Other countries have recognized the benefits of employment equity and have used our act as a model. We should be proud of our leadership in this area.

This motion would have us turn back the clock, no doubt about it. The motion would have us return to a time when there was little guarantee of respect for diversity in the workforce. If adopted, there is a very real danger this motion could result in an increase of the very inequities and unfairness which the Employment Equity Act seeks to eliminate. It would create an unacceptable working standard for millions of Canadians. It would condone racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination which we know already exist in the workplace.

This is clearly unacceptable to Canadians, particularly to the millions of Canadian women, persons with disabilities, members of visible minorities and aboriginal peoples who make up more than half of this country's population.

Employment equity is necessary to make equality of opportunity a reality, not just an ideal, for all Canadians. The member for Wetaskiwin I hope would agree that equality of opportunity is a basic human right, yet we are still a long way from achieving that goal.

For all these reasons, Canada cannot afford the attitude embodied in this motion. It must not stand in the way of progress.

I remind the House that we as representatives of the people of Canada have both a legal and a moral obligation to uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the cornerstone of the constitution of this country. To deny the need for employment equity seriously compromises our ability to carry out this duty. I must therefore urge the member for Wetaskiwin to withdraw his motion. I encourage him instead to support the values of fairness and equality embodied in employment equity.

The strengthened Employment Equity Act has now been in effect for almost two years. We are once again among those nations that lead the world in moving toward an egalitarian society not only on paper but in practice.

I ask all members of this House to join together with us as we continue to pursue and achieve major milestones in the pursuit of fairness and equality for all.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on private member's Bill C-283, a bill that would require the accounts and records of the Canadian Wheat Board to be audited annually by the Auditor General of Canada.

As the hon. member is no doubt aware, Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board, received royal assent in June of this year. One of the amendments to that legislation, passed by the other place, relates to the financial accountability of the Canadian Wheat Board to the farmers it serves. That amendment, endorsed by the government, the BQ and the Progressive Conservatives in a vote of 197 to 60, allows for the Auditor General of Canada to conduct a one time audit of the accounts and financial transactions of the Canadian Wheat Board and report the findings to the producer controlled board of directors and the minister responsible.

A major thrust of Bill C-4 is to give farmers control of their marketing agency by establishing a 15 member board of directors with 10 of those positions, a full two-thirds majority, to be filled by producer elected directors. The board of directors will be in charge of overseeing Canadian Wheat Board operations. These directors will have access to all information and facts and figures regarding Canadian Wheat Board operations, including selling prices for grain. In other words, Bill C-4 has put producers in the driver's seat.

The legislation the member for Portage—Lisgar is proposing would take the keys away from farmers and give control back to the government. The government believes that with the full knowledge of the inner workings of the Canadian Wheat Board the directors are in the best position to assess what information should be made public and what, for commercial reasons, should remain confidential. They will be in the best position to assess Canadian Wheat Board operations. The recent changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act will give the producer controlled board of directors the power to make changes to these operations.

The government recognizes that producers are entitled to know how their marketing agency is working for them. The Canadian Wheat Board works for them, not the other way around. Therefore how it conducts its business is their business.

Hon. members must bear in mind, however, that the Canadian Wheat Board is a major competitor in international grain trade. With $6 billion a year in sales, it is Canada's fifth largest exporter. It markets wheat and barley on behalf of western Canadian grain producers to more than 70 countries around the world. In other words, the Canadian Wheat Board is a big player in international markets. Grain trading on this scale is a highly competitive business where information is king and confidentiality is paramount to ensure the highest possible returns to farmers.

Who is selling to whom and for how much is highly guarded commercial intelligence that in the hands of its competitors could jeopardize the wheat board's ability to extract premiums from the marketplace. That in turn would affect the bottom lines of more than 110,000 prairie grain farmers.

Obviously then a balance is needed between transparency and accountability to producers and ensuring that Canadian Wheat Board operations and records are not subject to significantly greater levels of public access and scrutiny than the private sector grain companies it competes against.

That is very important and it is important to understand that.

With that in mind and to enhance the transparency and accountability of the wheat board the government supported the amendment to the legislation to allow a one time audit of the accounts and financial transactions of the Canadian Wheat Board by the auditor general.

Therefore, and this is important to understand, the general intent of this private member's bill is already incorporated in the new law.

[Women's History Month, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in honour of Women's History Month in Canada I would like to add my voice to those who support the initiative. I believe that it is important to the young women of our country. They need role models and mentors to meet the challenges of their adult lives with confidence. What better way to learn than through the stories of their foremothers?

As mathematicians, firefighters and astronauts, as lab technicians, architects and farmers, women are increasingly defying the stereotypes about what constitutes women's work.

These women are following in the footsteps of trailblazers like Harriet Brooks, Canada's first woman nuclear physicist.

By uncovering the often overlooked stories of women's diverse contributions to society we acknowledge women's role in history. We support a better understanding of what women do today. We open up the future for young women. More important than that, we change not only who but what goes into Canadian history books.

[Division No. 231, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be counted in the vote in support of the government.

[Agriculture, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

Will the minister further update the House on efforts to stop harassment by several U.S. states of Canadian trucks carrying agricultural products across the line? What action is the minister taking to force the Americans to respect existing trade agreements?

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is probably a fundamental difference and fundamental disagreement between the hon. member and me on gun control.

The hon. member has tried to use personal tragedy to score some political points. He refers to an incident at Liard River Hot Springs, which I gather is in his riding. It was a terrible tragedy. He implied that somehow or another gun registration would contribute to an incident that had already occurred at a time when gun registration was not in place. Also the hon. member implied that safe storage would somehow play into the incident. He is trying to confuse the viewers of this House of Commons session.

Bill C-68 insofar as registration is concerned is not invoked. It is not in place yet and will not be on a compulsory basis until 2003. I do not understand how non-registration would have somehow prevented this terrible incident in Liard River Hot Springs.

If somehow or other the hon. member could share this information maybe we would be all better off, but as far as I am concerned I do not think gun registration is relevant insofar as this incident is concerned.

[Firearms, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the gun lobby gathers on Parliament Hill, I would like to remind this House that the purpose of our government's Firearms Act is to help ensure Canadians continue to live in a safe society. When I look at our neighbours to the south, I am shocked to see the gun lobby fight simple protective measures like trigger locks and safe firearms storage.

I am horrified every time I hear about a child taking firearms to school and using them with deadly consequences on innocent schoolmates.

The Reform Party and other opponents of Canada's new Firearms Act would have us believe that firearms regulation is just one step on a slippery slope. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to assure law-abiding gun owners that they have nothing to fear from the Minister of Justice or this government. Our commitment is to make sure that gun control is implemented in the most efficient way possible.