Howard Hilstrom

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent speech by the House leader of the Canadian Alliance, to say the least. It covered every point. It bears a little reinforcing with the firearms registry and all the troubles that it has. Now we are talking about registering not 7 million people but 33 million people. As for the $2 billion to $3 billion that it would cost to register all Canadians, could that money not be better used to reinforce our military, our RCMP, our police forces and our intelligence services, to actually deal with the terrorists who would attack our country?

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

You do not have to have that, though.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, of course I dispute the premise on which the member is justifying this national ID card. Of all the cards that he mentioned he has in his wallet, only the social insurance number card is imposed by the government and of course it is restricted in its use to delivering social benefits. It cannot really be used for anything else.

The national ID card is one that in fact creates a type of police state. In this regard the member mentioned George Orwell and Big Brother. The government would require individuals to possess a national ID card. The police would have the right to demand that card from somebody innocently walking down the street. There would be no reason other than the fact that people would have to have the card and the police would have the right to demand it. There would of course be a penalty for not having a card. An investigation would start and presumably an arrest would be made because the person would be detained until fully checked out. If an investigation were to show that the person did not have an ID card the penalty would be a fine or possibly jail. To me, that does equate to a police state, to a big brother, to an infringement on our personal liberties.

I would ask the member to address that. Would there not have to be a mechanism to force Canadians to have that card, and if they did not have it, would they not be jailed?

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am 100% opposed to the identification cards that the government wants all Canadians to possess. I refer back to the requirement of the government that all firearms owners to have a card of identification.

The Privacy Commissioner has indicated very clearly that the questions asked on the form to get personal firearm licence cards create a big government databank on individuals which is against the privacy rights of Canadians. That issue has not been fully addressed.

Is that the concern of the member with this motion today, that in fact the privacy and the civil liberties of Canadians are being trampled upon by the Liberal government?

[Canada Health Act, February 11th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary bringing that information forward.

We know there is a plan but the cattle producers were not consulted sufficiently on this. I point out that the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association has stated that the plan put forward by the various government agencies will not work because it will not proactively reduce the number of elk inside that park. The numbers are so great that the elk herd will continue to carry the disease and, if there are too many elk inside the park for the amount of habitat, the elk will leave the park looking for food. It may be only 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 500 of the elk that have TB but they will go along with the rest of the herd and the disease will spread to local cattle.

The ranchers and cattle producers were not been fully listened to, including their representatives at the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association. They would have liked to have had their recommendation that the hot spots, where the disease is known to exist in greater percentage--

[Canada Health Act, February 11th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, according to the rules of the House, we have one issue with which to deal. It arises out of a question that I asked in question period before Christmas. The answer I received was less than full. As a result, I want to raise it again to give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage an opportunity to expand on the answer and more clearly state what the government's position is.

This concerns the loss of the tuberculosis free status for the Province of Manitoba with regard to our cattle industry in particular. The loss of that status impacts on trade with other provinces as well as the United States. It is very important for Manitoba to regain that TB free status. That is the issue. It is not a question of food safety. Food going out of Manitoba from all livestock, including elk, bison, deer, is not in question. It is a question of animal disease control, and in the case of tuberculosis, it has to be eradicated.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency will go to a ranch where a domestic cattle herd has been identified as having tuberculosis and literally will have all the animals destroyed. That eliminates the disease. The farm or ranch is ultimately repopulated with a clean herd and the business continues on, with no re-infection.

In Manitoba the elk in the area of the Riding Mountain National Park, which comes under the heritage minister's purview in the House, are a reservoir for tuberculosis. When the elk leave the park, they interact with the cattle herds in the surrounding district. There are about 50,000 cattle in the immediate area, so there is quite a bit of contact. The elk herds re-infect the clean cattle herds. The problem is that Agriculture Canada and the CFI are cleaning up the cattle herds but nobody is cleaning up the elk herd inside the Riding Mountain National Park.

The point of my question is why does the plan, which has been developed by Heritage Canada, Agriculture Canada, the Province of Manitoba and the local municipalities, not have in it a specific proactive effort to eradicate the disease from wild elk. Part of the plan is to increase the number of hunting licences and have hunters reduce the number of elk.

There are about 4,000 to 4,500 elk inside the park. Everybody knows and agrees that is the reservoir for the disease. However in this last hunting season of 2002, there were approximately 260 animals taken by hunters. These animals were from all around the park, not just in the hot zones, which are the places where the elk come out and contaminate cattle herds.

Hunting will not reduce the number of elk down to the target level, which I believe the government has said would be about 2,500. There have been 260 taken by hunters, with maybe a few more yet to come. That will not do it.

My question to the Minister of Canadian Heritage is this. Why is something proactive not being done to reduce the number of diseased elk inside the park?

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, do the Liberal government, the member himself, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and the Progressive Conservatives never get tired of taking the taxpayers' hard-earned money away from them and spending it foolishly?

[National Parks, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the plan is totally useless. It is not doing the job. The government's plan to reduce the elk herd through hunting licences is one way of trying to do it. However this year only 260 elk were taken by hunters. At that rate, the disease will never be eradicated.

Maybe we can get an answer from the agriculture minister. Does the Minister of Agriculture understand that Manitoba will never regain TB-free status unless the disease is eradicated from the wild elk herd?

[National Parks, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on January 20, the CFIA announced that two more Manitoba cattle farms had tuberculosis outbreaks. This is in addition to the six farms that already are under quarantine. In this new outbreak, 230 cattle will be destroyed, but guess what? No elk in the Riding Mountain National Park will be destroyed, even though they are the proven source of the tuberculosis.

Why is the heritage minister standing idly by and not eradicating TB from the Riding Mountain National Park elk herd?

[Agriculture, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister could go on but the farmers will not be any better off. I can guarantee that.

The $1.1 billion that is supposed to come out every year is in a program that has a rolling effect to it. In fact, if the money is not paid out, it rolls to the next year and then to the next year. What we will be seeing is farmers not getting $1.1 billion a year like they have in the past.

This agriculture policy framework is putting less money into the pockets of farmers and the minister had better explain to farmers why that should be.