The House met at 10 a.m.
The report contains the committee's recommendations regarding
fixing the problems that were raised by the auditor general on
social insurance numbers.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests the
government to table a comprehensive response to this report.
If the House gives its consent I move, seconded by the member
for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, that the 54th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in
and that the 53rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs presented to the House yesterday be concurred
in.
The petitioners are concerned about the government's lack of
initiative to introduce legislation to protect Canadian fresh
water. They are concerned that it has not announced any
moratorium. They are worried that our trade agreements will
facilitate the export of bulk water from Canada to the United
States and northern Mexico.
The petitioners call on parliament to take immediate action to
safeguard fresh water for future generations of Canadians.
The petition has to do with human rights. The petitioners would
like to draw to the attention of the House that human rights
abuses are rampant around the world, including in Indonesia.
The petitioners also point out that Canada is internationally
recognized as the champion of human rights and therefore the
petitioners pray and call on parliament to continue to condemn
such human rights abuses and also to seek to bring to justice
those responsible for such abuses.
I submit a petition in the House of Commons, in parliament
assembled, that we the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the
attention of the House to the following, that Canadians deserve
an accountable Senate.
Therefore your petitioners call on parliament to request that
the Prime Minister accept the results of a Senate election once
again on behalf of the citizens of Ottawa South.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today as we speak an important
federal-provincial conference is being held on the social union.
We are aware that at the very heart of this planned social union
lies the issue of jurisdiction over health care management and
health care services throughout Canada, and all the provinces,
including Quebec, of course.
We are also aware that Canadians and Quebeckers want to see
major investments in health. There have been unprecedented
federal cuts to social programs, half of those to health, and
these have jeopardized the provinces' ability to deliver quality
health care.
In Quebec, it is the openly stated wish of nearly all
stakeholders that health care management be restored to the
provinces, that Quebec be the only one involved in its health
sector.
However, today the federal government's political visibility
moves it to do something with the budget surplus, a surplus
accumulated on the backs of the provinces, at an annual rate of
$6.3 billion, and on the backs of the unemployed and businesses.
I remind the House that $20 billion was taken—and that is the
nice way of saying it—from the employment insurance fund by
this government under false pretences.
Now that surpluses have been accumulated on the backs of the
provinces and the unemployed, this government is trying to set
itself up as a saviour by saying to people “We will fix your
health problems”. And yet it is this government that created
the current chaos and the problems the provinces are facing.
This government wants to arrive and say “We have the solutions”.
It has no solutions, it created the problems. The solution is
to return the money where it took it from, where it spirited it
away, and I cannot say it any other way, it would be
unparliamentary.
There is nothing surprising in the fact that this government has
acted this way for years and today talks about transparency,
especially in health care, when it spirited away $20 billion on
the backs of the unemployed saying “We shall determine
employment insurance contributions”.
Yet this government does not put one red cent into the
employment insurance system, which is wholly funded by
businesses and employees. However, this government is taking
this money assigned to employment insurance and spending it here
and there to reduce the deficit, and is planning to give the
wealthy a tax break at the expense of the unemployed.
I remember the Prime Minister stating that he had been paying EI
premiums for the past 35 years when in fact he never did. There
is cause for concern when the number one decision maker does not
even know how the system works.
Like a studious seminarian, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs recites a litany of so-called federal responsibilities
over health matters.
What this pious Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs fails to
mention, however, is that the federal government acquired these
responsibilities in the area of health care over time by
interfering in and encroaching on provincial jurisdictions with
its spending power.
This spending power is the crux of the political, constitutional
and budgetary problem we are facing, which is the focus of the
discussions, today, on social union.
This spending power is how the government has managed to intrude
everywhere. In every attempt at constitutional reform, the issue
of spending power has come up. The Liberal Party has always
opposed these reforms and even sabotaged them, to preserve this
spending power. And this is particularly true with this Prime
Minister.
Members should remember 1982, when Quebec was isolated. Remember
the smell in the kitchens of the Château Laurier. Remember that
this Prime Minister also derailed the Meech Lake accord with
Jean Charest. Remember who said “Thank you, Clyde” in Calgary,
and Clyde has now been appointed to the Newfoundland supreme
court. These people know how to reward their friends. It is this
government and these same people who, for 35 years, have been
using all the budget surpluses, while also generating deficits.
We are not even talking about surpluses anymore. These people
created major deficits by using their spending power to intrude
on jurisdictions that are not theirs.
As a result of all this, we now have a $600 billion debt. It is
costing us $45 billion annually to service a debt that was
generated through unnecessary intrusions. The government created
bureaucracies where there was no need for such structures, and
it will create yet another by setting up a national health care
monitoring system, by using statisticians and controllers such
as those who are trying to cut EI benefits, in compliance with
this minister's guidelines. Instead of writing books, the
minister should start reading his mail and look at what is going
on in his department.
These are the same folks who were responsible for such a debt,
who have built up an entire bureaucracy when what is needed are
not statisticians and inspectors, but doctors, nurses, clinical
workers and hospital support workers, because these people do
their utmost to deliver good service. We should be singing
their praises. They cannot do their jobs because people on the
other side have cut $6.3 billion annually. The amount has
dropped from $19 billion to $12 billion or $12.5 billion. The
government wants us to believe these people added $7 billion.
The truth is that the government cut $42 billion and not $49
billion.
Mr. Speaker, I should let you know that I will be sharing my
time with the member for Drummondville. Please let me know when
I am nearing the end of it.
When the government says it has to ensure the quality of health
care, is that not telling the provinces that they are not
responsible enough to manage their own affairs? Are provincial
leaders being told that they are irresponsible? That they lack
compassion? These folks have been running health care in Canada
for 132 years. Everything was fine until transfer payments were
cut.
Now these people are being told they are not competent to look
after their own affairs. Ottawa will take care of it. It is
the old “Ottawa knows best” song. We know it. We know how this
government likes to meddle in other people's business.
The government gives us the assurances line but the Minister of
Finance tells us the reason he is unable to reinvest in health
right now is because he does not have all the assurances. Yet
Saskatoon has given them.
However, all of the premiers have written recently to tell the
Prime Minister what they will reiterate again today, which is
that they are committed to scrupulously respect the health care
principles underlying the health legislation. They are also
committed to invest all of the money in health care. But they do
not have to be told to invest it in this particular hospital or
in this service. The health care issue cannot be left to
bureaucrats or politicians set on gaining more visibility.
Since we are talking about the principles guiding health care
management and all health care services throughout Canada, I
will conclude by saying that the government is trying to
establish a sixth principle, which is visibility, just as they
are trying to do with the millennium scholarship fund, another
area upon which they should not be infringing.
If the Prime Minister is so set on getting more visibility, he
could replace the image of Queen Elizabeth II with his own on
all $20 bills.
We would get some applause. We would get some laughs. It is not
funny but it is laughable and at least it would not be as
serious as encroaching on yet another area which is none of
their business.
It is sad that we have to move heaven and earth to make the
government understand things that should normally be obvious
when we are just two weeks away from the tabling of the federal
budget. Nevertheless, the poorly hidden agenda of the Prime
Minister and his Liberal government makes such a debate
necessary.
The motion before us includes the following three elements:
respecting provincial jurisdiction, increasing transfers
unconditionally and using budget surpluses more efficiently.
The only thing to do is to restore transfer payments for health
care and social services unconditionally. The provinces want
more money put into health care and they want the federal
government to let them manage the health care system according
to their priorities, as stipulated in the Canada Health Act.
I would like to quote from a short text which reminds us of the
federal government's role in the area of health care:
It seems quite clear to me.
The show of strength of 1982 confirmed the distribution of
powers as established by the Constitution Act of 1867. This same
act, in sections 92(13) and 92(16), gives jurisdiction to
provinces over health matters except in a few precise areas. The
role of the federal government regarding health care is to
redistribute money. The federal government raises funds through
taxation and redistributes that money unconditionally as
transfers to provinces.
Again, health is a provincial jurisdiction and the federal
government has no right to interfere in any way, nor is it
allowed to interfere in education with its millennium funds.
In the past, the finance minister seemed to be more mindful of
provincial jurisdiction in health care.
According to the minister himself the greater freedom of action
of provinces in their own jurisdictions was even one of the
reasons why he established the Canadian social transfer.
He sings a different tune now.
Whatever happened to these nice principles of freedom of action
and respect for jurisdiction? Once again, we are witnessing this
same paradox: the federal government is shamelessly skirting its
own laws while a sovereignist political party from Quebec is
fighting to get respect for the Canadian Constitution.
The federal government must restore its contribution to front
line health care services through the Canada health and social
transfer current arrangements. To do so, it must bring it back
to the same level as before the reckless cuts unilaterally
imposed by the Liberals, who thus managed to have others do
their dirty work.
These cuts by the federal government have contributed to the
gutting of the health care systems in provinces already reeling
from the freeze on transfer payments imposed by the Tories.
Last August in Saskatoon, all of the premiers reached a
consensus calling for the federal government to reimburse the
annual amount of $6.3 billion. Now that the government has
surpluses, funding must be re-established at the 1993-94 level,
namely $18.8 billion.
The Quebec government and the provincial governments are not the
only ones pointing an accusing finger at the Liberals for the
problems experienced by the health system and calling for
immediate reimbursement. Organizations representing front-line
health workers have also identified the federal government as
being the main one responsible.
In a press release dated September 22, 1998, the Canadian
Medical Association stated:
This is not the sovereignists talking, but the Canadian Medical
Association.
Again yesterday we received a press release from the President
of the CMA calling upon the provincial premiers and territorial
leaders to stand firm in their demand for full restoration of
federal transfers for health care funding that have been cut by
the federal government.
The association is also calling for the transfers to be indexed
to reflect the increased costs of new technologies and the
ageing of the population.
In a press release on August 5, 1998, the Canadian health care
association said:
We recommended that the $12.5 billion be a floor and not a
ceiling ... the increase in the transfers to the provinces
should strengthen the health insurance system, and the money
should be invested where it is likely to have the greatest
effect.
It is important to understand that the effects expected are on
the health services provided by the provinces and not on the
federal government's visibility.
William Robson, senior political analyst at the C.D. Howe
Institute, said:
Provinces will add money to their systems more easily if Ottawa
has not already grabbed the tax room. And provincial managers
will focus on the details of delivering health services better
if they are not sitting in Ottawa negotiating with bureaucrats
who may be thousands of miles from the action.
These are not our words. He even adds that, on the subject of
health care in Canada, the right prescription is coming from
Lucien Bouchard, not Ottawa.
However, the federal government is again reverting to old
reflexes: arrogance and encroachment.
I am going to conclude, because I have one minute left.
1030
Since I have only one minute left, I wish to propose the
following amendment:
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to give the House the assurance that discussions have taken
place between all parties in the House concerning the following
motion:
That at the conclusion of the present debate on the opposition
motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be
deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred
until Tuesday, February 9, 1999, at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have
the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order on another matter. Again discussions
have taken place between all parties. I believe you would find
unanimous consent for the following motion with reference to
Private Members' Business later today. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on Motion No. 380, all
questions necessary to dispose of the said motion shall be deemed
put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until
Tuesday, February 9, 1999 at the expiry of Government Orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. chief government whip
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: I must notify the House that debate will now
be on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Drummond.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, as you may have concluded
after listening to the remarks by my colleagues from
Laurier—Sainte-Marie and Drummond, for the remainder of the
debate, members of the Bloc Quebecois will be sharing their
time.
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on the opposition motion
before us.
I would like to address the role played by the federal
government through the Canada Health Act which enshrines the
principles and governs federal health transfer payments.
Under the Canadian Constitution the responsibility for health
care delivery falls primarily under the jurisdiction of the
provincial and territorial governments. They have the primary
responsibility for the provision and the delivery of health care
services to the people of Canada. The provinces and the
territories have responsibility to plan, manage and administer
their own health care delivery systems.
The federal government for its part by law is responsible for
the promotion and preservation of the health of all Canadians.
Health Canada is responsible for bringing all jurisdictions
together to tackle the health issues of national and
interprovincial concern. The federal government assumes
responsibility for setting national policies and for providing
health care services to specific groups, for example treaty
Indians and the Inuit.
It is appropriate when describing federal responsibilities in
health care to note what the federal government cannot do. It
cannot interfere in provincial and territorial responsibilities
as defined under our Constitution, nor can it be seen to be
interfering in those responsibilities.
There is in this country a longstanding partnership between the
federal and provincial and territorial governments with regard to
health care.
The enactment of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services
Act of 1957 and the Medical Care Act of 1966 established the
framework for this partnership between governments.
1035
At this time the federal government provided cost sharing for
medically necessary hospital and physician services in return for
the adherence of provincial and territorial health insurance
plans to the principles of a national program. Federal
legislation, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act
and the Medical Care Act, recognized the constitutional
responsibility of the provincial and territorial governments.
Concerns over hospital user fees and extra billing by physicians
led to the passage of the Canada Health Act in 1984. After a
very heated and historic debate, this was achieved with all-party
support, a unanimous vote in this House of Commons.
The Canada Health Act establishes certain conditions that the
provincial and territorial plans must meet in order to qualify
for their full share of federal health care transfer payments.
These criteria and conditions, pillars of Canada's health care
system, are: one, reasonable access to medically required
services unimpeded by charges at the point of service or other
barriers; two, comprehensive coverage for medically required
services; three, universality of insured coverage for all
provincial residents on equal terms and conditions; four,
portability of benefits within Canada and abroad; and five,
public administration of the health insurance plan on a
non-profit basis.
In addition to the above criteria, the conditions of the act
require that the provinces provide information as required by the
federal minister and give appropriate recognition to federal
contributions toward health care services in order to qualify for
the federal cash contributions.
The act also discourages the application of extra billing or
user charges through automatic dollar for dollar reductions or
the withholding of federal cash contributions to a province or
territory that permits such direct charges to patients.
In fact, the threat that user charges and extra billing would
erode accessibility to needed medical care was a major impetus in
the development of the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act
was enacted to protect the fundamental principles of our publicly
financed, comprehensive, portable and universally accessible
system of health insurance.
The provinces and territories retained the responsibility of
administering their health insurance plans under the Canada
Health Act and for planning and managing their respective
systems. This means that they, the provinces and territories,
have the responsibility for negotiating with physicians. It
means that they, the provinces and the territories, have the
responsibility for establishing budgets for their hospitals, for
the approval of their capital plans and for the management of
health care personnel and all related delivery issues.
I believe the Canada Health Act has afforded the provinces
sufficient flexibility to manage, develop plans and change the
structures within their own systems and jurisdictions. For
example, provinces at their own discretion may insure the
services of health professionals other than physicians.
The Canada Health Act does not interfere with the provincial or
territorial efforts intended to renew and improve health care
delivery to make it more effective or efficient and more
accountable to Canadians. The variations within the provinces and
territories as they deliver health care demonstrate that the
necessary and desirable flexibility already exists to respond to
the different needs of Canadians in the different regions of the
country.
The evolution of federal, provincial and territorial relations
in health care has maintained a distinction in the federal,
provincial and territorial roles in health care which are
consistent with the Constitution's definition of jurisdiction.
This is clearly stated in the preamble of the Canada Health Act,
“that it is not the intention of the Government of Canada that
any of the powers, rights, privileges or authorities vested in
Canada or the provinces under the provisions of the Constitution
Act, 1867, formerly named the British North America Act, 1867, or
any amendments thereto or otherwise, be by reason of this act
abrogated or derogated from or in any way impaired”.
1040
Provinces and territories have affirmed time after time their
support for the principles of medicare. The Canada Health Act is
strongly supported by most Canadians and is regarded as the
defining principles of medicare and the Canadian values of
sharing and caring.
Poll after poll indicates great public support for these
national principles. Even while discussions of health care
structural reforms are taking place, the values which are
reflected in each of these principles are still valid and are
supported, I believe, by an overwhelming majority of Canadians.
Health care is a unifying factor in this country. When asked to
rate the importance of a number of symbols of Canadian identity,
health care topped the list with 89% of Canadians agreeing that
it was a very important symbol.
Clearly the preservation of medicare is of concern to Canadians.
Canadians, some 84% of them, rate medicare among the highest
actions which makes them want to keep Canada together.
In conclusion, I wish to underline that the federal government
has had in the past and will have in the future a legitimate role
to play in health. The Canada Health Act is the foundation of
medicare. It is an act which respects the primary responsibility
of the provinces and territories for health care delivery. At
the same time it binds this country together with its principles
and has contributed to making Canadians among the healthiest
people and the most envied people on this planet.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and members of this House and
particularly my constituents in the riding of Thornhill for
giving me the opportunity to participate in this very important
debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when I hear the
hon. member, it strengthens my convictions as a sovereignist or,
as the members opposite like to say, as a separatist, and I will
try to pass those on to my five children and to my neighbours,
because this is absolutely outrageous.
It is totally unacceptable to confine the provinces to a merely
administrative role, while the federal government imposes its
whims and dictates in the health sector. The hon. member says
the provinces are primarily responsible for the management side
of things. This is a partisan interpretation of the 1867
Constitution, and of the one the Liberals created for
themselves, in 1981.
Under the constitutional division of powers, the provinces have
exclusive jurisdiction over health, and the federal government
has no business coming up with standards, concepts, principles
and techniques. All these things come under the provinces'
responsibility and this is what we are asking the government to
recognize.
Under a constitution that has been truncated, manipulated and
tampered with by courts that have always been appointed by the
federalist parties in office, the federal government now has a
taxation power that is perhaps five times greater than what it
needs to look after its exclusive constitutional jurisdictions.
It is because the government is collecting too much money from
taxpayers that it can brag and boast, set standards and
principles, and subject the provinces to its dictates. This is
what I find unacceptable.
I am asking the parliamentary secretary if she is sincerely
convinced that she is working in the best interests of her
country when she makes speeches such as the one she just
delivered.
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks,
health has been a shared jurisdiction in this country. The
federal government very clearly respects the role of the
provincial and territorial governments to plan, to manage, to
administer and to deliver health services within their
jurisdiction.
The Canada Health Act clearly defines the criteria, the
principles and also the conditions upon which federal funds are
transferred to the provinces.
This partnership is one which I believe is supported
overwhelmingly by a majority of Canadians across the country. It
binds the country together. I think that any party in the House
who attempted to scrap the Canada Health Act would be punished on
election day by Canadians because we value Canadian medicare. We
value the Canadian approach to delivery of health services. We
value the foundation of the Canada Health Act which says that we
share and we care for one another, that access to needed health
services is not dependent upon one's financial status and that if
one is sick in Canada we will care for them.
1045
The federal government has a very clear and defined role and
responsibility in the area of health promotion and disease
prevention. The federal government has a very clearly defined
role in the delivery of services to specific groups of people
whom I mentioned in my remarks. Those people, as an example, are
the Inuit, our first nations and other groups. We also have a
responsibility to bring together provincial and territorial
leaders, as is occurring today, to discuss issues of national
concern, national priority. As we know, health care is a
national priority for this government and health care and health
care issues are a concern for people across this country.
Therefore, it is very appropriate for us in the House today to
reaffirm our respect for provincial and territorial jurisdiction.
We do that, but at the very same time we acknowledge the
important role that the federal government has played through the
Canada Health Act, and the acts before it, in establishing
medicare, a model for health care delivery unique among the
countries of the world and one which has helped to make Canadians
among the healthiest and I believe among the most envied people
on this planet.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was a
fascinating discourse from my colleague across the way.
The question that is being asked here is, should the government
be able to put new conditions on health care spending. The Bloc
members have made it very plain. They have asked:
That this House urges the government to respect provincial
jurisdiction over health care management, to increase transfers
to the provinces for health care unconditionally, and to avoid
using budget surpluses to encroach upon the health care field.
I want to say initially that the problems with medicare are not
unique to Canada, they are worldwide. They are actually a little
worse here in Canada because of our debt problem and the interest
on the debt which gobbles up a fair amount of funding that could
go to social programs. But worldwide we have aging populations.
We have new technology and new procedures that are really quite
expensive and were never dreamed of when medicare came into
being. Here in Canada we have a medical legal system that
requires defensive practice which increases the costs of
medicare. We really have fairly restrictive policies in Canada
when it comes to a safety valve.
Although this has been done a host of times, I would like to
recapture what has happened over the last few years with
medicare. The Liberals promised to protect and enhance medicare
in the red book. They very quickly thereafter went through some
cuts which were substantial; $16.5 billion in cumulative cash
which would have gone directly toward these social programs, so
important they say to the public, since they took office. They
hid those cuts under the Canada health and social transfer.
I give the Liberals a bit of respect on this issue. They are
crafty. They are really quite sneaky in the way they did this.
It escaped largely the public's attention because the reductions
were not specific to health. It has only been very lately that
the public has become aware that the federal government pays less
for medicare than do patients out of their own pockets.
1050
Those words came from the federal Minister of Health, that
Canadians from their pockets or private insurance pay today more
for health care than does the federal government. I say, judge
them not by what they said, but judge them by what they did. In
other words, their actions speak much louder than than their
words.
It is easy to compare Canada with other countries. We dropped
from second to fourth in the world in per capita spending on
health care and that is directly related to those cuts. It is
also interesting that Canada is now the 23rd lowest out of 28
countries in the OECD in terms of public spending for health
care. In the last two years 1,400 of our most useful health
practitioners have left to go elsewhere.
These statistics really do not tell the story. The 200,000
patients on the waiting line do not talk at all about the pain,
the inability to work, the inability to function and the denial
of timely care.
I received a letter this morning from a Manitoba women. She was
diagnosed with possible bladder cancer. She needed an MRI. The
waiting list for the MRI in her province was too long to be
medically acceptable. Her sister who lives in Burnaby, B.C.
spent $2,500 of her money and the woman had her MRI a day later.
The diagnosis was cancer. The treatment was therefore available
to her in a short period of time.
This is a question that I pose to my Liberal colleagues, who
have escaped the criticism because the provinces received it:
Did their cuts have anything to do with that woman's inability to
get her MRI in a timely fashion? She has figured it out. She
said plainly in her letter “I know that the federal government
has a responsibility here”. She also knows that Manitoba is
spending more on health care today than it was in 1995, as is
Ontario.
I listen to my colleagues say “Those hackers in Ontario have
ruined the health care system”. Because of these cuts there
have been significant changes. But today Ontario spends $1.5
billion more in health care than it did in 1995. Liberal
government cuts to Ontario alone have totalled $3 billion. Every
province in Canada, but for Quebec and New Brunswick, today is
spending more on health care than in 1995, in spite of those
cuts. That is a fascinating indictment. The provinces know
where the important programs are. I still do not know why they
were cut.
The parliamentary secretary said that Canadians are comfortable
with health care and that they value this program more than
anything. It is true. But there is a very recent change in
public attitude on health care. This is a warning for my
colleagues across the way. There have been three polls conducted
in the last five months since October 1998.
The Harvard School of Public Health and the Commonwealth Fund
have being conducting polls in the Commonwealth now for a good
length of time. In their recent poll 20% of Canadians said that
on the whole the system works pretty well and that only minor
changes are needed to make it better and 56% said that there are
some good things in our health care system, but fundamental
changes are needed to make it work better. This is the worrisome
one: 23% of the Canadian public said “Our health care system
has so much wrong with it that we must completely rebuild it”.
Let us compare that with 10 years ago. Ten years ago the exact
same question was asked. At that time 56% said minor changes,
37% said major changes, and only 5% said it needed a complete
rebuild. Are they biased? It is the Harvard School of Business.
They are American.
1055
What did a recent Angus Reid, CTV, Medical Post,
Chatelaine poll say? Seventy-three per cent of Canadians
said that the health care system in our country has worsened over
the last five years. Most interesting was that they figured out
the cause: 55% said the government was at fault.
One may say that the Angus Reid poll was biased and asked very
skewed questions. However, another poll was just done by
Pollaro. This was done for the Coalition of National Voluntary
Organizations and Merck Frosst Canada. The first question asked:
Is medicare fine? Four per cent of Canadians said it was fine.
The second question asked: Does it need a minor tune-up?
Thirty-seven per cent said it needed a minor tune-up. The third
question asked: Does it need major repairs? Forty-five per cent
of Canadians said that it needs major repairs. The last question
asked: Does it need total rebuilding? Twelve per cent said yes.
If we propose a solution for Canada that has anything to do with
innovation or looking at fresh thinking we are called an enemy of
Canada. The public, however, is going to drive this debate.
This will not be driven by politicians, by the medical profession
or by the bureaucrats. The patient will come first.
The government's solution is to put conditions on health care
funding.
[Translation]
The Bloc Quebecois says no to such conditions, as do Albertans
and Reformers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution.
This is an issue that affects those who use health care
services. A change is needed in Canada.
I support the Bloc Quebecois motion and I hope the Liberals will
as well.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
thank my Reform Party colleague for his excellent speech.
I am wondering about the government members. Why are we not
hearing more from them during the question and comment period?
What I think is that they do not have it in them to defend their
own system. They would rather slip it past us, as my colleague
said earlier, cloaked in the more palatable Canada social
transfer, and tell us, as the Minister of Finance did, that the
new transfer will give the provinces much greater flexibility in
running their own health systems.
When it comes time to make cuts, they slash the Canada social
transfer by $6 billion annually. Then they tell us they will
give some of the money back.
They tell us that they can see that the provinces are perhaps
having a little difficulty running the health care system. They
will be good guys and give some of the money back, instead of
cutting $49 billion—for that is what it would have been in 2003.
They have changed their minds because that is what the
opposition parties, medical bodies and the National Health Forum
want.
They told us they were going to put some of the money back but
that is simply not true. I would like my Reform Party colleague
to tell us what he thinks of the federal government's tactics.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, the
problem with the federal government cuts is that they were made
unilaterally, that their impact was immediate and that the
provinces were not consulted.
This is why the provinces are putting up a united front on this
issue.
1100
In a huge country like Canada, it is hard to reach unanimous
agreement, but we did it in this area. There is also unanimous
agreement among service providers, physicians, nurses and other
health professionals. They all want clear, visible and
unconditional funding for health care.
It is up to the provinces to provide those services, and this is
not why the federal government is involved in this area of
jurisdiction. This statement is quite clear and I will be
supporting it.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak on behalf of my caucus today on the Bloc
motion, which I will read for the record:
That this House urges the government to respect provincial
jurisdiction over health care management, to increase transfers
to the provinces for health care unconditionally, and to avoid
using budget surpluses to encroach upon the health care field.
I listened very carefully to what my Bloc and Reform colleagues
had to say. I do not want to suggest that I did not listen
carefully to what the government had to say. In any event, there
is much I agree with in what they had to say about the effect of
federal cutbacks on health care services in the various
provinces, and much that I agree with in the outrage and
disapproval they expressed about those cutbacks and the way in
which the Liberal government got away with doing severe damage to
our health care system without really paying a price or even
acknowledging or having acknowledged just what it is that it has
done over the last few years through the removal of several
billions of dollars from the health care system which
cumulatively is well beyond several.
The figure used by my Reform colleague was something in the
neighbourhood of $16 billion. It is very large. Any other
government that had done the same thing would certainly have paid
a higher price than this government has been asked to pay so far.
I say “so far” because I think eventually the Canadian people
will realize what is going on here.
I differ with the Bloc on its motion. It is not a motion that
the NDP can support. I differ with my Reform colleague in his
expression of support for the motion. The Reform spokesperson
said that the Bloc motion talks about not having any new
conditions on health care spending. I am sorry, but that is not
what the motion says.
The motion says “to increase transfers to the provinces for
health care unconditionally”. It does not say increase
transfers to the province for health care without any new
conditions. It says “unconditionally”.
Had the motion said what it says but nevertheless went on to
affirm the Canada Health Act and the need for nationwide
standards, national standards when it comes to health care, it
might have been a motion that would be supportable. However it
does not do that.
I listened very carefully to both the Bloc spokespersons and my
Reform colleague. Neither one of them ever uttered the words
Canada Health Act. Neither one of them ever uttered the words
national standards. I do not think this is a coincidence. I
think we see here an alignment between—it is no secret—the Bloc
and the Reform parties when it comes to matters of provincial
jurisdiction, particularly with regard to health care and a
position mutually held with respect to the role of the federal
government in health care. It is not a position that is held by
the New Democratic Party.
We could not bring ourselves to vote for a motion that in any way
called into question implicitly or explicitly the continuing role
of the Canada Health Act and the continuing need for national
standards when it comes to medicare and health care. We will
vote against the motion.
1105
It was interesting to listen to the government spokesperson on
this matter going on and on about the Canada Health Act. I
support the Canada Health Act. I was here at the time it was
created. I sat on the health and welfare committee when the bill
went through and remember that whole process very well.
There are two things I have to say to the Liberals in this
regard. First, they were dragged into the Canada Health Act
kicking and screaming. It took four years of work in parliament
exposing the problem of extra billing by physicians and the
proliferation of user fees in the health care system that was
happening at that time to finally get the Liberal government to
act on the eve of the federal election in 1984. The Canada
Health Act was passed in April 1984 and the election was called
in July of that year.
The Liberals were dragged into the Canada Health Act kicking and
screaming by their own acknowledgement. A memoir written by then
Liberal Minister of Health Monique Bégin gives credit to the NDP
for, in her words, waging guerrilla warfare against her in the
House of Commons and forcing her to act. Those were her own
words in her own book about the role of the NDP at that time. I
will not go into who was the health critic at that time.
It is one thing to listen to the Liberals go on about the Canada
Health Act and how much they stand by it. However Canadians
should be reminded that this was something at the time that was
not done wholeheartedly. In the closing hours of that debate on
the Canada Health Act I remember saying as the NDP health critic
that no amount of principles, no amount of standards enshrined in
the Canada Health Act or anywhere else, rhetorically, would save
medicare if there were not sufficient funding and that without
sufficient funding medicare would slowly fade away. This is
indeed what is happening. This is the heinous political crime
being visited upon Canadian history by the Liberals.
It is a terrible irony when we think of how much credit they
like to give themselves. The other day I think it was the
Minister of Finance who was saying how it was the Liberals who
brought in medicare. Actually the Liberals first promised
medicare in their election platform of 1919 and by 1966, some 47
years later, they had finally delivered on that promise in the
context of a minority government where the NDP held the balance
of power and after medicare had been pioneered and all the dirty
work had been done in Saskatchewan by Tommy Douglas and the NDP.
Do not give us that hokum about the Liberals having anything to
do with the beginnings of medicare or hospitalization for that
matter which in my reading of Canadian history actually became
law under a Conservative government and not a Liberal government.
The Liberals are by their fiscal actions slowly, and in recent
years not so slowly, starving medicare to death. My Reform
colleague pointed out polls that show Canadians are increasingly
anxious about their health care system, that they have less and
less confidence in Canada's health care system. It is not
surprising because there has been a deterioration in service. The
evidence is there anecdotally, empirically and in every respect.
Every one of us knows someone who has been in the hospital in
recent years or months. They all have stories to tell. They all
have stories about dedicated health care workers, about people
working very hard, but they also have stories to tell about gaps
in the system thanks in many ways to the cuts that have been
visited upon our health care system.
1110
If the quality of our health care system runs down, if we have
waiting lists as we do and if people spend days on gurneys in
emergency wards, sooner or later it is only a matter of time
before enough Canadians say that they want to have some private
alternative to this service and do not want to be completely
dependent on a service that is going down, down and down.
That is the crime the Liberals are visiting upon medicare and
upon our country. They are creating the conditions for the
privatizers who have never gone away. The big health care
insurance industry is still out there and still licking its
wounds from its defeat in the sixties. It is not that long ago
as politics go. It sees its opportunity, and it is an
opportunity being created by the federal Liberals. They ought to
be ashamed of themselves for creating that opportunity.
They certainly should not have the nerve to stand in the House
as they do from time to time—the Prime Minister, the Minister of
Finance, the Minister of Health and others—and pretend they are
the great defenders and saviours of medicare. If they do not do
a complete turnaround in this regard, and if the Canadian people
do not make them do so if they do not choose to, it will be the
Liberals and no one else that go down as the political party that
destroyed medicare.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have to say
from the outset that I am very disappointed that the New
Democratic Party has chosen not to joint the rest of the
opposition to force the federal government to give back to the
provinces the money it has taken from them.
When the present Liberal government decided to cut transfer
payments, mainly for health care, it did not ask Quebec, Ontario
or any other province what kind of cuts it should make. They
were not consulted.
The government slashed transfer payments to the provinces,
forcing Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces, still trying to
achieve zero deficit, to impose radical health reforms, the
results of which we see today. But, first and foremost, the
primary responsibility belongs to the federal government. Quebec
is still paying $28 billion in taxes to Ottawa, but receiving
less and less services.
Of course I am very disappointed that the NDP has decided not to
support the Bloc Quebecois on this issue, especially since it
claims to represent the extreme left wing in this House. That
party claims to be the great democrat, to speak on behalf of
workers. It has ties to the labour unions. As a matter of fact,
the workers of Quebec and Canada are the ones who use our health
care system more and more. The demands of the Bloc Quebecois are
supported by central labour bodies.
I think the extreme left wing is not a good place to be in
Parliament.
I want to ask my colleague from the NDP the following question:
does he not think that the federal government should give back
to the provinces, unconditionally, what it took from them, and
let each province manage its own health care system?
The members of the National Assembly of Quebec are not a bunch
of boy scouts. They are not a bunch of losers. They are capable
of managing and they have a mandate to do so. I think
responsibility for health care management belongs to the
provinces, and the federal government should give them their
money back so they can manage in a fair and equitable manner the
health care services that Quebeckers and Canadians are asking
for.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I will resist the
temptation to talk about whether the Bloc is as identical to the
NDP as it sometimes claims.
1115
I have made this argument before that its support of free trade
agreements and other things like that in my view go against the
interests of workers.
The nationalist movement in Quebec has always been a bit of an
ideological grab bag. We know that. What unites it is its
nationalism, in this case its view of the need for Quebec to
separate from the rest of Canada. Having said that, I acknowledge
there are many social Democrats in the Bloc Quebecois and we work
with them when we can.
To the question was raised by the member, we are opposed to
unilateral cutbacks by the federal government in federal
transfers to the provinces in respect of provincial jurisdiction.
That is why we would have been in favour of a Bloc motion that
talked about arriving at a social union with respect to health
care that prevented unilateral cutbacks by the federal government
and that perhaps even talked about the mutual setting and
enforcement of national standards. But there is nothing like
that in the motion.
Instead the Bloc member did not say anything about the Canada
Health Act. The member still did not talk about national
standards pointing out, regrettably, the difference between
ourselves and the Bloc when it comes to this question.
For us medicare and its preservation and the idea of national
standards is a bottom line. That is all there is to it. Any
motion which calls that into question is unsupportable.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to talk about the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.
I will explain later on what led my colleagues in the Bloc to
move this motion.
As I have already told the Bloc critic, I am going to do a
little bit of nit-picking. I get the impression this motion was
prepared in some hurry, on the eve of the first ministers'
meeting in Ottawa.
This motion is not the best the Bloc has ever moved. It is
incomplete. They use the word “unconditionally”, but what they
say and what they mean is not the same thing.
What they mean is this: without any new condition related to the
social union. They should have spelled this out.
The message we get is: without any new condition, but under the
existing rules. The Bloc did not do its homework as well as it
should have. There is something missing. They wrote the motion
in a hurry.
Since the budget will be brought down soon, Bloc members thought
“Here, we should be dealing with health care”. However, they do
not mention any amount. Do they want to have $6 billion more for
the provinces or $2 billion? Should it be over two, three, or
five years? Do they want to restore funding to its former level
in one shot or over a five year period, as the health ministers
said last year?
We do not know the answers to these questions, and the Bloc has
nobody but itself to blame for that.
They will have to say they will do a better job drafting a
motion the next time.
However, I think our New Democratic friend went a little far. I
do not know whether he got the order not to support the Bloc any
more, but I think he went a bit far in saying “We cannot support
the motion because it goes against this and that”.
I think my New Democratic colleague has gone a bit far in his
analysis in an effort to justify his refusal to support the Bloc
Quebecois motion. We are going to support the Bloc Quebecois
motion and we could perhaps help them write future motions for
opposition days, if necessary.
In the future, I think the drafting could be a little more
professional.
Here again, I disagree with my New Democratic colleague, who
said “We will not support that because it does not honour
existing agreements”. I think this is going a bit far too.
I would like to say why we are debating this today. The budget
is of course coming up in a few weeks. The provinces,
Quebeckers and Canadians have called for more money in the
health care system. The Liberal government has reduced its
deficit by doing two things: cutting transfers to the provinces
and taxing people an additional $20 billion or $25 billion. The
federal government spent nearly $35 billion more than in 1993-94.
It is spending more.
1120
If there are surpluses, somebody somewhere coughed up more
money. As far as conditions are concerned, we agree with most
Canadians that new conditions cannot be imposed on the provinces
for health transfers. This is the federal government's idea.
Just this morning I was telling one of my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois that this did not make sense, especially since the
government is not behaving properly on the EI issue.
If every new dollar transferred to the provinces has to go to
health, by the same token could we say that every new dollar
paid into the EI fund has to go to EI and not end up in the
government's coffers? As you can see, this could backfire.
What we know, and I think this was the main reason for the Bloc
Quebecois' motion, is that there is a first ministers meeting in
Ottawa today. This thing about conditions came up after the
Saskatoon agreement. In a letter, the federal government said
“Accountability now requires you to make a commitment to put
every new dollar transferred toward health care and to publicly
state how happy you are that the federal government is giving
you money, and that all is well and the Prime Minister is a nice
guy”.
What we suspect is that, thankfully, this letter will finally be
taken out of the package put before the provincial premiers, the
territorial leaders and the Prime Minister this morning. It
called for a commitment from the provinces to agree that future
transfer payments would be put toward health.
It is in that context that, today, they are discussing the
conditional transfer of any new money that may be transferred.
But we have to monitor what is going on right now, because—as I
said earlier—we have reason to believe, based on what we heard
here and there, that the issue of the social union, and more
specifically health, will be discussed today. Will the amount of
money be set today? I do not think so, because it would look
very bad if the Minister of Finance were to officially allocate
money for health before bringing down his budget, in a few
weeks.
It seems the federal government will be giving back between $2
billion and $2.5 billion, over a period of two to three years.
Whether it will be over two years or three, and whether the
amount will be $2 billion or $2.5 billion is what is being
negotiated right now. But, the decision will surely only be
announced in the budget, not today.
So, negotiations are taking place today on the social union, and
more specifically on health, on the Saskatoon agreement and on a
new federal offer made yesterday. That offer provides, among
other things, that rules would be set regarding the new
transfers for health, but that there would also be a right to
opt out, jointly funded programs, and so on.
What is dangerous though is that, in spite of what is going on
in the four areas of the social union, namely social services,
education, social assistance and health, the federal government
is prepared to keep its sword of Damocles dangling over our
heads, that is its direct spending power. This power means the
federal government can spend directly when the money goes to
individuals. If the money goes to the provinces, there is a
right to opt out, as in the case of health, pharmacare or
jointly funded programs.
Where the danger lies in the health care field, and one of the
reasons we are going to support the Bloc Quebecois motion, is
that we do not want any new conditions. We need to go further
still and say that we are not in agreement with the federal
government's having direct power to intervene in the daily lives
of the people in health, education, social services and social
assistance. There is a danger of this becoming a stumbling
block today. I hope people will be able to agree that this
administrative agreement, which is negotiable—not a
constitutional change, merely an agreement that dates back only
about five years, it would appear—will be something that can
evolve and continue to be viable, so that we can avoid having a
repetition of the millennium scholarship situation, or in other
words direct federal programs in the areas of health, social
assistance and education.
It is important to restrict the federal government, particularly
a Liberal one, because the Liberals want to control everything,
unless it gives them problems.
Then they give it to the provinces, but they want to control the
rest so that they can show the flag. I have absolutely nothing
against the Canadian flag, I am a federalist. However,
propaganda does not serve the interests of the people, only
those of one group.
1125
Health is about the public interest. The average Canadian should
be the government's first consideration when it makes decisions.
Statistics are all very fine and well, but individuals have to
be the priority in the decision-making process. In addition to
the revenue and expenditure columns in the federal government's
budget, there should be a third equally, if not more, important
column representing the people who live in this country, in
Quebec, in Ontario, and throughout Canada.
It is time for an increase in health transfers. It is time for
the ground rules to be clarified. There are disputes about
jurisdiction. It is time that a serious look was taken at the
political, administrative and even legal aspects of the
situation so that a start can be made on simplifying the entire
jurisdictional process in this country.
We will be supporting the Bloc Quebecois motion. It is slightly
incomplete, but we will be supporting the Bloc Quebecois and
almost all the opposition parties who are asking the government
for more health care dollars, without new conditions, and
without delay.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
perfection might be found in the way my friend from
Richmond-Arthabasca speaks, but just like his NDP colleague from
Winnipeg-Transcona he does not know how to listen and hear to
perfection. He should have listened to the speech by the member
for Drummond who said that the Bloc Quebecois had absolutely
nothing against the five principles of medicare.
My colleague said we should get our money back without any
precondition. I also would like to remind my learned colleague
from Richmond-Arthabasca that in the late 1980s and up to the
beginning of 1993, when his party was in office, on the other
side, it was next to perfect. And then in 1993 perfection
dropped to two members.
In conclusion, I would like to say this: at no time in his
speech did he mention the right of the government to interfere
in, control or put its nose in the way Quebec manages its
affairs. Whether he agrees or not, he did not say so and made no
mention of their accomplishments. I would like him to elaborate
further on this.
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the
hon. member for Drummond had to say and that is why we will be
supporting the motion, because of the clarifications she
provided about conditions. Therefore we will support the motion
because of the explanations she gave us.
On the issue of perfection, it is true that our government was
almost perfect. People have a hard time believing in perfection.
That is why they chose to teach us a lesson in 1993. Having said
that, I simply want to remind the House that the then government
started in 1984 to increase transfers to the provinces by
$6 billion.
Hard times during the 90s forced the federal government to
freeze its expenditures. However, between the election of the
Mulroney government in 1984 and the freeze it had to establish
during the 1990 crisis, $6 billion were added to provincial
transfers for health and welfare.
This is near perfection. What is clear to us and what you can
find out if you read our platform—and I am sure you have read it
and learned it by heart—is that what we are proposing for the
Canadian pact goes further than what is in the social union
agreement. We are even more in favour of respecting provincial
areas of jurisdiction than the current federal government.
If your copy of our platform is a bit the worse for wear I would
be quite happy to provide you with a new one.
1130
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, first I wish to
congratulate my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for the
quality of his presentation. He has restored the historical
dimension of the issue and has also showed that he has a vision
for the future.
There is one word which could have remedied not the weakness
but, let us say, the imperfection of the motion. I am not afraid
of the word imperfection because perfect people are always more
disturbing than imperfect people. Maybe we should have used the
word “re-establish” instead of “increase” unconditionally
because we are not asking for an increase but for the
re-establishment of what was there previously.
Instead of having a theoretical debate, I would like to mention
that in my own region, indeed in several other regions in
Quebec, health care is an issue of concern for all people. There
are not many people in Quebec who are not aware of the present
situation in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region.
We obviously agree with the unconditional re-establishment of
health care budgets, but I am concerned about transfers to
provincial governments—let us say we speak here about the Quebec
government—because regions don't always get the benefits they
deserve. In my own region, in the area of social services
including health care, we are still getting much less than we
are entitled to given our population.
I take the opportunity of today's debate to point out to my
colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois that while they are asking for
everything to be transferred to Quebec, in the regions we have a
problem not with the Government of Canada but with the
Government of Quebec because of its unfair allocations between
various regions of the province.
This is a very serious problem, and to show how serious it is, I
will quote from a story published this morning, not two years
ago, but this morning. One hundred and sixty doctors, dentists
and pharmacists in my region have said: “Mr. Bouchard can push
around his ministers, deputy ministers and experts, but he has
no power over us. He should have thought about that before”.
That is the reality we live in. In our region, we are not even
able to get adequate health care.
That is why I am in favour of transfers.
The Bloc Quebecois and the Conservative Party are often fighting
here in Ottawa over matters of principle. In the area of
employment, we were in favour of budget transfers, amounting to
hundreds of millions. But go see what is going on now in that
area since federal funds were transferred to be managed by the
provincial government. We are getting less than 25 per cent of
what we were getting before.
As for funds for regional development in my region, here is what
some were saying this morning: “Those who believe that the new
entity created by the government, the local development boards,
the LDB, will remedy these shortcomings in leadership are sadly
mistaken”.
There is not one area where the transfers to Quebec have
benefited regions. I ask my colleague if he—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to tell the hon. member that the
time allocated for questions and comments has expired.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to this
motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois, “that this House
urges the government to respect provincial jurisdiction over
health care management, to increase transfers to the provinces
for health care unconditionally, and to avoid using budget
surpluses to encroach upon the health care field”.
This is not a purely academic debate, nor is it a debate pitting
sovereignists against federalists. This debate is to demonstrate
that, in the kind of system we have in Canada, we have to let
the experts do the work if we want the system to work. We are
not having this debate to go after the Liberal government.
We are having this debate so that, at the end of the day, there
is a reasonable amount of money in our hospitals for equipment
and emergency rooms, in CLSCs for front line care, as well as
for long term care and palliative care. Federal MPs all received
a document this week in their office regarding funding for
palliative care.
1135
We are having this debate so there is money to address the
problem of suicide, and we want this to be done within the
existing framework, through the mechanisms that have been in
place for a long time. Health care has been recognized as a
provincial responsibility.
We want to avoid repeating the battles of the past. We want
patients to spend the least amount of time possible in emergency
rooms. To achieve that, the federal government must stop playing
games, it must stop saying under what conditions it will put
money into the system, how big the maple leaf will have to be
for transfer payments.
That is the reason behind this kind of motion.
Let me give an example. It is a good illustration of what can
happen when you do not mind your own business.
Concerning the issue of the millennium scholarships, we have in
Quebec our own loans and bursaries plan. All student
associations and academics have acknowledged it is the best in
Canada. We have opted out of the national plan in 1964 with full
compensation, and we have outperformed everybody else. We may
not be the best in every area, but in this case, we are.
The federal government has decided to yield to the whims of the
Prime Minister and create the millennium scholarship program.
This program is at cross purposes with the Quebec loans and
bursaries plan.
The basic principles are being changed. The federal government
claims its loans and grants system will reward excellence. In
Quebec, the whole plan is based on the concept that we should
give the students what they need for their living expenses. We
do not want to see in other areas a replication of the intrusion
we have witnessed in education.
When the federal government made cuts in health care, it did not
try to achieve some visibility for those budget cuts. It made
the cuts and told the provinces they would have to make do with
whatever they got.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Without condition.
Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, indeed without any strings attached. It
let us deal with the cuts. Now we are faced with a situation
that makes it clear that the federal government must make up its
mind.
There are needs in all of the regions of Quebec. The Bloc
Quebecois tour, under the leadership of the hon. member for
Drummond, clearly demonstrated what, if $1 billion in
surplus—though more than that is needed—was returned to the
transfer payments, that would represent for each region. In our
case, in the Lower St. Lawrence region, the figure would be $34
million.
I am most anxious to see the federal government let go of its
bone, put the money back into transfer payments, into the
existing mechanism, so that the people in my riding who are in
hospitals, CLSCs, extended care centres, in all types of
services, may have the oxygen they need, that extra room to
manoeuvre that is so lacking at the present time.
I must disagree with the hon. member for Chicoutimi. I believe
that both the present government of Quebec and the previous ones
have done a number of good things for health care. There is a
model in place in Quebec. There have been some accomplishments,
the air ambulance for one, which allows people in the regions to
be brought to major centres for the complex emergency surgery
that may not be available elsewhere.
University experts in Quebec City and Montreal have helped
develop a system for performing surgery by means of telemetry in
the Magdalen Islands and the Gaspé. This shows there are
successes. These are examples of things that are working.
It has been necessary to make cuts in the last few years. That
is clear. But a large part of these cuts is the result of the
federal government imposing cuts on the provinces. We got
through that. Now the federal government has the money. It has
the necessary money, because of its revenues and its spending
power, to put money back into transfer payments. It is taking
its time. Now that more money is available, a way has to be
found to show that this money comes from the federal government.
And how should that be done?
All the provinces have already said that, if the federal
government wants them to spend the money on health, that is
where they will put it. There is something wrong with the
government's attitude. I think the best example of this is the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. This minister never
misses a chance to set Quebec City and Ottawa at each other's
throats.
1140
Again yesterday, on the CBC, he told the Quebec premier who was
elected barely two or three months ago, that he was not
legitimate, that he was not accountable to him in matters
concerning Quebec, but to Quebeckers directly. This double
legitimacy argument has been dead since the Bloc Quebecois
arrived in House. Since the Bloc Quebecois has been here, no one
can say that the ministers know the absolute truth when they
speak on behalf of Quebec. No one can say that. We are here to
show that you do not have this double legitimacy.
The ultimate insult is that negotiations are going on with the
leader of the opposition in Quebec City, who has just taken the
political beating of his life, which he never expected, with the
rejection of a significant majority of Quebec ridings. When the
federal government negotiates in this way, it forces us to
present motions like the one today to encourage it to honour the
responsibilities of the provinces in managing health care, to
unconditionally increase transfers to the provinces. Increasing
them, means raising them.
There is no argument any more on whether the government should
be condemned for the cuts. The people have understood that. I
think the 1997 election proved an interesting lesson for all
members of the House, especially us. Quebeckers had to
understand where the cuts were coming from. Well we know that
they are coming for the most part from the federal government.
Now that we have money come back to us, we are saying “Give us
our share and use the mechanism already in place.” The Canada
social transfer was meant to be unconditional. The Minister of
Finance himself said, two years ago, that this was best because
of the flexibility it afforded the provinces. Let them deal with
the cuts. Now that there is money, we are saying “Let us deal
with this money to be reinvested in health care.”
By letting the provinces make their own decisions, the federal
government would show it is upholding its own Constitution.
There is a fundamental problem with this Parliament. We in the
Bloc Quebecois are sovereignists and we insist that this
government at least uphold its Constitution. The Government of
Canada is flouting the Canadian Constitution and trying to
interfere and micromanage, as if it were an expert in health.
For instance, the Minister of Health recently announced a
subsidy in the Montreal area. No one can deny this served its
purpose, but can you imagine how much duplication it is causing
with all the health services and mechanisms already in place?
There must be targeted consultations. Fear not, we in Quebec can
do our homework, and so can the other provinces, to see what
kinds of services are required.
I therefore urge the members of this House to vote in favour of
the motion we have put forward to ensure that sufficient funding
is made available as soon as possible for our hospitals—for
equipment and emergency rooms—for local community service
centres, for chronic and palliative care, for suicide
prevention, for all those who are vulnerable in our society. It
is not right to take them hostage.
The federal government must take immediate action in this area.
Hopefully, we will be heard on both sides of the House and a
majority of Canadian members of Parliament will support our
motion.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
Bloc Quebecois colleague, whose riding I have trouble naming
because the name is so long. I will begin by setting the record
straight, before putting a question to the hon. member.
In the motion, the word “unconditionally” does not refer to the
five tenets of the Canada Health Act. The Quebec government and
all the other Canadian provinces have always cared about
adhering to these five tenets in the Canada Health Act, as can
be seen in the documents that we have.
1145
The Canada Health Act requires the provinces to adhere to these
five principles. In return, the federal government pledges to
transfer the necessary funds through the tax system. The federal
government is not giving us anything. The money is provided by
all Canadians who pay taxes. The federal government
redistributes the money collected in taxes, so that the
provinces can manage their health care sector.
Indeed, the provinces are responsible for managing health,
through the new Canada social transfer set up by the federal
government to provide, according to the Minister of Finance,
greater flexibility in the management of the health, education
and social assistance sectors.
The motion does not trivialize the five Canadian tenets. That is
not its purpose. Its purpose is to urge the government to
respect the division of powers, unconditionally restore
transfers and make judicious use of budget surpluses.
I wonder if my Bloc Quebecois colleague could tell us again what
it means to respect the division of powers.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy the record has been
set straight because what our motion is asking is that things be
done according to Canadian legislation.
The Government of Quebec has never asked that legislation be set
aside. The five principles of the Canada Health Act are part of
the legal framework within which we must work. This government
has not always done so. This may explain why those on the other
side are so nit-picking. They behave differently themselves.
Two years ago, the Minister of Human Resources Development had
to make a decision regarding a legal advice which indicated
clearly that if the minister used database matching to identify
the unemployed who broke the law by travelling abroad, this
would contravene the Privacy Act.
This does not mean we should legitimise cheating but it must be
acknowledged that the government may have things to settle on
the issue. It has happened, on occasion, that this government
was not very respectful of legislation passed by the Canadian
Parliament.
Respect of jurisdictions, that of Quebec as well as Canada, is
the best way to make sure that money is spent in the right
place. This is our main goal. We do not have money to burn in
that area. We do not have money to burn these days. We cannot
afford duplication. We cannot wait to invest in the right
programs.
This is also a cry from the heart. Money available from the
federal government surplus could be invested in health care,
using existing channels. If there is one single consensus in
Quebec, it is that we do not want new programs. We want to
strengthen existing programs. We want to be able to finance our
hospitals, equipment, emergency services, CLSC's, or local
community service centres, palliative care services and all our
other support services, and we want to be able to pay our
hard-working health care workers. We must be able to pay our
workers decent salaries and to provide direct health services to
the population.
This is the meaning of the motion we introduced in the House
today. It aims at bringing the government to abide by its own
Constitution.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too want to
express my support for the motion moved today by the Bloc
Quebecois.
It reads as follows:
That this House urges the government to respect provincial
jurisdiction over health care management, to increase transfers
to the provinces for health care unconditionally, and to avoid
using budget surpluses to encroach upon the health care field.
1150
If one remembers what has happened since 1993, particularly in
the earlier budgets that came out of this government and were
tabled by the current finance minister, we have seen drastic
cuts in many areas. Sure, we had a huge deficit, but what got
hit the hardest were the cash transfers to the provinces. This
budget item, which was around $18 billion, dropped to $11.5
billion a year.
The provinces lost over $6 billion in annual revenues which were
used at the time to fund three types of programs: cost shared
initiatives in health care, cost shared initiatives in
education, and social assistance transfers.
The government, knowing it was about to make significant cuts—at
the time we knew exactly what the government's contribution to
health care, education, and social assistance was—decided to
amalgamate all three programs into one now called the Canada
social transfer. This same government, which now talks about
transparency, accountability and visibility, and says that
people need to know how much money it is contributing to health
care, is the one that merged these programs to eliminate
transparency. Why? The reason is rather obvious.
There were some massive cuts and the members on the other side
of the House did not want to be blamed for cutting this much in
education, and that much in health care or welfare. So they told
the provinces: “We are cutting $6 billion. You can split that any
which way you want between health care, education and welfare.”
The federal government wanted to show what a good sport it was.
They said: “The choice is yours, you get to determine what
percentage of the cuts you want to apply to health care,
education and welfare.”
Now that the transfer payments are about to be increased, the
federal government knows that the first priority of Canadians
will be health care. They would want each additional dollar they
put in, over and above the $12.5 billion currently paid in
transfer payments, to be made highly visible and transparent, so
that the people of Canada can see that the federal government is
reinvesting in health care.
However, they were not so worried about visibility a few years
back.
Let me make a suggestion. Maybe they could use billboards. They
like them well enough since they have some Mediacom billboards
set up permanently in Quebec. They practically own them. They
could have huge billboards on the edge of towns and villages
saying: “The federal government did not cut $6 billion in health
care, but only $5 billion.” That way, Canadians would know that
the government did not cut $6 billion a year. They would cut only
$5 billion, since they are now talking about adding $1 billion,
maybe a little bit more, to the current transfer payments.
Apparently this morning the Prime Minister found some more money
and could put some more on the table.
But the fact is that the level of transfer payments to the
provinces has dropped from $18 billion to between $12.5 billion
and $14 billion or $15 billion—a very optimistic scenario—in the
next budget. The bottom line is that we still face significant
cuts. This is something we should not forget, and I am somewhat
annoyed by their new-found devotion to openness.
On top of that, premiers have made a clear commitment.
They wanted to reassure the Prime Minister, so they wrote to him
that they were committed to putting back into the system any new
CHST money allocated to health care. But perhaps the Prime
Minister does not think written commitments are worth much, when
we consider what happened with the promises in the 1993 red
book, but for some people, a signed letter still means
something. So the premiers have signed a commitment that any
transfer of money will go to health care.
The government keeps repeating that it wants to uphold the
Canada Health Act. That piece of legislation is still in effect,
and the premiers did not ask that it be repealed. It is still in
effect. If the federal government puts money back into the
transfer payments for health care, the Canada Health Act and its
five central principles will continue to apply.
1155
Where is this sudden fear that the provinces could violate the
act coming from? There are very severe penalties for those
provinces who do not respect the act. You know about that,
Mr. Speaker. Alberta has had to pay the price for not living up
to the conditions set out in the Canada Health Act.
I know there is an ongoing dispute about that. Some provinces
would like more flexibility, but we are not here to question the
act.
The federal government wants to increase its role. After
starving the provinces and giving out new money today, it is
obvious that the federal government has a strong desire to play
a role in the planning of future health care services.
We understand why. The Liberals know full well that, with an
ageing population, health care will become a very important
issue in the future, a growing concern for Canadians. They say
they want to play a role in this area to get closer to the
people, ignoring the Constitution, ignoring traditions and also
ignoring the fact that the provinces, including mine, Quebec,
already have an infrastructure in place. We have a health
department as well as regional health offices. We have developed
an elaborate network of front line services, second line
services, emergency services and CLSCs.
The network is established according to a plan. Of course,
occasionally some people may question its structure. But we have
to look at the big picture because priorities vary from one
region to the next. One region may have more specialists in one
particular branch of medicine, and the situation may be
different in another region.
This planning is the responsibility of the Government of Quebec,
which delivers health services. Now the federal government
would like to implement its own priorities, and influence the
services provided by the provinces. We would then find
ourselves, if the federal proposal is implemented, with two
governments, two types of priorities. A lot of new committees
will be struck, public servants will be needed to make
evaluations, statisticians will make comparisons, a dreadful
bureaucracy will be put in place.
That is not what we need. What we need instead is people to do
the hands-on work. If money were put into the transfer payments
tomorrow, it would mean bigger hospital budgets, better nursing
care, more physicians and specialists to be increased, if money
were put back into the transfer payments.
If they start creating policies or implementing all sorts of
mechanisms, we will end up with a new bureaucracy—and the federal
government bureaucracy is already getting way out of hand—that
will keep on imposing its will and trying to play a role in this
area. This strikes me as contrary to what the public wants in
the way of services.
Now I will draw a parallel with another matter, the millennium
scholarships. Speaking of unconditional transfers, the federal
government has decided to play a bigger role in education by
allowing students to accumulate fewer debts, by offering them
scholarships and so forth.
The federal government came up with a wall-to-wall solution, good
coast to coast, by offering scholarships to post-secondary
students. In Quebec the student debt load is far lower than
elsewhere because tuition fees are lower. Of course we would
like it be lower still, but compared to the other provinces it
is far lower.
The first priority of our system would probably have been to put
the money where it would have helped all students, not just a
small group. The educational system is overseen and planned by
the Government of Quebec. Citizens can pressure it, the
government being answerable to its citizens.
The federal government has now decided that its priority was to
reduce student debt. It plays a significant role with our taxes
in order to show that its priority lies there. There is,
perhaps, another priority to be considered for the moment. It
may be the priority in the rest of Canada, but is not the
priority of Quebec. We have not even enough flexibility to
exercise the right to opt out, to take this money and assign it
to other priorities in the educational system. There is
something wrong when a government insists on defining
everything.
We recognize the obsession with visibility behind all that, this
obsession with appearing to be closer to the people so they
would stop criticizing the government and become less
sovereignist perhaps. I really do not know what is their
underlying motive.
But it is wrong because it does not work. People want effective
services. They pay taxes not to have governments and
bureaucracies quarrel, but to obtain quality services. It is not
so the federal government can fight for control of certain
jurisdictions it gave up at the time the Constitution was drawn
up.
In conclusion, I hope Liberal members will be less silent than
they have been up to know in today's debate, that they will
stand up a little and that they will be lucid and understand
that the most effective solution in health matters is to pay out
unconditionally the money intended for transfer payments in
order to repair the error they themselves made.
1200
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
want to reiterate our party's support for this motion.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: You are on the right track.
Mr. André Harvey: We are indeed on the right track.
Our colleague just spoke of the obsession with visibility.
Reference was also made to absolute truth. Here we have the
President of the Treasury Board. With respect to visibility, I
do not think that the PQ can point the finger at anyone in
Quebec in that respect.
Think back to the floods, and the ice storm. This obsession with
visibility was such that one wondered if the federal government
had any involvement, yet it was footing 90% of the bill.
Objectivity is required in a debate.
I have a concern. Support is expressed for the Bloc Quebecois
motion, but there is all this squabbling on principle. For the
most part, members of the Bloc represent outlying areas of
Quebec. I do too. While squabbling on principle may have its
merits, reality is catching up to us.
This morning is a case in point. An editorialist from my region,
Rénald Boily, wrote “It is demonstrated on a daily basis in our
region that the Bouchard government's move toward ambulatory
care is becoming a move toward confusion.”
Richard Brantford, another editorialist, said “Ours is a region
with a moribund economy.” That is the result of 25 years of PQ
government in my region. That is what we have to show for it.
I have no objection to squabbling on principle, here in Ottawa,
with the Bloc Quebecois. Let us transfer the funding for
employment, regional development and health. But is my colleague
not concerned about his region?
The problem is that, when funds are transferred to Quebec, they
do not get to the regions. There are statistics to back this up.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely surprised to hear
the member for Chicoutimi make such a charge against the
Government of Quebec when he himself had an opportunity to make
his views known during the Quebec election campaign a few months
back.
Everyone knows he was asked to run. If the Parti Quebecois is
as bad as all that in his region, he had a chance to run for the
provincial Liberal Party and to participate in this debate. I
assume that he did not do so because he thought he had a better
chance of hanging on here than running as a Liberal MLA in
Chicoutimi. I will leave him to ponder that.
The shift toward ambulatory care has been mentioned because it
is a very important reform. I do not want to go into this in
any great detail because this is not the appropriate place for
such a debate.
Carrying out a large-scale and important reform in the midst of
cutbacks is a very difficult thing to do and it is true that
many regions of Quebec are suffering, his and mine both.
But I would remind him that the impact, in my region alone, of
the federal government's health cuts amounts to $20 million
annually. For us, an additional $20 million for health care
would mean a stronger health care system and more services.
However much we want reforms, if one of our sources of revenue
dries up, if it all but disappears, it is difficult to be
completely successful.
They did the best they could with the resources they had at the
time, but improvements have to be made.
One of the ways to improve the situation would be for the
federal government to correct the mistake it made by reducing
health care funding. Do I think health services are managed
perfectly in Quebec? No, there will never be a perfect system.
However, I do believe that people are acting in good faith and
we are headed in the right direction. Our first need is
additional financial resources.
To conclude on the issue of the ice storm and federal
visibility, I have no problem saying that the federal government
paid 90 per cent of the bills. Nor do I have any problem saying
that Quebeckers send more than $30 billion in taxes to Ottawa
every year.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pierre Brien: The President of the Treasury Board is using
figures from the year when the deficit reached $45 billion.
These figures are no longer valid.
We pay taxes to Ottawa. It is our money that is being used when
there is a crisis in western Canada's agricultural sector. We
also pay when there is flooding in Winnipeg. It is not just in
Quebec. This is a kind of insurance policy: one year we benefit
from it, while in another year we put money into the fund. But
it is our taxes. I have no problem.
As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as federal or
provincial money. There is only taxpayers' money.
1205
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington.
I thank the orators who have already spoken in the debate. It
has been fruitful. It does occur of course at a time when some
of the issues here may be resolved consensually by a meeting
several blocks away of the Prime Minister and the first ministers
I have benefited by the discussion by the members of the Bloc. It
is good to remind ourselves that the Constitution is more than a
discussion of sovereignty in the abstract, that there are larger
issues of reform and modernization which can be addressed and
to which members of the Bloc opposite can contribute usefully.
I take this opportunity as a diversion for paying compliment to
the statement made on behalf of the Bloc two days ago in the
debate on the notwithstanding clause by the hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry.
When I heard the statement I thought that is a statement I could
have written myself. It was a very sensible statement. It was
wise. The illogic of it of course was that it pointed not to two
negative votes, but somehow in the mysterious ways a vote for
one, a vote against the other, I do not think Decartes would have
approved of this display of logic. Nevertheless the reasoning is
good and it takes us back to the position that federalism is not
some frozen system of rules and regulations developed in a bygone
century and to be applied immutably to changed social conditions
today. Federalism is essentially a very flexible system. It is
sometimes forgotten by Canadians, English speaking Canadians
perhaps more than others, that the Westminster model which was
developed by the British imperial power, which was not noticeably
federal at the time it developed it, the theory in practice was
developed for its overseas colonies. Look at the problems
the English have in encompassing decentralization for Scotland
and Wales.
However, the Westminster model is not the only model of
federalism. I refer again to the Pepin-Roberts commission,
perhaps the most imaginative of the expert commissions of study
on our Constitution in the last 50 years. It essentially
proclaimed the truth that there are many roads to Rome and there
are many different models of federalism. It introduced an
interesting notion which did not need an obscure terminology to
render it, asymmetrical federalism, simply saying that in any
mature federal system the sociological conditions are crucial. We
treat equal things equally but unequal things may have a
differentiation of constitutional treatment. Why not? It is
ordinary common sense.
One of applications of the new approach, a flexible approach of
the Pepin-Roberts style to federalism, is the concept of the
social union which is being discussed, as least the practical
implementation of an abstract concept, by the Prime Minister and
the first ministers at this moment. As a term of art it is
post-war German federalism. There is nothing wrong with that.
The post-war German federal system is what the Americans might
have if they had lost the war and had to rebuild their
constitution from the ground up. It is very modern federalism
but in its very intelligent, pragmatic allocation and transfer of
powers between three levels of government it does necessitate, if
it is to be applied to Canada, a constitutional amendment.
One of our problems with the patriation package in 1982 was
whatever it did in other areas it put the Constitution in a
straight-jacket in terms of amendments. It is very hard to amend
the Constitution by the front door. This is an admirable feature
I think Canadians have developed. This is one part of their English
heritage but it is also part of the French heritage
because it is also occurred in France, the development by
constitutional glosses, custom convention, changes made by
practice which last because they are common sense. They are
sensible. They respond to new problems and nobody is going to
say nay to that.
When we look at the social union in terms of medical payments,
partnership and financing medicare, there is so much that can be
done by accommodations between governments.
1210
Special arrangements can be made for different regions
corresponding to demonstrated special societal facts or special
needs. Uniformity is not a sine qua non, and this is where
Pepin-Robarts in reminding us of the opting in and opting out
facilities and raising the compensation in opting out provided
the opportunity if there is a spirit of goodwill and of pragmatic
compromise for working out arrangements to accommodate the
increasing pluralism in our federal society.
If these arrangements being discussed today do not work out we
can assure the House that we will as a national government and
uphold our principle that there are national norms in medicare,
in medical treatment and in medical research that we will in
fulfilment of our mandate and our duty to the country seek to
effectuate within our power. But there is nothing to prevent
administrative devolution in the spirit of co-operative
federalism. The message from the Prime Minister is that we would
like to work with you.
Co-operative federalism, Lester Pearson style social union and
the new trendy word of today, borrowed as I say somewhat
inexactly from West German federalism, these are all ways of
achieving socially useful results within an accommodatingly
flexible federal system. The principle of subsidiarity, the
notion from the European Union that each level of government
should be allowed to do what it does best in terms of a
functional reallocation of powers on a basis of co-operative
federalism and customary adjustment of the constitution, it is
all there.
We wish the Prime Minister and the first ministers every success
in their efforts. If they do not succeed we will do our duty as
the federal government to the Canadian people to deliver on a
21st century medical insurance system properly financed. We want
the co-operation of the provincial governments. We welcome the
element of pragmatism I saw in the Bloc motion, the Bloc attitude
two days ago on the notwithstanding clause. I wish its logic
could have been more in the Cartesian sense and the two votes
would have been identical in terms of its party, but the progress
is there.
This has been a good debate. It has been intelligent. There is
the going backwards and forwards in terms of the give and take
that is the essential of any mature federal system.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the philosophical speech of the member opposite. He
spoke of a flexible federalist government but that government
actually appears dictatorial to me.
I would like to know what the hon. member thinks of this
government which, after cutting billions of dollars in
provincial transfers, now says it wants to put some money back
into those transfers, but not unconditionally. Indeed, this
government wants to interfere to the point of dictating to the
provinces how to administer billions of dollars, how to become
part of Canada-wide programs, while the Canada Health Act already
provides for five conditions to which all provincial governments
in Canada have already agreed.
Why should the federal government interfere even further? Why?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, the policy of our government is
to ensure each Canadian has equal access to the health care
system. If necessary, our government will act alone.
However, we prefer to have a system of which all provinces are
part, a system based on equal involvement by both levels of
government. This is what co-operative federalism is all about.
This is the guiding principle the Prime Minister is discussing
this very day with provincial premiers.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the motion today.
I do so on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington.
Canadians place a very high premium on their health and the
health of their families. It is a fundamental element of our
individual quality of life in Canada.
It is more than just the absence of disease. It is a resource
for every day living. At a population level we know that a
healthy population contributes immeasurably to the social
well-being and economic productivity of the country.
1215
Canadians as a population compared to citizens of other
countries enjoy very excellent health. Canadians are remarkably
healthy by every standard around the world in terms of health
such as life expectancy and self-reported health.
Our enviable health status is due in no small part to our
commitment to health promotion. That is something of which we an
all be very proud because Canada is internationally respected as
a world leader in health promotion. The world looks to Canada
for leadership in health research, policy and practices that will
help all countries make progress in achieving health for all
their citizens as well.
For example, Canada was the site of the first world conference
on health promotion. We can be proud of this leadership we took
in developing a charter for the World Health Organization which
set out the prerequisites for a healthy population based on a
health promotion approach.
The federal government plays a key role in health promotion. The
federal government supports initiatives to help Canadians adopt
healthy behaviours: for example, to quit smoking, to achieve a
better level of physical fitness, and to have a healthy and
nutritious diet.
The results of this work have been truly remarkable. Deaths due
to heart disease have declined. Canadians are much more fit than
they were even a generation ago. Their eating habits have
improved and smoking rates have gone down. We know that by
getting Canadians to adopt a healthier lifestyle we can add years
of life and health to their lives.
All this is not to say that all Canadians lead a healthy
lifestyle. There is much more to be done. The federal
government will continue to play a key role in helping Canadians
through public education, through education of health
professionals such as doctors and nurses, and through supporting
action to make our communities healthy and safe places in which
to live and to work.
Health is much more than a product of individual choice. We
must create the conditions that allow and encourage individuals
to make healthy choices: for example, opportunities for healthy
child development, for educational and employment opportunities,
and safe and healthy workplaces. Most of all we must foster
community action which encourages all members of all ages and all
levels of ability to contribute to and partake in the benefits of
a healthy social, economic and physical environment.
The federal government helps to create the conditions which
foster health and healthy choices by all Canadian citizens. How
does it do this? It does it by working in partnership with
provincial and territorial governments, with the voluntary and
community sectors and with the private sector on national
strategies to address pressing health issues such as HIV and
AIDS, tobacco use, substance abuse, and chronic disease such as
heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Time and time again the
federal government has through its work in partnership with
others helped Canadians gain an upper hand on the disease and
health problems that concern them most.
A good example of Health Canada's partnership work is the heart
health initiative. This initiative since its inception eight
years ago has created an extensive network involving the federal
government, 10 provincial departments of health, the Heart and
Stroke Foundation of Canada, and over 1,000 organizations in the
public, private and voluntary sectors.
The objective of the initiative is the reduction of
cardiovascular disease by addressing the risk factors and
socioeconomic conditions that underlie it. While good progress
has been made Canada still ranks in the middle of industrialized
countries with respect to heart disease mortality. Federal
leadership in this area will help continue this progress, and
this we must do.
Another example of Health Canada's partnership work is in the
community action program for children. Health Canada has
developed partnership arrangements with all provinces for this
very important initiative which helps ensure optimal
opportunities for healthy childhood development. Through this
program Health Canada works with its partners to support
community programs and groups to establish and deliver services
that address the developmental needs of our children from birth
to six years of age who are at risk of poor health or live in
conditions likely to give rise to poor health.
This program has been successful in building community capacity.
Health Canada works with the provinces and territories toward a
strategy for healthy child development through the federal,
provincial and territorial advisory committee on population
health. The shared vision of this work is the belief that
healthy child development is the foundation of lifelong health
and that by working together we can achieve optimal health for
all Canadian children.
1220
At the other end of the life course Health Canada works in
partnership with the provinces and territories to promote healthy
aging. It is well known, for example, that a society which
encourages and supports independence, autonomy and a good quality
of life for its senior citizens is a society that is
characterized by the health, vitality and longevity of its
seniors population. Health Canada has developed a framework for
aging in partnership with the provinces and territories to help
all levels of government see our programs policies and services
through a seniors lens, something which is very important.
At no time has this been more important than now. After all,
this is the international year of the older person. In the years
to come our senior population will grow tremendously. The
federal government is committed to continue its work in
partnership with others to ensure that as a society our seniors
have optimal opportunities for health and good quality life.
The federal government is working on many other fronts in
collaboration to support health promotion and disease prevention.
One of the most important ways is to track and report on progress
on the health of Canadians. Together federal, provincial and
territorial governments developed a report on the health of
Canadians. The first edition was issued by ministers jointly in
1996. The second edition will be released in the fall of this
year updating the trends in health status reported in 1996 and
giving us an opportunity to celebrate improvements and to
recommit ourselves to work on persistent health problems and
inequalities.
The federal government has and will continue to play an
important role in the health of all Canadians, and rightfully so.
Canadians count on us to work in partnership with others and to
promote and protect their health wherever they may live in
Canada. The achievements in health status over the last century
can be attributed in large part to the efforts of the federal
government.
We can be justly proud of our record and our respected place on
the world stage. It is second to none in terms of health
promotion and in other areas. Our health care system is a core
fundamental value for Canadians. Accordingly we at the federal
level will continue to work very hard to ensure that our health
care system remains one of the best in the world. Canadians
expect this. Canadians want this. Canadians need this. Quite
frankly, Canadians deserve this. We will continue to do this at
the federal level and we will do it well.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciated the speech of the member opposite, a very good
philosophical speech. No one can object to virtue and glory.
However, I have a concern. I would like to know what his
position on hepatitis C was?
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite
for the question. What we on the government side have been
saying is not theoretical. It is in actuality the reality of
what we as a government have been doing over the years to support
the health of Canadians. We have done so recognizing that the
health care system in Canada is a fundamental core value to
Canadians wherever they may live across this great land of ours.
We will continue as a federal government to promote health care
and to do the right thing when it comes to health for Canadians.
We will do it knowing they want that to be the case for
themselves and for their children.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. Brian Tobin,
the Premier of Newfoundland, recently indicated that he would
like to relinquish health care responsibilities and give them
back to the federal government.
Given that he was a former colleague of the member's, what would
he think about that kind of program?
1225
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
opposite for the question. I cannot speak for Premier Tobin in
terms of what he may or may not want. What I can do is speak on
behalf of the government.
When it comes to health care for Canadians we have over the past
number of years worked out a very strong partnership among the
federal, provincial and territorial governments to ensure quality
care for Canadians wherever they may live in Canada. That is
precisely what Canadians want. They want us to work in this kind
of partnership to ensure that a health care system is in place
for themselves and their families.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite referred in his speech to principles that all
provinces, including Quebec, share in the area of health,
improvement of care, equipment, and education.
Is there something new here? When his government decided to cut
transfers, in health among others, did those principles not
already exist? Now that this government has the financial means
to act, is its main concern not to get involved in health care,
to gain overall control of this area and to promote its
visibility?
However, I would like to come back to the question he did not
answer. With regard to health, is hepatitis C a concern for the
government?
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite
for the question. I reiterate that we at the federal level have
worked very hard to ensure there are partnerships in place to
deal with all health related matters including the issue of
hepatitis C. As members know we have put in place a fund of $1.1
billion relative to that issue. With our provincial and
territorial partners we will continue to do the right thing on
behalf of all Canadians including those who suffer from hepatitis
C.
It is important that we at the federal level continue to do that
to ensure that health care as we know it continues as the core
fundamental value that it is to Canadians wherever they may live
in this great land of ours.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the
Liberal Party talks about partnership and co-operation among the
various parties. He should back that up with resources.
He knows that the federal government has taken $2.5 billion out
of health care services for the last three years. He now talks
about the ability of partnering and co-operation.
What would he have to say about the lack of funds and resources
behind his statements?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, the government has committed
and will continue to commit the funds necessary for the health
care system in Canada. We have done so in the past and we will
continue to do so in the future in the best interest of Canadians
wherever they may live in Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak today to the Bloc motion asking the
government to respect provincial jurisdiction over health care
management, to increase transfers to the provinces for health
care unconditionally, and to avoid using budget surpluses to
encroach upon the health care field.
As we speak, the premiers and the prime minister are
gathered—they may be having lunch right now—to discuss the federal
presence in the health care field. This meeting was called due
to Ottawa's centralizing drive; it would never have had to
happen if only the federal government knew how to respect the
sharing of responsibilities as outlined in the Constitution.
1230
Indeed, I will state again for the benefit of our fellow
citizens that under subsections 7 and 16 of section 92 of the
1867 Constitutional Act, and their interpretation by the courts,
it is clearly established and recognized that the management of
health care and social services is a provincial responsibility.
The federal government for its part often uses its spending
power to skirt the spirit of the Constitution and spend money in
areas under provincial jurisdiction. Whether we approve or not
of this spending power, we cannot but acknowledge the fact that
the federal government has not made a wise use of it since, more
often that not, the money thus spent is borrowed.
Successive governments have made such a use of this spending
power to guarantee their visibility, their re-election or their
supremacy or simply to flatter their own vanity, that Canada's
credit card balance reached more than $600 billion, putting
future generations of Canada into debt for many years to come.
The very same government who imposed drastic cuts in social
programs, mainly in the health programs, wants to do the same
thing again by imposing new standards, a new bureaucracy and new
duplications. We have to put an end to this at all costs, non
only in the interest of the people of Quebec, but of all
Canadians.
The federal government would like to be recognised as the great
saviour of health care when in fact it is the cause of all the
problems experienced in the provinces. We must be very careful.
I would like people to hear clearly what I am saying. At the
present time, the federal government is playing with words. When
the Prime Minister comes out and says he will generously put $2
billion back into health care, we are led to believe that he
will take $2 billion out of the surpluses and put it back into
health care. How generous!
But what the government really wants to do—we have forgotten a
bit that there are still $40 billion to be cut before 2003—the
government very generously says that because of our sound
economic situation, it will only cut $38 billion between now and
2003.
So let us not be deceived. Some will say that $2 billion is
still a significant amount.
It is obviously very important that the $38 billion in cuts be
reduced. We do not need any more cuts, but we should not cling
to the hope that the government will be overly generous with the
money it is digging out of our pockets.
We should also be mindful that under the transfer payment
legislation, transfers are set by the government unilaterally,
without consultation. Since 1977, those payments have been
reduced, frozen or cut, and their adjustment has no relation
whatsoever with the real cost of implementing provincial
programs. It can be said that the federal commitment to health
care has been broken.
By a strange coincidence, the debates that took place under
Prime Minister Pearson on a Canadian health care system were
made public yesterday. Surprisingly enough, there is another
meeting today on the same issue.
I hope the Liberal Party will return to its roots and seek
inspiration from that great Canadian, Lester B. Pearson, and
advocate policies that are more liberal, and less conservative
and right wing.
Since 1994, the present Liberal government has cut $6.3 billion
dollars in transfer payments to the provinces for health care,
education and social assistance. Therefore, it is hardly in a
position to lecture the provinces.
1235
As for the federal government's wanting to impose a whole series
of new conditions for maintaining and increasing its financial
contribution to health care, let met remind the House that the
National Council of Welfare, an organization whose role is to
advise the health minister, warned against such action and said:
It would be extremely hypocritical to reduce contributions to
the provinces... while raising the standards required of them.
However, the federal government chose to take the very position
the National Council of Welfare called hypocritical.
The only thing the federal government has to do in the next
budget is to listen to the wishes of the people and the
unanimous requests of the provinces, take billions of dollars
from its surplus and massively reinvest in health care. The
provinces will know how to use this money most effectively.
We should entertain absolutely no doubt about the capacity of
the provincial governments to spend carefully, in the best
interests of the population, the billions of dollars the federal
government is transferring to them for health care. All the
federal government has to do is trust the elected
representatives. The public is the best watchdog there is to
prevent any abuses the governments could be tempted to make.
If the government members across the way do not start to take
into account the real interests of the people, if they remain
insensitive to what is going on in this country for too long,
they will soon find out how bitter the pill is, since they will
end up in opposition. That is what I wish for with all my heart.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague from Rimouski—Mitis for an excellent speech.
I want to question her on a matter which is a concern for every
member of the Bloc Quebecois, the federal government's
infringement on provincial jurisdictions.
Before asking my question, I remind members that the Prime
Minister has questioned in this very House the provinces' will
to reinvest in health. He said that it might be necessary to
reach an agreement for increased funding and that there might be
certain conditions, such as requiring reports on the use of
funds, reports on the various medical services offered, and
imposing federal priorities and policies on the provinces.
Is it not, according to my colleague, an infringement on
provincial jurisdiction, something that is not mentioned in the
Canadian constitution?
Under the Canada Health Act, provinces have to abide by five
major principles. The federal government, for its part, commits
to using our taxes to redistribute the money to provinces to
manage health care.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Drummond for her excellent question and her very relevant
comments.
In fact, government or at least cabinet members seem to be
making conflicting speeches. They do not always say the same
thing. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is boasting
throughout Canada that the government is decentralized, the most
decentralized in the world. We can see that, as a political
science student, he did not study very hard in his course on the
decentralization of powers. It may even have been his worst
subject. He is also telling us that his government totally
abides by the Constitution.
The way this government is behaving is unacceptable. From the
moment the federal government wants to sign an administrative
agreement or to do something that would add to the five
conditions agreed upon in the beginning by Canada and the
provinces, at the time the health system was created, it is
flouting the Constitution and mocking the provincial
jurisdiction with respect to health and social services.
There is no question in my mind that the federal government
infringes on our jurisdictions.
1240
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to thank the Bloc for bringing this very
important debate to the House of Commons where it should be.
If the Bloc member believes the money should be handed over
unconditionally so that the province can dictate to itself what
it would like to do with that health care money, what about the
aboriginal communities in her province?
As we know, aboriginal communities across this country are
suffering greater than non-native people when it comes to health
care concerns, various diseases and the crises they face. What
would her province be able to do to improve the lot of the
aboriginal people as compared to other provinces and the rest of
the country?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I may be wrong, and I stand
to be corrected, as I am always prepared to learn something, but
I believe aboriginal health care is one of the responsibilities
of the federal government, because it has the responsibility for
aboriginal people.
Despite this responsibility I believe to be federal, it is
clearly understood that, in Quebec, one need only look around to
see that there is an absolutely excellent relationship with the
Indians, the Inuit, with all the tribes, all the nations we have
within the territory of Quebec.
There is no doubt whatsoever that we do everything in our power
to assist them, in education, in social services, in health
care. I believe that we will always be able to do our part in
these areas. Unless I am again mistaken, I believe that the
aboriginal communities and nations in Quebec enjoy the best
standard of living in Canada.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part this morning in the Bloc Quebecois
opposition day on health care.
It is truly distressing to see that we, the Bloc Quebecois, we
in the opposition, are being forced to introduce a motion
calling upon the federal government to respect its own
Constitution. To have come to this is totally abnormal.
I believe, however, that this reflects the state of the Canadian
federation, the state in which the Prime Minister of Canada, the
Liberal party of Canada, has plunged us, particularly in the
last four years.
It is especially sad to hear the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs and the Prime Minister tell us to stop our
constitutional squabbling, that there is no point in getting
into constitutional discussions again when there are people
waiting for federal transfer payments, that there is no point
messing up the system as we, the evil separatists, do.
One has to be unbelievably hypocritical to make such a
statement. Any debate or friction with respect to jurisdiction
originates with the Prime Minister of Canada and member for
Shawinigan or with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Under the Constitution, health is undeniably an exclusive
provincial jurisdiction.
They are now telling us that, in the future, the federal
government will not only have a say in the matter but will
actually manage transfer payments to the provinces for health.
It will also monitor results. Such departure from the Canadian
Constitution is pure heresy. They are not even complying with
their own Constitution. It also makes for great theatrics.
The federal government is passing itself off as this great
saviour of the health system, when in fact it is largely
responsible for all the problems currently faced from coast to
coast. The crowded emergency rooms and closed hospitals are the
doing of the finance minister and the Prime Minister.
1245
Since the 1995 budget, one of the most hypocritical budgets in
the history of Canadian taxation, the Minister of Finance has
decided that, every year until 2003, systematic cuts would be
made in federal transfers for the funding of health care,
post-secondary education and social assistance. But these cuts
hit health care, which accounts for about half the transfers,
the hardest.
By the year 2003, federal transfers to provinces for the funding
of health care will have been cut by $40 billion.
This is today's reality.
But the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs constantly distort reality in order
to have us believe—and at the same time to increase their
visibility—that the federal government is the great saviour. The
federal government is the great destroyer of the health system
in Canada. Every year, the provinces have $6.3 billion less in
their coffers, almost half of that amount for health care in
Canada.
Negotiations are now ongoing, and I hope they will be
successful. But if it were not for the action taken in the 1995
budget and the disarray of people who are waiting in hospital
emergency wards, which are in bad shape because of the federal
government, this conference would not have been necessary.
The federal transfers for health care would have increased
automatically because, since last year, the federal government
has managed to create a surplus thanks to its horrible cuts, a
surplus that, normally, should have been given back
automatically to the people those who really paid for putting
our fiscal house in order.
This year, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister should
have said that, because of the surpluses resulting from the fact
that some $6 billion have been cut each year from transfers to
the provinces, in particular for health care, they would give
back this year's surplus to the provinces, unconditionally and
in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.
But that is not what was done.
With great fanfare, the federal government wanted to ensure its
visibility and show that it is the saviour of the health care
system. This is a monumental farce. It is sad that the provinces
should be forced, with a knife at their throats because they are
struggling and suffering from yearly shortfalls, to take part in
last minute federal-provincial conferences to agree to certain
transfer arrangements. Six billion dollars every year, this is
not peanuts. I think it is sad and tragic that we have come to
this.
I will explain to you how we have come to this. The Prime
Minister did not make any bones of it. When he was in France, he
said that everything was fine in Canada, that the federal
government made the cuts and that the provinces did the dirty
work. The Prime Minister made no bones of it.
The president of the Treasury Board did not either when he said:
“When the provinces make cuts, after our own cuts, we will
appear as saviours”. He said it just two years ago, and that is
what was brewing.
Coming back to the 1995 budget, the finance minister said to
himself: “It is not a very popular thing to make cuts in social
programs and health care, I will do it only once, I will
announce it only once, and it will continue until 2003”. That is
what he did. That is why I underlined earlier the hypocritical
aspect of the budget, because it will cause a disaster—
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This
House is an appropriate forum for presenting arguments. But the
member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has repeatedly used the words
hypocrite and hypocritical. I think this is not helping the
debate.
I would ask the member to stick to his arguments and to refrain
from making personal attacks because that is not helping the
debate.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is quite familiar with the rules of this
House. He knows that it is against the rules to refer to other
members as hypocrites. I am sure that was not his intention.
1250
The hon. member for Bourassa is right when he says that using
this word in that way is unparliamentary, and I hope that the
hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will examine the Standing
Orders closely in this regard.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I have fully complied with the
rules. Perhaps the hon. member should clean his ears, because I
did not mention anyone when I talked about hypocrisy. I referred
to a budget that is hypocritical. Perhaps the member feels that
a budget is a person. There seems to be a problem of
understanding, perhaps a problem of conceptual learning. I have
never made a personal attack.
So, I was saying that this was the most hypocritical budget,
because, in one fell swoop, the government decided to impose
cuts that will exceed $40 billion by the year 2003, money that
is largely used by the provinces to finance health services.
Since it is the national health care system, which is
administered by the provinces, that was the victim of the
government's attempt to put its fiscal house in order, one would
have expected the government to use part of that money according
to the previous provisions. In other words, the federal
government should have given that money back to the provinces,
without making a big show of it to promote its visibility. It
should have given part, not all of what was asked based on the
Saskatoon agreement, that is the agreement reached by the
premiers.
I find it totally unacceptable to be at this point, where the
government has huge surpluses that help promote the personality
of the year, namely the Minister of Finance and future leader of
the Liberal Party of Canada, at the expense of ordinary
Canadians. The government is even resorting to despicable
methods—as we saw with the employment insurance program—to
deprive the unemployed of hundreds of millions of dollars.
They create a surplus in the employment insurance fund of $6
billion annually, a real public vendetta. That is where we are.
The federal government is setting itself up as the great saviour
of the health care system when in fact it is responsible for
entire mess we have been in since 1995. Then there are the
unemployed, who continue to pay and will do so forever, if we
are to believe the offhand and arrogant remarks of the Prime
Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human
Resources Development, at the rate of $6 billion annually.
They keep pressuring them so they can draw off every cent that
will enable the federal government to increase its surplus and
fund initiatives such as the millennium scholarship fund that
move the Prime Minister's face, the federal government and the
Canadian flag into the foreground.
They are threatening the unemployed who are considering
appealing a decision that is totally unacceptable and
unjustified. They are even threatening the officials carrying
out this vendetta with the loss of their jobs should they not
meet the objectives.
There is not much difference between that and the mafia. There
is not much difference between that and an organized vendetta.
It is as if the idea in the little brain of the Minister of
Finance is to have the biggest surplus possible in order to
impress as many as possible so he appears to be the best manager
in the world and swell his popularity in the near future at the
head of the Liberal Party of Canada.
But is he creating social problems in his efforts to score
political points? Is he dragging down the health care sector?
Is he creating hardship for families in Quebec and in Canada, so
that he can look good and keep Bay Street happy?
The humanity has all but gone out of the system when visibility
is more important than people's health, when misinformation is
more important than hard facts, the truth and democracy, and
when vendettas are more important than unemployed workers in
need of assistance. This is a terrible way to treat people.
I hope that one day the government will come to its senses. We
should not have to get down on our knees for what is rightly
ours. Quebeckers pay $30 billion in taxes annually.
It is only right that part of this money, a good part of it,
should come back to us without our having to negotiate a deal
that would guarantee visibility for a power-hungry Prime Minister.
1255
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everything I
have heard from the other side since this morning is absolutely
appalling.
It has been said that the federal government is cutting left,
right and centre. I would like to point out to my colleagues
opposite that the major cuts were made here in Ottawa. The
provinces were asked, two years in advance, to put their house
in order. The only thing the Quebec government came up with was
to cut municipal budgets even more than we cut its transfer
payments, with about 4 months' notice.
The Quebec government decided to do a major cleanup in health
care in three years. Nobody asked the Quebec government to cut
the health care budget to eliminate the deficit and to try to
bring about a winning referendum in the year 2000 on the backs
of the people.
Now they point the finger at the Government of Canada. They
should be ashamed.
We eliminated the $42 billion deficit in five years. We can now
start to think about lowering taxes for low income earners. We
improved the system but we are still being blamed for
everything. They should take a look in the mirror. It is really
appalling to hear things like that today.
When we talk about the millennium scholarship fund, do we say
that we will be asking teachers to teach more English than
French or do we pretend that two plus two will now equal five?
No. What we say is that we want to help talented young Canadians
to keep on studying, even if their parents do not have the
financial means to help them. We want to set up a scholarship
program in concert with governments. It will be up to them to
choose the recipients.
With a little bit of planing and co-operation, there should be no
problem.
The reason our visibility is resented is that people who want to
separate do not want to reveal what the Government of Canada is
doing for Quebeckers.
When we hear that $29 billion in taxes is sent to Ottawa, nobody
mentions that $42 billion also comes from Ottawa. People should
know that.
Let us talk about equalization: $4.7 billion is sent back to
Quebec. Quebec receives 47 per cent of Canada's total
equalization payments. The members opposite do not talk about
that. They just talk about the bad things. If they want to be
honest, they must tell both sides of the story. Quebeckers must
know the truth.
What would the member do things? How would he improve health
care? In Quebec City, nurses are laid off and then rehired with
severance pay. Talk about good management!
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot should explain the solutions
he is advocating. All he does is criticize. He never has a
solution to suggest. He should suggest something.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, this is because he does not
often listen to what we have to say. We have a great solution,
and that is to run our own show and stop arguing with this gang
that understands nothing. We call it Quebec sovereignty. This is
our great solution.
When we run our onw show, we will no longer have to
come to Ottawa to discuss how to redistribute our own money.
For his information, it is urgent that we put some order in the
Quebec government's finances. I remind him that in 1994, when
the Parti Quebecois came to power, his gang, his gang of
Liberals, Bourbeau and company, left us with a $6 billion
deficit, making it urgent to get our financial house in order.
If he does not think this is important, I remind him that
federal cuts mean a $2 billion shortfall every year for Quebec.
If he believes this does not hurt the people he is supposed to
represent, he has one helluva problem.
If he thinks the millennium scholarships are a good deal he
should run somewhere else in Canada because in Quebec we have a
consensus against the millennium scholarships—
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot needs to be taught a
lesson, I will do so today. Helluva is blasphemous. I urge him
to use appropriate language when he speaks. The people I
represent like to hear speeches of substance rather than
constant personal attacks.
My grandmother used to would wash out our mouth with soap. I
will send the member a full box of soap.
The Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt the point raised by the hon.
member for Bourassa is a point of view. I may get a little
distracted at times during debates, but nevertheless I would say
that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has the floor.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I admit I should not have used
that word. Sometimes, one gets wound up.
The words I had in mind were “heck of a problem”, rather than
“ helluva problem ”.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Ah, that's better.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: My grandmother also used to tell me the same
thing when I used that kind of language.
1300
In other words, when one has the honour of representing
Quebeckers, as my colleague does and we do, we have to report
the truth. The problem we had during the last 30 years, before
the Bloc Quebecois came on the federal scene, is that there was
a double legitimacy: there were those in the National Assembly
in Quebec City who said one thing, quite often the right thing,
and there were the federalist representatives of Quebec in the
House of Commons who said the opposite because they had to
follow Mr. Trudeau, because there had to be a balance between
the east and the west, and so on. There were often
contradictions between what was said here in Ottawa and what was
said in Quebec City.
For once, one can say that the Bloc Quebecois here is defending
the true interests of Quebeckers, interests that are based on a
consensus. I challenge the member to say that his position on
the millennium scholarships fund reflects the position of
Quebeckers. We debated the issue for weeks, there were
representations from all the legitimate representatives of
Quebec, namely organisations that really count in Quebec,
students federations, workers unions and business people. They
are all against the millennium scholarships.
The member should stop saying things that are not correct. It is
not true that the millennium scholarships fund will help needy
students. This fund will actually be useful to an elite because
the scholarships will be granted on the basis of merit, not
need.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I find it rather ironic, interesting to say the least, to listen
to someone from the Bloc quoting our Constitution. It is
somewhat ironic to listen to someone who would destroy the
Constitution, who would simply tear the country apart to lecture
the government on the interpretation that we have to live by the
rules that that member would like to destroy. The irony is
palpable when we listen to that kind of debate.
What we are talking about here is respect for a Constitution
that lays out partnerships and does not take an issue as
important as health care—and I will get to the Reform Party in a
minute.
An hon. member: We thought you would.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to
disappoint them now.
It really is ironic. Maybe the Bloc would help me out a little.
I was originally scheduled to be in my French class between 1
p.m. and 2 p.m. The whip's office called and asked me if I would
like to speak on the opposition day motion. I said I sure would.
Maybe the Bloc can replace my French lesson by helping me with a
few words in French.
[Translation]
How does one say “myopic” in French? How does one say “double
standard” in French? How does one say “parochialism” in French?
How does one say “provincialism” in French? How does one say
“hypocrisy” in French?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Bloc could help me by giving me a brief
French lesson on those five words. I would replace those five
words with one word in English, which would be Bloc. The Bloc
would meet the standard and the definition of all those words
with regard to this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Louis today.
While the motion put forward by the Bloc meets the standard or
test of all five of those words, it does not address five other
issues. Those are the issues that fundamentally are the
cornerstones of our health care system.
The other day I was taken to task by some of the hon. members
opposite when I said in this place that Canadians are
fundamentally proud of their health care system. Of course they
realize there are problems, just as I realized when I and a
member of my family arrived at the Mississauga hospital by
ambulance a couple of weeks ago.
1305
They realize there are problems when there are three patients in
beds in the hall with ambulance attendants required to wait with
those patients until they can be transferred to a specific bed in
a room. We are tying up three crews of ambulance workers. We
are making people who are in some cases extremely ill sit in a
public hallway on a gurney or a bed waiting to get proper
attention. There is something wrong with that. This government
knows that. The Canadian people know that.
Would members opposite expect us to sit back and allow a
provincial government, such as in my province, to hand back a 30%
tax cut which benefits the wealthiest members of society in
Ontario, while it cuts health care? They can blame the federal
government if they wish. And politically, heading toward an
election this spring or next fall, I am not at all surprised that
they would do that.
The reality is that the partnership spoken about in our
Constitution, the partnership that is being negotiated as we
speak in this place, the social union that is being negotiated is
all about establishing some fundamental principles. This party
and this government believe in those principles and will never
transfer any kind of responsibility or ability to the provincial
level to negate those principles of public administration,
accessibility, portability, universality and comprehensiveness.
That is the foundation of medicare.
I find it truly amusing when I listen to the member from the
Bloc claiming that she would like to see this party sitting in
opposition. I would like her to tell us what that solution would
be. Would she like the Reform Party with its two tier system to
be in charge of health care in this country? I highly doubt it.
She would recognize that representing a party that is based on
provincial values only that the Bloc is incapable of forming a
national government. Obviously it goes without saying the Bloc
would have some slight difficulty electing members outside la
belle province.
Would the member recognize that the Tory government under Brian
Mulroney left a legacy of $42 billion which required the serious
attention by this government to the deficit and that took every
ounce of effort and courage by the Canadian people to eliminate
it? Would she like to see the party of Brian Mulroney back in
power? Or is she naive enough to believe it would be the New
Democrats?
The New Democrats had their crack at governing in the province
of Ontario at a time when I was in opposition to Mr. Rae and
company. They had their crack at showing the country what they
could do with a reasonably sized government, and the damage that
occurred under their stewardship. Would she really believe the
New Democrats are going to form a national government?
We do not hear the other side of the issue. She would like to
stand and say get rid of the Liberals. I understand that. That
is the opposition. That is the best thought she has had today.
She does not know what to counter it with or what to replace it
with.
The reality is this federation works. In spite of the
utterances of members of the Bloc, in spite of the fact that they
would destroy this country, it works because the federal
government is committed to working with the provinces, with the
private sector, with the local community. That is very
important.
I assume that by this motion the Bloc would have us abdicate our
responsibility. This is not about respect. It is about
abdication.
There is a section of the federal government called the federal
health protection program. Would the Bloc wish that this
government should simply walk away from that program? It is a
program that monitors disease and tells us about the best ways to
prevent or control illness or injury for Canadians throughout the
country.
They prevent and they respond to public health emergencies.
1310
There was a tragedy in my own community not long ago when a
teenager came down with a case of meningitis and died. Imagine
the panic, the sense of fear in the community, the demands to the
regional municipality, not to the province and not to the federal
government, but to the community's medical officer to immunize
everyone in the community. We have to balance that fear. Is it
realistic? It sure seems so when we have a teenager at home who
might contract that deadly disease.
The federal government through the federal health protection
program can work with local health delivery agencies to deal with
that kind of emergency. I do not think what the Bloc is talking
about takes into account the extremely important work that is
done in working with local health authorities who really deliver
it on the ground.
I know I have a just a few seconds left so in closing, I want to
say that this could be a historic day. As the Prime Minister
meets with the premiers it is my hope on behalf of my
constituents and all Canadians that calm will prevail, that some
intelligence will come around that table to understand that the
federal government cannot do what the Bloc would like us to do
which is to wash our hands of our responsibility in health care.
This government will, I believe on the 16th, make a major
commitment to the Canadian people in the area of health care
funding. Canadians can continue to feel confident that Canada
has one of the finest health care systems in the world, a system
which is portable, accessible and affordable for all.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to make some comments in order to set the record straight
in terms of the fiscal leadership of this country.
The government claims that all of a sudden it balanced the
budget. I point out quite clearly that it was Canadians who
sacrificed themselves in paying high taxes who balanced the
budget.
I would also like to point out that it was the Progressive
Conservative government of Ralph Klein that actually led this
country with respect to fiscal responsibility and debt reduction.
Things like the balanced budget legislation of the Progressive
Conservative government of Gary Filmon actually set that road as
well.
I will say one thing quite clearly, nobody would have balanced a
budget, including this finance minister, if Mike Harris and Ernie
Eves did not actually get the economic engine of this country
going again, that being Ontario.
I would also like to point out that because of a tax cut of Mike
Harris and Ernie Eves, the province of Ontario is taking in more
money, not less money, so that the province of Ontario has a
chance to reinvest in health care. They are going to be giving
some money back in health care. I would point out that by giving
some of the money back to health care, I would equate that with
taking away a loaf and only giving back a slice.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member cares
to check the record in Hansard, he would see that my
comments did reflect that it was the courage, the dedication and
the hard work of Canadians that allowed us to balance the budget.
He wants to give great credit to Mike and Ernie, the golf pros.
He wants to tell us that they figured out how to solve this. On
the one hand he says to give the credit to the Canadian people,
but on the other hand he wants to ignore the hard work of the
people of Ontario. It was through the sacrifices of the citizens
of Ontario, as a result of Mike the Knife and Ernie the Golfer
who took the money out of the health care system in the province
of Ontario, and that member should understand that.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure
it was inadvertent, but the member for Mississauga West made a
grave error in his comments. He said specifically that in
Ontario there were cuts to medicare.
1315
I would like him to stand in his place and admit that between
1995 and today the money for medicare has gone up by $1.5
billion. During that period the federal cuts to health for
Ontario totalled $3 billion. Maybe he would admit that. I am
sure it was an inadvertent mistake.
Ontarians did in fact recognize health was so important that the
funding for health in Ontario went up even while they cut taxes.
I am certain it was inadvertent. I would like to give him the
opportunity to right this wrong.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the member
some sense of confidence that very little of what I say is
inadvertent. I can assure him of that.
I also want to make a point with reference to the comment that
it was the Conservative government of Ralph Klein that did these
wonderful things.
This is the same government in the province of Alberta that
imposed user fees on its own citizens until this government said
no, we will not transfer the money to you. You cannot violate
the terms.
With regard to the province, the member has obviously been
watching the advertising machine of the Progressive Conservative
Party which is filling the airwaves full of twisted untruths.
Costs have been driven through the roof, no question about that.
This requires more money in health care. This government is
committed to that and the member, in spite of his rhetoric, will
see that commitment very soon.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the member a short and straightforward question.
Does he find it normal that the Bloc Quebecois, a sovereignist
party from Quebec, should be the one to defend the Canadian
Constitution and provincial jurisdictions?
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is truly the irony of
all ironies that the Bloc would find itself supposedly in its
somewhat twisted myopic view of this situation to be the defender
of the Canadian Constitution. It leaves me almost speechless,
something that does not happen to me very often.
The reality is what the Bloc is doing is playing parochial,
provincial politics, nothing more. As the premiers talk with the
Prime Minister, it is deathly afraid that they might come out of
that meeting with some kind of agreement which the people of
Quebec will say is a good agreement, that they might actually
make a deal that they will be able to go back to the people of
Quebec and indeed all people in Canada and say we have done what
is right for all Canadians.
That is what the Bloc does not like. Anything its members can
do to undermine the credibility of this place, the credibility of
this great country, is what they are about. It is truly
shameful.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
we are debating a motion on health care that has everything to
do with jurisdiction.
The Bloc Quebecois does not want the federal government to touch
anything that is under provincial jurisdiction, and I agree with
this. It also says that the budget surplus should not be used in
the area of health care. I think this motion shows the huge gap
that separates the Liberal Party from the Bloc Quebecois.
Jurisdictional issues are important indeed. There is no denying
that. We have a constitution that must be respected. However, we
should make it our top priority to explore every possible avenue
to find common solutions to problems in areas of shared
jurisdiction, as is the case here.
In fact, it is clear that the federal government has
jurisdiction over everything that has to do with social
programs. Under the Canada Health Act, the federal government is
responsible for the application of the five basic principles
adopted by this House.
1320
I am amazed that we are here today, talking once again about the
Constitution and whether or not surpluses should go to health
care, instead of looking together for common solutions to help
patients who are waiting days and days for a hospital bed.
My vision of public service is that people and their concerns
are much more important than the endless jurisdictional quarrels
that are the delight of the Bloc, that are its raison d'être,
that are the reason why these people defending Quebec's
sovereignty come to Ottawa. They love discussing the
Constitution and jurisdictional matters, instead of talking
about—
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: If we relied on people such as you, Quebec
would not be defended.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Obviously it still bothers them. They are
yelling. They yell because it bothers them. All they like to
discuss about is the Constitution, jurisdictional quarrels, and
they can talk about that endlessly, day in, day out.
Yet, what concerns us all, wherever we live, and this is the
fundamental reason why we are in politics, are people and their
social and economic concerns. Of all areas, none is as important
as health care. While we are debating this motion in the great
comfort of this House, the irony is that hundreds of people
across Canada, whether in Quebec or elsewhere, are waiting on
stretchers, sometimes for entire days and entire nights, to
receive medical treatment. This is the reality.
Many patients even wait months before being admitted to a
hospital.
Some of them, and newspapers have documented such incidents
repeatedly, even die while waiting for a chance to be
hospitalized and to receive some care. Meanwhile, in the great
comfort of this House, in our nice suits and ties and nice
dresses, we discuss whether the Constitution should be protected
for Quebec.
[English]
In the great comfort of this House are we discussing how the
federal government and provincial governments alike should give
us a more effective, more human health care system? Are we
discussing how we can get rid of the long lines outside our
hospitals? Are we discussing how so many hundreds of patients
are waiting to reach the hospital, waiting to be served,
sometimes months at a time?
I know. I have three doctors in my family, two of whom work in
Quebec. We have a shortage of anaesthetists. We have a chronic
shortage of radiologists. Hospital emergency care is in dire
straits in so many provinces.
Are we discussing how we are to better implement the five great
principles of health care, one of which is reasonable access to
hospitals?
This is why this budget will be geared to health care. This is
why the federal government has decided, because it is the
overwhelming desire of Canadians, to put jurisdictional quarrels
aside and say we have to get into matters that affect people
first and stop the silly quarrels where we spend days on end
discussing whether this is provincial, that is federal and this
is municipal.
Canadians are asking us to quit quarrelling and get together and
decide together that we will make these systems work better for
all of us. This imperative is even louder in the case of
patients and people who are sick.
Canadians are telling us in poll after poll that they are fed up
with our quarrels and our nonsense. They are fed up when the
Bloc Quebecois stands up in the House day in and day out and
starts talking about the sovereignty of Quebec.
I heard the member from Saint-Hyacinthe say a few minutes ago
that the solution to the problem is look after our own things.
That will solve everything.
1325
[Translation]
The last Quebec minister who tried before the election to solve
problems one at a time, Minister Rochon, made such a mess that
he had to be pushed aside by the Premier of Quebec. He no longer
is the health minister. He was the great “problem solver”, but
he made such a mess that he had to be pushed aside. Now they say
“When we run our own show, everything will be fine”.
In an editorial published the other day, the Globe and Mail
mentioned that many reports concluded that it was not purely a
question of money, that given the money that exists globally in
the Canadian health care system, if our system was more
efficient and better organized and controlled, then we would be
in a position to offer Canadians a much better health care
system than the one we have now.
Do we discuss ways to deal with all these problems together, to
bring about common solutions to crises that call for common
solutions? No. What do we do? We talk about the Constitution,
about petty squabbles, once again. And things are not about to
change because now we do not only have the Bloc Quebecois to
deal with. We also have the united alternative, which is going
to solve all of our problems.
[English]
The Reform Party, completely to the right of the spectrum, that
believes in a free economy and a double tier system of medicare,
is joining in with the Bloc Quebecois that wants a sovereign
Quebec.
How will they sew their mishmash together? How will they form
this so-called united alternative? It is really wonderful. They
are joining all these motions together. The Bloc Quebecois
presents a motion and Reform joins in. Reform presents a motion
and the Bloc Quebecois joins in. Meanwhile people are waiting for
solutions. They are waiting for beds in hospitals. They are
waiting for access to hospitals. They are waiting for the
federal government to make this truly a health budget. We will
do this despite the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party.
This budget will put the accent on health care and it will be a
positive budget which Canadians will welcome.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I can
hardly believe what I have just heard. My colleague opposite was
lamenting the fate of sick people waiting on stretchers. He has
the gall to do that after his government has made deep cuts in
transfer payments to the provinces, which had no choice but to
cut services. He dares to cry over their fate. That takes the
cake.
But that is not what I want to talk about. Let me get back to
the issue at hand. We are being presented with a motion
requesting three things. Here is the first one:
That this House urges the government to respect provincial
jurisdiction over health care management—
In other words, we want the government to uphold the
Constitution, which is its sworn duty. Here is the second
request:
This means the government should restore the level of transfer
payments to the provinces. With this second point, we are asking
the federal government to be honest. Here is the third point:
With that third point, we are urging the federal government to
abide by the Constitution.
I am flabbergasted that we should even need to move such a
motion, as if it were not just natural for a government to be
honest and uphold the Constitution, which is its sworn duty. I
am surprised that any political party in the House should have
to move a motion urging the government to be honest and uphold
the Constitution.
This really takes the cake. I am really anxious to see how our
motion will fare with members opposite. If they oppose a motion
urging the government to be honest and uphold the Constitution,
our system is even more rotten than I thought.
1330
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, our colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois has as a premise that his motion is true in every
respect. He takes for granted that the federal government does
not respect jurisdictions in the area of health, which is
completely false.
The second premise is that the cuts in transfer payments is the
sole cause of problems affecting health care in Quebec and
elsewhere in Canada. Reports show that collectively speaking
there is enough money in all the provinces, including Quebec, to
have a system which is more efficient than it currently is.
The answer is clear. One only has to look at the mess—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I have let the hon. member
speak so I will ask him to keep his cool.
One only has to look at the mess created by Minister Rochon. He
made such a mess of things that he almost lost his seat. He was
elected by a very narrow margin. The first thing the premier did
was to push him aside immediately. If that minister had done
such a good job, if he had used the money he had to make the
system efficient, I think he would have kept his job.
This is not the fault of the federal government. Instead of
being happy that the federal government talks about a budget
which will put more money in health care, they prefer to conjure
up another red herring by claiming that the government should
not invest in health because it is a provincial jurisdiction.
Money is the only thing they are interested in.
We only want the people to know that we will transfer their
money, the money of the people of British Columbia, Ontario and
Alberta, who do not benefit from equalization payments but still
send a lot of money to Quebec on top of what it already spends.
What we want is a way to make sure that the equalization money
transferred to the provinces by the federal government for
health care will actually be used for health care. It seems
quite straightforward. If the money is intended for health care,
I see no reason why the provinces should object.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thought I was immune to the drivel
coming from the government side, but I cannot believe what I am
listening to today.
What they do not seem to understand is that the problem remains
the same. The federal government is using its spending powers to
get into provincial jurisdiction.
Yesterday in debate the Minister of Justice said that we should
respect our Constitution. Maybe the Liberals should read it.
Maybe they would find out that under section 92.7 it is very
clear that health is a provincial jurisdiction.
They can talk about quibbling over jurisdiction, but it is quite
clear to me that most of the problems we have had in this country
were caused by a breakdown in the partnership between the federal
government and the provinces.
The member for Mississauga West talked about working with the
provinces. I do not know how to say it politely, but that is a
pile. There is no indication that this federal government is
working with the provinces.
Talking with the provinces was another reference made by the
member for Mississauga West. The Prime Minister is not talking
with the premiers, he is talking to the premiers. He is giving
them an alternative: “Agree with my position or you don't get
any money”.
It really ticks me off when it is all over an issue of the
federal government wanting to maintain control over health care.
It is the problem. Members across the way are blaming the
provinces when their government has cut $16.5 billion since 1995.
Yet they have the audacity to blame the province of Quebec and
the province of Ontario.
I do not know how they can possibly think that Canadians are
going to believe it is somebody else who cut $16.5 billion from
transfer payments to the provinces.
1335
Yes, the Liberals brought in national health care. Yes, they
are responsible for it. However, at that time they promised 50%
funding. What happened? Now they are funding it at 11%. It is
no wonder there is a crisis in this country. To say that they
want to be in control of health care is like putting the fox in
charge of security in the chicken coop.
They want a report card for the provinces. That is a bloody
joke. Here they are—
The Deputy Speaker: I know the debate is very lively this
afternoon and I know the hon. member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley would not want to use words that are at least
borderline if not downright out of order. I would encourage her
to refrain from using that word. I know it has been ruled out of
order before and I know it has been allowed on other occasions.
However, given the temper of the House and the rather
good-spirited debate that is going on today perhaps she could
avoid using that word.
Ms. Val Meredith: I will call it a bleeding joke, Mr.
Speaker.
This government cut $16.5 billion out of health care and it
wants to be in charge. It gives itself a perfect rating. It is
laughable.
When we talk about the feds wanting to get into big cheque
policies where they will give the provinces more money if they
agree to certain conditions, there is another unparliamentary
word that covers that. I understand that it is actually a
criminal conviction. The Prime Minister is using this threat of
not receiving billions of dollars to get the premiers to agree to
his conditions. It is disgusting.
It is also interesting that part of the agreement is that the
federal government will get credit for spending the money and
writing the cheque. Do these people not realize that it is not
their money? It is the taxpayers' money, the people who pay the
bills. What difference does it make where the money comes from?
I would like to know where they get off saying that money for
health care is tied to a social union contract. We had promises
for months from the minister sitting on the government side that
there would be money for health care in the budget. We heard
that commitment from this government. Now we hear “It
depends”. The government is now saying that the money will only
be there if the premiers agree to the Prime Minister's conditions
for a social union contract.
I do not think Canadians want to hear that the Liberals are
playing with health care dollars. I do not think Canadians want
to hear that the federal government is holding these health care
dollars over the heads of the provinces to get its way.
Canadians want to hear that this government, as it has been
saying for months and months, is committed to restoring funding
to health care. However, that is not what we are hearing. What
we are hearing is that it is conditional on the provinces bowing
down to the Prime Minister of our country. Shame on the
government.
The government says that opting out cannot be allowed. I think
Canadians should take a really good look at what opting out
means. We have the example of a province which opted out of a
pension plan. That did not split up the country. It is not an
issue on the street that there is a Canada pension plan and a
Quebec pension plan. I do not think people really care. What is
interesting is that the Canada pension plan has over $150 billion
in unfunded liabilities and the Quebec pension plan has a $70
billion cash flow.
I do not think there is anything wrong with opting out of
something if the provinces feel they are more able to do it.
I do not understand why the other provinces do not see this
opportunity to have the same kind of system as the province of
Quebec has with its pension plan.
1340
Part of the problem is egos, which politicians in this country
have. I do not deny it because I have an ego myself. The
government has an ego. It wants to be the biggest, it wants to
be in charge, it wants to be seen as being responsible for
spending the money, but it is putting our country at risk. It is
putting the health of our citizens at risk.
I cannot believe that the Prime Minister and his government are
so small minded that they cannot see the bigger picture. The
bigger picture is that in this country we had better find a
better way of working with our partners. We had better find a
more open forum for discussion and debate over jurisdiction, and
we had better have a better system of listening to what the
issues really are.
As long as we continue the way we are going with the federal
government holding the heavy hand of dollars over the heads of
the provinces, with the government making provinces do things
they would normally not do because they cannot refuse additional
sources of funding, we will continue to have the same problems
year after year. There will be a lack of trust and a lack of
respect for the other partner. The partnership will not work. If
this government cannot see that, then there is something terribly
wrong.
I will go back to a definition of insanity that I have used over
the past few days. It is the government thinking, not only on
this issue but on other issues as well, that it can continue to
do things the same way again and again and get a different
result. It will not look at another way of doing things, nor
will it respect the Constitution to which it and four provinces
were signators. The Constitution clearly outlines federal and
provincial jurisdictions.
Nowhere in that Constitution does it talk about health being a
shared responsibility. Nowhere in 1867 was health ever
considered to be a shared responsibility. If the federal
government wants to get into provincial jurisdiction, then it
should do so with their agreement.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I want
to congratulate the previous speaker for her excellent speech.
I also want to take this opportunity to remind the Liberal
members opposite, who think that members of the Bloc Quebecois
are here this morning to cry over spilled milk, that 74 Liberal
members voted for the Constitution in this House in 1982, even
if it was to the detriment of Quebec.
I also remind them that, in 1993, Quebeckers sent enough Bloc
members to Ottawa to form the official opposition, even if we
are sovereignist. The same thing happened again in 1997.
What I find the most surprising is that, in 1995, Canadians from
Vancouver to Montreal came to tell us how much they love us.
What I hear today is not exactly what those people told us. They
came to tell us. They came to tell Quebec's members to go on
because they needed us in Ottawa, since we are the only ones to
speak for the unemployed and the have-nots and to promote social
programs. We are the only ones to move motions like the one
today to protect our health care system and ask the government
to put money back into social transfers. We are the only ones to
protect them regarding transfers for education.
1345
I ask the Minister of Finance to rise and tell me what is wrong
in what I said. The Minister of Finance and member for
LaSalle—Émard is solely responsible for this situation, which has
forced ten premiers to come to Ottawa today and get down on
their knees to the Prime Minister to beg for money.
The question I want to ask the member—
The Deputy Speaker: The member must address his questions and
comments to the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, who
made the speech, and not to the Minister of Finance. I invite
him to do so.
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is the
following: does she find it normal that the Canadian premiers
Canada have to come to Ottawa and get down on their knees to the
Prime Minister to beg for money that is owed to them? That money
belongs to us; it was taken from us by the federal government.
We are asking the federal government to give us what is coming
to us and to trust us with health care management.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
It is quite clear how I feel about it, that the federal
government, the Prime Minister and the finance minister would
even make funding returned to health care conditional is abhorrent
to me. I cannot believe the government which has promised a
return of funding to health care would use it as tool, would use
it as a way of forcing the premiers to agree with a position on
the social union talks. I cannot say enough how bothered I am
that it would use this tactic.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the member did not once mentioned the aboriginal
community in Canada in her speech.
With a motion of this nature, with medical concerns and care for
our aboriginal people across the country would the member believe
that it should fall under provincial control or under federal
control?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, having worked in an
aboriginal community for many years it was the provincial
government that provided health care facilities for that
community, not the federal government.
I would like to think aboriginal communities should be given
better health care with facilities and services like every other
Canadian.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I compliment les députés du Bloc québécois pour avoir
introduit cette motion.
This situation is felt by members from across the country. All
constituents will tell them that one of the greatest concerns
they have is the state of affairs of our health care system.
Every member in the House knows that and every member wants to
fix the system.
Where we disagree perhaps is in how we want to do that. We have
seen tragically played out under the parliamentary playground
that exists a system where politics is taking precedence over
reason and facts and where politics is taking precedence over
trying to solve the problems.
If this were a petty problem were people's lives were not at
stake this could continue with very little problem. The longer
we wait to fix the problems within our health care system, the
more Canadians will suffer and die. Members know this and also
people in the public know it, sometimes from very personal
experience.
The scope of the problem is massive. Across the country in
hospitals, in clinics, in homes and in families we see that
individuals who require essential health care services are not
being provided with these services.
1350
I will give some specific examples. In emergency rooms, 12 out
of 14 bays where I have worked will be held up with patients
waiting to get a bed.
Some of these patients need to get in the intensive care unit.
Intensive care units have been blocked off because the hospital
does not have enough money to pay for the nurses and the beds.
We have patients needing acute care services waiting in a busy
emergency room for a bed. If a tragedy took place at that time, a
motor vehicle accident, people would die because the services
would not be there for them.
We have situations where children are put into the same rooms as
dying adults. We have situations where men and women are put
into large rooms with the only thing separating them being a thin
sheet. All these people are sick.
We have people being discharged from hospital sick who need to
be in hospital not because the health care personnel want to
release them but because they do not have a choice.
We established that we have a problem with what we are asking
for in terms of medical care and the resources we have. The
government has money to put into health care. Understandably the
government wants credit for doing that.
As my hon. colleague, the health care critic for the Reform
Party, has mentioned, it serves the public not one advantage to
have the political turf wars taking place preventing that money
getting into the hands of the caregivers who desperately need it
provide for Canadians in their moment of greatest need.
This is a turf war. It is not only taking place in health care.
It is taking place in education and in areas across the country
where problems are not being solved because the feds and the
provinces cannot get their act together.
The federal government is in a unique leadership position. For
the first time in recent memory it has an opportunity. It can
call together the provincial ministers and their areas of
jurisdiction to come together and say “what are you guys doing
and what are we doing?”
Let us make sure the feds do what the feds do best and the
provinces do what the provinces do best. Let us have a
co-ordinated system where the left hand knows what the right hand
is doing, not what is taking place now where there are so many
levels of bureaucracy that the left hand does not know what the
right hand is doing.
Furthermore, that system is leading to political inefficiencies
and therefore inefficiencies in the way we get those services to
the Canadian public.
Money is being sucked out of the management of health care
instead of getting to patient care in the trenches. That is a
profound tragedy.
When there is somebody who needs bypass surgery, when there is
an elderly lady who has been waiting over 12 months and is in
severe pain, waiting to get a hip replacement, it cannot be said
to that person that we are doing our job.
I can only implore, as my colleagues have done from across party
lines, the federal government to work with and not against the
provinces in making this happen and also to make sure the
provinces put the money they will get directly into health care.
Health care is a provincial responsibility. That is in our
Constitution. It does not preclude the government from funding.
The government, we have seen, has taken away money to balance
its budget. It has taken money away from health care. The
government now has money to put back into health care. The
government should do that.
Furthermore, we should be making sure that money goes into the
meat and potatoes, into the muscle and bone of health care. In
the process of cutting budgets we have cut the fat but we have
also cut the meat, the muscle and the bone of health care.
As a result, we are seeing a very compromised health care
system. That is why under our current system people are leaving
this country, the rich, to get health care elsewhere.
I am going to speak personally and not on behalf of the Reform
Party. If we are to solve this problem of limited resources and
an increasing demand for health care in the future, and it will
increase as our population ages and medical technology becomes
more expensive, we have to think out of the box.
1355
We have a Canada Health Act that was constructed in the 1960s
and 1970s. That system was fine under the economic circumstances
of that era. In 1999 we have a very different set of
circumstances and we better realize that. We need to look at
other models in other parts of the world such as Australia and in
certain parts of Norway where they have managed to utilize their
resources in such a way to ensure that people's needs are being
met.
This entails getting away from the notion that the Canada Health
Act has all the answers for us. Above all else we must ensure
our health care system will be there for those who need it the
most, the poor and underprivileged. They are the ones who are
being compromised in the system today.
By preventing private services from taking place where private
moneys are exchanged only in the private setting we deprive
people from getting health care. Furthermore, we deprive the
health care system of money without raising taxes. A private
system completely independent of the public system where only
private money is exchanged and no public money put into it would
enable resources to get into the health care system without
raising taxes.
In this system the rich would be subsidizing the poor. As it
stands, people in the poor and middle class who are dependent on
the public system would have services quicker and in a more
efficient fashion because more public resources could be poured
into the public system as individuals went into the private
system. That solution benefits the poor and middle class and
would seek to strengthen a publicly funded health care system
that desperately needs fixing.
We do not want any kind of system that prevents the poor and
middle class from getting health care services when they need
them. The system we have now is preventing the poor and middle
class from getting health care services when they need them. The
government is rationing health care services to the public. We
have created restrictions preventing people from getting the
services when they need them, furthermore preventing the system
from developing so it can be strengthened.
If we adhere to the current system and do not think we can make
a made in Canada health care system, we are not only deluding
ourselves but we are compromising the health and welfare of
Canadians across the country.
All members, especially in the Reform Party, want to make sure
we have a strong, publicly funded health care system for
Canadians in the future. We are committed to doing that and
working with whomever else wants to do the same.
The Speaker: I know there are questions and answers to be
broached after this discourse. I prefer to go to Statements by
Members. That way I can give full time for the questions.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
HARRY MACLAUGHLAN
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take
this opportunity to congratulate a prominent Island businessman,
Harry MacLaughlan, who will be inducted in the Prince Edward
Island Business Hall of Fame on May 27 this year.
Mr. MacLaughlan, a native of Stanhope, P.E.I., first entered the
business world as the owner and operator of a general store.
Since then through hard work and perseverance his business
interests have expanded to include Island Coastal Services,
Island Petroleum Products, Island Cablevision, Commercial
Properties Limited and H. W. MacLaughlan Limited.
A strong supporter of his community, Mr. MacLaughlan has been
active in minor sports, recreation, tourism, health care and
politics, as well as charitable and youth activities.
Congratulations to Harry for a job well done and best wishes and
continued success in the future, another great Islander showing
leadership to the country.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the civilian employees at our military bases have not
had a negotiated agreement since 1989 and no wage increases since
1992. Their military counterparts have received small increases,
which they do not begrudge, but it is a daily reminder of how
poorly they have been treated.
Since 1997 they have had 15 days of direct bargaining and 7 days
of conciliation. These civilian employees have been in a strike
position since January 18. The conciliation board reports that
while the union made its offers and counter proposals in full,
the government did not.
1400
It is plain that the government is relying on its established
track record of legislating the workforce instead of bargaining
in good faith. When will the government get back to the
negotiating table?
* * *
PARKDALE COMMUNITY WATCH
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in an effort to increase the safety of our community,
Parkdale Community Watch has launched a three part project
designed to enhance the safety of municipal laneways.
This initiative, Parkdale's people friendly laneway project,
involves painting addresses on buildings that adjoin laneways,
ensuring that adequate lighting illuminates the laneways and
eliminating garbage and graffiti.
This project is especially relevant in my riding as two years
ago a neighbouring area experienced repeated arson incidents in
which the arsonist gained access to properties through laneways.
As a result Parkdale Community Watch has undertaken this action
in order to prevent crime and increase the safety of our
community. This project also makes it easier for emergency
vehicles to access our laneways as well as increasing access for
community and business purposes.
I applaud this community initiative and encourage other
communities to take a lesson from Parkdale Community Watch.
* * *
RICHARD BEAMISH
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, DFO was pleased to offer support to the
nomination of Dr. Richard, Dick, Beamish to the Order of Canada.
Dr. Beamish has contributed substantially to fisheries science
and Canada both in his various roles in the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and through his promotion of science in
general.
Two of Dr. Beamish's very significant contributions include the
discovery of acid rain and his innovative work relating climate
change to fish reproduction. Acid rain is of concern to many
countries in the world and Dr. Beamish's pioneering work has
heightened awareness of this problem.
Many nations are now moving to reduce the factors contributing
to acid rain. Climate change also impacts on many aspects of our
lives including the production of fish in our streams, lakes and
oceans.
* * *
FOREIGN AID
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, this is International Development Week, an opportunity
to remind the government of the devastating impact of ongoing
Liberal cuts in foreign aid.
At the same time I salute the dedicated work of those
individuals and NGOs, groups like the Canadian Council for
International Cooperation, OXFAM, Results Canada, UNICEF and
Canadian churches and labour, in fighting global poverty.
I urge the government to significantly increase our foreign aid
in the upcoming budget, especially that aimed at meeting basic
human needs including education and that directed at the poorest
countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
New Democrats strongly support the Jubilee 2000 campaign urging
the government to cancel the crushing $2.2 billion debt owed to
Canada by the world's poorest countries. In a week when all
parties have voiced concern about the rights of children, let us
not forget that 32,000 children die every day of preventable
disease and hunger. Canada must do much more to respond to this
global crisis and set a clear timetable to meet the UN target of
.7%—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.
* * *
YMCA
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great pride I rise today in the House to talk about an
opening that will be happening in Kitchener Centre. This weekend
the A. R. Kaufman family YMCA will be having a ribbon cutting
ceremony at the grand reopening of its facility.
The YMCA has had a presence in Kitchener since 1895. It started
out with recreational facilities as well as housing for soldiers
during the second world war. Currently they are in partnership
with the federal government providing day care, services to new
Canadians as well as youth employment strategy programs. The
YMCA is a sterling example of a community choosing the projects
that it wants to make its place a caring and safe community.
I am very proud to have had a lifelong membership with the YMCA
and I look forward to its reopening this Saturday.
* * *
SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday I asked the Minister of Industry how much
public money had been flushed out to sea by the Shearwater
Development Corporation. The Minister of Veterans Affairs
responded with some meaningless gobbledegook.
I now know that Shearwater received an initial payment of $2
million and a later top up of $600,000.
The company is not only broke but is being sued for $660,000 for
the cost of airport operation and maintenance. The only physical
evidence of this so-called development program is a boardwalk and
retail complex to which the company contributed about $200,000.
1405
We can do the math. A handful of Liberals has frittered away
more than $3.2 million in four years. This cries out for an
independent investigation.
* * *
SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, much
of our future depends on the insights and the capacity for
innovation of our country's young scientists and engineers. Since
1964, NSERC has singled out more than 100 researchers for the
prestigious title of E.W.R. Steacie Memorial Fellow. These are
100 of our brightest and most productive research stars,
individuals who have made a profound contribution to their fields
and to Canada.
Today my colleague, the Secretary of State for Science, Research
and Development, announced the names of the four newest fellows.
Like their predecessors they have distinguished themselves by
rapidly acquiring at a relatively early stage in their careers an
outstanding reputation in advanced research.
I ask members to join me in congratulating professors Norman
Beaulieu of Kingston, Douglas Bonn of Vancouver, Mark Freeman of
Edmonton and Barbara Sherwood Loolar of Toronto who are this
year's recipients of NSERC E.W.R. Steacie Memorial Fellowship.
Their achievements provide convincing evidence of our ability to
develop and keep young research talent in the country.
As part of this award NSERC will contribute $180,000 to the
recipients' universities in their names.
* * *
[Translation]
ALEXANDRE MARCHAND
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pay particular tribute to an individual in my riding, a
21 year old runner, who has already made a name for himself in
international athletics.
In December, for the third consecutive year, Alexandre Marchand
of Pointe-du-Lac was named athlete of the year by the Fédération
d'athlétisme du Québec, a title he had also won in 1994, as well
as earning the Fred Tees trophy awarded to the Canadian
university athlete of the year.
He was ranked 12th at the latest Commonwealth Games. He has won
countless gold medals over the years, and 1999 should be another
record year. He has a competition this month in Windsor, the
world university championship, the Pan American Games and the
world championships.
As the Olympic Games of the year 2000 approach, I have no doubt
Alexandre will represent Quebec worthily and with pride.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year's international development week has as its
theme the celebration of Canada's actions in the world.
This is an opportunity to celebrate Canadians' contribution here
and abroad to international development in co-operation with CIDA
and its partners.
The main artisans of this sort of co-operation are the non
governmental organizations, private sector groups, professional
associations, colleges, universities and many others.
This movement for solidarity with the international community is
especially important because it expresses the commitment of both
the people and the Government of Canada to international
development in the spirit of sharing, respect and co-operation.
In short, the Liberal government's vision clearly reflects the
Canadian public's spirit of sharing and co-operation.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to issue our condolences to the people of Kosovo who
are suffering such horrendous hardship. We watch daily in
disbelief and disgust the slaughter and destruction. Like Bosnia
a few years ago the issues are complex, emotional and rooted deep
in history.
It is critical that we end the conflict and push forward in a
long term solution to the problem. We must do everything in our
power to force Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and Kosovo
leaders to the negotiating table tomorrow in Paris.
The Prime Minister's total disrespect for parliament by publicly
announcing the commitment of ground troops to NATO is
unacceptable. We must have a clear and open debate in the House
of Commons followed by a free vote before we commit troops to any
NATO action in Kosovo.
This issue is addressed in Motion No. 380 on which all of us
will vote next Tuesday. It makes clear that when Canadian lives
and resources are being committed it is the people of Canada who
should make that decision through parliament.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to share with this House remarks made in September
in Chicago by a person who is sold on sovereignty and selling
the idea.
According to this unexpected sovereignist, we are witnessing the
emergence of a movement for building a North American community
where states co-operate more closely on regional and global
issues while maintaining their distinct cultures and identities,
which is a essential to allow a community to define itself as a
nation.
1410
The challenge, according to this speaker who might as well have
been a member of the Bloc Quebecois, would then be to develop
some common courses of action—let us call them
partnerships—flexible enough to prevent crushing identity
references and national cultures, which absolutely must be
maintained.
The Bloc Quebecois is very pleased to welcome the Minister of
External Affairs into the sovereignist camp, as he has just
shown that we share many views on sovereignty.
* * *
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on January 13,
1998, the Canadian government announced that, over the next five
years, $7.6 million will be invested in eastern Quebec to
promote the development of tourism until the year 2004.
This government assistance plan is designed to support local and
regional initiatives with a significant impact on the economy in
eastern Quebec.
This is the fourth in a series of strategic initiatives for
eastern Quebec, estimated at slightly over $22 million, put
forward by the Canadian government.
Our government is clearly involved in economic development, and
this is the best proof of its involvement.
* * *
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals
prefer to have a peekaboo ethics counsellor. In 1993 they
promised to establish an independent ethics counsellor who
reported publicly to parliament. In 1994 they delivered an
ethics counsellor who reports behind closed doors at fireside
chats with the Prime Minister.
This flawed approach to openness and integrity has resulted in
an ethics counsellor who investigates the Prime Minister's
business dealings in secret, an ethics counsellor who was unsure
whether the Prime Minister should file a public disclosure, an
ethics counsellor who makes decisions solely based on the
information provided by the Prime Minister and his trustee.
When I tried to get the ethics counsellor to appear before the
industry committee the Liberal committee chair toed the party
line and ruled me out of order.
The Liberals need to stop covering up for the Prime Minister and
his ethics confidant, Howard Wilson. It is time for the Liberals
to prove their commitment to integrity, to live up to the red
book promises and to establish an ethics counsellor who reports
directly to parliament.
* * *
HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
February is heart month in our nation, organized by the Heart and
Stroke Foundation of Canada. The foundation, a federation of 10
independent provincial foundations, raised over $85 million in
donations last year to support research and health promotion
programs. Approximately 80% of these donations were raised
during heart month.
Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in Canada
accounting for 37% of deaths each year. The Heart and Stroke
Foundation dedicates itself to funding critical research in the
area of heart disease and stroke being the number one funder of
such research in Canada.
During heart month I urge all Canadians to get in touch with the
Heart and Stroke Foundation. The foundation led and supported by
250,000 volunteers plans various activities across the country to
educate and build awareness from coast to coast. It makes
important efforts to encourage all Canadians to live healthy
lives.
I commend the Heart and Stroke Foundation's efforts and ask that
all Canadians take time this month and throughout the year to
help support its undertakings.
* * *
NEW MILLENNIUM
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for the next millennium it might be useful for us to define a
vision for Canada which may include the following.
Our system of justice should always promote a peaceful, just,
tolerant and civil society governed with respect for the rule of
law and for our fellow human beings.
Our health care system should be universal, comprehensive,
portable, accessible and publicly funded.
Our social safety net should provide compassionate protection
for those in most need.
Our economy should be internationally competitive with fair
distributions of opportunity and returns.
In addition we should provide universal education and training
based on the highest possible standards, welcome new Canadians to
meet our needs and responsibilities, protect and promote the
health and beauty of our environment, promote our official
languages, maintain and improve our national institutions, and
continue to promote international peace and co-operation by
example and initiative.
These are the principles that should guide us into the next
millennium and I believe will ensure that Canada will remain the
best country in the world in which to work and live.
* * *
GRAIN INDUSTRY
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
Bill C-19 was brought in to deal with the grain handlers strike a
couple of years ago we argued that the government could not
legislate the problem away in a piecemeal fashion.
Because of the number of unions and companies involved in grain
handling we suggested a process called final offer arbitration.
Final offer arbitration works this way.
1415
When workers and management reach an impasse that could result
in a strike action an independent third party is called to
intervene. Both sides make a final offer and a third party
decides which of the two is the most reasonable.
That is supposed to be what is in place. Yet just two weeks ago
western farmers were again held ransom as 70 weighers and
samplers walked off the job at the grain terminals in Vancouver.
Although the rotating strike is now ended it may only be
temporary. That is because the dispute between labour and
management remains unresolved.
Farmers in Canada are demanding that this government get its act
together in labour-management relations.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when our troops were sent to the gulf last spring they knew they
might be in harm's way. After all, Saddam Hussein was known to
possess anthrax. But as it turns out the real danger for our
troops was the defence minister himself.
He ordered our troops to take a stale vaccine whose best before
date had expired five years earlier.
Why did the defence minister order our troops to take a drug
that veterinarians say is not even fit for dogs?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is totally untrue. The safety of
our troops is of utmost importance to us.
We made sure the vaccine which was obtained in the United States
was tested, supplementary tested, as did the Americans. They got
their vaccine from the same source.
We made sure doctors in the Canadian military approved it. We
made sure that Health Canada was very much in the picture and
approved it as well. We gave that vaccine only after it had been
properly tested and we ensured it was safe and effective.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is a really nice try but I just do not think the minister's
answer is true for these reasons. He just said that it was tested
and retested—
The Speaker: Please be very judicious in the way you
phrase your question, especially with the word true.
Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in
the House the minister said they are fully tested, it is our
medical people, the doctors, who determine that it is safe to
give them when they are given.
He just said they were tested and retested but not by Canadian
doctors. In the scrum yesterday afternoon he said exactly the
opposite to what he said in here yesterday.
Why did he say that our doctors had tested the vaccine when he
knew that was not the case?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said our doctors had approved the use
of the vaccine and they have.
I have discussed this matter with them. They have thoroughly
gone over this matter with the testing company, an independent
testing firm hired by the United States department of defence.
We also had that same company do very thorough testing. Our
doctors consulted with it. Health Canada has been part of this
picture. They have all been consulted. They all approved the
vaccine.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that same company and manufacturer is in fact being sued by the
American FDA.
The minister stood in the House in April and said he had taken
the vaccine himself, the retested version.
Health Canada could have approved it but it did not have its
tests done on it and it should not have approved anything it did
not test itself, and the minister has admitted this right now.
The minister knew the vaccines were stale. He knew that the
labels had been tampered with. He knew that they had not been
independently tested and he knew that the company was in trouble
with the FDA.
Why did he order our troops to be human guinea pigs for this
vaccine?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was not stale. The labels were not
changed. It was all tested. It was all found to be safe. I
visited the HMCS Toronto in Kuwait harbour. I took the
vaccine and I have never felt better.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish we could be so confident for our Canadian troops.
Health Canada may have approved this but Health Canada certainly
never tested it. Today we learned that General Kinsman,
commander of the air force, said he would never have approved
administering this vaccine if he had known that it had already
been stale dated and that the stuff was out of date.
What on earth was the minister thinking when he asked that a
mouldy anthrax vaccine be given to Canadian troops?
1420
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only thing mouldy is the thinking in
the Reform Party.
The medical profession in the Canadian military has looked at
this closely. The United States has also looked at it. The same
vaccine has been given to many more Americans in their military
forces.
People have been able to take it with very few problems at all
and certainly no problems relevant to the kind of issues the
Reform Party is trying scaremonger about.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister said this vaccine has been tested and retested. He
knows full well that not a single Canadian doctor tested one vial
of vaccine. He knows that to be true and yet tells the House,
the Canadian people and our Canadian soldiers rest easy, take
your chances.
The air force general has said he would never have asked for
that to be administered. This minister somehow seems to think it
is okay.
What I would like to know is does he just make up these stories
as he goes along or does he just not care that this vaccine is
harmful? Has he even asked for a test to see if this vaccine is
harmful to our Canadian soldiers?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in reference to the chief of the air
staff, none of us would ever recommend anything that was not safe
and not effective. The vaccine was tested very thoroughly at the
laboratory by an independent company. It was not tested in
Canada. We do not make the vaccine in Canada and it is not
licensed in Canada. It was tested at the laboratory, the best
place for it to be done.
Our medical doctors are fully satisfied that this vaccine is
safe.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development made
reference to fraud investigation in order to defend the
indefensible and justify the quotas on cuts. How can the
minister hide behind the investigation of fraud, when the quotas
for cuts are $612 million, while his Web site indicates that
frauds and penalties total under $200 million?
Why are the cuts three times the figure for fraud?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department is attempting to
ensure that the program is administered fairly for all
recipients. This is our duty to all those who trust us with
their funds. It is perfectly normal practice from an
administrative point of view to administer the funds entrusted
to us in an equitable manner.
When we are told that there are quotas, that people's jobs
depend on them, I can tell you that no individual job is linked
to such practices, that in a department the size of Human
Resources Development where employees are covered by collective
agreements, if tasks were reassigned because there was less work
in a given area, workers would be given other duties within the
department.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
a lot of words just to cover up reality.
The bottom line is that public servants have been told “If you
do not cut off enough people, if you do not cut three times more
than the figure for fraud, you are going to lose your job”.
That is what has been said, and this makes the public servants
victims as well because, instead of being there to serve the
unemployed, they are being made to persecute them.
Does this minister-author realize this, this man who bemoans the
fate of the excluded, who champions their cause, but who is
without a heart?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have enough heart to ensure
that people, including those who contribute to the fund, are
protected against abuse, against fraud, against the overpayments
which occasionally occur because of administrative error, so
that the money will go to those who need it.
But I would point out to the head of the Ottawa branch of the
Parti Quebecois that he ought to have a look at what is
happening at the social services department in Quebec, which had
to recover $100 million, and did recover $112 million, in
1996-97. They have the same kind of administrative practices
over there.
So let him look at what is being done in his own head office, as
far as administrative practices are concerned, which—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, here in Ottawa, the Minister of
Human Resources Development accused us of defending cheaters.
However, considering that a knife is put to the throats of the
department's employees to force them to reach their quotas, it
is obvious that all EI beneficiaries are now deemed to be
potential cheaters by the government.
1425
The Prime Minister once said that out of work Canadians were
beer drinkers. Is the Minister of Human Resources Development
now telling us that, in his opinion, they are also cheaters?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I never insinuated that the
unemployed were cheaters, quite the contrary.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: I want the employment insurance fund
and program to help the unemployed who do need help. We are
proud to see that the program will be there for them for a long
time to come.
What I said is that members opposite are defending people who
abused the system. I did not say that the unemployed were
abusing it: I said that we need to identify those who abuse the
system, so as to respect the integrity of the true—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, given his quotas, his systematic harassment of
the jobless and his threats to fire those employees who do not
make enough cuts, does the Minister of Human Resources
Development not realize that he has transformed a social program
designed to help laid-off workers into a trap for those who
contribute to the program and who need that program?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify one thing: I do
not want any harassment of the unemployed. I do not want any
harassment to take place.
All employees of the Department of Human Resources Development
are covered by collective agreements and, should we decide that
it is necessary to reorganize the work within the department,
all 150 employees in question would be reassigned to other
duties.
They do not have knives at their throats. We are not threatening
to fire them. We are simply saying that they could be reassigned
to other positions, where the workload is heavier. This is my
message.
* * *
[English]
WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question arises out of the concern many Canadians have about
the action brought pursuant to article 11 of NAFTA with respect
to water exports. My question is for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
Will the government immediately declare a Canada-wide moratorium
on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and interbasin
transfers? Will the government be bringing in legislation to
permanently ban bulk freshwater exports and interbasin transfers
in order to assert Canada's sovereign right to protect, preserve
and conserve our freshwater resources for future generations?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we are deeply engaged in a
process to ensure Canadian water resources are protected. Over
the past year my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, has
engaged in a number of discussions with the provinces. We have
been in discussion with U.S. authorities on border water issues.
Once we are able to bring those two separate tracks together we
will come up with a common policy which I am sure the hon. member
will support.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, surely the minister sees the danger in allowing this to
drag on as if it were something NAFTA has some effect on.
So I repeat, do the minister and the government not see the
wisdom of at least immediately bringing in a moratorium on any
bulk freshwater exports at this time in order that we may make
absolutely clear our long term intention with respect to this
issue?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows from past debates that the
issue debated in the House was whether Canada is obliged under
NAFTA to export water. Of course it is not. We now have to
determine the most effective means and mechanisms for ensuring
Canada can effectively manage its water resources. That includes
the very active involvement of the provinces because within their
own jurisdictions they have full authority over water resources.
We want to make sure we do this in full collaboration.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the House learned of a Department of Human Resources Development
internal document indicating that Treasury Board intends to cut
150 jobs at HRDC.
The Human resources development minister may play with words all
he wants, the fact remains that quotas do exist and that jobs
will be eliminated if they are not reached.
Can the President of the Treasury Board explain why he is making
such threats against HRDC employees?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question of layoffs,
as my department's guidelines make absolutely clear. We expect
to recover a certain amount of money in each region.
1430
I assure you that all employees in my department are covered by
collective agreements and, should there be less work in one
area, there will be lots to do elsewhere.
None of our employees has a knife at their throat, but we do
want to ensure that the system is fair to all unemployed workers
and that the money goes to those who need it.
[English]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this HRDC document proves once again that the Minister of HRDC is
not in control of his department.
We have seen him kneel before the Minister of Finance on raiding
the EI surplus. Now we see him kneeling before the President of
the Treasury Board on quotas and ultimatums.
It is high time he protects his own departmental employees from
such intimidation.
Will the minister get off his knees and stand up to his cabinet
cronies?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not tolerate any
harassment by my department. I am telling my agents not to
harass the Canadian public. That is absolutely clear.
The government has an obligation to Canadian business and
employers to make sure that the funds go to the people who really
need them. When there are abuses or mistakes that have been
committed, when there is fraud, it is my responsibility and that
of our government to see that the money goes to the right people.
There is no harassment and I do not want our employees to harass
the Canadian public. Is that clear?
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last Thursday James Staples appeared on charges of
possession of child pornography in Courtenay provincial court in
British Columbia.
The judge set a trial date for July 12, but said it would be
very likely that those charges would be dropped because of
Justice Shaw's decision.
Why is the Minister of Justice pretending that all is business
as usual in B.C. courts when obviously it is not?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member
that obviously a trial date was set for July 12.
If for any reason the attorney general of British Columbia feels
that a decision is rendered by the judge in that case that
interferes with his ability to prosecute those charges he will be
able to appeal that decision.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
cancer is spreading. We now have reports of another case being
delayed in Alberta, the minister's home province.
I am sure the minister is familiar with the Askov ruling on the
charter right to a speedy trial. Last year in B.C. a convicted
child molester was set free on Askov. The attorney general's
ministry in B.C. is extremely concerned about this issue.
Will the minister ensure British Columbians and all Canadians
that when the cases that are now in limbo finally do get to court
they will not be thrown out due to lengthy delays?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the
House, in provinces like Alberta the child pornography sections
of the Criminal Code are in full force and effect.
If the attorney general of Alberta, who has charge of the
administration of justice in Alberta, chooses or wishes to appeal
any decision of a lower court in relation to any decision
regarding the prosecution of a child pornography case he can do
so.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
unemployed workers are not the only targets.
In his memo, Ron Stewart, director general of control and
investigation at Human Resources Development, wrote, and I quote
“Other savings can be achieved by increasing the number of
fines imposed on companies”.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Now that the minister has exceeded his quotas for jobless
workers, will he confirm that his department has issued a
directive asking employees to target companies?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my government and my department
have a responsibility to Canadian taxpayers, both individual and
corporate.
We do not want any company in Canada to abuse the EI system,
because the system has to be there in the long term to provide
Canadian workers with the protection they need.
They will therefore do their work diligently, with respect both
to companies that abuse the system and to individuals who are
the subject of administrative errors.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
sort of government are we dealing with?
On the one hand, it is letting billions of dollars leave the
country tax free in family trusts, turning a blind eye to tax
evasion by shipping lines, and getting ready to give tax breaks
to multimillionaires, while, on the other, it is going after
unemployed workers and squeezing them dry.
What sort of government are we dealing with?
1435
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a good government.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): We have a government that is doing its job in
a balanced way. We also have a government that is capable of
compassion. That is not something the opposition has a monopoly
on.
Our government restored the youth employment strategy to help
hundreds of thousands of young people actively return to the
labour market.
Our government reintroduced the Canadian job creation fund on a
permanent basis in regions with high unemployment.
Our government introduced the national child benefit—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as my colleague said, the cancerous effects of the Shaw decision
on kiddie porn are spreading.
In Alberta, William Eric Hughes refused to enter a plea at
court. Because of the effect of the Shaw decision, his trial has
been delayed until March 3.
As my colleague said, the Askov decision makes it clear that as
long as these appeals are delayed we get closer and closer to the
possibility of these people walking free, as a convicted child
molester did in British Columbia last year.
My question to the minister is—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I will allow the hon. member to put
his question.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the question is simply
this. How can the minister assure Canadians that the Askov
ruling will not let those convicted of these crimes walk free?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the child pornography
provisions of the Criminal Code are in full force and effect in
the province of Alberta.
I have no doubt that my colleague, the attorney general of
Alberta, will pursue any allegations of child pornography to the
full extent of the law.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I guess the Minister of Justice did not hear my question. The
question was not about the attorney general pursuing charges, it
was about the effect of the Askov decision which says that a
reasonable delay in the appeal process can result in convicted
criminals walking free, as happened with a child molester in B.C.
last year.
How can she assure Canadians that this will not happen again
with respect to those now before the courts on charges of
possession of child pornography? How can she assure us of that?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that in the
province of Alberta the child pornography provisions of the
Criminal Code are in full force and effect. The attorney general
of Alberta will duly prosecute the law.
In addition, the attorney general of Alberta is responsible for
the administration of the courts and the resources therefor.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this is the first time in the recorded history that a government
has established recovery quotas three times higher than the
potential value of frauds in a department. In addition, this is
the first time employees are being threatened with the loss of
their job.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Will he acknowledge that Human Resources Development Canada
managers have performance bonuses and that their performance is
appraised on the basis of the number of investigations done and
recoveries made?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our employees work hard. They
are covered by a collective agreement. None of them is
threatened with the loss of their job should it no longer be
necessary to recover funds in certain regions because there were
no more overpayments or abuses there.
We must respect the integrity of the system. I can assure you
that managers are not threatened. We are not encouraging
harrassment. Should there be less work in recovery, we would
have them work elsewhere in my department.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would the
minister get serious for a minute and acknowledge that a memo
signed by a director general of investigations at Human
Resources Development Canada, not Human Resources Development
Japan, but Human Resources Development Canada, clearly indicates
a cut of an estimated 150 jobs in Prince Edward Island alone?
We saw no directives for elsewhere, but it is a lot more.
Will he acknowledge that managers get bonuses and that they are
pressured—I myself have seen documents—to meet the minister's
quotas?
1440
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. As Minister of
Human Resources Development, I say that workers in my department
are not encouraged to harass. I say it before all of Canada:
they are not being asked to harass. I do not ask them to harass.
I ask them to respect the integrity of the employment insurance
system so it may long serve Canadians.
That is the directive I give all of them across the country from
this House.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the House the Minister of Foreign Affairs told
Canadians not to worry, that there was no agreement for Canada to
accept U.S. plutonium exports.
Both sides in this issue agree that plutonium could start
arriving in Canada as early as next month. Under U.S. law it is
illegal for plutonium to be exported to Canada without an
agreement in place.
Has this government signed an agreement to accept U.S.
plutonium?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman may be confusing two things. One is
a procedure with respect to very limited testing of the
feasibility of certain fuels. The other is the more broad
question of whether any large scale project would be undertaken.
The rules are very clear. Activity can be undertaken in Canada
for that which is duly licensed in advance, following upon all of
the necessary environmental, health and safety requirements of
the Atomic Energy Control Board.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians do not need a lot of legal doublespeak. Canadians want
to know the truth.
Under U.S. law it is illegal to export plutonium to Canada
without an agreement in place. Is there such an agreement in
place today?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, any activity that would be undertaken in a Canadian
facility, such as the testing labs of AECL at Chalk River, has to
be licensed in advance by the Atomic Energy Control Board.
In terms of the requirement with U.S. law, that is a matter of
international obligation that it is the responsibility of the
United States to comply with it.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-55
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-55 to restrict the sale of advertising directed at the
Canadian market to Canadian publications ran into strong
opposition, especially in the United States. According to news
reports, the mandate given by the Prime Minister is to negotiate
the basis of an agreement.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage report on the state of
the ongoing negotiations?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis knows full well,
the House will be proceeding to report stage and third reading
on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. We are carrying on with
the bill as it stands. We have asked the Americans if they had
any alternate solutions to put forward; we have always been open
to suggestions. So far, however, none have been forthcoming.
* * *
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are all
aware of the very important meeting that took place today
between the Prime Minister of Canada and his provincial
counterparts.
[English]
I am told that the first ministers meeting has now concluded.
[Translation]
I would like to ask the Prime Minister what exactly came out of
this first ministers' meeting today?
1445
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think today is a very important day for Canada and all
Canadians.
On behalf of the government, I have signed an agreement on
health with all the provinces and an agreement on social union
with all the provinces, except Quebec, and both territories.
Through this agreement, we are substantially modernizing the
federation and establishing consultation mechanisms to develop
together social policies that will make Canada even better.
* * *
[English]
TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, considering that no one on that side knows what has been
signed, the applause seems to be a little premature.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Duhaime debacle raises troubling questions about the
minister's transitional jobs fund. The minister gave thousands
of dollars under that program to the man who, purely by
coincidence we are asked to believe, took a money-losing hotel
off the Prime Minister's hands.
I ask the minister to tell the House how he made the decision to
gift Yvon Duhaime with $164,000 and report on how this money was
spent.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want things to be very,
very clear.
Officials from my department reviewed these project applications
as they do with much diligence. They review all projects in the
same way. They recommended them for approval after they met all
the standard eligibility criteria.
My department has a standard monitoring system to ensure that
all projects meet their obligations required under their
respective contracts and that was the case in this case as well.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the minister could be a little more
specific.
On what basis was this particular award of $164,000 given and
how was the money spent? What does the audit reveal about the
way the money was spent and the gain that we as Canadians got for
that money?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the
House that the money was spent by the Canada jobs fund was to
build, to help, to contribute, to create jobs in a very
successful hotel in a region where unemployment is too high. The
Canada jobs fund all across Canada has created 30,000 jobs in the
last three years.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when I was
touring the country, an unemployed woman in Gaspé, Mireille
Arsenault, told me: “It is hellish having to deal with the
people at Unemployment. I am outraged by their lack of
compassion”.
If they are putting aside their compassion, it is because the
government is threatening them with job losses if there are not
enough unemployed people taken off benefits. The workers are not
abusing the system; the government is abusing the workers.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development:
When will the government put the “humanity” back into “human
resources”, and help this country's unemployed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the workers in my department are
already humane. They assist millions of Canadian citizens
throughout the country in having a better life. That is what
the Department of Human Resources Development does.
There are no threats of job losses, despite what the opposition
is trying to claim. The employees are protected by a collective
agreement, and the 150 who are assigned to auditing records in
order to ensure equity with other Canadians would be reassigned
to other divisions if there were less work in their sector.
1450
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
quotas, targets, the Minister of Human Resources Development can
play with words but the facts remain. Employees are threatened
with layoffs if they do not cut enough workers off UI. This is
not human management. This is the government depending on the UI
fund.
Will the human resources minister stop the threats and give
instructions so that civil servants can work in the best
interests of the unemployed Canadians?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have received their
instructions. This is why HRD Canada has a youth employment
strategy to help the young get some work experience to help get
them into the labour market. This is why we have a Canada jobs
fund to help create employment.
No official of my department is threatened to lose his or her
job because of quotas the member refers to. They do not exist.
We are having some estimates of good management practices. I can
say that these employees would have plenty of work to do in other
divisions of my department.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of National Defence yesterday stated “They are fully
tested. It is our medical people, the doctors, who determine
that it is safe to give”—these vaccines—“when they are
given”. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspection said
there were 23 violations with the company that produced the
anthrax vaccine.
Would the minister please table in this House any documentation
he might have from Canadian doctors and U.S. doctors showing that
this vaccine was safe?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to provide whatever I can to
convince the hon. member that in fact it was safe. I noticed the
last time we had this discussion the member could not wait for us
to give the anthrax serum to our troops. She wanted to make sure
they got it to protect them. That is exactly what we did. We
gave it to them to protect them. It was safe and it was
effective. In fact any serum that was found by the FDA to not be
fully safe or effective was removed.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, yes I
pushed like blazes to try to protect our men that were going
over. On April 7, 1998 the Food and Drug Administration in the
United States said that a lot of work remains to correct the
deficiencies related to manufacturing the anthrax vaccine. We
gave it to our men in March and April 1998.
Will the minister please come clean with all of us and tell us
who gave the order to inject this potential health hazard into
400 of our troops?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact the FDA did not shut down the
plant at all. It said yes, there needed to be improvements. The
plant partly closed to make those necessary improvements. But
every ounce of that serum was tested and overseen by an
independent company to ensure that it was safe and effective to
both the United States forces and Canadian forces.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as this is international co-operation development week a key
factor in the development and growth required in third world
countries for their children and youth is a good health care
system.
Could the Minister for International Co-operation advise us as
to what Canada has done to ensure that there is sustained growth
and development for the children of these countries?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada supports a vast array of health programs in the
developing world. We are improving the lives of children through
immunization, vitamin A supplements and by iodizing salt. We are
saving the lives of women with maternal health programs. We are
protecting the health of poor communities by providing access to
clean water and sanitation. We are addressing the scourge of
AIDS with as many prevention programs as possible in both Africa
and Asia.
I trust that the member would prefer that we prevent—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think we should review the facts of the tainted virus scandal.
First the Minister of National Defence said the vaccine was
tested in Canada and was safe. Then yesterday he said no, it was
tested by an independent U.S. firm. We already know that the
manufacturer was shut down for quality control violations. We
know because we have the documents. The Food and Drug
Administration says that lot FAV020 was redated.
1455
Health Canada must have known this as well and granted DND
permission to use the vaccine anyway.
I would like to ask—
The Speaker: If the hon. minister wants to, he can
address himself to the preamble.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not true at all. The plant
was not shut down. The plant was told that it had to make some
improvements. There were some contaminated products that
were totally removed but nothing that was contaminated ever got
out or ever got used in terms of our Canadian forces.
I never said it was tested in Canada. I said Canadian doctors
and the Canadian military approved it as indeed did Health
Canada. They fully had the information on the testing that was
done in the laboratory and were satisfied that it was safe and
effective for our troops.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under
the letter signed by the provinces and sent to the federal
government, Quebec will receive the money it is owed in the
health sector.
However, since Quebec has not signed the agreement on social
union, will the federal government, with the co-operation of the
other provinces, unilaterally impose in Quebec programs relating
to health, post-secondary education and social assistance, which
are all provincial jurisdictions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the agreement that we signed was acceptable to all provincial
and territorial governments, except Quebec. Of course, they
signed the agreement on health. This issue is settled and they
will get their share of the money. That was very important.
As for social union, what we proposed, even with regard to the
spending power, was a solution at least as good as if not better
than the one provided for in the Meech Lake accord.
I am somewhat surprised that the leader of the Quebec
government, who leads a separatist party and who left the
Conservative Party because he did not like the Meech Lake
accord, is now refusing our proposal on the spending power.
* * *
[English]
WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs who I am sure will acknowledge that Canada's most
valuable natural resource is our fresh water. He will also
acknowledge that foreign interests have access to every natural
resource in Canada except one, our fresh water.
Will the minister explain why, after repeated promises by the
government to introduce legislation to protect Canada's fresh
water, he will not announce a moratorium today? As this is a
matter of international trade will legislation be
brought forward immediately to prohibit the bulk exports of
Canadian fresh water?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, nobody on this side has ever argued about the
importance and value of water. In fact we have debated it many
times in the House.
The question is what is the most effective way of managing the
issue. As a result, we have undertaken very extensive
discussions with the provinces and our North American partners to
ensure that we can have a system that protects Canadian waters.
When that agreement is developed, when we come up with a proper
arrangement that we can say is a way of effectively managing
water resources, we will tell the House and I am sure the hon.
member will be happy to support it.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Justice assured us that Mr. Justice Shaw's ruling was only
binding on B.C. provincial court judges and not on other judges
in the country.
Yet, The Gazette reported on January 27 that the case of another
person charged with possession of child pornography, who was to
appear before Alberta's provincial court in Red Deer, had been
postponed until the supreme court rules on this issue.
How can the minister wait another day before making the
possession of child pornography illegal?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that the law
is in full force and full effect in the province of Alberta. I
have no doubt that my colleague the attorney general, who is
charged with the administration of justice in Alberta and the
prosecution and enforcement of the Criminal Code in Alberta, will
do that which he finds appropriate in this case and in any other.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, there is a huge discrepancy between what the Minister of
National Defence is saying today and the facts of the anthrax
vaccination case.
We know from FDA documents that the product was relabelled after
being stale dated. We know from the company that the minister
refers to, Microtek, that all it did was observe the testing of
the product.
Health Canada was not involved at all.
1500
Will the minister of defence now agree to launch an
investigation into this case and will he lift the cloud hanging
over Sergeant Michael Kipling and end the court martial
proceedings?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, the only cloud is over the
head of the hon. member because there is no cloud in this case at
all.
Quite clearly anything that would have been relabelled would
have been fully retested. The retesting that was overseen by the
consultant hired by the department of defence in the United
States fully went through the entire process of testing in great
detail. I have had our medical people in the Canadian forces
describe to me that process. It is one that is very thorough to
ensure the safety and effectiveness of the product.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the government House leader the nature of the
legislation to be tabled in the House for the remainder of this
week and next week and ask whether that legislation includes a
bill to prohibit the possession of child pornography in this
country.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that
this afternoon we will continue to debate the opposition motion
proposed this morning.
Tomorrow the Minister of Industry will propose a motion to
disagree with the Senate amendments to Bill C-20, the competition
bill, and to restore the whistleblower provisions to that bill.
This will be followed by the resumption of debate on second
reading of Bill C-63, the Citizenship Act.
On Monday we will debate second reading of Bill C-65, the
equalization bill, which must be passed by both houses by March
31.
Next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.
On Wednesday of next week we will commence the report stage of
Bill C-55, the foreign publications bill.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on the Thursday question to ask the hon.
government House leader a question about the business of the
House.
Earlier today the Prime Minister and the premiers met at 24
Sussex Drive and apparently reached an agreement concerning the
health system and the social union.
Will the government assure the House that the Prime Minister
will make a full statement to the House concerning this agreement
and will he table copies of the agreement in the House?
1505
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
returned to the House at the earliest opportunity and even
answered a question only moments after the agreement was
concluded. I will inquire and report to the House hopefully as
early as tomorrow about the availability of such a document to be
tabled in the House.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my intention was to ask the same question. It seems that the
occasion of the Prime Minister and the first ministers having
reached an agreement would be more than appropriate for the Prime
Minister or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs or the
Minister of Justice or someone either today or tomorrow or early
next week to make a ministerial statement that would lay out the
government's rationale for this, to take parliament seriously and
into the confidence of the government on this and have an
opportunity for opposition parties to comment. I cannot think of
anything more appropriate and respectful of the House of Commons
than such a process.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the very serious suggestion he has brought to the attention
of the House. The time provided for ministerial statements today
was prior to the time of this request. The hon. member
recognized that in the tone of his question. I will inquire
about that as well. I take this very constructive suggestion
under advisement and will report to the House as early as
possible.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
HEALTH CANADA
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Health
Canada issued a press release on January 22 announcing a national
Liberal caucus committee on health priorities initiative. The
release is on Health Canada letterhead and the contact numbers on
the release are Health Canada numbers.
The use of the resources of the Department of Health by the
Minister of Health to promote Liberal Party activities is
contempt of parliament for two reasons. First, this action
deliberately ignores and omits the House of Commons to which the
minister and his department are responsible. This omission in my
submission makes a mockery of parliament.
Second, department funds are not meant to be used to promote
political party activities. As parliamentarians we are free to
use our office funds to develop party policy. We are also free
to use parliamentary committees and their funds. Departments are
free to use their funds to serve the public, their ministers and
parliament. With respect to political parties departments have
absolutely no right to get involved and promote their activities.
If the minister and his department want to use public funds to
promote and encourage members of parliament to develop policy
then they ought to do that through parliament by working with the
Standing Committee on Health. To deliberately go around the
parliament to which they are responsible and promote a political
party activity is wrong. It makes a mockery of parliament and is
a contempt of parliament.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here we go once again on an issue that is very similar in nature
to other issues that have been brought before you over the past
five and a half years I have been in this House. I can refer to
the many times we have stood in the House and talked about
ministers making announcements outside of the House with no
consideration given to this side or in many cases even to the
government side. Statements have been made through press releases
in other countries when the House of Commons had not even dealt
with the issue. We recently referred one of those cases to the
board of internal economy.
The rights of members in the House are being ignored on a
consistent basis. I watched the Prime Minister come in today and
make an announcement that is critical to our country. Yet
members of the House are virtually not part of it, as was
mentioned earlier. Now we see a minister's department working
with the Liberal caucus making press announcements.
1510
I would ask that Mr. Speaker take all this in the larger context
this time and perhaps look at the possibility of a legislative
committee or some other process that actually steps aside and
looks at the rights and privileges of members of parliament and
how they are in effect being eroded by ministers, and even now
the Prime Minister, completely ignoring us in this House.
It will only get worse. We can step up the heat on this and
make things bad for the other side I suppose but it is time now
that Mr. Speaker looked at this on a global basis and maybe took
another approach to it and set some better standards in the House
so as not to degradate what we have here.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe this is a point of privilege, particularly in the case of
our health critic who opened this issue up. He is currently
taking part in a Reform caucus task force on health care. He is
spearheading that attempt.
To read from the original health department's announcement, if
our health critic's name were inserted it could be said that the
Health Minister today announced that the national Reform caucus,
chaired by a person from our caucus, has been asked to look at
options for enhancing the government's tobacco public education
initiatives, something he is working on.
The Reform committee will canvass the views of Canadians for
strategies to address youth smoking. The Reform caucus committee
he is chairing is looking into the entire potential reform of the
health system in Canada. That news release with just a few name
changes would be a great one for the Reform Party.
On the privilege end of it, if we allow the department to
promote the Liberal caucus not only through its news release but
through its telephone numbers and through its website then at the
very least it should be promoting each of the parties in the
House, giving their views and visions of health care.
It cannot be that one caucus gets to use departmental assets and
the rest of us will read what the Liberals do and just be out of
luck. The department of course should promote its vision of
Canada, what is happening, the programs for youth and all that
stuff. But it should not be promoting one political party in
this place. That is what has happened with this news release.
The privileges of our health critic have been compromised. The
department cannot select one political party only to receive an
endorsation and publicity and the resources of the department.
That is not right and it contravenes privileges of the rest of
us.
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to see a copy of this
document and because I had not been warned ahead of time
unfortunately it is not possible for me to have the Minister of
Health comment on it. I am sorry about that and I am sure that
once the document in question is made available to the Minister
of Health he will want to respond.
If there is a document of a department which somehow is seen as
supporting a task force of members of parliament of a particular
political party, that is a political question which could be the
subject of something asked at question period. In other words,
the opposition member could be, if that is true, entitled to ask
did the minister do something correct or incorrect and so on.
That is a political question, not necessarily an issue of
privilege. That is a different story all together.
That being said, neither I nor the minister in question, because
I am sure he would have told me, was made aware that this
question was to be raised today. I am sure the minister will want
to respond to this at some point.
1515
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, I have the document with me.
I am delighted to table it so the Minister of Health can review
it.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the consent of the
House to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: There are a number of things to be
considered in this point. I have asked, when possible, that it is
always better to make announcements in the House rather than
outside. In this case, if I heard the member correctly, he
mentioned this statement was released on January 22. The House
was not sitting at that time.
Matters of privilege should be raised as soon as possible. I
urge all hon. members to do that, especially that we have been
sitting for four days and this is the first time it has come up.
He raises another point which does interest the Chair and I
believe will interest the House. I would like the hon. member to
submit to the table the document he has with regard to this
issue. I would like to hold a decision on my part in abeyance. I
would like to satisfy myself with some of the information
referred to in the document and the substance of what is in those
speeches. I will come back to the House if necessary.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during question period, several times on questioning the Minister
of National Defence the issue of documentation from the Food and
Drug Administration arose.
I offer to supply the documentation that shows that the date was
changed on Lot No. FAV-020. Also there is no documentation of
reconciliation before or after.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the consent of the
House to table the documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
THE LATE JAMES BASKIN
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservation caucus I
rise to mark the life of James Baskin who died on January 8.
Mr. Baskin represented the Ontario constituency of Renfrew South
from 1957 to 1963. A part of the great Diefenbaker sweep, Mr.
Baskin was a consummate representative of his electorate. His
contemporaries tell us that his great interest was representing
the people of Renfrew South. He was known as a great
constituency man.
In later life he pursued his lifelong equestrian interests.
James Baskin was largely responsible for the building of the
Rideau Carleton Raceway.
To his surviving family we offer our sympathy and our thanks
for helping him to serve the people of Canada in the House
of Commons.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues it is my distinct
honour to pay tribute to a lifelong friend of not only me but my
father, a political mentor and a simply marvellous human being.
The late James W. Baskin, Jim, was a hale and hearty horseman,
energetic entrepreneur and a passionate politician.
1520
Although he was equally proficient in those three professions, I
believe I named them in his order of personal preference.
Jim knew that sooner or later the race of time, with sickle
and tireless stride,
Wins every race at last,
And pass them all on the home stretch
No matter how game or how fast;
The eyes would grow dim, the wrinkles creep
Over the face that we seem to know,
Time has been lashing us year by year
And making us heavily blow.
But furrows and seems and lines of care
With a twinge in the knees and back,
Just whispers it low to us,
You're getting too old for the track;
“Age is nothing—it's the bloodlines that tell”
J.W. Baskin, the veteran said,
And he drove Cimarron and won the race.
Now he sits on his sulky, dead.
A wonderful race is this race for life,
Some seem to be stayers and last,
While others break down at the head of the stretch
By rushing the quarters too fast:
Go steady my friend, go steady,
And the record you still may lower,
But let it be said that you were fair and square
When your race for life is over.
Whether on the race track, in his business as a lumberman and
hotelier, or here in his beloved House of Commons, Jim Baskin was
a true valley lad, a fairminded individual with an unimpeachable
record of service to his fellow man.
He served his cherished constituency of Renfrew South from 1957
to 1963 with diligence, determination and distinction, all
cornerstones of the political philosophy of Jim Baskin.
Life was no brief candle for Jim Baskin. He looked upon it as a
sort of splendid torch that he got hold of for a moment and
wanted to make it burn as brightly as possible before passing it
on to the next generation. And that he did.
He was a colourful, charismatic member of parliament who always
took a leadership role. He never, ever abdicated his
responsibilities and duties as a parliamentarian.
He was a shining, sterling example of excellence who made each
and every one of us look good. To his family I say a most
heartfelt and sincere thank you for having given us the absolute
privilege of having Jim Baskin serve as a federal member of
parliament. He was a winner in politics. He was a winner in
business and he was a winner on the race track.
I would not hesitate to wager that somewhere out there in the
vast field of life father time will make one last call of the
homestretch drive to the wire by saying “And charging to the
front of the field in a blaze of glory is James W. Baskin who
once again will grace the winner's circle”.
Goodbye my friend, Jim. It has been a pleasure knowing you. You
have done a great job. No one could have done better. As a
matter of fact, you were a true champion in every sense of the
word.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on behalf of the Reform Party. It is with respect that I rise to
pay tribute to the hon. James Baskin, former member of parliament
for Renfrew South, who died on January 8.
Although I did not personally know Mr. Baskin, it is my
understanding that he was a man of great compassion, energy and
entrepreneurial spirit.
Indeed in his 79 years he accomplished a great deal. In
politics he represented his constituents from 1957 to 1963,
participating in some of the most interesting political times in
Canada.
Constituents, I understand, were his great political joy and one
might have assumed as much from a man who had his roots as deeply
entrenched in the constituency as he did.
As he represented a largely rural riding, he spoke passionately
on behalf of farmers and took pride in what he stated. These are
the words used in the House. He took pride in speaking, talking
the way most farmers like to hear a man talk, soundly and without
resorting to emotional appeal, relying on what they call common
sense.
1525
Outside parliament Mr. Baskin excelled as a businessman. He
was a lumberman and a hotelier, but it was his passion for horses
that saw one of his hardest fought but greatest business
successes come to life. Baskin was largely responsible for
building the Rideau Carleton Raceway which his friends say stands
today as a monument to him.
James Baskin was without doubt a man who touched many lives. He
will be missed and leaves behind a space which cannot be easily
filled. But in death, as in life, it is in his character that
his legacy will be left.
On behalf the Reform Party I extend our deepest condolences to
his family, his friends and the people of Ottawa-Carleton.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to pay tribute to Mr. James Baskin, a former
member of the House, who died on January 8 at the age of 79. He
sat in the House from 1957 to 1963.
He was seen as a populist who defended the interests of his
community. Although he held office for only seven years, Mr.
Baskin had to face the constituents of Renfrew-South on three
occasions and served under Progressive Conservative Prime
Minister John Diefenbaker in two minority governments.
He was first elected in 1957 and re-elected in 1958 in the
Progressive Conservative landslide that sent John Diefenbaker
and his team back to power with a strong majority. He was again
elected in 1962, only to lose his seat when Lester B. Pearson
won the 1963 election.
This businessman turned politician, who came from a small town
near Peterborough, was an energetic politician close to the
people and attuned to his constituents' needs. Mr. Baskin's
second passion in life, after politics, was horses. He was one
of those responsible for the construction of the Rideau Carleton
Raceway here in Ottawa. That was not all this former
Progressive Conservative member did. He also bought the Carling
Avenue Bar, which became a watering hole for regional
politicians.
He ran this hotel until it was torn down in 1986. The site is
now occupied by the Corel Centre, the new arena built for the
NHL's Ottawa Senators.
After his hotel experience in Ottawa, this enterprising
gentleman invested in another hotel, this time in Daytona Beach,
Florida. He loved the public as much as he loved horses and
managed to benefit both.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois I would like to extend my
deepest condolences to his family and friends.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of myself and my colleagues in the NDP I would like to
join with others who have spoken in tribute to the late Mr. James
Baskin, a former member of this House, who served from 1957 to
1963 and certainly had the privilege of one who was involved in
politics and service in this House in a very interesting time.
I notice from what I have been able to read about Mr. Baskin
since his death that he was the kind of person I would like to
have known. I did not know him and very few of us here would
know him, given that it was so long ago that he served in this
place.
Obviously people who did not know him as colleagues in the House
of Commons but who come from the area he lived and worked in as a
member of parliament and as a businessman think very highly of
him. I certainly regret that I did not have the privilege of
knowing him.
We pay tribute to his career in the House and to the quality of
his life and the obvious good impression he made on many people.
We join with others in extending our sincere condolences to his
family.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When we broke for
question period there were five minutes remaining for the member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca on questions and comments.
1530
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I believe the
motion we have introduced today is still timely, even if we have
just learned that the government is ready to spend money—we still
do not know the exact amount—on the provinces' health care
systems through transfer payments.
I know from a reliable source that the financing could reach
$2.5 billion.
The motion we introduced asked for the unconditional restoration
of transfer payments to the 1993-94 level when the Liberal
government was elected.
We all know that, in 1993-94, transfer payments amounted to $18.8
billion. Those payments were brought back to $11 billion,
following enormous pressure from opposition parties and from all
stakeholders, even the National Forum on Health. The government
allegedly did us a favour by reinvesting money in the
administration of the provinces' health care systems, but this
is no favour. Initially, the government was supposed to cut $49
billion over the next five years, but that amount was reduced to
$42 billion. The federal government has done us no favour.
The government now tells us that it will spend $2.5 billion. In
Quebec's case, this means that funding will be cut by $1 billion
a year—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but does he have a question for the hon. member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca?
Ms Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, do I not have a choice between
asking a question and making a comment?
I am sorry but I only remember the gist of the hon. member's
speech. That is why I wanted to make a comment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Very well, but the member's
time is over. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca may give a
short response.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the
Bloc Quebecois.
[English]
We have an enormous opportunity to take a leadership role in
something that has never been done before, something that the
Minister of Human Resources Development, something that the
Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice can participate
in.
If these ministers were to get their colleagues in the
provincial government to come together at one point to deal with
the precursors affecting the health care of Canadians, the work
that has been done by members across the way such as the member
from Moncton who played a leadership role would address the
precursors of conflict by dealing with children in the first
eight years of life.
We can use the available data in a utilized program based on
previous experience around the world that has demonstrated
profound impacts upon poverty, upon teen pregnancies, upon
keeping kids in school longer, and upon the health and welfare of
children. It will only happen if the federal government takes a
leadership role. It will only happen if the federal ministers
call their provincial counterparts together anywhere in the
country to form an integrated approach.
This would have the most profound cost saving and humanitarian
effect on children based on facts and on existing programs and
would save the lives of a lot of people. It is rooted in
preventing these problems rather than managing them.
Many of my colleagues and I would be very happy to work with
members on the other side to make this a reality. The head start
program exemplifies a program which can and should be employed
across the country using existing resources.
1535
[Translation]
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Winnipeg
South.
I am very pleased to take part in today's debate. This dialogue
is very timely. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie gave his views
on the health care debate.
In line with the traditional thinking of his party, he is asking
our government to pretend it has no role to play in the health
care field. He himself has decided that the federal government
could not contribute to improving the health of Canadians in any
way other than simply signing cheques. He is mistaken.
The fact is, today the Prime Minister is meeting with his
provincial and territorial counterparts to look at the social
union issue. Indeed reality is quite different from what the
member perceives it to be.
Governments know Canadians expect their elected representatives
to co-operate. They expect them to present a common front on
issues related to the health and the social well-being of
Canadians. Today the first ministers' concern is to find the
best way to translate their common commitment into action. If
there is a single issue that demands a common commitment, it is
indeed health care.
Contrary to the figments of the Bloc Quebecois' imagination, in
the real world, federal, provincial and territorial governments
carry on their respective roles in health care while working
together to deal with issues demanding co-ordination and
leadership at the national level.
To make it easier for my colleagues in the opposition to
understand the situation, I should probably name some concrete
measures in the health care field and remind them of
intergovernmental co-operation in this area. As we all know, the
provinces and territories are responsible for providing day to
day health care to Canadians.
This level of government plans its own health care delivery and
decides, usually in co-operation with physicians, which services
and procedures will be covered by provincial health insurance
plan.
It sets its priorities, draws up its budgets and negotiates on a
wide range of issues with hospitals, physicians, nurses and
other stakeholders.
What role is left for the federal government? We all know the
position of the Bloc Quebecois, but let us take a look at
reality. The federal government has very clear responsibilities
in the area of health. And I am not talking about interference
in areas of provincial jurisdiction that is recent or that is
forthcoming. I am talking about responsibilities that go back to
Confederation and that are enshrined in our Constitution.
Let us take health programs for First Nations and for the Inuit
for example. The federal government has a clear responsibility
to provide health services to the status Indians who live on
reserves and to the Inuit.
It provides health products and services to those groups and to
other eligible individuals. Is that done entirely outside the
provincial framework that provides health services to the rest
of the population? Of course not.
[English]
Once again, the federal government works closely with its
provincial and territorial partners. Programs and services are
integrated as much as possible to ensure the greatest
effectiveness. Effectiveness both at the health outcome and the
use of health care resources depends on a knowledge base that is
constantly being renewed.
Let us look at the reality of the federal role in health
research. That reality is one of a very clear acceptance of the
respective roles of both orders of government and a very long
history of co-operation.
One of the most soundly conceived provincial research programs
in the country is the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec.
It was designed from the ground up to complement the Medical
Research Council of Canada and Health Canada's national health
research and development program.
Quebec's program focuses its investment on the development of
competitive expertise enabling Quebec researchers to compete
successfully for federal research grants.
It works and it works to everyone's advantage.
1540
[Translation]
Another example is the needs of children from low income
families. The community action program for children and the
Canada prenatal nutrition program actively support local
initiatives. These initiatives benefit parents, young children
and pregnant women who could give birth to underweight babies.
Are these examples of federal interference, as the Bloc thinks
they are? Of course not.
These initiatives provide financial assistance for community
programs and for partnerships with provinces, territories and
other interested groups.
They are the concrete manifestations of the type of co-operation
Canadians expect from their governments.
Since 1957, the federal government has provided funds to the
provinces and territories to support health insurance, through a
variety of mechanisms over the years.
Today, as we know, the mechanism is the Canada health and social
transfer. Contrary to what the Bloc thinks, however, this
transfer is not just a cheque sent from Ottawa to the provincial
capitals. These funds continue to be governed by the Canada
Health Act. Underlying them are a broad range of principles
which protect the rights of Canadians as far as health care is
concerned.
I would like to remind all hon. members that parliament passed
the Canada Health Act in 1984, with the support of all political
parties. The principles listed in this act were supported by
all parties.
The first principle is accessibility. Canadians can count on
reasonable access to medically required care and services.
The second is comprehensiveness. Canadians are entitled to
payment of all medically required services provided by
physicians and hospitals.
The third principle is universality. All inhabitants of a
province or territory are entitled to services, regardless of
external factors.
The fourth principle is portability. Canadians are entitled to
health care regardless of where in Canada they happened to be
when they become ill.
Finally, the fifth principle is public administration, which
ensures that only public bodies may administer our health
insurance program within a not-for-profit context.
The Canada Health Act has laid down the basic rules for our
health insurance program, but we must not be so naive as to
believe that harmonization means that there is a single highly
rigid system administered by the federal government. The act
provides the provinces and territories with great flexibility.
It is not a straitjacket.
It says that a province or territory wishing assistance from the
federal government must comply with the five principles in the
system it chooses. However, the provinces are free to decide
how they will provide health care to their citizens.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to my colleague, and one would think that everything in the area
of health care has been fine in Canada for the past five years.
Cuts of $6 billion and more have been made annually and
hospitals are closed. The sick are waiting everywhere in
Canada, not just in Quebec, and things are very difficult.
Nurses are exhausted, and yet the member says things are fine.
1545
I am sorry, but in Quebec, as elsewhere, we are living a drama,
if not a tragedy. The federal government's cuts were
unreasonable.
Today, the 10 provinces have just signed an agreement, and the
Prime Minister is puffing out his chest and saying “We are
generous”. Busting one's britches is not generosity, or
recognition, it is simply indecency.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Does that hurt you?
Mr. René Canuel: Yes it does, and it hurts the nurses
especially.
It hurts my fellow citizens who are sick and have to wait
because of government cuts.
Today, all the members on the other side were busy
congratulating themselves, including the members from Quebec. A
year or two ago, they closed their eyes. I was ready to vote
zero in my riding. There are other things besides a zero
deficit. We should manage a vote for zero in Canada, but we
would not have the courage to hold it. My colleagues on the
other side would not have the courage to support me on that.
Given that there are 1.5 million children not properly fed and
there are children in my riding who go without supper, that
hurts.
I would ask the minister if she has some compassion in the area
of health, and for children who do not get enough to eat.
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the
health issue and with child poverty as well. I joined the
Liberal Party because I knew that, as a government, having put
its fiscal house in order by eliminating the $43 billion
deficit, it would immediately start investing in health.
Now, the second budget to be brought down by this federal
government after its fiscal house has been put in order will be
a health budget. I am proud to be on the Liberal team. We hear
our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois talk about unemployment.
We will be dealing with health, and the federal government will
be looking after the needs of Canadians in this area.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a very important day for Canada as a result of the
agreements that were reached a couple of hours ago and on which I
will be providing a bit of detail.
The motion put forward by the opposition today reads:
That this House urges the government to respect provincial
jurisdiction over health care management, to increase transfers
to the provinces for health care unconditionally, and to avoid
using budget surpluses to encroach upon the health care field.
Canadians have had enough. They have had quite enough
finger-pointing, fed-bashing and arguing about CHST and block
funding. Canadians care about their health care system.
Canadians care about a sustainable, secure, quality health care
system to meet the needs of our families.
1550
The Constitution of our country prescribes that the primary
responsibility for the delivery of health care is that of the
provinces and the territories. That is not in dispute. They
have to plan, manage and administer health care. The federal
government by law is responsible for the promotion and
preservation of the health care of all Canadians and for setting
national policies and standards. The federal government by the
Constitution and by our laws cannot interfere with provincial
responsibilities under the Constitution.
Despite all the rhetoric Canadians have had enough. Our laws
are clear. The division of responsibilities is clear and indeed
there are some guidelines. It is not just one or another level
of government that is a player in health care. The federal,
provincial and territorial governments have certain
responsibilities to the extent that some overlap.
Back in 1984 when we had some difficulties in the country with
regard to user fees and extra billing it was necessary for us to
address them. They were causing some concern about whether or
not our not for profit, accessible, portable, universal,
comprehensive health care system was suddenly being dismantled
and becoming a two tier health care system where those who had
money were able to get the services they wanted and needed at the
expense of pushing back others and taking away resources
available to Canadians at large.
Then the Canada Health Act came in and the federal government
has responsibility to enforce national standards through the
Canada Health Act. There are five national standards: reasonable
access to all medically necessary services, a comprehensive
health care system, universality for all provincial residents,
portability throughout Canada, and publicly administered on a not
for profit basis.
Canadians value our health care system because not only is it an
international model but it has worked for Canadians. It has
worked for us because it provides all Canadians with the security
of a quality health care system. We want to maintain that health
care system for other reasons as well.
Most Canadians will say that the health care system is one of
the most powerful unifying factors in our country. It is our
common bond of association. It is what provides us with the
security of knowing it is there for all Canadians regardless of
their means, that health care is there not because one has money
but because one is sick and needs health care.
These important principles have been reaffirmed. Today we have
seen an extraordinary accomplishment in terms of federal,
provincial and territorial co-operation and partnership. We have
decided today to stop the bickering. All 10 provinces and
territories are signatories including Quebec. The Premier of
Quebec signed this health agreement because it is important for
Canada.
It is a very powerful message to Canadians knowing that there is
unanimity among the provinces, territories and the federal
government. They have reached an accord that will ensure
Canadians will not continue to hear the rhetoric and see the
finger pointing of the past. They will hear about the
co-operative plans in terms of how all levels will work together
to continue to support our health care system.
I have just received the framework of these talks. One of the
most important elements is the dispute avoidance and resolution
provision.
This is the crux of the issue. Earlier today when working on my
speech I had ample evidence to show finger-pointing and arguments
based on insufficient or incorrect information. These are the
kinds of things that were driving Canadians to be frustrated by
what was going on.
1555
I will not raise those arguments. It is time to put them away.
It is time to stop talking about federal-provincial bickering. It
is time to start talking about the important things in Canada,
the important things in our health care system like prenatal
nutrition; the problem of FAS, fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal
alcohol effects; early childhood development issues; the aged;
and the people with diseases and medically necessary illnesses
that we have to address. Canadians should have the comfort level
that these issues will be addressed.
In my remaining time I will review a few of the elements of the
dispute avoidance and resolution provisions of the historic
agreement that was reached today. I believe it should give
Canadians the assurance that we will never go back to bickering
about who is responsible. There will be an accountability
mechanism.
The governments are now committed to working collaboratively to
avoid and resolve intergovernmental disputes respecting existing
legislative provisions and mechanisms to avoid and resolve
disputes. Their mechanism will be simple, timely, efficient,
effective and transparent. It will allow flexibility for the
governments to resolve disputes in a non-adversarial way, which
is important to Canadians.
The governments are committed to working together and avoiding
disputes through information sharing, joint planning,
collaboration, advance notice, early consultation and flexibility
in implementation. There will be sectoral negotiations to
resolve disputes based on fact finding. It will be a public fact
finding issue.
If issues should arise where there is some question on whether
or not funding was applied in the areas agreed or whether the
parties did what they were to do, there will be a public fact
finding process to ensure that whatever occurred will be known by
all parties. That is very important. It will ensure and put the
onus on all parties to do their share because it will be a public
accountability process for all Canadians.
The debate we are having today is important but not in terms of
federal-provincial bickering. Today we should celebrate the fact
that Canadians can rest assured that moneys will be made
available to protect Canada's health care system from coast to
coast to coast.
We congratulate the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice
and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for their work on
behalf of the federal government to achieve this health accord
and the social union contract which was settled today. We thank
them not only on behalf of the members of this place but
appropriately on behalf of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we on this
side have the solution to all the disputes and to everything
that is going on with the federal government, and that is
sovereignty for Quebec.
Let us have a sovereign Quebec, with full powers in health,
education, welfare and all the problems will be resolved.
When I see my colleague opposite boasting about this agreement
today, when we are only getting what was ours to begin with,
this is not a gift. Since 1993, we have sustained massive cuts.
This government has yielded to pressure from the public and all
the provinces. At least it has had the courage to put a little
money back into health care.
With respect to the social union, I would like to ask the hon.
member to pledge that his government will never interfere in
health, education and social programs again. The reason for this
request is that Quebec could not be a part of this social union
because the document put forward by the Prime Minister of Canada
was not clear.
1600
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman
well and I am going to gently suggest that notwithstanding his
enthusiasm for sovereignty, the premier of Quebec has reaffirmed
his support and partnership in Canada with regard to our health
care system. This is an extraordinary achievement and it shows
that Canada is unified on the importance of our health care
system to all Canadians.
The second matter the member made a query about was with regard
to dollars. Possibly when the member sees the press conference
that was given some two hours ago and reads the reports he will
find out that the premiers had the best meeting they have ever
had with the Prime Minister. They agreed upon dollar commitments
and timeframes and they are unified in their position to defend
our health care system.
Finally, about interfering in health, the member will well know
that the federal government has a role to play in enforcing
national standards. The transfer of any moneys from the federal
government under the laws of Canada are only to be applied for
hospitals and for physician services on the ratio of two-thirds
to one-third.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has one minute to put his question, and the
reply should not be over a minute either.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
is a limit after all.
Will the hon. member agree that Quebec was not only deprived of
money that it should have received, but that it is totally
unacceptable for the federal government to get involved in
health?
Could the hon. member send me, through you Mr. Speaker,
the part of the Canadian Constitution where it says that the
federal government has the power to do that? I would appreciate
it if he could show me where it is provided in the Canadian
Constitution that the federal government can get involved in the
health sector. Have him send us a copy of the Constitution
through you, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that the
premier of Quebec on behalf of all of the people of Quebec
entered into and signed the agreement today supporting, along
with all of the provinces and territories, the principles of that
health accord.
There is no question about the interference matter raised. The
premier is not concerned about interference. The premier
understands that the roles of the provincial governments and the
federal government are established under our Constitution and
that the Canada Health Act prescribes the role of the federal
government in terms of national standards and national policies
in protecting the principles of the Canada Health Act.
Quebec is in. Get used to it.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the provinces
have had exclusive jurisdiction and authority over health since
the 1867 Constitution Act was passed, leaving the federal
government with the responsibility to legislate in the areas of
food and drugs, criminal law, quarantine and marine hospitals.
The provinces have been vested with the legislative powers
relating to hospitals, the medical profession and the practice
of medicine, including costs and effectiveness, the nature of
the health care system and the privatization of medical
services.
Yet, even though the Constitution Act, 1867 is clear on this,
particularly sections 92(7), (13) and (16), the federal lawmaker
has been using its inherent spending power to set national
standards for provincial medicare programs.
It is thus imperative to limit this federal spending power,
hence today's motion:
That this House urges the government to respect provincial
jurisdiction over health care management, to increase transfers
to the provinces for health care unconditionally, and to avoid
using budget surpluses to encroach upon the health care field.
1605
All the premiers at the meeting in Saskatoon last August called
on the federal government to restore the transfer payments it
had taken for itself since 1994 so that they could do something
about the widespread needs making themselves felt in the health
care system. They called for $6.3 billion, of which $1.8
billion, and therefore over $1 billion for health alone, is
Quebec's share.
The federal government has now balanced its budget and is even
getting ready to build up a huge surplus estimated at between
$12 billion and $15 billion, largely through provincial cuts, to
health in particular.
From the beginning, the Bloc Quebecois has been fighting to have
the money cut from Quebec's transfer payments restored.
Today, all the premiers were told that they would get back a
small portion of what they were asking for to help them with
health care costs. This is a far cry from the initial demand of
last August, but we are running out of steam and have agreed to
accept this paltry amount, which is our due, because it has been
offered without any conditions, and Quebec has defended the
interests of Quebeckers well on this score. It will be in a
better position than anyone else to know which parts of its
health care system are most in need of funds.
I would now like to go back to the federal government's
interference in provincial affairs, because the Constitution
Act, 1867, clearly sets out which are federal and which are
provincial areas of jurisdiction.
The federal government is returning to the provinces only part
of the billions it cut but, in its constant quest for
visibility, apparently has millions to spend on new programs,
such as a national home care program.
The Liberal government is denying the provinces the right to opt
out with full financial compensation for home care. This is a
bit like what is happening with the millennium scholarships.
But there is more: in its 1997 budget, the federal government
announced that it would spend $150 million over three years on
the health services adjustment fund to help the provinces set up
pilot projects to provide home care or pharmacare, even though
Quebec, well ahead in this area as in many others, already has
its own programs.
Since the Constitution prevents the Liberal government from
opening federal CLSCs in Quebec, it goes through the back door
so it can interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, as
it did in education with the millennium scholarships.
Moreover, the health minister is going to spend $50 million over
three years to set up a national health information system, as
planned in the 1997 budget, and $100 million over three years to
improve two existing programs: the community action program for
children and the Canada prenatal nutrition program.
Is it going to offer the right to opt out with full compensation
to the provinces that do not want those programs?
Finally, on June 18, the federal government renewed its
commitment to the fight against breast cancer. The renewed
federal contribution is set at $45 million for the first five
years. The Minister of Health announced that the Canadian breast
cancer initiative would be renewed and enjoy stable, ongoing
funding of $7 million per year, as well as a whole series of
measures in this area.
However, the breast cancer initiative of the federal government
is duplicating Quebec's cancer control program that the former
health minister, Mr. Rochon, and the president of the cancer
advisory council made public last April. This innovative tool
will be used throughout the province of Quebec and has become
Quebec's cancer control program, whose theme is it takes a team
to beat cancer.
Through its spending power, the federal government is getting
involved in cancer control, which demonstrates once again that
the Liberal government always finds money to duplicate the work
of the provinces. And what about the national report card the
health minister has announced?
1610
Again, the minister seems to forget that, since the provinces
manage health care services, they are in the best position to
know what the health care situation is in their respective
jurisdiction.
So, we urge the federal government not to use this annual report
to penalize the provinces that do not want any part in it. Will
we have the right to opt out?
Our political party will always defend the interests of Quebec.
It seems to me that all the other Canadian provinces are not
close to their people, since they are willing to accept the
central government's interference in their area of jurisdiction.
The health issue should have been an eye-opener. But what if it
were a question of pride?
To be proud, one has to identify with one's people, which is
quite easy for Quebeckers.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in this debate, which I had the opportunity to do on
several occasions today. Since the hon. member gave such a well
thought out speech, I would like to convey my concerns to her.
Unless one is extremely doctrinaire, it is always possible to
agree on a question of principle. The member just said that the
Bloc Quebecois will defend the interests of Quebec. I am
beginning to make a distinction between defending the interests
of the Government of Quebec and defending the interests of
citizens, in particular those I represent and the interests of
outlying areas of Quebec, which an overwhelming majority of Bloc
Quebecois members, people of quality, do defend.
My concern is that when there are requests for transfers for
health, for instance, my past experiences in other areas make me
wonder a little.
For instance, in areas like employment where there have been
massive transfers, the effects are still not felt in various
regions in Quebec. There is almost no programming left relating
to employment activities.
The problem we deal with in our region is also present
elsewhere. If health funds are transferred to the Government of
Quebec, I would like assurance from the hon. member that those
funds will be distributed equitably among the various regions of
Quebec. Based on the statistics, the region of
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, among others, has a very serious
deficit compared to other regions in Quebec, namely central
regions like the Montreal area. The accumulated deficit is about
$75 million. That explains why we face such serious problems.
In my region, we are no longer able to provide good quality
health care to our citizens.
There is cause for major concern when the population of a region
can no longer obtain health care. Health care is a priority. We
have to defend our fellow citizens on practical issues.
I agree with transfers to Quebec, but what concerns me is the
way the Government of Quebec will transfer the money to regions.
This is the concern I wanted to raise during this debate. I am
grateful to my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for having
introduced this motion in the House and I hope that this will
contribute to improving the way Quebec transfers funds to
regions.
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is
hinting at interference in his question, since, once the funds
have been transferred to the provinces, it is their job to
manage and administer the money. I think the whole of Quebec is
on the leading edge in several programs such as medicare,
pharmacare and health care in local community service centres.
An hon. member: They are closing down hospitals.
Ms. Hélène Alarie: As someone back there said, they are closing
down hospitals. They are reorganizing, because provinces have
suffered drastic cuts for many years. One cannot help but feel
it when the health budget is cut by $1 billion a year in a
province.
I think we would have been poor managers if we had not been
careful to manage in the best way possible the little money we
had left.
I represent a city riding, but I come from the Lower St.
Lawrence, a region even more remote than the region represented
by the hon. member for Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. We will not argue
about the regions. There too, there were organizational problems
in health.
Still, I think every region in Quebec has been well served with
what we had at our disposal.
1615
A bit more money will be put in, and I am sure we are very aware
of the needs of our population. So much so that no conditions
have been made for to the transfer of funds to provinces. So,
every province knows its own needs, glaring needs. We are
reminded of them every day and they will be met, I am sure of
that.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to take part in this debate.
I too would like to say a few words to the member for
Chicoutimi, who just spoke, even though the member for
Louis-Hébert has responded very well to his comments.
I would like to remind my colleague from Chicoutimi of the words
spoken by his former leader, who is now leader of the Quebec
Liberal Party. On May 7, 1997, he said, and I quote from Le
Devoir “Forget Lucien Bouchard and Jean Rochon; the person who
is really responsible for hospital closures and the
deterioration of our health care system is—”. I cannot mention
his name in this House, but he is the present Prime Minister of
Canada. Those were the words of the former leader, of my
colleague for Chicoutime, and I think he still has respect for
him.
Jean Charest went on to say: “Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Harris, Mr.
Filmon, Mr. Klein and all the other premiers are forced to
manage the federal government's unilateral cuts”.
What the member said about the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region may
be true. It is true that cuts were made everywhere. He also said
that it is a matter of transfers, but I think—and I am sure he
will agree—it is an issue that should be discussed in the
Quebec National Assembly. I wanted to remind him that the cuts
were decided upon there.
Today, the federal government agreed to give back some of the
transfer payments, but apparently the amount given back does not
even come close to what was taken away. Since 1994, the Liberal
government slashed transfer payments to the provinces for
health, education and welfare by $6.3 billion a year. If we
split that amount among the three areas, it means $1 billion a
year for Quebec alone.
We will see the figures within hours or days, but we are far
from the final count. One step has, however, been made in the
right direction, or in other words a small step back toward the
way things used to be.
Transfers to the provinces are at their lowest level—pending
adjustment—in 20 years. Cash social transfers from the federal
government are today where they were 15 years ago, or in other
words $12.5 billion. At the time of the federal election in
1993, the level was $18.8 billion. This means a unilateral
reduction of $6.3 billion yearly, or 33% in less than 4 years.
Taking population growth and the cost of living increase into
account, social transfers have not been this low for decades.
That is why I say that, in 1996, social transfers amounted to
$386 per head. That figure is 45% lower than the 1985 record
level of $706, and 43% lower than the 1994 level of $678.
An illustration of the concrete meaning of $1 billion to Quebec
is necessary here. One billion dollars is 20% of the cost of
all Quebec hospitals. It means closure of half the hospitals in
the Montreal region. It is the cost of 370,000
hospitalizations. It is the pay of half of the nurses in
Quebec. It is the cost of all of Quebec's CLSCs, which is $924
million. It is twice the cost of all services to youth, which
is $500 million. It is a sizeable amount.
1620
I know that a number of members are making reference, but I
would like to speak of the impact that will have on the Quebec
City and Chaudière—Appalaches regions. I may be using the same
figures my colleague from Lotbinière will be citing shortly,
but, for example, the cuts amount to $103 million for the
Robert-Giffard hospital. They represent $76.4 million for
Quebec City's Hôtel-Dieu hospital; $12.3 million for the
Saint-Joseph-de-la-Malbaie hospital; $72.1 million for the Laval
University hospital; $29.5 million for the Charlevoix hospital;
$54.2 million for the Saint-Sacrement hospital; $66.4 for the
Laval hospital and
$71.7 million for the Saint-Fançois-d'Assise hospital.
On the other side of the river, in the beautiful region of
Chaudière-Appalaches, there are a few examples. There will be a
shortfall of $63.7 million for the Lévis Hôtel-Dieu hospital;
$31 million for the Amiante region hospital; $14.7 million for
the Montmagny Hôtel-Dieu hospital and $30.1 million for the
Beauce-Etchemin hospital. That is a lot.
Often, when billions of dollars are bandied about people do not
understand the whole impact, but I know that people currently
working in the hospitals—the doctors, nurses, technicians,
those looking after the patients—realize what the cuts mean in
day to day terms and have known this for a number of years.
On this opposition day, the motion put forward by the Bloc
Quebecois is basically asking that transfer payments to the
provinces be restored. I take this opportunity to commend the
hon. member for Drummond, who has been our health critic since
the 1993 election. I am qualified to do so, especially since I
worked with her for 18 months before being reassigned to
industry and regional development.
Time and time again I witnessed attempts by the federal
government and the health department to interfere, not only
through the funding cuts we are condemning today, but also with
unacceptable bills.
We will recall for example Bill C-47 on new reproductive
technologies. We could mention other areas and the broad area of
health, with bills like C-14 on drinking water.
We all know what happened on the hepatitis C issue. I think it is
good to remind the House of the facts. At the insistence of the
hon. member for Drummond and Bloc Quebecois members, settlements
were made, although they are still incomplete. As we know, those
infected before 1986 are not eligible for compensation.
At the health committee, the hon. member for Drummond and myself
could see this sort of thing happening almost on a weekly basis.
And it went on. There was this foundation that funds health
research, to which payments were made directly, but efforts are
made to go over the heads of provincial governments and deal
directly with universities and even private scholars. As I said,
this is still going on.
I have been attending every meeting of the Standing Committee on
Industry and, because some proceedings are held in camera, I am
not at liberty to mention specific issues; a report is to be
tabled on Monday.
In recent days, we saw all the attempts made by the federal
government to invade the health sector, allegedly to protect the
interests and health of all Canadians.
This is why I think the Bloc Quebecois did a good thing today.
Its motion came at a most appropriate time, when the premiers
and the Prime Minister are negotiating on this issue and others,
including social union. Indeed, an agreement was reached
regarding the recovery of part of the transfers.
1625
The issue of social union was also discussed. An agreement was
reached to recover transfers. It is still acceptable for health,
and I know that my colleagues discussed this issue, but attempts
have been made to set new standards, new conditions, again in an
effort to get involved in what is—as we know—essentially a
provincial jurisdiction.
I used to sit on the human resources development committee. This
experience makes me say that there are two different mentalities
in our country. Today's agreement, the so-called agreeement on
social union, was ratified by nine anglophone provinces. It does
not bother them to see the federal government get involved in
their affairs, as long as they get the money. In Quebec, we
think differently.
There is a consensus in our province, and I hope the leader of
the opposition in Quebec City will act in a manner consistent
with what he said when he was here, and that he will support the
position defended today by the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to join my colleague, the member
for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, in thanking our colleague from
Drummond for all the information and support she has been
providing the Bloc Quebecois. She has helped us improve every
piece of legislation dealing with health care we have debated in
this House over the years.
If we had not had people like the Bloc Quebecois members here in
the House of Commons, Quebec would have been penalized ten times
more. We are dealing with people who do not consult, take money
that does not belong to them out of people's pocket, and use it
to reduce their deficit and drive us further into poverty.
Our colleague from Chicoutimi keeps on saying “With this deal it
has just signed, I am not sure the Quebec government is going to
reinvest this money in health care and redistribute it among the
regions”. The cuts the federal government made to health care
transfer payments to the provinces created a $38 million
shortfall in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. This is a lot of
money, $38 million, this is not peanuts. This is money it took
out of our own pockets.
It said “We do not want to know, you deal with it”. We in Quebec
had made the move toward ambulatory care. We were going to get
health care under control.
But the federal government would not let Quebec do its own
thing. It said “Let us play a dirty trick on them and cut
$38 million”, which is what it did in my area alone.
This was a contemptible move on the part of the federal
government.
This was not a gift from the Government of Canada to the
Government of Quebec. It represented only a third of what they
owed it. I think they should give us back the two thirds they
still owe. Since 1993, the federal government has cut
provincial transfer payments by $6.3 billion. This affects the
Government of Quebec. The battle is not over. Quebeckers are
proud. We listen to our people. We are attuned to what every
member of Quebec society thinks. We are proud of what we are
and we are proud of our desire to become a sovereign nation.
I would like to ask my colleague, the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, if he too, in his region, has heard
equally contemptible examples of what the federal government has
done to the Government of Quebec.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I have heard similar comments. In
our riding offices, we hear all kinds of horror stories, people
talking about personal experiences with regard to that.
I would like to go back to the issue of difference. I still say
there are two countries within this country. In our work and in
our discussions with members on the other side of the House and
from other parties on this subject, we can see how important it
is for Quebeckers to maintain jurisdiction over health,
education, and so on. We feel this is important. We are always
faced with a perception that we can respect because they may not
have read the same history books as we have, and vice versa.
1630
They think—and I am also saying this to those who are
listening—that the federal government is the superior
government, followed by a second level, the provincial
governments, and finally by the municipalities. The spirit of
Confederation in 1867 put all governments on the same level. They
were meant to have different responsibilities and to act
together. That is no longer the case today.
The federal government, with its spending power, uses the money.
After achieving surpluses, as mentioned by the member for
Jonquière, the federal government can now rectify the situation.
However, those billions of dollars that were taken away from
Quebec and the other provinces have resulted in unthinkable
situations, including the one in the Chaudière-Appalaches region.
That is the example that always comes to mind.
It is a difference in perception to think, as my colleagues from
the other parties do, that the federal government is the
superior government, the big government, with the provincial
governments being inferior governments.
[English]
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to talk today about health care but I am saddened
that yet again we seem to be talking about turf.
The motion is filled with words about turf and not about the
welfare of Canadians. Words like jurisdiction, unconditionally,
encroach and health care field actually mean that we refuse to
discuss what is most important to Canadians individually but also
to Canadians' role in the international field.
I would like to talk to this motion from two perspectives.
Canada on the international stage when sitting at a meeting with
other countries with the Canadian flag in front, needs the
ability to be responsible for the kind of health care delivered
across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time.
Canadians across the land need to know that when they are
represented internationally they will not be embarrassed.
Canadians hold their health care system with huge pride. They
have expressed that medicare is their badge of honour.
Canadians feel that fairness in the delivery of health care
across the country is the most important thing to them. They do
not think the size of somebody's wallet should determine where
one stands in line for a required procedure. It is extremely
important to remember that the provincial responsibility has been
for the management and the delivery of health care, but the
federal government has always had a role in health care promotion
and prevention.
Prevention is the most important thing we can do for our health
care system. It must not and can never be separated from actually
what is the vision and values of health care for the country. It
is integral to doing a good job in health care.
The federal government has always had an important fiscal
component in health care. The central vehicle of this has been
the CHST. The CHST has been an important lever in terms of a
cash transfer. Up until now it has been our only way of
insisting on the provisions of the Canada Health Act which are
actually essential to the security and confidence that Canadians
have in the system.
Public administration, comprehensiveness, universality,
portability and accessibility are important aspects to Canadians
but as I have said before, unfortunately the Canada Health Act
says nothing about quality.
Canadians risk losing confidence in their health care system. It
is imperative that the federal government has a way of ensuring
high quality care. That begins with an understanding and
co-operation in terms of measurement.
It is thrilling that today with the social union talks we have
begun discussing things like accountability.
I remember last summer when the Minister for Intergovernmental
Affairs first mentioned in terms of the social union talks the
word accountability. A lot of us were thrilled that there was
the beginning of a discussion on how we ensure to Canadians that
it is not the federal government checking up on the provinces but
it is a matter of both levels of government being able to report
to Canadians on how these outcomes are being done.
1635
Today we see in the document things like achieving and measuring
results, monitoring and measuring outcomes of social programs,
sharing information and best practices, something we know we need
to do in order to find the savings. Just giving money is never
going to be enough, unless we can ensure that health care is
delivered in a collaborative way where all the provinces get to
share their good ideas with one another and professionals get to
determine what are best practices and a cost effective way of
spending the money.
Today we have publicly recognized the respective roles and
contributions of all levels of government. But we also know that
when funds are transferred from one government to another for the
purposes agreed upon it is extraordinarily important that this
not be passed on to the residents in some other way. We need to
make sure that the dollars for health care are spent on health
care and that they are spent wisely on health care.
Involving Canadians in some sort of vision exercise is going to
be the most important thing we do. We have to ensure that there
are effective measures for Canadians to participate in what it is
they want and the ability of the federal government to make sure
that it happens.
There are certain places within the provinces that do
extraordinarily good things. The kind of standard that is now in
Quebec in terms of home care is a model for the country. We
should share that information across the country and talk about
how we get that for all Canadians. Recently when we saw the B.C.
outcomes in cancer, we were all a bit jealous and wanted to know
what was being done. It is up to the federal government to be the
clearing house to make sure those good ideas happen.
Whether it is waiting lists or outcomes or how people are doing
in early discharge, we have to measure the readmission rates, if
we are going to boast about early discharge in terms of maternity
for example. We need to know about hysterectomy rates and
Caesarean section rates and birth weight. We are judged
internationally as to how we are doing on things such as birth
weight. It is not good enough that we leave the accountability
for the provision of health care without holding our own valued
responsibility to Canadians in terms of how the dollars are
spent.
Traditionally the federal government has had some small direct
spending ability. Today in the talks it was again articulated.
Federal spending power should be used in making transfers to
individuals and organizations in order to promote equality of
opportunity, mobility and other Canada-wide objectives. When the
federal government introduces new Canada-wide initiatives funded
through direct transfers to individuals and organizations, it is
going to give notice and co-operate with the provinces.
Look at our CAPC program. There are a lot of areas in Quebec
where that is hugely welcomed and gratefully received. It is that
kind of initiative Canadians have benefited from again
irrespective of turf.
I implore my colleagues across the way to help us decide. There
were social union discussions today. The next step must be to
move to a proper vision exercise to decide together what kind of
country this is and what are the values and the vision for this
country. Then we must continue to co-operate in a way that is
good for Canadians and accountable to Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
acknowledge that my hon. colleague has put a great deal of
sincerity in her speech, but there seems also to be fair bit of
inconsistency.
First of all, for those who believe in this country called
Canada—we are not among them, at least not as it operates now,
and as we know it—it seems to me there ought to be an underlying
principle behind their actions and their statements.
That would be a minimal respect for the founding legislation of
Canada, that is its constitution.
1640
It is not because we are going to the offices of a charitable
organization that we can get away with driving at 140 kilometers
an hour on the highway, nor is it because it wants to help
people that the federal government is entitled to interfere in
any and all areas of jurisdiction.
It is paradoxical that the hon. member tells us in her speech
that she wants to be proud of her health system when she goes
abroad.
This caucus reminds me of the movie The Silence of the Lambs,
because it is quite docile and it does not offer much resistance
to policies that deserve greater criticism and challenges.
If the member cares about other people, and I am sure she does
because she is a good person, there are three things that she
could promote in her caucus.
First, she could talk about the Canadian Human Rights Act
abroad, because it is her duty to do so. Our country is one of
the few that does not prohibit discrimination based on social
status.
So, if the member wants to talk about social justice and if she
cares about other people, she can campaign, inside her own
ranks, to get a real debate that would allow the inclusion of
social status among the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Second, should the member not pressure the Minister of Human
Resources Development who just found out that there are people
who are exploited in our society? Should she not press for
improvements to the EI system?
Third, should she not press the government to give back to the
Canadian provinces the money that it brutally stole from them?
These are three areas where the member could use her talents,
her intelligence and her convictions to work in the best
interests of other people.
[English]
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting again
that some of my colleague's suggestions are things that would be
a national standard. We need to be on the international stage
showing that we are sticking up for these kinds of things,
whether it is child poverty or accessibility to university. One
of my constituents has seen McGill University documents courting
Americans who will pay more but she cannot get her son into
McGill.
There are national standards we want to see throughout this
country. It is a matter of our sticking together and saying that
it should not matter where we live in this country, that we are
entitled to have good health care, good access to post-secondary
education and good social programs. We are going to figure out
how we measure that so that every Canadian, regardless of their
postal code gets the same kind of care.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unlike my colleague who just spoke, I have little
objection to this motion. For the most part, it is an excellent
motion.
I point out that it says that this House urges the government to
respect provincial jurisdiction in health care management. I
heartily endorse that. That is precisely what is in the
Constitution. I am sure that given the right conditions, all the
provinces would certainly endeavour to manage health care in a
proper fashion.
On increased transfers to the provinces for health care, I think
I can speak for just about every member on this side that we
would want to see more money go toward the health of Canadians. I
am hoping in the budget that is coming out very shortly that the
government in its wisdom will find more money for health care in
the provinces. We must remember it is a provincial jurisdiction.
Finally, regarding using budget surpluses to encroach upon the
health field, quite honestly I do not really know what that
means. I certainly would not want to see the federal government
encroach in any improper way on provincial jurisdiction.
1645
The only word I have difficulty with in the motion is the word
unconditionally. The motion suggests that the federal government
should transfer billions and billions of dollars to the provinces
for unconditional spending in health care. I have difficulty
with that.
Currently the total cash and tax point transfer for health and
social spending from the federal government to the provinces is
about $26 billion. The difficulty is that any time any
government, person or organization gives money to another
organization to provide services there has to be some level of
transparency and accountability. We have to know we are getting
a return on the money we put out to an organization, a province
or whatever.
I will give an example in my own province. I hope the Bloc
members are listening. I cannot speak for the experience in
Quebec because I do not live in Quebec; but I do live in Ontario
and can say that there is a general feeling in Ontario that the
transfer money coming from the federal government for social
spending will not get to where it ought to be.
There are indications of this suspicion. A person came to my
riding and described a billboard in Mexico which read “Invest in
Ontario—Low Personal Income Taxes”. I do not know for certain
but it leads to the suspicion that perhaps the Government of
Ontario is using some of the money that is supposed to go to
health care and other social fields for something else, which
enables it to cut personal income taxes as indeed it has done.
That is only anecdotal, but I have actual evidence that this
general opinion is held by people in Ontario.
Every fall at fairs in my riding I hold opinion polls. I have
four jars on a table. People are given four coloured beans and
asked to pretend they are the Minister of Finance and have a $4
billion surplus. Each jar is separately labelled. One is
labelled “Reduce the Debt”; the second is “Increase Social
Spending”, the third is “Cut Taxes” and the last one is
“Reduce the GST”, because I am still very opposed to the GST.
Just in passing, the results among 494 players at the Rockton
Fair in my riding last October was 36% for reducing the debt, 30%
for increasing social spending, 23% for tax cuts and 11% for
reducing the GST.
Members will notice that the figure for increasing social
spending is only 30% which seems to be very low, but I have to
explain the context in which the question was put to the people
who participated in the poll. I should also say that fall fair,
one of the biggest in the country, attracts people from all over
the province, from Toronto and the Hamilton area; it is a very
large catchment area.
If I gave the four beans to persons who were to participate in
the poll and said social spending, they would advance the bean
toward social spending. However, if I said to them “Oh, just
one moment. Remember that the federal government does not
control social spending. If you put that bean into the jar for
social spending, health and all the rest of it, remember that it
is the Government of Ontario that will actually decide how that
billion dollars will be used”, people would dart back as if they
had touched something hot and would put the bean in another jar.
I watched the poll all the way through. I stayed there for the
three days that it was carried out. Roughly half the people who
would have put money into social spending changed their minds
when they realized that social spending was an area entirely
under provincial jurisdiction.
1650
That raises the whole matter of what is wrong. If the public
gives money to any organization and is uncertain about whether
the organization will actually spend the money where it is
supposed to, we have a problem. It is a problem that is easily
fixed. The way to fix it is to require an agreement of the
provincial government in which it assures the federal government
that it will spend the money it receives from Ottawa on health
care and agrees to demonstrate that it is spending the money in
that way. In other words, there has to be some form of
accountability. There has to be some form of transparency.
In the social union talks which concluded today I notice that
one item agreed upon by the provinces—and I believe it also
applies in the health care field—was the consent to a third
party audit of money being received from the federal government
and used by the provinces for health care. In other words, the
actual spending on health care by a province would be audited. I
will say, for example, Alberta keeps very careful track of how
its health care dollar is spent. Why should all the provinces
not do precisely that?
When we talk about unconditional we talk about no transparency
and no accountability. However if we all agree that the money
coming from the federal government is to be used on health, there
should be no barrier by any province to disclosing in detail how
the money is spent.
Quebec has one of the best freedom of information laws among the
provinces. I hope the federal government would revise its own
access to information law so that the provinces can look into the
financial affairs of the federal government in the same way as we
would hope the people of Canada and the people of Quebec can look
into how money is spent by the province of Quebec on health care.
I do not see much problem with the motion. If I thought there
was even a distant chance of getting unanimous consent I would
move an amendment suggesting that we drop the word unconditional.
If that were agreeable to the opposition I am sure we on this
side would support the motion whole-heartedly.
I do not feel I should give my party whip a heart attack by
moving a motion at this time so I will pass and ask the Bloc
Quebecois to seriously consider amending the motion by taking out
the word unconditional and I am sure it will get overwhelming
support on this side for its motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to comment on the speech just made by the hon. member.
I thank him for his information and his speech, but I was a
little surprised, because he was initially almost in favour of
the motion. But I am not surprised about how his speech ended,
because I do not think his party would allow him to vote in
favour of this motion.
I would simply like to set the record straight, because Liberals
often try to minimize the importance of drastic cuts in the
Canadian social transfer by telling us about tax points which
have supposedly increased. This is totally false and I am
pleased to set the record straight.
I have here a document that was produced by an economist, a tax
expert, who knows how to set the record straight. As I am not an
economist or a tax expert, I cannot go into the complex
mechanics of federal transfers.
But I can tell members that this claim is unfounded.
1655
The federal government always brings back the argument of
increased tax points. This is unfounded for two reasons: first,
there is no relation between the value of tax points and the
value of cash transfers.
But Liberals would really like the give the impression they have
compensated for their cash cuts by giving more generous tax
points. In fact, they have no merit, because the value of tax
points is linked to the changing economic situation.
However, the level of cash transfers is determined only by the
federal government. It is these transfers that have been cut. An
important fact is that the value of tax points would have been
increased by the same amount if the federal government had not
slashed cash transfers, because there is no direct link between
them.
Furthermore, and I will conclude on this, tax point transfers
are not transfers, they are simply tax revenues like any others
for the provinces.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, if I had it my way no tax
points would be transferred to provinces for any consideration.
By assigning tax points to the provinces we have in effect lost
control over federal spending on health care. With the tax
points it is absolutely unconditional how provinces spend federal
dollars.
If members opposite were to move an amendment to their motion to
remove the word unconditional, I guarantee them absolutely that I
would vote for their motion. I look forward to the time when
they actually take out the word unconditional.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
always strange to hear a Liberal member say such things. We
heard a lot today about accountability, about being responsible
for expenditures, about the agreement, the fine print saying
that from now on provinces are taking responsibility for
spending the additional funds they receive, or will receive in
the next budget, for health care.
He spoke about fairs in his riding and about how the money in
the budget should be spent. They should do the same for
employment insurance.
Is the member ready to make the same commitment that the
provinces made for health care, and apply it to employment
insurance, that every dollar paid into employment insurance stay
in the employment insurance fund? It will be the workers who
will benefit from it. Could the same philosophy not apply to
programs that have an effect on the everyday life of Canadians?
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. We have to recall that it was the Conservative
government which managed to transfer these tax points to the
provinces and essentially created the situation where the federal
government lost control of federal spending in health care. That
is very sad.
As far as employment insurance is concerned, we are talking
about apples and oranges, as the member well knows, because we
are talking about a situation in which the demand on the
employment insurance fund is met by the money that is there.
I do not know what the member actually means. Would he increase
the amount? Perhaps he is suggesting that we should cut
employment insurance premiums. Perhaps that is what he is
driving at. I am not sure, but I know it is not the same
situation whatsoever.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will split my time with the member for Churchill
River. I would also ask if there is unanimous consent for the
debate to continue until private members' hour. I seek unanimous
consent to have this debate continue until 5.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
proposition of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that
the debate continue until 5.30 p.m. this day?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1700
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I regret that we do
not have unanimous consent to have a full debate to 5.30 p.m. on
this very serious issue. I will speak very briefly and will
still share my time with the member for Churchill River.
We appreciate the timeliness of this debate. I thank members of
the Bloc for bringing this motion before us today. As they will
know from our previous speaker, we have serious concerns with the
precise wording of this motion and with the spirit of the
resolution.
I appreciate the timeliness of this debate given that we are
debating this on the day that news of a potential agreement
between the federal government and the provinces has been
achieved and where there is some agreement around a supposed
social union contract. It certainly gives us some encouragement
to hear that there is a move afoot that takes us beyond
jurisdictional wrangling and into the serious matter of how we
together as Canadians can salvage our health care system and find
a way we can build in the future a universally accessible,
publicly administered health care system.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We want to consent to extend the period beyond 5.15 p.m. for the
speaking block but not necessarily to 5.30 p.m. I understand
there was some confusion about what was being agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member could clarify
this. The speech by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
commenced at 5.00 p.m. She indicated she was splitting her time.
She would have a 20 minutes speech with 10 minutes of questions
and comments. Were it split there would be two 10 minute
speeches with 5 minutes of questions and comments we would go to
5.30 p.m.
Is it the plan to allow for these two speeches and questions on
those alone? If so, it would end before. She said until private
members' hour. Private members' hour would normally start no
later than 5.30 p.m. but whenever the House got to the completion
of the question.
I ask her to clarify if it was to 5.30 p.m., assuming the debate
would go to 5.30 p.m. If it ends at 5.25 p.m. after these two
speeches is it the intention to end then? Perhaps the member
could clarify what he is trying to do.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, if they end up shorter than
20 and 10, we would like to end it at that point and not bring a
new speaker into the mix who would be cut off.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for
Churchill River to make remarks in accordance with the guidelines
of a normal 10 minute speech and 5 minutes questions and
comments, then the debate would terminate?
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I would like some
clarification. Are you asking for the debate to continue after
5.30 p.m.? If the NDP members want to use the time provided and
speak from 5 p.m. to 5.15 p.m. and you assure me that the debate
will end at 5.30 p.m., I agree. I, however, would not want us to
continue after 5.30 p.m. The NDP members had the whole day to
take part in today's debate. But if you assure me that the
debate will end at 5.30 p.m., I agree.
The Deputy Speaker: Fine, I can give the assurance to the House
that the debate will end no later than 5.30 p.m. Is there
unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1705
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a
comment about the discussions around social union since we are
awaiting the full details of today's developments but I know full
well Canadians have clearly indicated that they have felt left in
the dark on these very substantive and serious developments
pertaining to the future of national programs in the country
today.
Let it be clearly put on the record that once again Canadians
feel decisions are being made at the level of executive
federalism away from parliament and beyond the ability of
Canadians to participate actively and fully in the debate. I
want it to be clear and on the record that we call once again for
this discussion of social union to go from this day forward into
the public domain where all parliamentarians can debate the
issues and where all Canadians can be fully involved.
Although this point will be further elaborated by my colleague
from Churchill River, aboriginal peoples remain concerned that
they have been excluded from fundamental decision making around
the future of national social programs and once again we are left
without the adequate input and advice to deal with what is
clearly a most horrific problem in terms of health care on
reserves and outside reserves among aboriginal peoples. It is a
matter of serious concern to all of us that in a country as
wealthy as Canada we have third world conditions all around us
and we see deplorable conditions pertaining to the health and
well-being of first nation communities.
There are some delicious ironies in this debate. It is clear we
are talking about the future of a national health care plan. We
are talking about the ability of the federal and provincial
governments to co-operate with participation from Canadian
citizens on the future of our health care system. At the same
time we have a federal government that is so hung up and
preoccupied with this notion of taking political credit and
demanding report cards about provincial activities although it is
this government that took the $6 billion away from taxpayers that
was going toward the health and social programs of Canada.
It is certainly ironic especially since it was this government
in 1995 that brought in the Canada health and social transfer
which not only took the biggest chunk out of health care spending
in the history of this country but which also removed conditions
by which provinces would be required to adhere to certain
standards and principles. That is one delicious irony of this
debate.
On the flip side another irony comes from a province like
Manitoba with a provincial government that has cut so deeply into
its provincial health care system, all the while sitting on a
significant surplus. And it has the gall to issue a petition
calling on the federal government to increase its share of
transfer payments. That is the kind of ridiculous situation we
enter into when we do not as a country recognize the serious
problems at hand and work together to build for the future.
It is absolutely clear that what is at hand today and hopefully
is being resolved as a result of developments today is a
commitment on the part of the federal government to reverse the
decisions it made a number of years ago which in effect put us on
the road to the death of medicare. It is absolutely clear that
today we are are trying to put our health care system on some
kind of stable footing out of a crisis mode of operation so we
can move forward.
Any kind of contribution from members, including those from the
Bloc who have brought us this motion today, is most welcome. But
let us be clear that what is fundamentally at stake is the
question of medicare, the question of a national, publicly
administered, universally accessible health care system.
While we take some encouragement from today's developments, we
are also very worried given the past history of the federal
Liberal government on this issue. Let us keep in mind why we are
in such a mess today and learn from the lessons of the past and
correct those errors.
1710
I want to put on the record a brief statement by a well known
former policy adviser to the Liberal government, Mr. Tom Kent,
who recently released his own paper on social policy reform: “It
is not in the stars, not because of forces beyond our control
that we have faltered in national purposes, that our pursuit of
the public interest has lagged. It is in ourselves, in the
atrophy of national policies”.
Let me also put on record the words of a well known former
Conservative, Mr. Dalton Camp, who recently very clearly
described the problems we are facing: “It is simply folly to
believe that we do not have the means to provide for a national
health care system. Means and ends no longer converge. The idea
of government as a custodian of the national interests has become
a shibboleth and self-government a myth. We are now looked
after, if at all, by the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade
Organization, America's trade and competitiveness act and the
promoters of the pending multilateral agreement on investment.
We are looked upon by other members of the new world club as
compliant to the point of docility”.
That quote coupled with Mr. Kent's observations points to the
very critical issues at hand. What is the true intention of the
federal government in terms of health care from a national
perspective? It is more than about money on the table. It is
more than claiming political credit. It is truly about
direction, about standards and about leadership.
The most graphic way one can refer to the concerns we have is to
look at the way our public system has fallen into private hands.
There is no question, we have had report after, that a good part
of our health care spending today is from the private sector. We
are rapidly losing hold of a sound publicly administered system.
Our biggest worry is that we are very much on a slide to a two
tier American style health care system. That is the last thing
Canadians want.
I urge all members today to look to this point as the beginning
of a new era where we can actually recognize the importance of a
national health care program; the principles of the Canada Health
Act, the need to stop offloading and deregulation by the federal
government in the area of health protection, the need to find
ways to stop this slide into a privatized American style health
care system and to find ways where we can truly work at the
federal-provincial level with citizens participating at building
for the future.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
I am a little disappointed that the member continues to point
fingers and use the rhetoric of the death of the health care
system, the advancing of a two tier health care system, et
cetera.
This is the kind of rhetoric Canadians do not want to hear. The
issues at hand are the fact that the provinces, the territories
and the federal government today have resolved all the bickering
and have come up with a plan to assure all Canadians about our
secure, sustainable health care system and that the funding will
be there.
The member will also know that the responsibilities of the
federal government are defined in that they are transfers for
hospitals and for doctor fees, which is acute care, not the whole
health care system, so there is some joint responsibility with
regard to funding. On the member's numbers of $6 billion, et
cetera, we are talking about health but now she rolls in
post-secondary education and social programs and starts to muddy
the waters. She is talking only about cash and not about tax
points.
This is all the stuff Canadians want to stop hearing about.
What they want to start hearing is that all levels of government
are working together to ensure that Canada's health care system
and the principles of the Canada Health Act continue to be
supported and sustained for a long time to come.
1715
I have a question for the member regarding some derogatory
comments she made about report cards, et cetera. Canadians do
want accountability. Yesterday I received the report of the
advisory council on health infrastructure. One of its principal
recommendations in the final report was to develop the analyses
and the information gathering to be able to do report cards for
Canadians so that Canadians will know how to assess the quality
and the efficiency of our health care system.
Is the member saying reporting and being accountable to
Canadians by some mechanism which may be referred to as report
cards is inappropriate?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the
last question first.
The member is not prepared to hear the irony I pointed to and
also misses the point. It is absolutely clear that Canadians
want accountability but they want all governments to be held
accountable starting with the federal Liberal government. That
is why we have proposed a mechanism by which we could try to have
such accountability, to have a watchdog function to ensure the
federal government and the provincial governments are living up
to their responsibilities to preserve a quality health care
system and build for the future.
It is interesting for the member to suggest I am only being
negative when he is missing the point. We are here today trying
to encourage members across the way to look beyond today, to look
beyond the question of dealing with the reinvestment issues and
to address what is actually happening to our health care system
in terms of privatized health care.
The member only has to talk to folks in Alberta who are deeply
worried about the possibility of a private hospital, on which the
government has maintained absolute silence. I suggest he talk to
people who are waiting in line for cataract surgery in a province
like Alberta and are told if they want to wait many months they
can get it in the public system. If they want to pay $4,800 now
they can get it at a private clinic. That is exactly the kind of
deterioration and damage that has happened to our public system
that we have to be vigilant about. I would impress on the member
to look to the future and to try to work to ensure that we
maintain those fundamental principles of a publicly administered,
universally accessible system.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the opportunity to speak today is very crucial because it is sort
of a celebration in terms of highlighting the responsibility of
health to the federal government.
When I first came to the House and when debating the health
issue back in our communities it was deemed a provincial
jurisdiction. Today we are in the House of Commons debating
health issues and the future of health care and the
responsibility of the federal government. It is a major
responsibility.
I call on my colleagues to continue to support it because if we
look at health care and talk about the millions of budget
allocations that are needed to replenish the cutbacks that we
have faced in the hospitals, home care, elderly care, maternity
wards and emergency wards, all these cutbacks we have realized
over the years, with a surplus in sight we have an opportunity to
create a health system in the new millennium. It will be a
collective effort and the federal government has to play a major
role in this.
I looked at health care issues specifically in my area. There is
a recent statement I highlight because there are many concerns
over the state of our health care.
1720
In my riding I have a majority of aboriginal people who live in
northern Saskatchewan where we border the Northwest Territories,
the boreal forest and the barren grounds. Here is what it says
about the state of our health.
It says we are compared to developing countries because diseases
such as tuberculosis and hepatitis A do not exist or run rampant
in developed countries.
My riding in northern Saskatchewan has the highest count of
tuberculosis in the country. Imagine that in 1999. We will step
into the year 2000 and my constituents have the highest rate of
acquiring TB right now. Let us address that issue.
How do you address that issue? What causes TB? Here is another
statement: “Increased suffering from developing country
diseases such as diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease”.
Diabetes is a major issue.
A few years ago I had an opportunity to work with a colleague of
mine, an Inuit lady from Inukjuak. She was sharing stories about
her people when we talked about our homes. Jokingly she said her
people in northern Quebec were addicted to Coca-Cola.
The next day the Globe and Mail printed a headline saying
they had to fly in a load of Coca-Cola to their communities
because the winter supply to be delivered by ship could not make
it before spring break-up. It was an emergency that they had to
fly in sweetened soda pop. Our people's diets that are causing
health problems are a major cause of concern.
What is the status of our environment, the state of our air and
water, doing to our health? There is a study dealing with the
toxicology of contaminants and its relationship to neurological
disorders, reproductive effects, immunosuppression and cancer.
PCBs were a part of that study.
A study of Inuit boys in Canada showed that their birth weights
were a lot lower if the mothers had high levels of PCBs in their
breast milk. These studies were conducted in our own
neighbourhood. This was a very recent study and recently the
federal government cut the study program on northern
contaminants. This did not go beyond the water and air flows in
the immediate Arctic region. This study needs to be expanded
into the lower boreal forest as well, into the Cree and Dene
regions.
Not only Inuit live off the traditional lands. Contaminants are
impacting all our northern communities. This is a national
program because the northern half of all provinces feel the
impact of transboundary pollutants.
The industries in northern Alberta all spew their pollutants
into northern Saskatchewan and carry on to northern Manitoba. The
industries from Ontario and Quebec carry on to the Atlantic
provinces and our northern regions. The Arctic polar regions get
theirs from Europe and Asia. It is circulating all over the
north and into our regions of Canada.
This is having an impact on our health. I have another health
statistic which is a predominate number. Of our northern
population 37% is under 15 years of age. Almost 50% of our
population consists of children. They will be middle aged,
seeking employment, housing and family support in their
communities. They are not moving out. They are not moving away
from the northern communities because that is home.
The development of the north is very crucial to this. We share
this all the way from British Columbia to Labrador. That is
where the intrajurisdictional issue of federal responsibility is
very important.
Our situation in the north was highlighted by the United Nations
recently. Examples of death rates, infant deaths, premature
deaths, low birth rates, cancer, teen pregnancy and diabetes are
of international concern. Canada is a major highlight.
We just talked about the social union and health accord
gathering that took place.
The aboriginal people were missing from there. They did not have
a chance to be heard. Provincial jurisdictions are providing
services to those communities but the federal responsibility is
crucial. The medical services branch has a role with the treaty
obligations with the treaty Indians.
1725
Our communities are mixed. There are not only treaty
obligations but there are non-treaty obligations. Then there are
Metis obligations and the Inuit obligations. These obligations
of health jurisdictions between the federal government and
provincial governments is very crucial. I applaud our members
today who have brought that responsibility back to the federal
government.
Health is crucial. It needs national leadership. It needs
provincial leadership. It needs community leadership. But the
federal government has to be accountable because it inflicted the
cutbacks in transfers to the provinces and inflicted the cutbacks
in the environmental departments for analysis of the impacts of
our health.
The other situation which is a major crisis in health in this
jurisdiction is accessibility of doctors. In my community we
have a group of doctors who came from South Africa because the
jurisdiction of other countries cannot readily access employment
in this country. But the South African doctors found employment
and were readily recruited by our communities because we need a
stable supply of doctors. Because of immigration they have to
get their working visas authorized outside Canada.
I want to raise this in terms of a doctor's story. We want them
in our clinics and in our hospitals. When they visit their
families on holidays, let us say Easter or Christmas break, some
of our immigration offices or embassies are closed during the
holidays. They cannot get their working visas to come back into
Canada to serve the clinics and serve the patients in our
communities. It was an atrocity to see that. They had to
backtrack and call people for five days before this specific
process was completed.
On the whole issue of doctors and the training of doctors in
terms of the north we need northern doctors. We need access to
community health and good home care. Not everyone can come to
the large urban centres for major care. So health care and
budgeting of home care units throughout the country and to supply
our remote and rural communities is in dire need.
I applaud the federal leadership that is taking place and the
provinces which are committed to working together. Finally health
care is on the federal agenda.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I assure my hon. colleague that on the very serious concerns he
expressed about aboriginal peoples, and there are many issues of
concerned to all Canadians, I believe that if he reads the
framework to improve the social union for Canadians he will note
that aboriginal peoples of Canada are included under the
fundamental principles of a social union in the country. It
indicates clearly that for greater certainty nothing in this
agreement abrogates or derogates from any aboriginal treaties or
other rights of aboriginal peoples, including self-government.
Furthermore, under working in partnership for Canadians there is
a section under aboriginal peoples and it is absolutely vital
that they not be excluded and that they are an important and
integral part of Canada and Canadians, that we would put
jurisdictional issues aside in this instance and we must address
their pressing needs.
I believe the member will find that this issue has been
discussed with Mr. Fontaine. There is nothing that is perfect
but I do believe—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have to give the
hon. member for Churchill the last word.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, I believe in talking
especially about the aboriginal community because that was the
perspective of my speech. We have to look at health care. Is it
a top down initiative? Does the doctor have the power to deliver
health care to any individual? I do not think so.
1730
The issues of community, families, employment, housing, the
location of water supply and the condition of the environment,
land and air are at the ground level. That is where the
responsibility has to be. The issues of traditional knowledge
and scientific knowledge have to be balanced and recognized. The
stories of the elders, their knowledge of the land, the evolution
of the land and the deterioration of the land and the species,
have to be taken into account.
Those decisions must come from the community. We must empower
our communities and give them the resources they need to help
them create a healthy future for generations to come.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
pursuant to the order made earlier today, all questions
necessary to dispose of this motion are deemed to have been put,
and a recorded division is deemed to have been requested and
deferred until Tuesday, February 9, 1999, at the expiry of the
time provided for Government Orders.
[English]
It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to Private Members' Business as listed
on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
MILITARY MISSIONS BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF CANADA
The House resumed from October 29, 1998, consideration of the
motion.
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point a order. I would like
some clarification.
As you know, 60 minutes are set aside for Private Members'
Business. I see that we have only 45 minutes left to debate the
motion put forward by the member for Red Deer, which should take
us to about 6.15 p.m. Normally we should still have 15 minutes
left in the debate, but the division on the motion is deemed
deferred until next Tuesday.
Does this mean that at 6.15 p.m. we will proceed immediately to
the adjournment motion?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is correct.
We have 45 minutes for the debate and seven members have
indicated their desire to speak to the motion, and there may be
others. If possible, we could ask everyone to shave a couple of
minutes off their presentations and that would give everyone a
chance to get their oar in the water.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I know many people have a
lot of things to say in their speeches so I will ask for
unanimous consent to enable all speakers to speak for the
allotted 10 minutes per person. That would be fair and equitable
and would give a chance to everybody who wants to speak.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has requested unanimous consent of the
House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I shall
be brief since time is of the essence. I will not take all the
time allotted to me and humbly heed your request.
My colleague from Compton—Stanstead already discussed Motion M-380
in this House. He made a brilliant speech. Above all, he
generated interest in this matter in the House because,
unfortunately, the government does not notify us ahead of time
and consult us on a regular basis on the whole issue of a
Canadian military presence abroad.
At any rate, to know what is going on with our troops, we are
generally better off phoning the U.S. secretary of state, who
will provide us with information before our own government tells
us about our troops' involvement in various missions.
There was such an instance one year ago, when things were
starting to heat up in Iraq, and the Americans and the British
were preparing to intervene.
1735
The Prime Minister announced that the House would be asked to
take note of the fact that Canada might support action against
Iraq. However, before this announcement was made, we learned
that the American secretary of state knew that Canada had
already given its consent.
This is somewhat frustrating. The government does not seem to
want to consult Parliament. More specifically, the Minister of
External Affairs does not seem to give a damn about what
parliamentarians think on a number of matters, including the
deployment of Canadian troops abroad to provide either
humanitarian or military assistance, although the motion focuses
on the military aspect.
The motion does not specify under which authority the mission
would be placed. Would it be under the UN? Under NATO? Under the
Americans? This might make for an interesting debate.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs is not listening, as he showed
us today on the issue of plutonium imports. The Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade heard
witnesses on this issue. In the report on plutonium, all
parliamentarians—we always wonder about the Reformers—asked
that absolutely no plutonium be imported into the country. The
minister says “We will see, we are not sure”. He did not read
the report. We submitted a report to him and he did not even
read it. He does not care about us one bit. When it comes to
deciding whether we should send military personnel, it is the
Americans who make the decision.
We can understand the frustration behind the motion moved by the
member for Red Deer. Unfortunately, that motion is flawed. It is
incorrect. It is difficult to defend because it is incomplete.
It creates a process which may not be necessary, but that motion
is the product of frustration.
What is meant by “a significant contingent”? As the hon. member
for Compton—Stanstead pointed out, if we send one soldier to
Cyprus, does that mean we must have a debate in the House? We
already have aircraft stationed in Italy that are ready for
action in Kosovo. Must we have a debate about that? The minister
said we would have a debate in this House.
All too often the debate is short and its purpose is primarily
to inform the House that Canada has already told the United
States, England, France, NATO, the UN, the Pope and everyone
else that it would take part in a mission. Everyone has been
told except us parliamentarians.
The motion is incomplete, and we will have a lot of trouble
supporting it. At the same time, we must also recognize the
government's executive power to make decisions. It is
ineffective from a governmental point of view. However, minimum
respect for the men and women in this House would dictate that
the government inform them of its intentions and allow them to
play their role as parliamentarians. It is so important for a
government to have the support of parliament when taking action.
Take the humanitarian missions, for example. There was no
debate in the House in the case of Hurricane Mitch. There were
questions about what Canada was contributing in the way of
money, troops, and human and material resources. Not one member
of the House rose to say that they were not in favour of sending
our troops to help out in the case of Hurricane Mitch.
What we are talking about here is military missions that are a
much greater risk to Canada's credibility but above all to the
lives of our men and women in the armed forces.
The member for Red Deer means well. However, the motion perhaps
conveys more frustration than credibility. We are very open to
improved consultation of parliament in the case of a decision
involving Canadian military personnel outside Canada's
boundaries.
We hope that the government will listen for once and, contrary
to what it did in the case of the nuclear bomb tests, Iraq,
Kosovo, and all sorts of other situations, will want to share
information and probably hear a few arguments from all four
opposition parties.
I congratulate people for being interested in the military
question. It is an important one. However, a message needs to
be sent as well.
If there is going to be a debate before troops are sent overseas
on an official mission, we should perhaps also make sure they
are well equipped.
1740
On the subject of the planes, the minister was saying there was
no problem with the ejectable seat, that it was the parachute
that did not work. That makes no sense.
Last year, they were short of boots in the Canadian armed
forces. They want to cut another 5,000 people, men and women,
the staff of the Canadian armed forces. What do they want? A
scout troop with hard hats? If that is it, let them say so.
In closing, the government should discuss more with
parliamentarians and make them allies.
There is often talk of American, French and British allies, but
the greatest allies of the Canadian armed forces are to be found
here. Our military needs support when it goes on foreign
missions, let the government consult the opposition.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise
today to speak to this motion on the role of parliament with
respect to defence and external affairs policy matters.
First of all, let me make it perfectly clear that we are against
having to take a vote before any Canadian troops can be deployed
abroad. This motion was debated for the first time in June, and
again in October. Both times, we opposed this motion to make a
vote mandatory before Canadian military personnel can be
deployed abroad. Our position has not changed. We continue to
believe not only that timely and effective action is required in
times of international crisis but also that this position is
consistent with what the people of Canada want.
We also continue to believe that it is important to consult
parliament on the deployment of military personnel, and we have
demonstrated on many occasions. Canada has made a name for
itself internationally, and it is proud of it. Our involvement
in the two world wars, the Korean War and various peacekeeping
missions as well as the fact that we belong to many
international organizations reflects that.
This tradition lives
on today, the same way Canadians continue to depend on
multiculturalism. The people of Canada continue to pay attention
to what is happening internationally and to support a Canadian
presence in hot spots around the world.
[English]
Let me draw attention to a public opinion poll conducted by
Pollara in November of last year. In that poll Canadians
responded overwhelmingly that Canada needed the Canadian forces.
They supported UN peacekeeping, peace making missions requiring
the use of force, NATO out of area operations and NORAD.
We recently reaffirmed Canada's international role by winning a
seat on the United Nations Security Council. Three-quarters of
the votes cast were in favour of Canada's bid, a clear
endorsement of our international credentials, a recognition of
our longstanding commitment to the United Nations and our
commitment to a better world.
With our commitment to multilateralism and our position as one
of Canada's wealthier countries and a G-7 member Canada has the
means and a responsibility to maintain and deploy high quality
armed forces. When crises arise that threaten peace and security
we need to be able to respond quickly and effectively.
[Translation]
The government usually submits to the attention of the House
those issues that involve major deployments abroad to maintain
peace or to achieve other purposes, and this is precisely what
we have done. The debates have focused on specific operations as
well as on the principles and the thrust of Canada's
peacekeeping policy.
For example, last year, parliament discussed several highly
visible international events. In October, the House focused its
attention on the situation in Kosovo. It discussed the
possibility of Canada's participation in the settlement of that
terrible conflict. All the political parties were in favour of
an intervention if no diplomatic solution could be applied to
this very serious humanitarian crisis.
In April, the House discussed the renewal of Canada's
participation in the NATO led stabilization force in Bosnia.
1745
All the parties agreed that Canadian troops should remain in
Bosnia to continue to bring their valuable support in that poor
country.
[English]
Also, in April the House of Commons defence and foreign affairs
committee met to discuss Canada's participation in a peacekeeping
force in the central African republic with both ministers and the
media in attendance.
The joint meeting unanimously resolved that Canada should
participate. These are just a few examples of public discussion,
but there are many others. This House debated long into the
night in February 1998 the participation of the Canadian forces
in a possible military action in the Persian Gulf.
In February 1997 members debated Canada's role in international
efforts to sustain a secure and stable environment in Haiti. We
also had numerous debates in 1994 and in 1995 on our
participation in the former Yugoslavia.
[Translation]
In fact, a special joint committee of the House and the Senate
made a major contribution to the development of our current
defence policy, which gives the Minister of National Defence and
the Canadian forces the mandate to defend Canada and to protect
its interests, while helping restore peace and security in the
world. All this shows the great importance given by the
government to parliamentary debates on these issues.
Since the end of the cold war, the number and the complexity of
peacekeeping missions and other peace operations has constantly
increased and these activities also last longer. In this era of
ethnic cleansing, genocide, and indescribable human suffering,
we must react quickly to emerging crises.
Thanks to its rapid reaction, Canada has been able to make a
true contribution on the international scene. One of the lessons
learned from experiences such as Rwanda, for example, is that
the success of humanitarian relief operations depends on rapid
deployment.
[English]
We have taken these lessons to heart by improving our ability to
react very quickly. In 1996, for example, the Department of
National Defence worked with foreign affairs and international
trade and the Canadian International Development Agency to create
a plan for responding quickly to humanitarian disasters.
The result of this co-operative effort was the Canadian forces
disaster assistance response team, DART. DART is capable of
responding to a crisis in Canada or almost anywhere in the world
and we can begin deploying within 48 hours of a government
decision to send assistance.
It was deployed to Honduras in November and in December 1998 as
part of the international humanitarian response to hurricane
Mitch. DART reflects the Canadian forces unique capabilities and
resources to meet these challenges.
[Translation]
We also tried to improve the UN's ability to react in the event
of a crisis. We feel this is important because, in our opinion,
international peacekeeping operations should preferably be the
result of a multilateral response from the UN.
Our government and the Canadian people are proud of the role
played by Canada as a world leader in peacekeeping operations
and a faithful partner in times of crisis. We will continue to
consult parliament, either by holding debates in the House, or
by having ministers or other spokespersons appear before
standing committees.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure today to speak on Motion No.
380. I compliment my colleague from Red Deer on pursuing this
important issue.
This is an issue of accountability and an issue of democracy.
The United States is even obligated to bring its requests for
international military involvement in front of Congress.
1750
The people's representatives must have the ability to analyse
whether a group of our soldiers should be going abroad. This
should not be left as an executive decision. There is an element
of accountability and an element of democracy. Many things need
to be done and we need to illustrate a very important problem.
The hon. government member mentioned there were debates taking
place in this House. The hon. member knows very well that in
spite of the fact that the debates on a foreign affair took place
in this House, the decision as to whether troops would be
deployed were made prior to that.
In a visit to Davos, Switzerland, the Prime Minister made a side
agreement and publicly stated that somehow he is going to send
troops to Kosovo. Was anybody consulted? Not when the foreign
affairs minister is saying something completely different.
Apparently not. Motion No. 380 would prevent that from
happening. It would enable parliament and the people's
representatives to decide whether troops should be sent for the
good of Canada.
I will get to the heart of the matter, that we have a big
problem in our country. We have a huge discrepancy between the
demands placed on our defence department, which is really the
muscle of our foreign affairs department, the commitments being
made by our foreign affairs department and the international
needs being placed on us.
Let us not forget our individual security as nations is
intimately entwined with our collective security. Right now in
1999 our allies do not look at us as a player, as the hon.
parliamentary secretary mentioned. We are not a player anymore
in international security because our military does not have the
capability to do the good job it has historically done. The
individuals in the military are capable of doing that and they
are very competent but they are not equipped and tasked to do the
job.
The SCONDVA report that just came out articulately mentioned the
wide and deep problems affecting our military. It also gave very
pragmatic solutions to address those problems. The minister of
defence needs to listen to that report. He needs to enact its
solutions and resolutions immediately. If the minister does that
we can start to fulfil our international obligations and get back
the international respect we have had for so long.
How can we send our troops on so-called peacekeeping missions,
which is really war by another name, without giving them the
tools to do the job? For example, our helicopters are 30 years
old, towed artillery is 45 years old, nearly going back to World
War II, and our other artillery is 30 years old. Our CF-18
fighters are having so much strain in their superstructures that
they are breaking down and our 30 year old helicopters are
falling out of the sky. Our navy's anti-submarine warfare
obligations are being severely compromised as are our search and
rescue capabilities. Our country desperately needs those
capabilities. Not only are those capabilities compromised but the
men and women in our military who put their lives on the line
every day for our security are put on the line.
We have an obligation to those men and women in uniform to fund
them to do the job, to task them to do the job and to ensure the
leadership is there to do the job. But as the SCONDVA report
very articulately mentioned, that is not there.
The foreign affairs department has to work hand in glove with
the defence department. They cannot work as two entities. They
are two halves of the same whole. I commend the Minister of
Foreign Affairs for doing a very good job on some of his
initiatives over the last few years which have brought peace and
security internationally. However, he must work with the
minister of defence and vice versa.
From a foreign affairs perspective we must engage in initiatives
to prevent conflict from happening. What we see internationally
is a global impotence in dealing with conflict. Many meetings
have taken place. The Kosovo example is just one or we could go
back to Rwanda or any number of conflicts in recent years.
The former Yugoslavia is another example. We hear a lot of talk,
a lot of babble and a lot of hot air but we see individuals who
are sometimes willing flaunt their power in the face of
international law against their own people causing the death,
destruction and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people. In
the face of that the international community wags its finger
impotently in their face. What to they get back? They get no
response.
1755
Kosovo is a perfect example. The bottom line is from a foreign
affairs perspective if we are to face up to tyranny then we
better have the muscle to back up what we demand of those
draconian rulers.
From a non-military perspective there are foreign affairs
initiatives that can take place. Our foreign affairs department
has the capability of dealing with preventive measures. We need
to use our personnel, particularly in the IMF, World Bank and the
UN, to have an integrated, preventive approach to conflict.
War needs money. Choke off the money supply and the ability of
individuals to engage in war is choked off. Whether we are
looking at conflicts that are on the horizon or the many
conflicts that are taking place right now, they put demands on
our military. From Angola, which is about ready to blow up right
now, to Sierra Leon, which is in a state of complete disarray, to
central Africa, which is a conflict that threatens to expand and
involve many countries, a war the likes of which we have not seen
in decades, to the caucuses, to Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia,
Indonesia, all these are just some of the hot spots we will
potentially be asked to participate in. If we are to ask our
people to participate, we have to fund them properly.
I ask that the foreign affairs minister be wise in his decisions
concerning involvement. That is the root of the motion from the
member for Red Deer. This decision should not be placed in the
hands of a few but it should be placed in the hands of this
House, the representative of the people, for it is Canadian
people who are putting their lives on the line.
Returning to our military solutions and looking at the SCONDVA
report, they require funding back to what they were in 1994.
Military personnel now are 60,000 less than our capability. Bring
them back to a fighting force of perhaps 70,000 to 75,000 or at
least integrate the demands of our defence department with the
number of personnel available.
On the pay and allowance issue, there are important concerns
that need to be addressed. How can we ask men and women to
travel half a world away if they are worried about whether their
wives or husbands have enough food to put on the table to feed
their children? That is how serious this issue is and that in
part is eroding the morale of our forces.
The power of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank
to engage in non-military initiatives to prevent conflict has not
been examined properly. Those groups need to look at the
economic power and use that against despots who are willing to
use their power against individuals for the sake of the pursuit
of power in the most heinous ways.
I ask the foreign affairs minister to pursue that with our
competent people in these organizations and offer the foreign
affairs minister and the defence minister our help in pursuing
the effective, pragmatic solutions that we can engage in to make
Canada an effective contributor to peace internationally, to keep
our troops safe and also to bring peace and security to a world
in turmoil.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the motion by the
member for Red Deer invokes the principle of respect for all
parliamentarians when the time comes to decide whether or not to
send an active military mission to another country.
It appears that all the opposition parties are prepared to
support this motion, and the Bloc Quebecois has already said
that that is what it will do. Unfortunately, the only arguments
we have heard against have come from the government, the Liberal
Party, which is getting ready to vote no for one reason alone.
The main reason mentioned is that of wanting to retain room to
manoeuvre so as to be able to act quickly.
1800
This motion gives us an opportunity to solve a serious problem,
which is that of asking Canadians and Quebeckers who are
soldiers, who are members of a military force, to go overseas to
defend the freedoms in which we believe, to defend democracy.
We are asking them to put their lives on the line. These
troops, who have partners, children, and families, are being
asked to risk their lives, in most cases, to protect ours.
It seems to me it is important for these people to know that
they have the support of not only a small number of people
sitting at the cabinet table, but of all parliamentarians,
regardless of their political stripes.
This is the principle behind the Reform Party's motion. Instead
of attacking that motion, as the Liberal Party is about to do,
we should support it and refer it to a committee for a more
thorough review.
Sure, this is a motion which can be improved, but the only way
to do so is to support it so that it can be referred to a
committee which will conduct a more thorough review and which
will suggest ways and solutions so that the motion, which would
become a bill, would address the objections raised by the
government and allow it to maintain some flexibility.
To show that this is possible, let me refer to a dissenting
opinion expressed by the Bloc Quebecois in the report that
followed the review of Canada's foreign policy by a joint
special committee. The suggestions made by our party would help
improve the motion of the Reform Party member.
We wrote, among other things, that Canada should encourage the
setting up of a permanent contingent available to the UN for its
peacekeeping missions abroad. We also said that there should be
a limit on the number of troops in that contingent. We thought
it might be reasonable to have 2,000 or 2,500 troops available
to the UN for peacekeeping missions.
If Canada were in favour of the establishment of such a
contingent, we would not have to come before the House every
time to ask “Do we use the permanent contingent for this or that
mission abroad?” No. There would be a permanent mandate from
the House indicating to the UN “You can use these 2,000 or 2,500
armed service personnel people as you see fit, in peacekeeping
missions anywhere in the world where freedom and democracy are
being threatened'?.
Having this contingent would give the government the necessary
latitude to respond to additional requests in specific cases.
If there were a particular need for more than 2,000 or 2,500
Canadian military personnel, the government could then come
before the House and hold a debate, in order to determine
whether it had the support of the House for Canada's sending
more than its regular contingent in order to resolve a problem.
This would be one way of responding to the desire expressed in
the motion, while at the same time allowing the government to
maintain this necessary latitude.
With a permanent contingent there could be a response to need at
all times, without the House having to make a decision, while
specific additional requirements could be discussed in advance
in the House, in order to give the Prime Minister a mandate as
follows: “Mr. Prime Minister, in such and such a country on
which there has just been a debate in the House, we will agree
to Canada's having a supplementary contingent in addition to its
permanent contingent”. The Prime Minister would then have the
responsibility to decide the timing for Canada to send this
additional contingent.
1805
Then all the recognized principles would be in place, principles
like making the system more democratic and involving all the
members of this House in the decision to play an active role in
maintaining world peace. The government would then have a
perfectly legitimate right to enjoy some leeway when the time
comes to make a decision.
More importantly, we want to prevent the government from having
to side with the United States simply because the President of
the United States picked up the phone one evening and worked out
an agreement or discussed some other matter with the Prime
Minister of Canada.
We want to make sure that the decisions or arrangements will not
be made by a select few with a hidden agenda.
When asking our military personnel to put their lives on the
line to protect us, we ought to make sure that they have a
mandate that has been given to them in the most democratic
manner possible, involving as many people as possible. This kind
of support is essential. Our troops must feel that they have the
entire nation behind them, and not only the ruling party. In
terms of quality of life in the military, this is certainly one
way of showing respect for our troops and to let them know that
they are emissaries, sent out with the unanimous consent of
Parliament to protect and defend our lives. That is what this
motion is all about.
If the government really wanted to uphold this principle,
instead of tossing out this motion, it could support it or say
that it will refer it to committee for further study and we
could come back to it later, thus respecting the wishes of both
the opposition and the government. It is in this spirit that we
are going to support the motion and we hope that the government
will give it more serious thought before rejecting it out of
hand. This is a unique opportunity to improve our
decision-making process when world peace is threatened.
For Canada, it would represent an opportunity to transcend the
role of peacekeeper. That is our international reputation.
Canadians are viewed as the best peacekeepers in the world but,
with this sort of solution, we could become the architects of
peace, and not just its keepers.
We could create conditions favourable to peacekeeping
operations, to the advent of international peace. There is a
world of difference between keeping the peace and actually
creating it.
I hope that the government will think about what I and my
colleagues have said and that it will support the motion when it
is put to a vote next Tuesday.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
seek unanimous consent to close off the debate on my motion with
about a two or three minute presentation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time for Private
Members' Business would expire at 6.15 p.m., just for
clarification, and we have one more speaker at least.
Does the Chair have it correctly that the hon. member for Red
Deer would like to have the time extended to 6.18 p.m. to allow
no more than three minutes for the member who moved the motion to
sum up?
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to
clarify something. If I understand correctly, we have only one
speaker, which will take us to 6.15 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Yes, approximately.
[English]
No later than 6.20 p.m.
The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member. Is that
agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1810
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will go to the
hon. member for Churchill for seven minutes and then to the hon.
member for Red Deer for three minutes.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
extend my support and speak in favour of the private member's
motion that has been brought forward by the hon. member for Red
Deer.
The motion speaks to our democratic right as members of
parliament who represent the constituents of the country. All
301 duly elected members of the House represent Canada.
My first experience was the debate on the deployment of troops
to the Persian Gulf. As a young member of parliament coming to
the House I was not struck by the immense responsibility I had as
an individual in voting to deploy our young men and women to a
war zone.
Entering a war zone is a very unique situation. A lot of us
have never experienced it. We have never taken up arms. We have
never sacrificed our lives or have been ready to take somebody
else's life. These are the issues we are talking about.
The hon. member has highlighted active military mission. That
is a confrontation where anybody's life could be taken at any
time. Other missions are not active military missions. Cleaning
up the storm struck regions of South America or an ice storm or a
snow storm are not active military missions but can be done
world-wide.
I take this responsibility further and share with members a
vision of Canada that I have been generously sharing for the last
while. I refer to the unity, the symbolism and the design of
this democratic structure. The House was designed so that both
sides were two sword lengths apart. The symbolism of war
designed the architecture of this room. There is no unity in
this room. We are designed to fight, the government and the
opposition. Even the words are antagonistic and protagonistic.
We have a budget to renovate this room over the next 15 years.
Why do we not renovate the library? The building is a circular
one. We could take the books off the shelves and store them in a
safe place on the Hill. If we cleared out that room we would
have a circular room in which to make decisions in a non-partisan
way on sending our men and women to war. We could shed our
political stripes. As a member representing the people of
Churchill River I could cast my vote on whether to send troops to
an active military front. It would be not as a New Democrat, a
Reform member or a Liberal member. We could shed that at the
door. A crucial issue of calling our men and women to war should
be done in a united Canadian way.
Our system of government was adopted from Britain. A symbol of
the circle has been held sacred by the aboriginal people for
generations on the land that we occupy now. Why can we not adopt
a symbol of that unity to unify the country to collectively make
a conscious decision when we send members of armed forces to
active military missions?
1815
Other decisions could be made in that room. I want to draw
attention to one.
The new millennium is coming. Our young men and women, our
children and the generations to come, for the youth who might
take their rightful place here, let us design structures of
governance that involve them without any strings or preconditions
attached. We must make decisions in that way.
My support for the motion comes from our making decisions as
members of parliament to send our people to war. Let us envision
ourselves in our places of decision making and maybe that is a
rightful place.
By using the wooden mace yesterday we acknowledged that this
place burned down and only the library was left standing. It
persevered a test on the Hill. For that strength of collective
unity in this country, let us consider it.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think all
of us were certainly touched by the comments of the member for
Churchill River.
It is fitting to end the debate on that tone when we are talking
about the lives of Canadian men and women and active military
missions. We should not mix it up. We are all proud of our
forces. We should not mix up the ice storms and various other
disasters.
We are talking about going to war and we are saying that the
Canadian parliament should decide that. We owe that to our
troops. We owe that to the morale of our troops. We should let
them know that 301 of us are behind them when they go on a
mission like this. That is the purpose of this motion. To
change it in any other way is simply wrong and misleading.
We support peacekeeping missions. We support peacemaking
missions. We believe that our troops do exceptionally well at
them. We are simply asking that when lives are being threatened,
bring it to the House so we can debate it here.
I go back to the foreign affairs minister and remind members
across the way that prior to 1993, as the foreign affairs critic,
he made the point over and over again that the previous
government did not bring the decision to parliament when we
decided to send troops into war. He condemned the government for
that. I have read those speeches over and over again. I thought
he meant it.
Again, last week when the Prime Minister said we were sending
troops to Kosovo, our foreign affairs minister contradicted him
by saying “No, we should go to parliament”. I still believe he
has that mission.
I hope that on Tuesday when we vote I at least see the foreign
affairs minister stand on what he has said so many times and as
recently as last week.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 6.19 p.m.,
pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to
dispose of Motion No. 380 are deemed to have been put and the
recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday,
February 9, 1999 at the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders.
It being 6.19 p.m.,
this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant
to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.)