36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 155
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 19, 1998
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1005
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Boating Regulations
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1010
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Youth Violence
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Health care
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1015
1020
1025
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1040
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1055
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1100
1105
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1110
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
1125
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1130
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1145
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
1200
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
1215
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1230
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gérard Asselin |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1245
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1300
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1315
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1320
1325
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1340
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1345
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
1350
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1355
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LATVIA
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1400
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD TRACK AND FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL CHILD DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL CHILD DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1405
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFORMATION CONFERENCES/FAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TARA SINGH HAYER
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNOR GENERAL'S LITERARY AWARDS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FERTILIZER INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
1410
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FERTILIZER INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSE OF COMMONS PARLIAMENTARY INTERNSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC REFERENDUM
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCRAPIE
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LOBSTER FISHERY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1415
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1425
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1430
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1435
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICEBREAKING POLICY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1440
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGHWAY SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1445
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1450
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FINANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1455
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUGUSTO PINOCHET
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FARMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1500
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments During Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derek Lee |
1510
1515
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Health Care
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1520
1525
1530
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1545
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1620
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1635
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-53—Notice of time allocation
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Health Care
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
1650
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1705
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM'S ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-442. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1720
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1745
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1810
![V](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1815
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 155
![](/web/20061116200259im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 19, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the
honour to present to the House the report in both official
languages of the parliamentary delegation that visited Lithuania,
Latvia and Estonia from October 11 to 17, 1998.
* * *
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 24 petitions.
* * *
PETITIONS
BOATING REGULATIONS
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure of submitting a petition signed by 164 residents of the
riding of Chambly, who are asking the government to legislate or
regulate boat traffic on the Richelieu River, from the
municipalities of Beloeil and Saint-Hilaire at one end, to the
town of Notre-Dame-de-Bon-Secours at the other end, which are all
fine communities in my riding.
These 164 petitioners are primarily asking the government to
regulate boat traffic with regard to speed, noise, craft
condition, safety and garbage disposal.
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present another petition on behalf of the citizens of
Peterborough who are concerned about drinking and driving.
They pray that the Parliament of Canada will immediately amend
the Criminal Code so that any crash resulting in injury
constitutes reasonable and probable grounds for blood or breath
testing on drivers; that the federal government provide strong
support and encouragement to jurisdictions to continue to
introduce administrative sanctions that are user pay, such as
ignition interlocks, vehicle confiscation, graduating licenses;
and that impaired driving laws are regularly reviewed for their
effectiveness.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present another petition on behalf of the citizens of
Peterborough who are concerned about nuclear weapons.
They request that parliament support the goal of abolition of
nuclear weapons on earth by Canada, advocating the immediate
de-altering of all nuclear devices; that Canada join the nations
of the New Agenda Coalition; that Canada advocate within NATO
that nuclear weapons have no militarily useful role; and that
additional financial support be allocated to Russia to ensure the
safe and secure disarmament of its nuclear arsenal.
1010
YOUTH VIOLENCE
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from constituents
throughout the Cariboo—Chilcotin riding.
My constituents are concerned about the prevalence of violent
crimes committed by youth. They encourage parliament to enforce
and encourage the enforcement of legislation already enacted so
that this problem might be dealt with in a more equitable manner.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of
Yellowhead.
The petitioners come from the community of Neerlandia. They
pray that parliament enact legislation such as Bill C-225 so as
to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also have
some petitions to present to the House today. I have three
fairly large ones from my constituency.
They in fact reflect the same message that parliament enact
legislation so that marriage can only be entered into between a
single male and a single female.
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also have
a petition that asks parliament to pass the Reform health freedom
amendment which is a private member's bill that would not allow
the government under the Health Protection Branch to refuse sale
of health products in Canada unless there was proven harm, proven
side effects or proven contamination.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) moved:
That this House endorses the
provincial consensus reached in Saskatoon on August 7, 1998, that
the federal government must restore, via the existing provisions
of the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST), its
contributions to front-line health-care services, starting with a
payment of at least $2 billion, given that the federal government
has already recorded an accumulated surplus of $10.4 billion for
the first six months of the 1998-99 fiscal year.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out
that the Bloc Quebecois leader will share his time with the hon.
member for Lotbinière.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, there is a very specific
context for today's motion; for the first time in three decades
the federal government has a surplus—I shall return to this point
shortly—at the very same time as all the provinces, and more
specifically all the people in Quebec and in Canada, are faced
with serious problems in the health area.
There is a connection between the surplus accumulated by the
federal government and all these social problems, those relating
to employment insurance and health, in particular, and that is
why we are proposing this motion.
1015
Six months into this year, the government had already
accumulated a surplus of $10.4 billion. The Minister of Finance
told us so last week. Yet, one month ago, the Minister of
Finance himself told us he did not foresee any surplus this year
or next year, just as he had done last year and in the past five
years.
This minister wants us to believe that things are going better
than he predicted. In my opinion, it is impossible within three
weeks for a Minister of Finance not to have noticed this $10.4
billion difference, unless he is totally incompetent.
Incompetent, or cooking the books.
What is more, those two possibilities are not mutually
exclusive. It is possible that the minister is incompetent, and
that at the same time he is hiding the truth from us.
This $10.4 billion surplus was built up in the following way.
Over all those years, the employment insurance fund was building
up a surplus, one which has now reached $20 billion, and seems
likely to reach $7 billion this year alone.
What we do know is that it has already reached the $5.1 billion
mark, that is one-half of the total surplus. This is money that
has been taken from the pockets of the unemployed, money that
has been taken from the provinces, since this year alone $6.3
billion has been cut from the transfer payments for health,
post-secondary education and social assistance.
The government took this money as well from the pockets of the
middle class, since, for the past year, that is since this
government has been in office, personal income tax has increased
by $20 billion—simply because personal income tax is not
indexed. The government wants us to believe that it has lowered
income tax, but by not indexing the tax tables, it increased
taxes.
This is where the surplus comes from. The consequences for the
provinces in terms of health care are enormous. For the
country, it means that since 1993 cuts have totalled some $17.2
billion. In Quebec alone, the cuts represent $4.6 billion. A
huge amount.
For this year—as I said earlier—the cuts total $6.3 billion,
and for Quebec, $1.8 billion. In Quebec the curve is climbing.
It will not be long before the proportion of federal cuts to the
Canada social transfer aimed at Quebeckers reaches 30%.
Last year, the Government of Quebec had a deficit of $2.1
billion, if I remember rightly, and this year the federal
government cut $1.8 billion. Had it not been for this
government, there would have been no deficit.
Then there are the remarks by the Quebec Liberal leader, Jean
Charest, so vigorously supported now by the federal Liberal
Party. In the 1997 election campaign, in a leaders' debate and
here and there across the country—and he was right to say it—he
said “The problems in health care are not Harris' fault, they
are not Klein's fault, they are not Rochon's fault, they are not
Bouchard's fault, they are the fault of the Prime Minister of
Canada”. That is what Jean Charest said.
I hope he will continue saying it now that he wants to be the
great defender of Quebec's interests. He can replay this speech
he used throughout Quebec in an effort to win votes. He was
right them. But I would not say this applies only to Quebec.
This problem is occurring everywhere in Canada.
Newfoundland, for example, is reduced to asking army doctors to
replace civilian ones. Brian Tobin, “Captain Canada”, is now
critical of his former colleagues in the federal government,
saying “Enough health care cuts, I cannot handle any more in
Newfoundland”.
He is having such a hard time that, in his economic statement
yesterday or the day before in St. John's, his minister of
finance gave no figures.
1020
This is reminiscent of the health minister here, in Ottawa, who
addresses health issues without showing any compassion for the
victims of hepatitis C and responsibility to the provinces.
What is true in Newfoundland is also true in Manitoba. People in
Manitoba now have to cross the border, to Dakota, to get
treated, and they end up in some shack. In Manitoba, moving
toward ambulatory care means going to the U.S. to seek medical
care in some shack because of the cuts imposed by the Canadian
government. So, this is also happening in Manitoba and just
about everywhere else across the country. That is why the
premiers signed an agreement when they met in Saskatoon.
I would point out that the premiers of all the provinces except
Quebec are staunch federalists.
This is not a sovereignist conspiracy. The social union
agreement is predicated on something Quebec has been demanding
for a long time, a principle it has been fighting for, that is
the right to opt out with full compensation, in provincial areas
of jurisdiction like health and education.
All premiers agreed on this. They also asked that funding for
health be restored following last year's $6.3 billion cutback in
transfer payments. All the premiers are calling on the
government to reinvest in health care, starting with $2 billion
right away.
For Quebec, $2 billion represents the wage envelope for all
nursing personnel. Members can therefore well imagine the
hardship caused by this bunch of irresponsible politicians.
That is what lead the Prime Minister to say, when he met
President Chirac in France at a time when there were
demonstrations in that country: “We do not have these kinds of
problems in Canada because we have found the perfect solution:
we make the decisions in Ottawa and then force the provinces to
implement them. We wash our hands of everything”. That is
exactly what he said, and he was right.
For once, Jean Chrétien expressed himself clearly, without
pepper spray and without a baseball bat. He spoke his mind.
You are giving me the sign, Mr. Speaker. I am sure it is the
victory sign because that is what is coming in Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: The present government is an arrogant and
cynical government that has made a surplus at the expense of the
provinces and of the unemployed.
It has adopted a very pernicious strategy, passing itself as the
country's saviour.
It pretends to be the saviour, saying that it will solve all the
problems. Of course, it created these problems. Rather than
trying to solve them, could it not stay within its own
jurisdiction? We have had enough saviours. We even have one in
Quebec who was sent to us by Ottawa. He came as the saviour and
now he is playing bogeyman. He is trying to scare people. The
saviour has become the bogeyman while trying to save his own
hide.
By making all these cuts, the government is playing with the
lives of workers, of the unemployed and of the sick. It has
shown no compassion.
It is a cynical and arrogant government that has the choice of
being responsible and listening to all the opposition parties
that are telling it to be responsible and do something, or
staying in its own bubble, like the Minister of Health who
remained totally insensitive to hepatitis C victims.
1025
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, today is a very important opposition day,
because in the speech of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, we
are delivering the message sent by all Quebeckers and some
Canadians.
We consulted people. People do not necessarily understand the
meaning of billions of dollars for their corner of the country.
I would ask the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to comment on the
cuts announced to the transfer payments. We want it reinvested
in the budget. The billion dollars that that implies for Quebec
could mean $34 million in the Lower St. Lawrence.
It could mean hospitals in one region, services for people that
will be returned, that the people are calling for, are demanding
and that are justified. This is money that the federal
government has taken away from the provinces, putting all the
provinces in Canada in a difficult situation.
Was the Bloc Quebecois leader not speaking on behalf of the
people of Quebec and of Canada on this issue when he said that
the federal government must put the money back in the economy
and into the health sector? If the government does not and
insists on putting it on the debt, the people who have
contributed to the fight against the deficit will continue to
subsidize and those who did not will see their interests promoted.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, generally on opposition days
the government asks the first question, when it thinks it has a
good position. There is not much chance it will be asking any
today. It is not putting questions to us because it is aware
that it does not have a leg to stand on as far as health is
concerned.
I will list a number of facts. I am sure that my colleagues
from the rest of Canada, whether Reform, Conservative or NDP,
will have similar comparisons to make.
Out of the $6.3 billion, there is a social transfer cut to
Quebec of $1.603 billion. Most people do not have billions in
their pockets. Perhaps the ship-owner minister playing around
with these figures does, but certainly not the average person.
One billion represents 20% of the cost of all hospitals in
Quebec. Or, it represents the closure of half the hospitals in
Montreal.
It also represents 370,000 people hospitalized. Or the pay of
one-half of the nurses in Quebec. Or the cost of all the CLSCs;
$924 million, almost a billion. Or twice the cost of all
services provided to young people in Quebec, which is $500
million.
Those are the facts. They are more than just cold figures. In
the speech the Minister of Finance will be giving us in
February, he will surely say “I have done far better”. As if we
did not know where the surplus had come from. It is
unbelievable that, in three weeks, he did not notice $10.4
billion. I am sure he pays more attention to detail when his
ships are involved. For this minister his ships count more than
all the people of Quebec and of Canada put together.
That is why we are saying they are arrogant and cynical. They
are not facing up to their responsibilities.
To do so would be to expose the truth and to say “Yes, we
accumulated this surplus on the backs of the most disadvantaged
members of society, the unemployed, the ill. But we will
present a special measure. We will immediately put $2 billion
back into health and we will let the provinces administer it.”
As long as it is health that is concerned, everyone will accept
that.
There is no question of “Ottawa knows best”. That does not
work. Every time Ottawa interferes in things that do not
concern it, it does not work. We have had the experience of
“flex-o-matic” ministers cutting where it hurts. Well, we do not
need any more of that.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in light of
all the debates that have taken place in the past few months,
and even years, I wonder if anyone can reason with this
government and make it understand what the facts are.
1030
On August 7, 1998, a historical consensus was achieved when all
the premiers, including Quebec's Lucien Bouchard, asked the
federal government to reinvest in health.
For some time now, opposition parties in this House have been
doing likewise. They have constantly asked the Minister of
Finance, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health to give
money back to the provinces for health. But they have yet to get
an answer.
During the prebudget consultations that will end in a few days,
I travelled across Canada—I went to Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto
and Montreal. Everywhere, the chambers of commerce, unions,
administration officials and hospitals were asking for the same
thing.
More specifically, what did we do in Quebec? When the Bloc
Quebecois realized that this government would only allow us one
day to make representations on behalf of Quebeckers, it
conducted a vast prebudget consultation in which most of my
party colleagues took part.
This is what we found out. Whenever the Minister of Finance
opens his mouth, two or three days later he changes his tune,
with the result that we never know which figures or numbers are
true.
It was said at that time that the budget surplus would be
between $12 and $15 billion, and that these figures were
supported by many respected economists in Quebec and in Canada,
including those of the Mouvement Desjardins.
We consulted our people. It was not the kind of fake
consultation that we often see in the rest of the country. It
was a serious consultation process that led to a summary report
on the opinions of the people in 26 ridings and 10 regions in
Quebec. More than 2,500 people took the time to come to see us
or to call our offices to say how outraged they were by the
federal government's attitude.
Among those people were three provincial colleagues of mine,
Jean-Guy Paré from Lotbinière, Jacques Baril from Arthabaska and
Michel Morin from Nicolet—Yamaska. They took the time to contact
us because they also have to deal every day with people coming
to them with health problems.
They took the time to tell us that they had had enough of the
federal government's attitude. That goes to show that the
consensus arrived at in Saskatoon is strong, real and credible
to Quebeckers.
But I am not at all surprised to see our dear Liberal government
act this way. The things it has done over the past year and a
half speak for themselves. It is just the result of the
unhealthy partisan strategy behind the throne speech made in the
House in October 1997.
I will now say a few words about the credibility of the Minister
of Finance.
What credibility. In February 1998, when he brought down his
budget, the minister announced “a zero deficit this year,
1997-98; a zero deficit next year and a zero deficit in the year
2000”. In fact, what the finance minister said really means he
foresaw that his marks as an administrator for those three years
would be zero. That is what this finance minister's score in
administration is. Zero.
Let us now take a look at the credibility of the saviour from
Sherbrooke, Jean Charest.
He has a strong tendency to take after the finance minister, as
evidenced by the way he announced his budget forecast a while
ago; I think it was in Rimouski. On the very same afternoon he
made his announcement, Liberal fiscal and financial experts were
wringing their hands in desperation; it just did not make sense.
He had not realized that, while he thought it was for four
years, the forecast put out by Lucien Bouchard and his
government, by Quebec's minister of state for economy and
finance, Bernard Landry, was in fact for five years.
1035
Some credibility. Shall we talk about his credibility? During
the debate Tuesday, how did Mr. Charest respond when Premier
Lucien Bouchard pointed out to him that he was $1.5 billion
short in order to deliver on his promises? He was unable to say
where the money would come from. He really could not say.
This
means that, should the people of Quebec put their trust in this
individual, he will have no problem working with the current
Minister of Finance of Canada. It means that we in Quebec will
be taking a step backward, that we will be the losers.
Therefore, we must impress upon Quebeckers and upon all
stakeholders the importance of keeping Mr. Bouchard at the helm
so we have a strong voice and so he can continue to put pressure
on the Canadian government to obtain what we have a right to
expect from that government.
Now we will move on to the real problems in our health care
system, not those Jean Charest has been trying to bring to light
since the beginning of the campaign. He goes around talking
about billions of dollars, but we have no idea where that money
is going to come from. In any case, I already said that he has
no credibility. He is like our federal Minister of Finance. That
Liberal leader speaks only about concepts. He has all the
rhetoric, but no figures.
At this stage, I am pleased to move an amendment, which reads as
follows:
That is the change I want to make to the main motion brought
forward by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Debate is now on the
amendment.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, first I want to
say that our party will support the Bloc Quebecois' motion. We
feel that it meets an essential need for all Canadians.
However, we should stick to the motion, because this is not the
place to actively take part in a provincial election campaign.
The provincial leaders are mature enough to take their
responsibilities and conduct their own campaign. They too have
the confidence of all Quebeckers, and they can assume their
responsibilities, including Mr. Charest, who has always strongly
defended Quebec's interests.
1040
The motion is asking for a massive transfer to maintain health
care, especially in Quebec. A number of Bloc Quebecois members,
including myself, represent outlying areas in Quebec, where the
health reform has had the most devastating impact.
There is no need to go on and on about the fact that the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, and most regions in Quebec, were
greatly affected by this reform, which resulted in a significant
shortfall.
In today's debate we should try to draw the attention of the
Quebec government, among others, to regional needs in the health
care area.
In recent years the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region has suffered a
deficit in the social sector, which, of course, has resulted in
a huge shortfall of over $100 million for health care. This
affects all our communities, and it is with this in mind that I
ask the hon. member if he intends to promote a greater
decentralization of the budgets related to health care.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I got a bit carried away
because I am convinced that the present government will be the
best one to represent the interests of Quebec.
I am, of course, very much aware of all the problems affecting
the regions, particularly the one I represent,
Chaudière-Appalaches, and the one right opposite, the Quebec City
region.
In recent months and in recent years, and even before I was in
politics, I was already aware of the great damage being done by
federal cuts to health services in the Quebec City and
Chaudière—Appalaches regions.
The consensus of all political parties, including our own, and
of the premiers, is that there is indeed a problem on the
federal side. We must continue to fight, and we must gang up on
the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of
Health, so that health services will be equitable once and for
all and meet the needs of each of the regions of Quebec.
As a result, our health sector employees, our administrators and
the recipients of each of our services will finally be entitled
to health services that are humane, and above all fair.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
first of all I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois for today's motion. We are all aware of how important
this is.
Since I just have a few minutes, I can only skim the surface of
this issue. In New Brunswick, there are certainly major
problems in health care, particularly affecting seniors. The
elderly often have limited access to and pay more for health
services. Since in-hospital services are being cut, they are
often sent home with insufficient care.
I wish to thank the Bloc Quebecois for moving this motion in the
House today so that we may discuss it.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian government
returns the money it has cut over the past few years, whether in
Quebec, in Acadia or in any Canadian province, this will give
people some breathing room and they will have the money required
for health services that really respond to the needs of the
entire population.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the surface today the
opposition motion calling for an immediate $2 billion boost in
federal transfers to the provinces for health care is certainly
both timely and constructive. It is timely and useful because
the government is right now engaged in its annual pre-budget
consultation, a process spearheaded by the finance committee.
It is clear that the issue of health care will be a top priority
in the upcoming budget. We welcome advice on the design and
amount that this support for health care should take. But what
can seem like good intentions does not necessarily guarantee good
policy.
1045
Good intentions when they ignore the basic realities and
constraints can often lead somewhere very unpleasant, and that is
the problem with today's motion. To justify their call to add
billions of dollars to federal transfers with an initial jump of
$2 billion, the opposition cites a mid-year figure showing a
federal fiscal surplus of $10.4 billion. The logic seems clear.
The opposition would have Canadians believe that the government
is awash in extra funds, so why not open the purse strings right
now.
I think we need to be clear. Good policy demands looking beyond
the narrow now to tomorrow and the day after. Good government
cannot afford to ignore real economic risks in the pursuit of
election style spending promises. That is the reason why our
government cannot and will not support this motion. It would
involve making dramatic spending commitments based on superficial
numbers at a time when the global economy faces significant risks
and uncertainty and Canada cannot break away from the global
economy and ignore the impact it may have on governments and
their fiscal outlook in the months ahead.
I welcome the opportunity to address the key issue of the
supposed surplus this year. But before I do I want to make clear
something about which there is no question and no debate. Health
care is at the top of the list for Canadians in every region of
the country. It is at the core of how we define ourselves as a
national community and it is one of fairness and compassion.
That is clearly why, as the Prime Minister has said, the
government will invest more of our resources in the years ahead
to reinforce our public health care system. That is to my mind
an absolute and unequivocal commitment.
But we also have an absolute and unequivocal commitment to good
fiscal stewardship. We will not risk putting Canadians back into
the cycle of deficits and debt that put our health care system
and our entire social safety net into jeopardy in the first
place. That is why in making decisions on further support for
health care we will make sure that Canadian priorities are
addressed with prudence, not just passion. In other words, we
will take the sort of effective long term action that can be
sustained year in and year out and not just based on a potential
short term windfall.
This takes me right to the issue of the $10 billion mid-year
surplus and to the criticism which is implicit in this motion
today, that the federal government should not be so cautious
about making spending commitments.
One of the reasons our government came to office and was
returned last year was that Canadians had seen what happens when
government relies on rosy forecasts and wishful thinking. The
result was the $42 billion deficit that we inherited and the
second largest debt burden in the G-7. We recognized that we had
to apply caution to budget planning for a very good reason, so
that we could restore confidence in the ability of the government
to manage the country's books. That is why we set the two year
rolling targets, so that the public could keep our feet to the
fire.
As important, we used economic assumptions that were much more
prudent than the average of private sector forecasts. This is
reflected in a fundamental fact, that with Canada's high debt
burden we could not simply rely on assumptions that had only a
50:50 chance of being right. If we were wrong it was the
Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian social safety net that would
bear the burden and feel the pain.
Now after years of efforts and sacrifice by Canadians to clean
up the mess, and despite the fact that our debt burden is still
high, there are critics who want people to believe the government
should be less careful with the nation's finances. They refer to
recent numbers as evidence that the government is being overly
cautious and potentially hiding large amounts of money.
Today's motion is a case in point. The hon. member is trumpeting
the fact that the results for April through September of this
year have been quite strong, with a cumulative surplus to date of
$10.4 billion. His implication is clear. Whatever happens in
the coming months, he wants us to believe there will obviously be
a substantial pile of funds at year end that should have been
drawn on now to boost health care. It is easy to jump to the
conclusion if we are not responsible for the results. But for a
government it is both dangerous and misleading to do so.
First, given the recent downward revisions to the Canadian
economic outlook as a result of the global economic situation,
there is a real risk of a significant deterioration in the fiscal
situation. We have already seen the preliminary indications of
the impact of slower economic growth on government revenues.
Since June we have had only one month in which the surplus was
larger than that recorded a year earlier. The weakness in the
economy could easily reverse the gains that we have made to date.
1050
Second, the hon. member does not seem to realize that the
government receives between 25% and 40% of corporate income taxes
in February and March. That is the settlement period for large
corporations. There are some real implications for this year's
ultimate fiscal situation. It means that the full impact of
slower growth in corporate profits will not be evident until the
end of the fiscal year.
Third, the income tax cuts announced in the 1998 budget just
started to come into effect in July. This will reduce personal
income taxes by $1 billion this year alone and by $2.3 billion
next year. In other words, the first half's surplus involves a
mixture of apples and oranges when it comes to the full year
revenues.
Finally, spending measures announced in the 1998 budget for this
fiscal year are still being put in place. That means they have
not shown up yet.
All these considerations explain why, at the time of the finance
minister's October economic and fiscal update, already showing a
surplus of $8 billion for the period of April to August, that led
to private sector forecasters such as the Royal Bank, CIBC and
Nesbitt Burns to revise down their expectations for this year's
surplus to about $5 billion.
There is even a more dangerous flaw in a motion that takes a six
month surplus and extrapolates this into the longer term spending
capability. Fiscal results are for a single month or a quarter
or for a year. But spending like the CHST continues year after
year. A $2 billion increase now means providing that additional
$2 billion next year. In other words, whatever the final outcome
for the current fiscal year, the 1999 budget must be based on the
fiscal situation that will prevail in 1999-2000 and beyond. New
spending programs and tax changes, both of which by their very
nature are a permanent expense, can only financed if an ongoing
fiscal dividend of sufficient size is available.
One of the vital skills of good government and effective
leadership is to expect the unexpected. In today's volatile
world economic environment, large differences between a
government's original forecast and final outcome for a particular
year are not unusual or unique. For example, the United States
February 1996 budget originally projected a deficit of $196
billion U.S. for 1997-98. By last February the government was
projecting a $10 billion deficit U.S. Both projections fell far
short of the final result, a surplus of $70 billion U.S. by the
close of the fiscal year.
At the time of our last budget many criticized our government
for too being prudent. But the dramatic downward revision in the
private sector forecasts since then clearly illustrates why we
must stick to our plan.
We are not going to let Canadians return to the deficit house of
horrors, not after having balanced the budget for the first time
in 28 years. Fiscal prudence is not something we embrace when
times are tough and throw out the window at the first sign that
our income may being going up. It is a principle that has to be
pursued all the time.
There is no doubt there is a need to further support health care
in Canada. That need is real. We will make that support a
priority. We have said that before. But we will do it in a way
and in the amounts that the health care system in Canada can
count on. That is why I urge the House to reject today's motion,
not because it means rejecting new support for health care but
because it means showing Canadians that the support for the
health care system we all cherish must be real, reasonable and
reliable in difficult times as well as in times of prosperity.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague's remarks, I
thought of several questions I would like to raise officially in
this House. Could we get confirmation that the cumulative
surplus for the first six months of fiscal year 1998-99 is $10.4
billion, whereas a few weeks ago, as budget forecasts were being
prepared, the Minister of Finance said “There will be no surplus
of that amount”. But that is not the reality. Could he confirm
that the figure is indeed $10.4 billion for the first six
months?
Second, could he not act on the unanimous request of the
provincial premiers, including the Liberal premiers?
Last week Brian Tobin and Russell MacLellan again asked the
federal government to put money back into the transfer payments
as soon as possible.
1055
Today, the matter is clear for all Canadians: if the government
simply pays back the debt and puts no money into health care
transfer payments, the cost is once again passed on to those who
fought the deficit, and the finances of those in the middle
class and of the disadvantaged will not improve.
Are Canadians not entitled to quality health care through the
injection of considerable funds, starting with the $2 billion
requested in this area, to ensure that our health care system
can have some breathing room?
With the $10 billion surplus in the first six months, which the
Minister of Finance hid, could the government not be
compassionate and ensure Canadians get proper health care by
contributing fairly?
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member did
not have an opportunity to listen to what I said, even though he
said he did.
What I said in my intervention was that the $10.4 billion is
there. If he reads the Fiscal Monitor, which goes out to
Canadians, he would see the figure.
The part he did not listen to, though, was that the government
does receive between 25% and 40% of corporate returns the first
half of the year and that private sector economists are saying
that $10.4 billion surplus there today will not be there at the
year end. They see a deterioration of that number because of the
second half of the year. There are private sector economists
like Robert Normand from Quebec who are pessimistic about 1999,
indicating that the GDP is probably going to be on a bit of a
downward track.
We are not going to hit a wall or anything. All we are saying
is that the economy will experience a bit of a slowdown because
of what is going on around the world. No one is denying it. I
do not think the hon. member can say that I in any way indicated
that health care was not a priority of all Canadians and that the
government, through the prebudget consultation, is hearing from
Canadians that health care is a priority. The government has not
said that there would be no additional resources to health care.
But I think it is responsible of a government to wait until there
are the hard numbers on resources before making these types of
decisions.
We spent the last 28 years and more in deficits. We were in a
situation in 1993 of a $42 billion deficit. Canadians clearly do
not want to enter that era again. The argument we are putting
forward is that it is foolhardy to Canadians that we make an
initial investment of $2 billion today, in fact immediately was
the amendment, based on a mid-term number that may not hold up by
the end of the year.
It is okay for opposition parties to make those statements, but
government cannot be irresponsible, as I suggest the hon. member
is being.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on the motion
today.
I start by stating the motion so that Canadians clearly
understand what we are debating, that this House support the
unanimous resolution of the provinces as agreed at Saskatoon
August 7 to the effect that the federal government must
reinstate, through the current mechanism of the Canada health and
social transfer, at least $2 billion immediately in contributions
to primary health services, considering that the federal
government has already accumulated a budgetary surplus of $10.4
billion for the first six months of the 1998-99 fiscal year.
I refer to a press release by the premiers in Saskatoon on
August 7. They reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining and
enhancing a high quality universal health care system for all
Canadians.
1100
The premiers observed that every government in Canada but one,
the federal government, has increased its funding to health care.
The premiers are committed to directing additional federal funds
to core health services.
The premiers also pointed out that since 1994-95, the Liberal
federal government has introduced cuts that now represent $6
billion per year. These cuts to the Canada health and social
transfer amount to 33%. The government cut 33% of the transfers
of federal funds to the provinces but it only cut 6% in its own
federal program spending. For every dollar the government cut
out of federal program spending, it cut $5.50 out of money
transferred to provinces for health care, education and social
services.
The hon. member for Stoney Creek assured Canadians that health
care is a top priority for his government. He said that it is
irresponsible to make dramatic spending commitments in an economy
subject to international changes. He also said that although
health care is at the top of the list of priorities for
Canadians, spending must be addressed with prudence and that it
is foolhardy to make a commitment of $2 billion.
I want to share with Canadians some of the prudence with which
this government is spending their money. The department of
agriculture spent $200,000 on an information kit for members of
parliament called “At Work in Rural Communities”. The Canadian
Consul General in Shanghai felt that a 5,000 square foot house
was no longer acceptable, so Canadians are paying $15,000 U.S.
per month so he can rent a downtown apartment in Shanghai.
There is more foreign affairs spending. Canadians are spending
$3,500 U.S.—and we all know how that translates in currency
exchange—per month to store furniture at one location although
that furniture is only valued at $1,000. Although one
ambassador's residence is two times larger than the guidelines
allow, the extra large house is costing Canadians $37,000 a year
to maintain.
There are many golf courses included on this list but I want to
point out some of the more outrageous support that this Canadian
government feels is a priority. The Ontario Lawyers Association,
$95,000; the Canadian Bar Association, $46,532; the Manitoba
Trucking Association, $70,000; the British Columbia Trucking
Association, $42,900; and Imperial Oil Limited, $120,601. Here
are some more examples. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
$25,000; General Electric Canada, $1,239,268; Novem BV Credit
Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV, $125,368. We do not even believe in
keeping the money in Canada. Nutek Sparbankernas Bank, I believe
in the Netherlands, $10,810; Technical University of Denmark,
$5,692.
These are only a few examples of the Liberal government spending
priorities over spending on health care. We have to question
the sincerity and honesty of the Liberal commitment to health
care for Canadians.
1105
All of this has a trickle down effect. When the federal
government cuts transfers to provinces and the provinces have to
make up those cuts to ensure Canadians receive a high quality
health care system, they have to cut spending in other programs.
One of the expenditures they cut is the transfers to
municipalities. That is downloading expenses onto the local
governments that normally would have had assistance from the
provincial government. It is not just the provincial governments
that are feeling the effects of these kinds of changes and the
miscued priorities of this federal government.
I want to share with Canadians the accountability of this
government. The government has tried to claim that it is not its
fault that the health care system is suffering and that Canadians
are having difficulty getting access to health care, hospitals
and doctors. The government says that it is the provinces'
fault.
The health minister has on more than one occasion blamed Mike
Harris, the premier of Ontario, for the lack of health care
services in the province. I would suggest to the health minister
that he should look in the mirror if he is looking for a villain.
Maybe with a bit of luck the finance minister will be standing
behind him and his image will also be there and he can share the
responsibility. The health minister cannot possibly blame the
provinces for having to struggle to make up the difference. We
are talking about a 33% cut under this Liberal government.
I know the health minister has made comments that it was the
Liberal government that brought in the Canada Health Act and it
was the Liberal government that brought in medicare. Yes, he is
right that it was a Liberal government but at the time when it
brought in health care there was a commitment to fund at 50%.
In Alberta there was great consternation that it had to go along
with this program even though it was provided with a much more
superior system to what was being offered because it was assured
that it would be 50% funded. The Alberta health minister of the
day knew that the time would come when the federal government
would renege on that promise and would not support it at 50%.
However, he had no choice but to bring Alberta into the program.
It is interesting to see this government has shown that the
Alberta health minister was right that the federal government
would renege on its responsibility and commitment. I know very
well who that health minister was because he was my father. He
resigned his post as the minister of health because he knew that
the Canada Health Act would bankrupt the provinces. It is being
shown today that is exactly what is happening.
I would ask this government where its commitment is to health
care. Where is the government's commitment to Canadians that
this is a priority when the commitment the government made when
it was introduced of funding at 50% has been reduced to just over
11%? Where is the government's commitment to Canadians that
health care is a priority and not spending on foreign affairs and
public relations documents for members of parliament on
agricultural issues in rural communities? Where is the
government's commitment to Canadians that health care is its
priority?
I would suggest to the House that there is no commitment and no
sincerity in that commitment. This government has shown by its
arrogant attitude that it is not going to support the demand and
desire of Canadians for a secure health care system in the
future.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear
from the Reform Party. Depending on what day it is, some days it
is tax cuts, EI and pay down debts and other days it is health
care. It just depends I guess on which way the wind is blowing.
The first point I want to make concerns the reference to the 33%
cut. The hon. member should come clean. If she is going to
stick with a 33% cut, then in essence what she is saying is that
the tax points that form part of the total entitlements to the
provinces have no value.
1110
Is the Reform Party now advocating that the provinces should in
fact give back that tax room that was given to them by the
federal government since in the eyes of the Reform Party it has
no value and then the federal government would give that back in
cash? I am not sure, but when we talk about transfers to the
provinces, the tax points have to be included. They form part of
that total entitlement, it is tax points in cash.
I want to illustrate that point. The hon. member is from British
Columbia. No one has denied that cuts were made. Cuts had to be
made. We were facing a $42 billion deficit. We cut $1.5 billion
from the CHST cash transfers between 1993-94 and 1998-99 for
British Columbia. Tax points grew by $1.2 billion. When that is
offset, the actual cut that British Columbia experienced was some
$300 million between 1993-94 and 1998-99.
If the hon. member does not want to recognize the tax points, I
ask her to stand up in this House and advocate that the federal
government take that room back.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I do not speak on behalf
of the Reform Party when I say this. This quote is from the press
release by the premiers in Saskatoon on August 7: “They
expressed concern about unilateral federal cuts to the Canada
health and social transfer, CHST, beginning in the 1994-95 fiscal
year that now represent more than $6 billion per year. This is
the transfer to provinces which helps support core health care
services, post-secondary education and other social programs for
Canadians. The federal government cut its funding for social
programs through the CHST by 33% while at the same time spending
on federal programs fell by just 6%”.
I would like to know whether the hon. member thinks the premiers
across the country are playing with figures and are not being
forthright in saying that this is how they see how the federal
government unilaterally cut money that it had promised to the
provinces.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I would be saying the same
thing to the premiers. I asked the hon. member whether she was
advocating that the provinces give back the tax points.
The premiers in their press release are also focusing on the
cash transfers. The reality is that transfers are made up of
total entitlements: cash and tax points.
I ask the hon. member again, what is her position, not the
Reform Party's, but her own?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, my position is that when
the federal government encroached on provincial jurisdiction in
1968-69, it made a commitment to those provinces in order to get
them to buy into the new program it was proposing. That
commitment by that Liberal government was that the federal
government would in perpetuity fund it at 50%. That was the
agreement the government had with the provinces at the time when
they agreed to, or were forced to go into this program.
That is what I would like this federal government to do. Forget
the 11%, the 14%, the 16% or whatever number it comes up with and
return to the 50% commitment that it made to the provinces at the
time. I am speaking on my own behalf that I think the government
should follow through with the promise it made.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. I
indicate at the outset the support by the New Democratic Party
for the ideas and the concept behind this resolution.
Today we are dealing with the number one issue facing the
Canadian people, the number one issue that should be before
parliament. I commend the Bloc for bringing this issue forward
and want to indicate how I feel we need to devote our time and
effort to address this most critical issue.
I also want to set the record straight. It is very important to
do so in the face of the comments by Liberal members over the
last number of days. They are suggesting, implying, that
Liberals are in fact the pioneers of medicare and the greatest
defenders of medicare at the very time when they are responsible
for the demise of this very important universal program for all
of Canada.
1115
It is absolutely appalling and unacceptable for us to sit in the
Chamber and hear the words of the Minister of Health and to see
that kind of mischievous behaviour when in fact it is the
policies of the government that have clearly put us in the
difficult position we are in today.
I also want to set the record straight when it comes to the
Reform Party. The Reform Party likes to evoke the name of Tommy
Douglas on a regular basis. In one breath it talks about Tommy
Douglas and in the same breath it talks about support for a two
tier, parallel private health care system.
That was the antithesis of everything Tommy Douglas stood for
and everything the CCF and the NDP fought for when they brought
forward the idea of a universally accessible, publicly
administered single tier health care system. Let us not forget
that and let us not be fooled by the Reform Party. It pretends
to be great defenders of medicare when it is firmly committed to
destroying medicare as we know it today. Let us juxtapose the
comments of both the Liberals and the Reformers with the rhetoric
we have heard from previous and present Liberal and Reform
members.
Let me remind Liberal members that when we went through the big
fight 30 years ago to get a universal health insurance program
they were the biggest obstacles to that whole development. I
refer specifically to a Liberal MLA in the province of Manitoba
who actually said that state medicine was a Frankenstein that
people had created. That member went on to say that the medical
professionals would soon be sucked into the jaws of a voracious
socialist monster. We have to compare that to what members of
the Reform have said in the House, in particular one member who
said “I can get better health care in Florida than in socialized
Canada”.
Canadians have to remember who is standing up for medicare. We
have to think very hard about convincing both Liberals and
Reformers about what we truly mean by medicare and what has to be
done. Since we are setting the record straight with respect to
the pioneers of medicare, I remind members of the words of Tommy
Douglas because they are the essence of what we are dealing with:
Had I been a rich man's son the services of the finest surgeons
would have been available. As an iron moulder's boy, I almost
had my leg amputated before chance intervened and a specialist
cured me without thought of a fee. All my adult life I have
dreamed of the day when an experience like mine would be
impossible and we would have in Canada a program of complete
medical care without a price tag. And that is what we aim to
achieve—the finest health service available to everyone
regardless of ability to pay.
That is the origin of medicare. That is what we are trying to
protect. Let me also remind members of the House about the words
of Stanley Knowles who passed away almost a year and a half ago.
He was also one of the strongest defenders of medicare. I quote
from his speech in Gimli, Manitoba, in 1958:
The day will come when never again will any man, woman or child
in Canada have to worry about a hospital bill, a doctor's bill or
other health costs.
This is the aim and purpose of the overall health insurance
which this party advocates. He went on to say:
Will there be any loss of freedom when all health care is
available as one needs it? On the contrary, this will mark the
beginning of a new and greater freedom, freedom from worry over
health costs, freedom to enjoy the best health that medical
sciences can make available to our people.
That is the legacy that we are trying to carry on today. We are
faced with enormous pressures and obstacles from the Liberal
government and the official opposition, the Reform Party. Our
party will be devoting our time in parliament to preserve
medicare and to do whatever we can to ensure that we maintain the
idea of a universally accessible publicly administered single
tier system.
It will not be easy. All we have to do is look at the situation
today. We know the facts. We have heard over and over again how
consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments at the federal
level have eaten away at payments for health care. We know that
this Liberal government took the biggest chunk out of health care
spending in the history of medicare in 1995 when it introduced
the Canada health and social transfer. We know about the $7
billion that it eliminated. We know the impact that had on
health care systems across the country. We only have to open our
newspapers wherever we may live to find out just what is
happening.
I refer to an article that appeared in the Winnipeg Free
Press yesterday.
It talks about how nurses are in tears because they are
overworked, stressed out and not able to provide the quality care
they envisage giving to their patients.
1120
Whether we are talking about long waiting lists for diagnostic
services, overcrowded emergency rooms, hospital beds being cut,
or people being released from hospital without home care
services, we know it is a result of serious cuts in health care
spending that has happened across the country by the federal
government and by many provincial governments.
I think specifically of my province of Manitoba where the
provincial Conservative government has worked hand in hand with
the cutback agenda of the federal government and has contributed
to a very inadequate health care system. This is a very scary
situation for the people of Manitoba.
The same can be said for the provinces of Alberta, Ontario and
many others where governments are not committed to putting
resources into health care and to trying to move the system to a
holistic, preventive health care system.
All provinces are now saying the same thing. They are all
saying that we need to stabilize the health care system. We need
an immediate reinvestment in the transfer payments for health
care. Not only are the provinces saying this, but for the first
time in our history every major health care organization, every
stakeholder, is saying the same.
In the last few days we have been lobbied by all major groups:
the Health Action Lobby representing 27 national health and
community organizations; the Canadian Health Care Association
representing 1,000 regional health authorities, hospitals, health
facilities and health service agencies; the Canadian Medical
Association representing 46,000 doctors; the Canadian Nurses
Association representing 11 provincial and territorial nurses
associations; the National Federation of Nurses' Unions
representing three-quarters of health care providers in our
system that are nurses, thousands and thousands of nurses on the
frontline; and the Canadian Health Coalition which has been
fighting desperately to wake up the government to the need to
restabilize our system and move forward.
It is clear that the opinion in the country is united and
unanimous. There is only one message the government must hear.
It must hear it today and must act immediately. As a minimum
$2.5 billion must be put immediately into the transfer payments
for health care to stabilize the system, to deal with the crises
that we are all hearing about and perhaps deal with ourselves on
a personal basis, and to bring some order to the system so that
we can then build upon a solid foundation, go forward and
implement the important goals we have talked about and heard
about time and time again from the Liberals: the idea of a
national home care plan and a national drug plan.
We cannot go forth with those important ideas until we stabilize
the system and have the commitment of the federal government to
work in co-operation with provincial and territorial governments
to ensure we have the ability to go forward.
Let me conclude by bringing us back to our origins, to the
pioneers of health care and specifically the words of Tommy
Douglas. Let us not forget the true meaning of those words and
the kind of direction he gave all of us. He said that he would
not allow for the demise of medicare:
—because when we're talking about universal health care, we're
talking about our sense of values and asking the questions: Do
we think human life is important? On what moral basis should the
wealthy receive greater access to medical care? Why should a
stockbroker have more discretion over something as vital as
health care than a teacher or a non-wealthy mother of four?
The only answer for you and me is that the best medicare which
is available is something to which people are entitled by virtue
of belonging to a civilized community.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not want to question the support of the NDP for
medicare but I believe a little bias is showing through. The
reality is that the Liberals brought in the Canada Health Act and
the Liberals defended it. I can speak from experience when I say
that some of the same NDP governments did not always support it
as avidly as the party in Ottawa.
It is a known fact that we said we would reinvest in health
care. We have already reinvested $1.5 billion so the cut is not
really $7 billion any more. It is much lower than that.
1125
Part of ensuring that medicare can continue is the fact that we
have managed the finances of the country very well. In all this
debate no one mentioned that all these provinces have benefited
because of our good management.
Does anyone have any idea how much money the provinces have
saved because interest rates are so much lower? It is a very
large number. If all the savings the provinces have been able to
make were added, they would at least become the equivalent of
what we had to cut, not just from health but from all social
programs.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, once again the
Liberals are playing games with statistics. We know very well
that the $1.5 billion they like to tout as some new money
injected into health care is just nonsense.
All the government did was not move ahead on a cut that was
promised for this year. We are still dealing with a base of
$12.5 billion. That is $2.5 billion short of the $15 billion in
the system when the government brought in its drastic changes and
cutbacks in 1995.
Let us deal with the facts. Let us also remember that when it
came to the origins of medicare, it was under a Liberal
government that the Canada Health Act was brought in. History
will not dispute that if it were not for the pressure and work of
the CCF and NDP, people like Stanley Knowles and Tommy Douglas,
the Liberals would not have acted. It took that kind of pressure
to make it happen across the country.
Some would even say that the Liberals had to be dragged kicking
and screaming to bring in this program. Today we have a Liberal
government that is dismantling health care. I tell the member
that we will make sure we do everything to keep the Liberals from
eroding and killing medicare, even if it means taking them
kicking and screaming to that point.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I agree
with about 98% of what the member said. The 2% I do not agree
with was the cheap shot about Reform.
What will surprise her is that I was attracted to the Reform
Party because of its commitment to the health care system. I
invite all members in the House to pay attention. We are
spending, thanks to the governments of the last 30 years, about
$40 billion a year on interest because they could not manage the
fiscal affairs in such a way as to keep us out of debt.
Just imagine what $40 billion a year would do in terms of
providing educational opportunities and health care. What
attracted me to Reform is that it listened to the people who said
health care was the highest priority to them. Therefore it is to
us, but we also are committed to running our financial affairs so
that we can deliver on that.
My aunt is in hospital. She fell out of bed—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but your
time has expired.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that
there is some common ground. We all are committed to convincing
the Liberal government to reinvest in health care.
I am very concerned, though, about the clearly enunciated
policies of the Reform Party around approval for a parallel
private health care system. That would be absolutely the death
of medicare, no matter how much money the federal government
could be convinced to put into the system.
The Reform Party has not fully thought through what allowing for
a two tier health care system would mean. I urge them to
consider that position and to look at working together to
preserve a universally accessible, publicly administered single
tier system which is the envy of the world, in particular the
envy of the United States. This was recently clearly stated by
physicians from that country who said “Don't lose what you
have”. We fought hard to get medicare. Do not let them take it
away.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate the motion before us today
because it fits in very well with our platform leading into the
last election under the leadership of Mr. Charest.
1130
Obviously we support this motion. We think it is critical that
funding be restored to deliver good quality health care to
Canadians.
One of the things I want to note, Mr. Speaker, and I think you
have probably noted this as well, is that the health minister is
not here for this debate. Can you believe it? The health
minister is not here for this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would remind the
hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest that it is an established
practice of the House that we do not refer to the presence or the
absence of other members.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think too many
people know who the health minister is because it is not the
first time this has happened.
More important is the fact that the parliamentary secretary to
the finance minister is the person leading the debate today.
Does that not tell us something about the government, where its
head is at in terms of health care and what is important?
Obviously the most important thing to the government is the
finance minister's position as it relates to health care. It has
nothing to do with the health minister. This health minister has
to be the weakest health minister we have had in parliament for
many years.
Given the fact that the parliamentary secretary to the finance
minister is carrying the debate on behalf of the government, and
understanding that the health minister is not doing it, nor is
the parliamentary secretary to the health minister doing it, and
given the fact that the finance department is handling this
debate today, I want to go back to 1993. This will give us an
understanding as to why the finance department is leading the
debate and not the Minister of Health, although I cannot
obviously allude to his absence in the House, as you pointed out
so clearly in your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
I am quoting from the red book of 1993. This was the book which
helped the Liberals get elected in 1993. It basically outlined
what they were going to do.
Mr. Murray Calder: It is good literature.
Mr. Greg Thompson: A member opposite says that it is good
literature. That is exactly what it is. It is just literature
and words. It has nothing to do with reality and implementation.
It is a corporate plan. Corporate Americans are going to take
over our health care system in Canada. Give them time and they
probably will.
I am quoting from page 77 of the infamous red book of 1993. It
describes how a Liberal government will face the challenges of
health care:
A Liberal government will face these challenges squarely,
thoughtfully, and with confidence. Our approach will be based on
our values. Our solutions will be predicated on our commitment
to the five fundamental principles of our medicare system, and on
our commitment to the continuing role, in financing and in other
aspects, of the federal government in health care.
It worked. They were successful in winning the election of
1993. But what did they do? They came in with sort of a
scorched earth policy in terms of health care. That is exactly
what they did. Immediately they slashed $7 billion from the
system.
The question is: How could they get away with it? Name one
government in the history of this country that could ever get
away with slashing $7 billion unilaterally from the health care
system. The Conservative government, despite all of its faults
between 1984 and 1993, could never have gotten away with that.
It did not even try.
An hon. member: They just left us with a $42 billion
deficit.
Mr. Greg Thompson: We will talk about that as well. I
was a member of the finance committee and I will talk about any
of those issues. I will stand to defend everything that we did.
They slashed $7 billion from the health care system. How did
they get away with it? It was simply because they did not have
any opposition here in the House of Commons. There was none.
1135
There has to be someone in the House with a social conscience.
In the last parliament the official opposition was the Bloc.
Bloc members were focused and are still focused on one issue and
one issue only. They did not fight for health care in the House
of Commons between 1993 and 1997. Never. They are only using it
today as a political ploy.
The other major party in the House of Commons at that time was
the Reform Party. In terms of its strategic position, the Reform
Party was somewhere to the far right of Attila the Hun. There is
nothing the government could do to health care that would concern
it. Its position was to scrap the Canada Health Act. The only
time in the House when I actually have a smile on my face when I
hear the Minister of Health speak is when he reminds the Reform
Party of what its policy is in regards to health care.
They get away with it here on the floor of the House of Commons.
The other thing that is interesting is that the Liberals'
provincial cousins back home were nodding in silent agreement as
they cut the $7 billion. They were saying “What more can we do
for you?” Premier Frank McKenna did not open his mouth when
these cuts were coming down. Why? Because it was his friend
Jean Chrétien who was doing it. He did not open his mouth. So
they got away with it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As the hon. member
undoubtedly knows, we do not refer to members presently sitting
by name. We refer to them by their portfolio or by their
constituency.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the person I was talking
about, whose initials are JC, would be the Prime Minister of
Canada, often referred to as JC by the solicitor general in
conversation.
The Prime Minister was allowed to do it. The provincial
premiers silently nodded in agreement as the Liberals extracted
$7 billion from the health care system. There is no government
on the face of this earth that could get away with that in a
parliamentary democracy.
I endorse exactly what the member for Winnipeg North Centre has
articulated. It is correct. Every major medical association in
Canada has told us the same thing. To be precise, the Canadian
Medical Association has said that there has to be an immediate
injection of $2.5 billion in the system. The nurses'
associations are telling us the same thing, within degrees of
dollars here and there.
Health care is delivered by human beings. That is what the
minister forgets. At the end of the day, human care has to be
there. That has been articulated well by the nurses'
associations and the doctors across the country. Sadly, because
of these draconian cuts in health care, some of our brightest,
most highly educated, most dedicated workers are having to go
elsewhere to seek their profession.
I support an injection of funds in health care. It is purely
and truly consistent with our position as a party. I look
forward to questions and answers from my colleagues.
1140
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can always look forward to a bit of
levity when the member for New Brunswick Southwest gives his
speeches. There are not a lot of facts, just levity.
Let us get down to the facts. We inherited from the hon.
member's government a $42.5 billion deficit that we cleaned up in
five years. His government was in for nine years and it just
made things worse.
The hon. member said that we cut money to the provinces. Here
is what happened in Ontario. What he says is partially true. We
did in fact cut transfer payments to the province of Ontario by
$5.9 billion. But we gave Ontario extra tax points which
amounted to $4 billion. As well, we have the lowest interest
rates in 30 years, which represent $1.3 billion worth of
savings—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, we are
going to be have to be quick here. The hon. member for New
Brunswick Southwest has 50 seconds for a response.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the member has selective
memory, because we did not add a nickel to the debt. The deficit
was caused by the compound interest on the debt that his party
left us. That is a fact. When Pierre Trudeau became Prime
Minister of Canada in 1967-68 Canada was debt free. But that is
an old argument and I will not get into it.
I have given the government credit in terms of deficit
reduction. Unfortunately, it has done it on the backs of the
provinces, hence the $7 billion extracted out of the system. Now
it is balancing its books on the backs of the unemployed.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will take
a minute to tell the member from the Conservative Party that
some of his remarks were a great disappointment to us. For
instance, he alluded to the fact that the government acted
because it was not facing any opposition.
I want to make it clear that, the very first time a budget was
introduced that cut back transfer payments, the Bloc Quebecois
stood up to denounce the situation while the Conservative Party
was all but absent from this House, and its only two members
were not here very often to support us.
The hon. member has us to thank for having the opportunity today
to rise and speak on this issue, because the motion we are
debating was moved by the Bloc Quebecois. He should add his
voice to ours today, he should congratulate us instead of
condemning us and trying to divide the opposition.
We must face this government and denounce a difficult situation.
I think the hon. member is in no position to lecture anybody.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like a
lynching in the morning to focus the mind.
These people are obviously playing politics with health care
because of the upcoming election in Quebec. They sat here in the
House between 1993 and 1997 and never said a word about the cuts
to health care back in their home province.
It was a slash and burn policy and they sat here in silent
agreement and did not open their traps when it came to health
care.
Now they find that their own premier is in deep trouble on
health care, right up to his eyebrows, because he mismanaged
health care from day one, starting right here in the House of
Commons when he was sitting in the front row.
Bloc members are trying to salvage his career—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to ask my colleague, the Conservative
health critic, a question about the metamorphosis of the
Conservative Party, since we all know that the huge cuts in
transfers began with the Mulroney Conservative government.
However, I think that issue has been dealt with.
I would simply ask the member, since he is very familiar with
the whole area of costs as a result of things like tobacco, is it
not a factor here that we are dealing with a government that is
not only cutting huge amounts out of the transfer payments, but
is also contributing to the costs in the health care system by
not dealing effectively with tobacco addiction and not dealing
with proactive legislation dealing with the tobacco industry?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, both myself and the
member for Winnipeg North Centre have been on our feet probably
more than anyone in the House this week in terms of government
legislation and what is coming down, including this opposition
motion today.
She is right.
1145
The government had a chance yesterday to do something about
health care which at the end of the day would have saved the
Canadian public $3 billion a year. I am talking about Bill S-13,
Senator Kenny's bill, which would help to reduce smoking among
teens. That is costing us 40,000 lives a year in Canada at a
great cost to the health care system. I do support what the
member is saying.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise today to speak to the opposition motion of the
Bloc Quebecois.
I would like to remind you that it reads as follows:
That the House endorses the provincial consensus reached in
Saskatoon on August 7, 1998, that the federal government must
restore, via the existing provisions of the Canada health and
social transfer (CHST), its contributions to front-line health
care services, starting with a payment of at least $2 billion,
given that the federal government has already recorded an
accumulated surplus of $10,4 billion for the first six months of
the 1998-99 fiscal year.
That is $10.4 billion just for the first six months of the
1998-99 fiscal year. Where does this money come from? How did the
government manage not only to eliminate its deficit but also to
register a budgetary surplus?
The government achieved this surplus by misappropriating
employment insurance funds, at the expense of the unemployed.
It did this by cutting the Canada social transfer, which is the
budget for health, education and welfare, and by going after the
sick and the disadvantaged.
Since it came to office, the federal government has drastically
slashed transfer payments to the provinces. In 1994, these
payments amounted to $18.8 billion, compared to $12.5 billion in
1997-98, a decrease of $6.3 billion.
For example, in 1994, social transfers averaged $678 per capita.
In 1998, this average has dropped to $386, the lowest in 20
years.
The provinces are faced with very serious problems in the health
area, as the cost of health care keeps rising because of the
ageing population and because of increasingly expensive drugs
and new technologies.
The impact of the cuts in health care are being felt not only in
Quebec but across Canada.
Here are some examples. We are told that the people of Manitoba
are going to Dakota to get medical attention. In Newfoundland,
army doctors have been called upon to help relieve the pressure
in emergency wards. We recently learned about the difficult
situation facing hospital administrators in Ontario. Health
ministers throughout Canada are telling us that they are feeling
the impact of all these cuts.
Last August, in Saskatoon, the premiers reached a consensus and
agreed to urge the federal government to pay back the
$6.3 billion a year in transfer payments, now that the federal
government has a surplus. All of them want the federal
government to restore funding to the 1993-94 level of
$18.8 billion.
1150
They also asked the federal government to respect their
jurisdiction. We hear that the federal government intends to
reinvest in health care in the next budget, but it wants to do
so without respecting provincial jurisdiction.
We are told about some kind of national infrastructure including
a drug plan, home care and all kinds of other programs. The
provinces will be told: “Here, we are giving you this money for
these programs, but you have to abide by our standards. You are
not going to be able to run your own show. We are offering you
this money to put in place the programs we think you need”. Yet,
the Constitution clearly states that health care is an area of
provincial jurisdiction.
This is the reason why last August in Saskatoon the premiers
asked the federal government, instead of creating new programs,
to restore transfer payments to the level they were at when the
government was elected. If the federal government insists on
setting up such programs, the provinces should have the option
to accept or reject them—this is what we call the right to opt
out with compensation. If a province decides to opt out because,
as is the case in Quebec, it already has such programs, it
should be fully compensated.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I forgot to mention that I will be
sharing my time with my colleague from Quebec.
I would now like to speak about the impact the cuts have had in
Quebec: cuts to health care in Quebec amount to at least
$1 billion a year.
Looking at the $6.3 billion in cuts to the Canada health and
social transfer, Quebec alone has been hit by close to 30% of
the federal cuts, which represents close to $2 billion yearly.
It is estimated that 50% of the federal transfer of $2 billion,
or $1 billion, goes to health.
When health care reform was being carried out in Quebec, a
reform that was not absolutely necessary, but we were lagging
behind the other provinces, imagine if we had been able to
benefit from an additional $1 billion per year for health in
Quebec. That would have meant more money for home care, more
money for day surgery, more money for long term care, more for
pharmacare, more for in-patient care.
The Quebec government had to react rapidly, as I have already
said, because we already lagged behind the other provinces.
I think the Government of Quebec has succeeded where others
failed, or dared not even try. In Quebec we succeeded, despite
all the difficulties that can go along with such a reform. We
succeeded while undergoing cuts in the Canada social transfer.
Had an extra $1 billion a year been available to the Quebec
government for this reform, the Mauricie and central Quebec
region, in which my riding is located and which receives
approximately 6.2% of the total health budget, would have
received $62 billion to be reinvested in my region.
1155
The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region could have used another $38
million from the $1 billion claim against the federal
government. Comparing this with the $34.4 million the Jonquière
hospital receives, we realize we could use this money. This
amount is almost equivalent to the entire budget of the
hospital.
I therefore close by saying that the Liberals used the billions
of dollars stolen from Quebeckers and Canadians to eliminate the
deficit. Now it has to give us back the money we are owed.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again and again we hear the
rhetoric. The hon. member talks about jurisdiction.
I wish for once, instead of worrying about jurisdiction, they
would be concerned about the impact on Quebecers and Canadians.
They are so focused on jurisdiction. What this is all about is a
reinvestment in health care, a reinvestment in Canadian
priorities.
I would like to set the facts straight. Let us be clear. The
decrease in transfer payments accounts for less than 3% of
Quebec's revenues. The cuts that Quebec has imposed on the
municipalities account for close to 6% or almost double the
amount of the federal cuts.
Quebec in its 1997-98 estimates announced its intention to cut
health care and education spending by 3.2% and 5.8% while at the
same time indicating that other spending has increased by 4%.
While the hon. member might be arguing that health care is a
priority, obviously as shown in Tuesday's debate health care is
not the priority of the provincial government. I do not know why
the hon. member is up here arguing for more money for Quebec.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Liberal
colleague what sort of surplus he foresees for next year. If
there is one, could part of it not go to health care?
I think the Constitution provides clearly, on the subject of
provincial jurisdiction, that health care and its administration
are provincial matters and that the federal government's role is
to transfer funding for health, education and social assistance.
But the Liberals made cuts, and they still have the gall to tell
everyone that they reinvested in health. They wanted to cut $48
billion, but they were pressured into cutting only $42 billion.
That is not money reinvested in health. They just cut less.
People are not dumb.
This government, which flatters itself on its ability, came up
with a budget surplus that exceeded its objective of a zero
deficit. That is all very well. Is there no way, though, that
part of the $10.8 budget surplus could go to health? Could it
not go to the sick via the provinces?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is very passionate about health issues and I can
understand that. But is she not forgetting that, despite cuts to
social programs, Quebec has clearly benefited from a $1 billion
increase in equalization payments and that Quebec is currently
getting $3.9 billion in equalization payments?
Quebec has also benefited from very low interest rates. So, I
think Quebec is still ahead and still has a lot to gain from
being part of Canada. It has a lot more flexibility to work with
its social programs because of the $3.9 billion in equalization
payments that are being paid by Ontario, Alberta and British
Columbia, since they are not getting any equalization.
1200
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, the minister is in no position
to lecture anyone, because she was health minister when the
first cuts were made throughout Canada. She was health minister
when the Canada social transfer was slashed. She is really in no
position to lecture anyone.
I would like to remind her that Quebec's share is 25% compared
to the rest of Canada. We pay $32 billion in taxes and we do not
get our fair share back. Since the Liberals came into office, we
have lost $7 billion in social transfers. Can members imagine
what the people of Quebec could have done with that $7 billion?
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and
enthusiastic about taking part in today's debate on the motion
moved by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for
Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
It is not the first time that I speak, but this issue is of
particular concern to me as the member for Québec. There is a
high rate of unemployment and people on welfare in my riding.
Since 1993, I have taken part in all the debates on the cuts
made to the Canada social transfer.
Today's motion deals with an important issue for Canadians and
Quebeckers. Let me briefly remind the House of what it says.
The motion asks that this House endorse the provincial consensus
reached in Saskatoon on August 7, 1998, to restore the Canada
health and social transfer and to give back the contributions to
front-line health care services, starting with a payment of at
least $2 billion, given that the federal government has
accumulated a surplus of $10.4 billion for the first six months
of the 1998-99 fiscal year.
This debate is the logical result of consultations. On September
16 and 17, we held prebudget consultations in the Quebec City
region to ask what the federal government should do with budget
surpluses. These prebudget consultations were held throughout
Quebec, under the guidance of the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
As I said, these consultations were held throughout Quebec.
Hundreds of organizations representing thousands of Quebeckers
came to deliver a message to the Minister of Finance regarding
what should be done with budget surpluses.
To fully understand how appropriate the motion before us
actually is, it is important to see how the wealthy owner of
Canada Steamship Lines—I am of course referring to the Minister
of Finance—managed to generate surpluses which he is still
trying to hide. There is no way to find out whether there are
surpluses. The minister's account always shows a zero balance.
No deficit, no surplus. The account always has a zero balance.
The federal government forces the provinces to do the dirty job
of implementing cuts to health, education and income security.
The government shifts the blame for the cuts to the provinces by
secretly digging into the pockets of the most disadvantaged,
because it will not index taxation, and by misappropriating
money that belongs to the workers and spending it as it pleases,
in an obvious effort to gain visibility.
How does the Liberal government misappropriate the workers'
money? I will try to explain.
While this debate deals with the Canada health and social
transfer, we cannot overlook the fact that nearly half of the
$10.4 billion surplus accumulated in the first six months of the
current fiscal year came from the employment insurance fund.
Recipients get half of all contributions they pay.
They pay twice as much in contributions as they receive in
benefits.
1205
The government had no problems taking $5 billion out of the
employment insurance fund surplus. The figures speak for
themselves. What are they telling us? They are telling us that
contribution rates are too high, which hampers job creation.
The human resources development minister's latest report
correctly states at page 47 that only 43% of those who
contribute to the plan benefit from it.
Figures do not tell us about the human cost. But when we look at
these figures, we realize there must be people hurting
somewhere.
Women were the hardest hit by the tighter EI requirements
imposed by this Liberal government that turns its back on them
and uses contributions to hide its incompetence.
I will give you an example of this government's bad faith. As a
member of the human resources development committee, I am
embarrassed by what happened just yesterday, when we were denied
permission to consider as a priority the impact of the new EI
provisions. Yesterday, all opposition members on the committee
walked out, saying “Have your own private debate”.
We have not been allowed to give precedence to the impact of the
new EI legislation. That is embarrassing to me. Where are we to
debate these issues, if we not even allowed to do so in the
human resources development committee?
We had proposed a motion for the consideration of this
legislation we think is unfair.
When we see the government getting $5 billion from EI premiums
paid by people who are not receiving what they deserve, we have
the right to call for a debate. I am proud to take part in this
debate today to express my outrage.
Several people have referred to the hijacking of the EI fund. I
can quote the president of Solidarité rurale, Jacques Proulx,
who appeared as a witness during prebudget consultations in my
riding. He said “It is immoral to use the EI fund surplus to
eliminate the deficit. That money does not even belong to the
government”. I would remind the House that the government does
not contribute to that fund.
Others did not hesitate to call it highway robbery. I know you
do not like it, Mr. Speaker, when we use the word robbery here
in the House, but we are not the ones who said it, it is the
witnesses who came to the hearings. They said the management of
the EI fund by the Liberals was the injustice of the century.
It is true that cabinet's insensitivity is no surprise to
anyone, considering that the person who runs the government has
implemented a reform whereby six people out of ten are not
eligible for benefits.
We can now see why the Prime Minister does not understand the
programs in Quebec; he does not even understand his own
programs. When asked a question in the House about who paid
premiums, the Prime Minister thought he himself paid premiums.
He cannot answer a question from the Bloc Quebecois asking if it
is fair to take money from the EI fund to reduce taxes.
With a Prime minister who believes he contributes to employment
insurance when we know full well that neither members nor
ministers do, we are wondering who is governing us.
The Canada health and social transfer is a shameful scam; since
1993, the Liberals have cut $10.4 billion in transfer payments.
By 2003-04, the cuts will amount to $42 billion. Can you imagine
what the provinces could have done with $42 billion in health
care? Can you imagine what it would mean to have an extra $42
billion in their pockets? In Quebec this translates into $590
million for 1997-98.
In the Quebec City area alone, they need $117 million. To give
you an idea of what this means, it costs $103.5 million to run
the Robert-Giffard hospital. With $117 million one could run a
whole hospital. It takes $76.4 million to run the Hôtel-Dieu in
Quebec City and $72.1 million to run the Laval University
hospital.
This amount represents what it takes to run two hospitals.
1210
I do not know to which hospital this money could have gone, but
at least the government could have helped by giving a little bit
more so that hospitals could offer better services.
It is all very well to say from your ivory tower that everything
is hunky dory, that we live in the best country in the world,
but when you cut $42 billion from the Canada social transfer,
one thing is clear: people suffer.
Quebec is not the only province where things are rough.
Everywhere else in Canada health care is in crisis. There is not
enough money.
The government should stop parading around with its $2.5 billion
millennium scholarship fund—money that will only increase its
visibility—and start giving the money back to the provinces.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
us not exaggerate. We made cuts because we had to put our fiscal
house in order, and we did. It was not easy, we did not enjoy
doing that, but we did.
The member spoke about what she could do with $100 million for
the hospitals in Quebec City. But when equalization payments go
up, that is money paid to Quebec on top of all other programs
and transfers. Equalization payments went up by $1 billion. That
is several times $100 million.
Perhaps the member should go back to Mr. Bouchard and say “You
receive $3.9 billion in equalization payments. That is more than
any other province”. She should ask him what he does with that
money.
He can spend it on hospitals if he so chooses. We do not impose
any conditions. So I hope he will at least be honest with
Quebeckers and tell them how they benefit from equalization
payments.
Moreover, and this bears repeating, interest rates have gone
down and provincial governments have saved millions of dollars
in interest payments on their debt. They are forgetting all of
that. They must always remember that there is more than one
department and that the Government of Canada wants to work with
the provinces. We are doing everything possible to work with the
provinces. We transfer significant amounts of money to them, and
I hope the member will recognize that.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, no matter the numbers
quoted this morning, as I said before, behind these numbers
there are real people who are suffering. This is the reality in
health care across Canada. Stop telling me about a miserly $1
billion when we know the cuts in Quebec amount to $7 billion.
Seven billion dollars is several times $1 billion.
Behind seemingly generous numbers lies the fact that in some
areas the cuts amount to 10 or 15 times that. If I were her I
would be ashamed; she is the minister who kept on cutting
instead of preventing the cuts in health care. She said she
brought finances back to health. How dare she use such a word?
She made finances healthy again in the area of health care. Now
I have heard everything.
I too am going to quote a number to support my arguments. Total
health care cuts in Quebec amount to 30%, even though we
represent only 24.5% of the Canadian population. Therefore I
believe Quebec, which pays $32 billion in taxes, does not get
its fair share.
This morning's debate is also about the duplications this
government intends to create, as is the case with the millennium
scholarships. What the government wants to do is interfere with
provincial areas of jurisdiction. Quebec does quite well in
several areas, we do not need two different structures.
1215
Over 1,000 students in Quebec will not be able to get a $3,000
scholarship because of duplication. This is what we are fighting
against.
The government should be fair and equitable and give the
existing surplus back to the provinces, because our health care
system needs it.
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from
Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
I have been listening attentively and I am impressed by the verve
and passion with which members opposite have been expressing
their views in defence of provincial jurisdictions, i.e., the
authority of bureaucracies to administer a particular program. I
thought that the motion had as its intention an indication of
what our responsibilities might be toward Canadians and toward
their health needs.
The last time I looked, not to be too sarcastic, probably all
Canadians were not looking at their passports in a moment of
illness. They were not looking for which jurisdiction was
responsible for the delivery of a system when they were in need.
Most Canadians when they are ill are looking for a very
responsible, competent and compassionate approach to easing their
pain, their malady, their illness.
It is rather troubling as a Canadian because in this House all
members are supposed to be representing the interests of all
Canadians and yet we seem to have this intense desire to ensure
that a jurisdiction is the most important element to defend. That
was not what I thought the mandate of a member of parliament
might be. It was to put forward programs that were to be to the
advantage of all Canadians, all those who make a contribution to
this country both fiscally and civic. Whether it be in
economic or community terms we are all in this place together.
Having said that partly as an element of frustration for a
member of parliament who is looking forward to having input in
policy that will translate itself into programs that have
universal application in the sense that every Canadian can access
this service no matter where they might live, no matter where
they might find themselves in the course of travels in this
country, I want to refresh some views for members and perhaps
change the debate slightly from where it appears to be going.
That ministers at the provincial level asked only last fall that
the federal government put more money into health care than what
was currently there and taking this statement as essential gospel
for what must happen is a very selective way of looking at the
politics and the pragmatics of the decisions that led to the
CHST.
When the program that combined EPF and CAP and other
equalization benefits was put together for the health and social
transfer the government was responding to a request by provincial
ministers. Notwithstanding the partisanship in the House, those
provincial ministers came from all provinces as well as the
territories. They asked the government for one lump sum
transfer.
1220
Why did they want that? They wanted, to use their demands,
flexibility in the usage of the transfers from the federal
authority to provincial and territorial jurisdiction.
What they wanted was predictability in funding. They wanted
stability in funding. They wanted to co-operate in areas in
order to reduce overlap because the overlap was to translate
itself into efficiencies both in delivery of services and
obviously in cost.
I take pains to point out that this was a request by the
provinces, including the provinces of the two members who just
spoke. The provinces received a commitment that there would be
no less than $11 billion in cash transfers. That amount has
since been increased to $12.5 billion. In addition, the provinces
were to receive tax points which in an expanding economy have
translated into increased income and increased revenue. For that
the provinces were extremely happy.
Has the politics changed since the time when the provinces made
those requests? Perhaps. Have the obligations of those provinces
that were partners in coming to this decision changed with
respect to the demands of Canadian citizens anywhere and
everywhere? No.
Is it possible we are engaged in a very partisan political
discussion regarding whose responsibility it is once an agreement
has been put in place to deliver services that were required and
identified?
Surely every reasonable member in the House would say yes, we
have struck this deal, we abided by your requests, please do your
job. Harvard University studies, studies done in the United
States and studies virtually everywhere in the world have
indicated that the problems in health care are not only evidenced
in Canada. The problems are evidenced everywhere. But a major
reason for the problems is administration, not funding.
If there is a person in this House who would say that they
cannot do a little more with a few dollars more, I would like to
find that individual. But there are more people in this place
who say we are not underfunding our needs when there is some $72
billion annually spent on health care.
Where does the federal government fit in? It has been attacked
by opposition members who are using partisan tactics in order to
diminish the responsibility that the Government of Canada has
assumed for itself and which it is divesting, I think, rather
reasonably and vigorously.
Opposition members have neglected to point out that in addition
to the lump sum payment going to the provinces every single year,
the Government of Canada instituted an innovation and research
program that would revitalize medical science research at
universities and hospitals to the tune of $800 million. That is
not chicken feed with all due respect to those in the
agricultural sector.
There is over $150 million in the transition fund that applies
to every single Canadian no matter where they live. That money
is being used for innovative and pilot studies in all provinces
and territories. We have looked as well at increased funding to
the medical research council. All those moneys go toward health
care.
If health care is to be defined in terms of all that leads up to
the delivery of a system, all that is required in order to make a
system functional, then I think we owe it to ourselves in the
House to be reasonable and to be objective even though we are
trying to be partisan when we tell Canadians just what the state
of the health care system is.
1225
It may be sexy to find out about one item that appears to be
illustrative of what is wrong with the system but let us also be
honest in our debate. Let us give credit where credit is due and
assign responsibility where responsibility is due. If we want
total responsibility for the administration of a system, do not
offload that responsibility or shirk our responsibility by saying
it is the fault of those who abided by an agreement we demanded.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. He talked
about the partisanship of this debate. The opposition parties
are for the most part challenging the government about its
priorities in spending cuts.
It seems the federal government spending cuts have been made
mostly off the backs of the provinces. Then the government comes
back by saying it has given the provinces some tax credits. Now
that the federal government has a surplus it says that the
provincial governments can tax their citizens instead of the
federal government doing so. This leads to a serious trickle
down effect.
I will bring some examples from my constituency to the debate. I
would like government members to listen to what is happening to
some of the rural areas in Canada. A mother who went to the
hospital to give birth told me there was one nurse there who
covered the labour and delivery rooms and looked after the
nursery. I have heard from people who have had to go to four
doctors in the last year because the first three doctors had left
the community. I have heard doctors say that they have come to
the country at the request of boards but that when their
temporary work permits expire they cannot reinstate them. The
immigration department will not open the door for them because
there is not a slot for more doctors. These are the consequences
of such cuts to individual grassroots Canadians in rural
constituencies—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Eglinton—Lawrence.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made some
points that would concern all of us. He has reinforced what I
said a moment ago, that the licensing and certification of
doctors through colleges of physicians and doctors is everywhere
in the provinces. If he is concerned about a restrictive area,
that issue should be taken up through the provinces with those
colleges.
I am one of those who say we should get more doctors into the
small towns and rural Canada. To suggest that will be done
overnight because the federal government will be increasing its
funding through transfers to provinces is oversimplifying the
situation completely.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, for the member to dismiss the concerns we have raised
today does a great disservice to the thousands of people in
Canada who are very concerned about the care they are receiving
or who are very worried about whether care will be there when
they need it. It is not a partisan request for doctors, nurses,
hospitals and health care organizations to come forward with one
voice to say that this government owes it to our health care
system to put $2.5 billion immediately back into it. That
request is truly in the interest of preserving something we all
believe in.
Does the member acknowledge that Canada is now 17th among 28
industrialized OECD nations in terms of public spending on health
care? Does he acknowledge the federal share of that public
spending is now down to 14%, if we are lucky? Is he ready to
acknowledge a report of the Canadian Institute for Health
Information covered by the media today which stated that private
sector health spending now represents over 30% of this country's
total health bill?
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, the member and I have
debated this kind of issue in the past. I do not mean to
diminish some of the inputs because I have as much concern for
those who are ill or suffering or making demands on the system.
1230
As I said earlier on, from the federal point of view we are in
the position where we are funding. Those who are delivering the
system and administering the system are at the provincial level.
This is one of those disconnects where we are being held
accountable for something for which we have no responsibility.
With respect to some of the figures the hon. member gave, the
last figures I looked at a couple of months ago put us in third
place among the OECD countries in public contribution to spending
on health. We are marginally behind Germany and France and in
fact we are ahead of the United States.
Most academics and researchers in the area would say that Canada
is very much in line with virtually all the other major
industrialized nations in the world, in terms of—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but the
hon. member's time has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
also very glad to support the motion before the House of Commons
today.
As we all know, our social programs reflect a vision of Canada
that is ambitious and very dear to us, a vision of Canada as a
world leader in accessible health care, knowledge, innovation
and compassion, as well as a vision of a nation providing its
citizens with a sense of security and many opportunities.
We hold tight to this vision, not because of our political
affiliation, but because we are Canadian.
The people of Canada do not expect anything less.
Although Canada's social programs are the envy of the whole
world, we do not want to rest on our laurels. It is in this
spirit that this government has constantly and thoroughly tried
to ensure that our social programs keep improving, meeting the
needs and reflecting the priorities of Canadians, wherever they
live.
All of the provinces and territories share this commitment and I
am sure that the current negotiations on social union will
benefit everyone. Our social safety net relies on co-operation
between the various levels of government.
The health care system in Canada is constantly under pressure to
keep pace with technological developments. The demographic
situation also exerts some pressure.
In fact, the health care system has to deal with a population
that is growing as well as ageing. So, Canadians have every
right to be concerned about the preservation of the quality of
our health care system and of its accessibility.
Health care has to be the main area in which we invest next. I
for one believe in the future of the health care system in
Canada. Some will ask me how I can be so optimistic given the
huge pressure being exerted. Well, it is because I have seen how
this government has managed to meet other huge challenges.
I remind the House that in 1994 the deficit was $45 billion. In
1998, we have a balanced budget. Also in 1994, the accumulated
debt was over $500 billion and still rising.
Today, in 1998, the debt to GDP ratio has started to go down for
the first time.
Quite simply, we were faced with a debt and a deficit of
catastrophic proportions. We had to deal with this problem
immediately. I do not mean to sound alarmist, I am merely
stating the facts.
During the first years, the government implemented
unprecedented restraint measures. We reviewed all programs and
activities; we reduced the size of the public service; we
consolidated programs; we privatized; we commercialized; we
moved heaven and earth.
These measures were not simply emergency measures to limit
spending. They were fundamental structural changes stemming from
a comprehensive reorganization of our country's priorities.
Our restraint measures were aimed essentially at program
spending. But we had to look at the whole picture. Federal
spending on transfers to the provinces account for about
one-fifth of our total spending.
Accordingly, we could not ignore this sector in our efforts to
save money.
1235
It must be remembered, however, that the federal government gave
itself a larger share of the burden of budget cuts than it did
the provinces.
The results of this fiscal discipline are eloquent. The
circumstance surrounding the debate on Canada's finances are now
much more favourable than they have been in recent decades. The
budget is balanced, and the debt to GDP ratio continues to drop.
This does not mean that we are protected from the financial
market fluctuations that have hit the world's economies.
These problems have slowed the growth of our own economy and
have resulted in a drop in the value of our currency.
How can we be so confident? Because of the financial adjustment
we struggled to achieve. In the last fiscal year, we were the
first central government in all of the G-7 countries to present a
balanced budget.
This adjustment, in which the reductions imposed on the
provinces played a real role, I will admit, is not an abstract
accounting concept. It means that Canada has not been in such a
good position to deal with world economic fluctuations in
decades.
I do not want to start an endless debate on what our situation
might be exactly, had we not cut spending so categorically. I
can, however, give a brief summary: our dollar would dropped
further; interest rates would be much higher;
thousands more would be unemployed; we would be paying billions
of dollars more in debt servicing.
Fortunately for us, these issues are theoretical. Suffice it to
say that, in the short term, we had to tighten our belts, not
only to be long term winners, but in order to survive.
As to the present, the questions facing us involve striking a
balance among funding social programs, cutting taxes and
reducing the burden of the debt. We have clearly established
that health care is an absolute priority.
In fact, once a balanced budget was within reach, we increased
the minimum funding to the provinces for health under the Canada
social transfer.
This cash floor was increased from $11 billion to $12.5 billion
annually, up to the year 2003.
This means an additional $7 billion for health care, for each
province and not, as Bloc Quebecois members claim, $7 billion
just for Quebec.
But the cash floor is not the only component of the Canada
social transfer for health and social programs. There is also
the transfer of tax points, which Bloc Quebecois members never
talk about. When the economy is growing, as it is now, the value
of these tax points increases, as has been the case for the past
several years.
In 1993-94, the value of the tax points transferred amounted to
$10.1 billion. This year, it will be around $13.3 billion.
If we add that amount to the cash floor of $12.5 billion, we get
a total of $25.8 billion. These are facts.
Moreover, increasing the cash floor was not the only spending
commitment made to improve the situation in the health care
sector. Indeed, in our last three budgets, we have allocated
more money to new initiatives in that area.
Lower interest rates also result in reduced debt servicing costs
for the provinces. Based on our estimation, lower interest rates
have resulted in a $1.8 billion dividend for the provinces,
during the two-year period from January 1995 to December 1996.
Therefore, provinces are also benefiting, since they collect
more taxes as more Canadians are working, not to mention lower
social assistance costs.
Even Canadians who are young, healthy, educated and employed
benefit from the social security network.
1240
Today I started by reminding the House that the Canadian social
security system was build through co-operation among the various
levels of government. It is this tradition of co-operation that
will ensure the survival of our social programs.
We really want to do our share. As the finance minister said
when he delivered his economic and fiscal update to the Standing
Committee on Finance, and I quote: “We welcome the assurances of
Canada's premiers that any additional federal funding provided
to the provinces for health care will indeed be used for that
purpose.
We share strongly their desire—and the desire of all
Canadians—to have confidence in the health care system
restored, and we want to work in partnership with the provinces
to secure that confidence”.
By putting its fiscal house in order, this government made sure
it would continue to play a role in the building of a strong and
prosperous country able to educate its young people. This is our
goal.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to start with
I would like to congratulate the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges
for supporting the motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois, which
demands that the federal government invest $2 billion in the
Canadian health care system.
The member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges is consistent with the former
MPP, former Quebec premier and provincial member for Vaudreuil,
Daniel Johnson, who under Mr. Jacques Parizeau's government, had
condemned in the National Assembly the federal cuts, especially
cuts to the health and education transfer payments.
Would the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges agree that if today we
are debating a motion on health care moved by the Bloc Quebecois
it is as a result of federal cuts mainly in transfer payments to
the provinces?
These cuts have had an impact on the health care sector for
instance. Not to mention cuts in employment insurance, which
have hurt workers and the unemployed.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to make one
thing clear. The members of the Bloc Quebecois are fond of
numbers games. They keep referring to cuts in the amount of $7
billion. I think that the member who spoke before me said these
cuts were made in the Province of Quebec. I will try to settle
this matter once and for all.
I have here the actual figures. In 1993-94, Quebec received $7.9
billion in cash and tax points, as compared to $6.8 billion
today, a mere $1.3 billion difference. Often, when this issue is
raised, the federal government is blamed; the next level of
government is always to blame when the provinces are forced to
cut back in their priorities.
The decision to cut back is made by the provinces. They are free
to use the money that comes back to them as they please,
depending on their priorities.
When six provinces have achieved balanced budgets, when one
spends more than another, on a per capita basis, in the area of
health care, and another one decides to spend more on public
servants and administration, I think these are priorities, and
the priority for the Province of Quebec—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Lotbinière.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, listening
to my colleague across the floor, with his figures and
statistics, I recognize a true Liberal, with no compassion
toward our sick, our unemployed and our young people.
We did not need to hear this sad story of Liberal
accomplishments, because we are familiar with the outcome.
Health care in Quebec and throughout the country is in total
chaos.
Now there is a surplus. It is clear: $10.4 billion. Does the
hon. member agree that the government should put at least $2
billion in health care, as we are asking today? The government
does have money. Why does it not want to pay?
1245
Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, today we can talk about choices
because we have a balanced budget. In the past we did not, so
we could not talk about such things.
I believe the hon. member is right. If there is a priority—
Mrs. Pauline Picard: The reason you have $11 billion is because
you have dipped into the employment insurance fund.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Why don't you listen to the reply?
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Shame.
Mr. Nick Discepola: I agree with the hon. member that the
priority for Canadians is to reinvest in health, and we are
going to do so.
But there are other priorities. As the hon. member is aware,
since he sits on the finance committee, education is another
priority. It must be pointed out too that the priorities are
always a provincial responsibility.
I would like to ask him how it happened that the Quebec premier
cut $3 billion from programs, and then suddenly, on the eve of
the election, he announces an investment of $2.1 billion.
When I speak of priorities, how can it be that the premier of
Quebec is closing five hospitals and choosing to invest $160
million to extend the metro to Laval? It is because these are
provincial priorities; it is not always the federal government's
fault.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my turn
to speak to the motion brought forward by the Bloc, asking the
federal government to reinvest in our health care system after
putting several provinces in dire financial straits.
Some of those provinces are not allies of the government. I am
thinking about Quebec and Ontario, among others. The federal
government is playing politics with our health care system to
try to destabilize certain political figures that it does not
particularly care for.
What happened? The member who just spoke referred to a lot of
figures. If we look at the Fiscal Monitor, published by the
Department of Finance, we can see clearly that transfers to the
provinces went from more or less $18 billion to today's cash
floor of $12.5 billion.
They are telling us that we should be glad since they had
planned on reducing it to $11 billion, but they stopped at $12.5
billion.
The cash floor is slightly higher than was planned. Today, we
should all rise and applaud them for saving us this additional
cut that would have reduced the Canada social transfer by
another $1.5 billion. Now we get to—
Mr. Nick Discepola: The Quebec premier did the same thing.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, one member asked us to listen a
few moments ago, and I would now ask him to return the favour
and to please listen.
I will move right now to another part of my speech to please
him. We will soon have a debate on reinvestment.
This is one of the goals the federal government will pursue now
that it has a surplus. After slashing transfers to the provinces
and getting more money from the unemployed, the workers and the
employers who pay EI premiums but find it harder now to qualify
for benefits, the federal government has racked up an
accumulated surplus of $10.4 billion in the first six months of
this fiscal year.
It is a lot of money. And now, they are really excited at the
prospect of spending it as they see fit. As the health minister
said yesterday and as the Prime Minister has said before, health
will now become one of their priorities, all of a sudden. It was
not a priority when they were making cuts. Health was not one of
their priorities at that time or they would not have made the
cuts they made.
I find it strange to see them taking part in today's debate. It
seems that the former health minister is now suddenly wide awake.
When she was in cabinet, not once did she speak against the
government. We have to wonder if she even tried to step in to
protect the health of Canadians, as her department kept getting
slashed. As far as transfers to the provinces are concerned, she
never said a word and now she wakes up and in good conscience
says “We are addressing health concerns”.
How will they go about it now? They want more visibility. We can
see how frustrated they feel when they talk about tax point
transfers. What they are not saying is that they are terribly
sorry to have granted tax points to the provinces, because of
the visibility they could have gained from them.
They will start to reinvest in health, but you can be sure that
there will be strings attached.
Given how obsessed they are with visibility, you can be sure
that this will be one of the main criteria used to assess
programs. Even before assessing the real needs, they will try to
determine how the money they spend can increase their
visibility. That is what we can expect.
1250
Yet, they never asked for visibility when they were making cuts.
When an hon. member talked about five hospitals being closed, we
could have said “Here are the hospitals being closed thanks to
the federal government”. But funny how at that time they did not
ask for their contribution to be acknowledged.
We hear a lot about reinvesting in equipment. Medicine and
technologies evolve quickly. I am sure they look forward to
investing in equipment and gaining some visibility by sticking
the maple leaf on it.
The first piece of equipment the federal government should
sponsor is hospital scalpels engraved with “Best wishes from the
federal government” to remind people of the cuts it has made
over the last few years and the problems it has created for
several provinces.
Let us have a look at what has happened in the area of health
care across the country. Maclean's magazine carried an analysis
accurately describing the situation in each province: a high
percentage of real cuts in Quebec as well as in Ontario,
Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Only the territories found
themselves in a better position than before with regard to
transfer payments. Two provinces, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia,
were less affected.
I will not start debating at this point what the federal
government has been doing behind the scene to compensate the
maritime provinces for these cuts.
We could mention the GST compensation scheme under which it gave
them $1 billion to soften the impact.
We were, and still are every day, in a situation where the
government opposite is withdrawing. Initially several health
care programs were jointly funded by both levels of government;
it was a 50:50 partnership.
Today the federal government barely pays for a quarter of some
health programs and in certain provinces it is even less than
that. It has substantially reduced its share. There is a reason
why, when all the provinces met, they unanimously urged the
federal government to return the money it had cut to all the
provinces because this government believes some provinces are
better than others; there are some provincial governments it
likes and others it does not.
But it made no distinction in this case. All the provincial
governments said that it was enough, that the government had
gone too far. This government does not even have the excuse it
used these last years when it said that the nation's finances
forced it to make such cuts. It has always been hard for the
government to admit it, but when it did reluctantly, it used the
nation's finances as an excuse.
We now have a $10.4 billion surplus just for the first six
months of this year. That surplus will grow in the coming
months. Despite the economic problems experienced in recent
months at the international level, we now know their impact on
Canada has been a lot less severe than expected and that the
government's fiscal revenues are substantially the same.
From Quebec's point of view, what does that mean? While we, in
Quebec, continue to fight to eliminate the deficit, make the
last efforts to get there, find creative ways of finishing the
tough job started by Quebeckers, we are sending half of our tax
revenues to the federal government that has a surplus of some $2
billion for the first six months. And we cannot take that money
to reinvest it according to our priorities because the federal
government has decided to define them for us.
I will be sharing my time with the member for Mercier.
Therefore, I have about one minute left.
What happened in the area of education is a perfect example. We
have not talked about the cuts made by the Liberals in
education. It was the same as with health care.
They took the money from the surplus to set up a foundation that
would offer scholarships and give the federal government a high
profile in the field of education.
They are now preparing to do the same thing to us in the field
of health. After making us suffer considerably, they want to
reinvest, with only one thing in mind: visibility.
I am pleased to see that all the parties in opposition will be
supporting this motion, that all provinces are calling for it,
and that this government is feeling increasingly isolated with
its talk of the present situation not being so bad, not its
fault, that the tax points must not be forgotten, and so on.
They are getting pretty isolated and soon will have to come up
with an answer for the provincial premiers.
They will also have to vote—and I am anxious to see how they act
when it comes to voting on this motion—in favour of putting the
money back where the key priority lies at the present time, in
health.
1255
It cannot be done any old way. It must be included in the
transfers to the provinces so they can inject money into sectors
currently considered priorities, into new services and into
areas of need created by the aging of the population. The
provincial governments, which already administer health care,
are in the best position to define the most pressing needs.
I warn them about all their juggling of figures, files and
individuals in this matter. Health is not their main priority.
There should be no mistake. Their main priority is visibility,
not health.
If it were, we would not be in this situation today of having a
$10 billion surplus, when the government savagely cut transfers
to the provinces. These cuts hurt.
At the outset, I said that it was for political purposes. I
suspect they will reinvest in the coming year, but after the
Quebec and Ontario elections. These are two governments they do
not particularly like, which make lots of demands on and are a
little too critical of federal Liberals. They will try to help
their provincial Liberal friends in Quebec and Ontario by
destabilizing the health system, and they will wait and see what
happens. Then, if this does not work, they will see what they
can do about it afterwards.
It is in this spirit that I along with all my colleagues from
all the opposition parties will support this motion before us
today.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
in his remarks, the member asked a question. He was wondering
why the federal government had put a $12.5 billion cap on
transfer payments.
I want to remind the hon. member that, when we first made the
option, we took note of a priority identified by Canadians and
we increased payments for health by $1.5 billion, as the member
just said. We raised them from $11 billion to $12.5 billion. Why
$12.5 billion? Because the national council on health has met
this past year, and it has consulted all those affected by the
legislation and the health care networks. It has recommended
that we invest $12.5 billion. We listened, and now the member is
criticizing us for putting back in funds we had cut.
In our province, the Premier of Quebec also cut back funding for
health care by $3 billion, in fact $3.5 billion.
To address the member's questions, the Premier of Quebec's
motives may or may not have been political, but the fact remains
that, last week, he announced that he too was going to invest an
additional $2.1 billion.
I would like to know whether this is new money or if he is not
following our lead. Why is the member criticizing us but not his
own premier?
I have another question for him. Often, the suggestion is made
that all problems in health care are due to insufficient
funding.
When I look at Quebec, which spends 40% more than Ontario on
health care, while its population is 60% of that of Ontario, I
wonder if something could not be done about the administration,
if service delivery could not be refined.
Does the member agree with the premier, who stated during the
debate on Tuesday that he had made every effort and, as a
result, waiting lines had been shortened and health care
services were being delivered rapidly. If contributions to
provinces were restored, does the member agree that the funds
should go to health service delivery?
Mr. Pierre Brien: Madam Speaker, this almost sounded like a
speech. I will have a hard time commenting on all the issues
raised.
I will quote from a document that is not from the Bloc
Quebecois, but from the Library of Parliament: “During the 80s
and 90s, the federal government, in its effort to reduce the
deficit, limited on several occasions the growth of transfers
made under two programs, namely the Canada Assistance Plan and
the cost sharing programs. This adversely affected the
provinces' public finances and their ability to financially
maintain their health insurance plans and social programs”.
1300
A document from the Library of Parliament states that this
government adversely affected the provinces' ability to maintain
their health insurance plans. This study was released in July
1997.
I will now quote some figures, which I have here with me. For
the coming year, the Quebec government will spend $13 billion on
health and social programs. This is the same amount as in
1996-97.
The amount of money allocated to health and social programs by
the Quebec government remains at a very stable level. It is true
that, because of growth, this means that, in real terms, some
cuts were made.
The actions taken by the federal government during its last
mandate resulted in a $7 billion shortfall for the Quebec
government.
When the member says that the Quebec government made cuts
totalling $3 billion or $4 billion, he should congratulate it
for having managed to somehow absorb half of the cuts, instead
of passing them on to someone else. The member should be pleased
and he should congratulate the Quebec government for having
successfully met that challenge, in spite of this blow—I was
going to use some unparliamentary language—from the federal
government.
Let me elaborate on these figures and give them a regional
dimension. Back home, in the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region,
federal cuts in health amount to $25 million annually. This is
the equivalent of the budget of the general hospitals in
Val-d'Or, Amos and Rouyn-Noranda, and even more.
After making cuts of $25 million in my region, the federal
government is now claiming that health is one of its major
concerns. Nobody believes them, and it is certainly not the
member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges who will make people change their
minds about that.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in this debate, and I hope many Quebecers are
listening.
To start I will say this: I am quite sure that if Jean Charest
were still leader of the Progressive Conservative Party he would
support this motion, he would approve of it. This motion has the
support of every opposition party. It came about as a result of
an array of pressures, not all political.
I want to mention that some of our Liberal colleagues were
probably been invited to meet the Health Action Lobby, or HEAL,
which was here this week. These 28 national health and consumer
organizations are urging the government to raise the floor for
the Canadian transfers to $15 billion. This is what they are
asking.
What are their demands based on? Not on what members from the
Bloc or other opposition parties have to say.
They are based on polls taken across Canada showing that
Canadians' trust in the health care system is deteriorating. It
dropped from 61% in 1991 to 29% in February 1998. My colleague
for Vaudreuil—Soulanges must have seen this excellent information
kit.
Also the Bloc wanted to know what people were thinking because
here we are surrounded by numbers and we see what is going on,
but people do not always get to see the real picture. During the
break we visited individuals, groups and business people in our
ridings. We met many organizations. Our consultations led us to
the conclusion that the absolute top priority for everybody was
to give the money back to the provinces.
This week the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which
is made up of 91,000 small businesses, appeared before the
finance committee. And what did it say?
1305
I would like to quote part of what the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business had to say. “Although members of the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business support more
spending control, especially under relatively favourable
economic conditions, it is important to mention that
entrepreneurs are in favour of higher health and education
transfers to the provinces”.
“This could require reallocation of existing funding instead of
an increase in total public expenditures”. However, they want to
ensure that basic health and education services will be
maintained and to “avoid costly new programs being set up, like
the pharmacare program the government wants to create despite
our members' opposition to it”.
What are the small businesses saying through their
representative? The money should be given back to the provinces.
The president, Mrs. Swift, even said that the government should
stop playing the sort of games it played with the millennium
scholarship fund. That is what she said and I could quote the
blues.
In my beautiful riding of Mercier that includes the provincial
counties of Bourget, Pointe-aux-Trembles and Lafontaine, I also
consulted with various groups and businesspeople. Their first
priority is also the transfers to the provinces.
These people are concerned about health, but they are also
concerned about education, and some of them about welfare.
Therefore, the motion we have put forward today is not just a
whim. It did not come about just because members of the four
opposition parties had lunch together. It came about because
were are faced with an intolerable situation in this country.
What is so intolerable? We have a government that brags about
its management, accumulates surpluses and refuses to return to
the provinces the money it owes them for health care, education
and welfare. Moreover, we learned last week that the budget
surplus for the first six months of this year was $10.4 billion,
and we can make the conservative assumption that it will reach
$15 billion for the year.
What is intolerable is that people see a reduction in services.
That is what the HEAL survey reveals. What do we see? Our
health, education and welfare systems are under extreme
pressure. Hospital and local community service centre employees,
teachers and public servants are exhausted. People are
personally and deeply affected by these drastic cuts.
What is the federal government doing about these pressures? Is
it rushing to share part of its surpluses with Quebec and the
other provinces?
No. It is stubbornly resisting all the pressure to reduce
employment insurance premiums, which are nothing but highway
robbery. They should be called special contributions to reduce
the deficit for those people making $39,000 or less and for
businesses that pay EI premiums. It is, quite simply, highway
robbery.
What is the government doing? Is it sharing with the provinces
part of its surpluses to compensate people for the pain,
suffering and hardship imposed upon them? No. It just keeps
saying no. It is amazing.
It is true that this government often likes to quote the OECD.
Our problem is that the OECD has not done a review of social
spending in all countries recently.
1310
The last one I saw—and I like to keep up to date—dates back to
1994. At that time, Canada ranked in the bottom third of
countries in terms of social spending. If the numbers were to be
reviewed, Canada certainly would not move up to another third,
but would no doubt move down in the bottom third.
When social spending is so drastically cut, it means that people
suffer. It means that it costs people their health.
The Bloc Quebecois has made one proposal: that the federal
government allocate at least $1 billion more for health
expenditures. What this motion asks is what is necessary,
according to the consensus reached by the premiers in Saskatoon,
to achieve at least that billion. It is the absolute minimum.
The Latin phrase is minimum minimorum. It is the absolute
minimum to give the people a break, a breather.
How can this government seriously talk about federalism, when it
made a policy in its own interest, and I would add, its party's
interest? This policy has a very serious impact on many
governments and especially on the people. I hope we will
strongly support this motion, which is a cry from the people,
and that some members of the governing party will vote with us.
This is not asking for much. In fact, it is asking for very
little, but that would be sufficient to let give the people a
break.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member has said that the top priority for Canadians was
reinvestment in transfers to the provinces. I believe I should
correct her by saying that the top priority for Canadians is
reinvestment in health services.
She also asked why we in the federal government are not
investing in health services, now that there is a balanced
budget, or why we are not giving more to the provinces. I would
like to point out to her what has already been done. I would
like to remind her that the first time we had the opportunity to
do so, in 1998, we did indeed invest an additional $1.5 billion
in health services, via transfers to the provinces.
In 1996 as well, we invested $65 million, very little, but let
us not forget that was in 1996.
In 1997, we invested $800 million in the Canadian Foundation for
Innovation,; $150 million in the health services adjustment
fund, $100,000 in community action programs for child nutrition;
$47 million for the networks of centres of excellence.
In 1998, we invested $7 billion for the CHST cash floors; $375
million for student and caregiver tax credits; $211 million for
HIV research; $200 million for deductions of workers' health
insurance premiums; I could go on.
If we are to invest again in services and transfers to the
provinces, does she commit to this money being spent on
education or health as planned?
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there are three questions
within my colleague's question, and I shall try to answer all
three.
The first was a statement, an attempt to minimize the cuts by
saying that $1.5 billion had been restored. What must be kept
in mind is that the level of transfers was $18 billion, reduced
to $11 billion in four years. That represents $ 7 billion in
cuts.
1315
In this regard, what did they do? They gave $1 billion back, and
they would like us to be grateful. Come on! People are not
stupid. They simply reduced their cutting by $1.5 billion.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Your premier does the same thing.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member recently
asked my colleague to listen to the answer. I would ask him to
do the same. This is my first answer.
I would also like to give him my second answer: I am sure that
people want the provinces to be responsible for health care.
We heard people everywhere telling us: “The federal government
must give back to the provinces the money it took from them”.
Because when you attack basic services, you attack something
that lies at the heart of people's concerns: their health.
I could also say that, in the human resources development
department, several surveys have shown that the provinces were
always in the best position to provide social programs. This
makes sense because people know what is best for them.
The third element of his question had to do with the Canada
social transfer. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and I
remember the time when we went from the old system to the new
system. The government gave us a lump sum, saying “We are giving
this to you as a lump sum so you can spend it as you see fit”.
What probably happened is that
the first referendum was coming.
So, the lump sum was the principle and the contract, and since
you have starved the provinces, there can be no going back on
what you said at that time. I would add that Quebec lost
something in this, because it used to get 34% in welfare
transfers. It was not because Quebec was rich; it was because
there was a lot of poverty in the province.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I find it interesting to note the level of frustration
that exists on the opposite benches. I think their frustration
stems largely from the fact that despite all their rhetoric and
all their accusations, the government remains the most popular
government since before the war, interestingly enough, in the
entire country.
We have to ask ourselves why. When we look at a motion by the
Bloc, fundamentally a provincial party, fundamentally a party
with only provincial and regional interests, we see that they are
saying we should simply give more money. When the Reform Party
stands every day in question period the lament is to give more
money. We come to expect it from the New Democrats. We know
they are spendthrifts. We have had some experience, not out west
but certainly in Ontario, with New Democratic policy. Their
lament is simply to give more money. The Progressive
Conservatives left office somewhat unceremoniously in 1993,
leaving Canadian people with an overdraft of $42 billion.
We take credit, I suppose as a government, but I think more
importantly as a people.
An hon. member: Why don't you take the blame instead?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: We will take the blame, as the member
opposite would like. He would like to blame us for eliminating
the $42 billion deficit. We are guilty. We will take that
blame, absolutely.
We wonder what is it we have to do to get the message through.
It is really quite remarkable. This might as well be an all
party opposition resolution. I suspect from comments made that
all parties opposite will vote for it.
In the middle of a budget year the motion is calling—and
Canadians know we cannot do it—for the government to knee-jerk
react because of provincial pressures and spend another $2
billion.
Governing is about making choices and they are not always easy
choices. I am sure the Bloc will never know that because in
reality I do not think the Bloc would govern anywhere. As I said
it is a provincial party.
1320
This is a bit like a son or daughter leaving home but wanting to
come back to get some money every once in a while. They want an
allowance. “Please set us free, let us go, but give us some
money just in case”. It is an amazing argument.
Double standards exist around here. I see members of the
provincial Bloc Party joining all the parliamentary associations
and travelling around the world at taxpayers expense, the same
taxpayers whom they would spurn, whom they would like to leave.
They are not ashamed to spend taxpayers money in the interim. It
is remarkable to see.
I spent eight years in the Ontario legislature both in
government and in opposition. Prior to that I spent 10 years on
a municipal and regional council. During that time I came to
realize that municipalities run for election against the
provinces. They look to the provinces to blame for all their
problems because far be it from having to admit to their
taxpayer, the ratepayer, the homeowner, the resident, that the
problems are created locally. They say they are created
provincially. All the provinces, perhaps most notably in this
instance Quebec, tend to run and play against the federal
government, those big, bad people in Ottawa.
I have talked to the average person on the street. I have been
to Quebec City and had trouble finding a separatist. It was
amazing. The people who depend on the economy for their living
are not separatists. Members should talk to the cab drivers, the
waiters and waitresses, people in the hotel business, and people
on the street. I found a few of them in the legislature. I am
sure Bloc members could introduce me to some. I have no doubt.
It was quite amazing to see the provincial parochial interest.
I find it absolutely astounding to have a member of the Bloc
stand in her place and say that the government's health care
policies are based on partisan interest. What nonsense. The
Canadian public knows. It is rather interesting that every year
we are voted by the United Nations as the greatest country in the
world to live.
An hon. member: For five years.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: “For five years” my colleague says.
In a recent speech I said Canada had been voted as the greatest
country in the world in which to live unless you live here.
It is interesting to listen to the constant moaning and
bickering from the opposition. I understand opposition. I was
in opposition for five years. I do not expect opposition parties
to congratulate the government, but I would expect someone with a
provincial bias, whose sole purpose in life is to promote
provincial autonomy, provincial authority and provincial
government, at least to acknowledge that our health care system
is with all its warts and bumps the finest health care system in
the world. No one denies that.
The Reform Party would take us down the road of the American
health care system. We have Dr. Death sitting over there, the
critic who would dismantle the entire Canadian health care
system. Yet the Reform Party accuses us of running a health care
system based on partisan issues.
Partisanship quite clearly shows when members sit around over
there in their little worlds and try to come up with a way they
could put forward a nasty little resolution to call on the
government to do this or do that or to spend this or spend that.
It is like talk radio. Talk radio is very much like opposition.
You can say anything you want with impunity.
You can demand this and demand that with impunity and without any
sense of responsibility.
1325
I was particularly interested in watching the debate the other
night on the Quebec election to hear Mr. Bouchard make an amazing
comment that no one seemed to pick up on. To paraphrase, he said
that Quebec was in better shape economically than it had been in
25 years.
It sounds like a pretty good argument for staying in Canada. It
sounds like maybe, just maybe, Quebecers know that the province
of Quebec did not succeed in attaining, if what Mr. Bouchard said
is true, the lofty position of being in the best economic shape
in the last 25 years without being part of the greatest
federation of the world, without being part of a country that is
recognized all around the world as the greatest country in the
world in which to live.
Why could the Bloc not acknowledge that a partnership with the
province of Ontario, the largest trading partner the province of
Quebec enjoys and vice versa, may work reasonably well? But, no,
they want to be like the little spoiled brat who says to mom and
dad “I am leaving home. I am going to my own place but I will be
back once a month or once a week or whatever for a little
allowance. I want you to spend more money”. This kind of double
standard is truly remarkable.
I read the polls. I understand what is happening in Quebec. It
would be delightful if Quebecers would realize in the upcoming
provincial election that indeed the number one priority is health
care and not sovereignty; indeed the number one priority is
forging a strong economic union and partnership with their
cousins, brothers and sisters right across this great land and
not sovereignty; and indeed this federation, this family called
Canada, seems to be working.
Can we improve it? Of course we can. The prime minister, the
health minister and the finance minister have already said that
this—
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Your dollar.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: What does the hon. member mean by
“your dollar?” It seems to me that the member opposite is
saying that our dollar is down. That is an interesting reaction.
What are they spending? When members of the Bloc Quebecois cash
their paycheques at the expense of the federal taxpayer, what do
they get paid in? They get paid in Canadian dollars. I do not
think they begrudge the Canadian dollar. Regardless of what it
might be worth in the sunny south where many members opposite may
like to holiday, the fact is that a buck is a buck is a buck here
at home. In spite of the fact that the Canadian dollar is down
extremely low, it is good for exports and it is good for tourism.
It has encouraged Canadians to holiday in Canada. What a unique
experience. They will get to know this country.
There are side benefits to that problem. I find it most telling
that a member of the Bloc would point over here and say “your
dollar”. Until the hon. member is notified otherwise it is our
dollar. It is his dollar and it is our dollar. I suspect when
he goes to the store he will be spending his dollar, which is my
dollar, which is the taxpayers dollar. I ask the member not to
give me this nonsense and this parochial separatist mentality
that again simply says the federal government whom they hate
should give them more. It is Oliver going for more soup. “May
we please have more?” It is hypocrisy and it is truly amazing
to watch.
Recently the province of Ontario has undergone some interesting
situations. On television any night of the week we see ads about
our health care system, a little boy with a boo boo on his knee
trying to rip off a band-aid. The mother says “If you rip it
off quick it will not hurt”. The message there is that if Mike
Harris cuts health care quickly it will not hurt.
1330
For the first time in my 30 years living in Mississauga, a week
or so ago I experienced the emergency room at Mississauga General
Hospital turning away ambulances.
An hon. member: You made the cuts.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Members opposite would look for the
simplistic answer to that. The fact is that Mr. Harris cut taxes
30%. To pay for his tax cut he unilaterally cut money to health
care in the province of Ontario. The people in Ontario are not
stupid. They understand that the provincial government—
An hon. member: The one from Mississauga is no brain
surgeon.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I never claimed to be a brain surgeon.
That coming from the Reform Party, I am not sure that a surgeon
would even be needed. One might have trouble finding it. The
hon. whip can rest assured that I have some points I wish to make
about the Reform Party's position and on the fact that it just
flips and flops depending on what happens to be in the newspaper.
I believe the entire research department of the Reform Party
consists of the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and
maybe one or two papers from out west from where Reform members
all hail. They read the paper in the morning, find out what the
issues are and then stand up in question period and say to spend
more money and cut taxes. That is all they want to do.
The reality is that this government in being a responsible
federal government understands the dynamics of a working
relationship with the provinces. I will not deny for a minute
the fact that the transfer payment floor was reduced from $12.5
billion to $11 billion. It has since been put back to $12.5
billion. I will not deny that, no question. Why did that
happen?
The solution from opposition members is simple: spend more
money. Where do we get the money when we are running an overdraft
of $42 billion? I know they are tired of hearing about it but
the reality is that something had to be done. This government
along with the people of Canada had the courage to suck it up and
do it. We had to make changes.
I find it astounding that a government like the Tory government
in Ontario would not simply applaud the moves of this government.
Even though that government has yet to eliminate its deficit, it
is still running a deficit in handing back a tax cut to the
taxpayers. How does that work? It is the same as saying to our
kids that we are going to run a family overdraft but we are going
to increase their allowance. At a certain point in time it is
not possible to do that.
The message finally came from this government under this Prime
Minister and this finance minister that we just simply had to cut
the suit, we had to cut the cloth to fit the body. We had to
start living within our means. That is exactly what this
government has done. We have clearly stated what our priorities
are. Debt reduction.
I believe that the vast majority of Canadians agree that debt
reduction should be the number one priority of this government
and any future government. We are saddling our children with a
debt that is simply too large. We are all to blame for it, even
those in this place who have never been in government and who
have constantly pushed, prodded, lobbied and demonstrated—and I
refer mostly to the NDP—for governments to spend more and more
without any sense of responsibility.
All of us, the past Liberal governments, past Conservative
governments and the opposition have a fiduciary responsibility to
the taxpayer to be more responsible with what we spend their
money on. We are all culpable, liable and responsible for the
size of the debt. It cannot continue.
1335
If members opposite really want $2 billion—and I do not know
why they are putting a limit on it by the way. It is entirely
possible by the time the budget comes down that there could be
more than that spent in health care. I do not know why they
would do that, but I guess it seemed like a good idea at the
time. Time will tell.
Should we do it in midstream? Sure we have a surplus and we
acknowledge that it appears the surplus is in the neighbourhood
of $10 billion. And we should be blamed for that is what I hear
members opposite saying. Okay, fine, we will accept the blame for
running a $10 billion surplus. Bad, bad Liberal Party. It is
terrible. How did we get there? Of course we made adjustments
in transfer payments. Of course we worked with our partners in
the provinces, including the province of Quebec to see how to
restructure the financial status of the country.
An hon. member: Efficiency.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: My colleague says we became more
efficient. That is absolutely true and we required them to do
the same and they have done so. We have seen efficiencies at all
levels of government.
We are not nearly done in those areas. The work of the
government after we get the debt reduction plan in place will be
to look at tax reduction. We have already effected $7 billion in
tax reductions, but there will be more. I hope these are
targeted to areas that will boost the economy. I would like to
see it in areas where we can see a return on that investment.
The kind of spending opposition parties should be talking about
is how can a government spend to effect a return on its
investments. We should eliminate the word spend and replace it
with the word invest. At that time we can then look toward a
return for our young people, so that we have some confidence that
our young people will indeed continue to have a health care
system with the five pillars that are so important to Canadian
health care and that they will continue to have access to
education.
We hear the criticism of the millennium fund “Give us the money
but stay out of our way; we want to spend it; don't you do it”.
This kind of parochial bickering should stop so that we can
continue to build what truly is recognized around the world as
the greatest country in which to live.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga went on for great
lengths about the hostility of Canadians toward Ottawa and toward
his government in particular. He seems to be mystified by this.
If he would just listen to his own condescending bombast he would
understand why the rest of Canada hates this place so much and
why Canadians feel the way they do about Ottawa. He is the
epitome of what is wrong. He almost turns me into a separatist
when I listen to him.
The member spoke about the relationship between spending and
responsibility. He used the analogy of youngsters leaving home
and wanting to hang on to their allowance. I would submit that
he has it completely reversed because what has happened in the
relationships between this government and the provinces is that
the Government of Canada entered into solemn agreements with the
provinces. It was going to contribute 50% of the cost of health
care and in return the federal government would have a very
strong hand in managing and organizing the direction of Canadian
health care. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Now it has cut contributions down to roughly 11% or 12% of the
total cost yet it still wants to keep its heavy hand on the
provinces and control, control, control, and that is spelled
L-i-b-e-r-a-l.
An hon. member: They know best.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes, mother government knows best.
1340
If the Liberals would look at their rather checkered record, if
I may use a more polite term, in their relations with the
provinces, they would realize why that anger is out there. He
said that in spite of the massive cuts—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We said two minutes.
If the member would please ask his question now.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Madam Speaker, I was just getting
going. Actually, I have no question. I just wanted to get a few
things off my chest.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I would say the
question the member is asking me is whether I agree. No, I do
not agree.
In a press release on October 28 the Reform Party stated that it
wants the government to put $7 billion into health care
transfers. But wait a minute, it is also demanding reductions of
$7 billion in EI premiums. On July 30 it promised that 50% of
any surplus would go to an agenda of tax cuts and the other 50%
would go to debt payment. Let us do the math. We have a $10.4
billion surplus. That is $5.2 billion for each of those
initiatives. Then the Reformers want to take $1.1 billion out of
the Department of National Defence. They are all over the map.
Spend, cut, no responsibility.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member opposite waxed eloquent, but he missed the point,
the point being transfer payments.
In his torrent of words, I caught a few which were insulting for
the provinces in general and Quebeckers in particular. He said
something to the effect that we were begging the noble and
generous Canada for more money.
Is it begging to ask that what was taken from one's wallet be
returned? This is what we are doing. We want the federal
government to restore the level of funding of transfer payments
to the provinces; the cuts to those transfers forced the
provinces to cut spending for education and other essential
services.
What did they do with that money? They created their millennium
fund, which gives them visibility. They traded essential
services for a millennium fund in order to get recognition.
They did not fool the students, at least not the Quebec
students. Those students did not take the bait.
Now, they want to do the same with health care. They forced us
to cut essential services in hospitals and they hope, one day,
to come up with a nice, big project which, they hope, will fix
everything and give them visibility.
Their premise is wrong. They think people are fools and will
swallow their story. They have cut transfer payments to force
provinces to cut services. And now they want to act like a
saviour, handing out money and services.
The premise is wrong, we are no fools. People are no fools. We
are not going to fall for that.
I do not have a question. This is a comment.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I never suggested those
members were imbeciles. I suggested they were separatists. I do
not have a problem with his taking my remarks as insults, but
they were not directed at the people of Quebec. They were
clearly directed at the Bloc.
It is the Bloc members who continue to pontificate in this House
as if they represent a province that believes in its entirety in
the nonsense they bring to this place. It does not. The
majority of Quebecers are Canadians. They are proud Canadians
who understand fiscal responsibility. They share this
government's belief that eliminating the deficit, paying down the
debt, reducing taxes and funding health care will be the top
priorities of this government.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, it
always amazes and saddens me to see how a very serious subject
like the health care of this nation's citizens can be trivialized
by the kind of comments I heard from the member opposite. It is
used as an opportunity to take swipes at another political party
rather than to address the issue of the care of this nation's
citizens.
1345
It bothers me to know that right across this country our health
care system is in a state of crisis. Doctors are leaving our
provinces and going to the United States because of our health
care system. People are on waiting lists for health care in
hospitals and others are unable to afford drugs. I could go on
and on.
Our aboriginal people in the north are facing a health crisis in
their communities. Someone trivialized this issue by using such
terms as “nasty resolution”. Showmanship I say it is. There
is nothing nasty about being concerned about the care and the
health of our citizens.
The member opposite asks, what does one have to do to get the
message across? I would say to that member opposite, what does
the public have to do, what do those in need of health care have
to do for this government to realize that there is a need to come
to grips with the health care problems we are facing?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I am delighted that I
seem to have at least engendered some anger over there. Frankly,
that is what I was trying to do.
Tommy Douglas must be turning over in his grave.
If the member wants to talk about sadness, how about talking
about the day his leader stood in this place and actually said
that Lucien Bouchard cares more about health care than Jean
Chrétien?
Can the member imagine a federal leader of the New Democratic
Party, a party whose members have the right to stand in this
place and say they were a major player in the founding of
medicare in this country, the party of Tommy Douglas, of
principles gone past, actually supporting a separatist premier?
That indeed was a sad day in the House of Commons of this great
country and a sad day for that party.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the partisan diatribe is quite disappointing today.
The provinces' difficulty is the prioritization of the cuts the
government made primarily on their backs. Are those cuts to his
liking?
I think of the fisheries department which has some 6,000 people
employed, most of them in Ottawa. It has been a disgrace the way
the fish stocks have been destroyed on both coasts.
Is this the kind of prioritization the federal government
approves of, when people are not able to get into hospital and
once they do get there they are not able to get the treatment
they need?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite
wants to look for the root of the tragedy, in Atlantic Canada
particularly, he need look no further than the former minister of
fisheries, the hon. John Crosbie. That is where the root of the
problem lay in that particular industry.
In relationship to health care—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the business of the House
in this debate to introduce a question of privilege, but I
understand that this is an appropriate time to do so and I crave
the indulgence of yourself and the House.
My question of privilege arises out of something which occurred
this morning. It arises out of the publication of an article in
the National Post newspaper by a reporter by the name of
Mike Trickey in which he published, verbatim, parts of a draft
report presently being considered by the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
I would like to make a few preliminary comments about this
publication prior to going into exactly why this is a question of
privilege.
The first comment I would like to make is that the National
Post seems to have a completely contemptuous disregard for the
process of this House, which was clear from an editorial
published last week. They seemed to totally misunderstand what
is going on in our committee.
Apart from that, I was asked as chairman of the committee, by
every one of the members of our committee who were there this
morning, to raise this matter with you, Madam Speaker, and with
our colleagues in the House.
Like all committees, we require that when we are doing our work
and when we are operating in camera that that work be kept
private. I will come back to citation 57 of Beauchesne's which
speaks of the work of parliament in camera.
1350
Madam Speaker, you know and members of the House know how hard
we work in committee to arrive at what is best for Canadian
citizens. That is where we discuss these issues.
This is a matter of national and international importance. The
publication of this article, which takes out of context parts of
this report, which was not a report but only a draft for
consideration by members of the committee, intimates that
conclusions have been made by the committee which have not yet
been made in any way. It intimates that we are going in
directions. The article leads us to believe that we are
threatening our relations with the United States of America, one
of our closest allies. It threatens the very nature of our
Canadian politics.
The article is wrong in the sense that it pretends this is a
report, when in fact it is a draft. It leads to conclusions
which will interfere with the ability of members of our committee
to conduct their hearings in a way which will enable us to come
to a report which will be of benefit to this parliament, to the
people of Canada and ultimately to the international community.
For all of those reasons I was asked if I would rise on this
point. The members of our committee work hard. The members of
our committee are determined to ensure that the House will have
the benefit of their deliberations. They are all searching for
the best solution for Canadians, from all parts of the House.
The publication of a committee's proceedings prior to its
conclusions and the release of a draft report is, in my view, a
violation of the privileges not only of myself as the chair, but
of every member of that committee and every member of this House.
How will we now come to an agreement on this draft when it has
been released to the press? What do these people really care,
except for getting some sort of a scoop? This is a question of
the integrity of the parliamentary process. There is the
integrity of the committee process that we as members of the
House must consider.
We have a systemic problem. This is, I understand, a continuing
practice. Every single report that has been discussed in
committee so far this year has been released or leaked by someone
to the press. It is reducing the committee process to a virtual
impossibility. We will not be capable of discussing our reports
if we cannot conduct our discussions in a way which will enable
us to craft those essential compromises and those essential
understandings which make the House work, which make democracy
work and which make the committee system work.
Madam Speaker, I urge you to consider this matter. I would
suggest that if it continues and is allowed to continue it will
destroy the efficacy of the committee system which is the very
underpinning of the democratic principles on which the House
survives. This House will not survive if we as members cannot
deliberate amongst ourselves and arrive at conclusions without
someone leaking confidential materials and pretending or
suggesting that those are the conclusions of the committee which
have not yet been reached.
I suggest this raises a prima facie case of breach of privilege.
It is a breach of my privilege as the committee chairman. It is
a breach of the privilege of every member of our committee.
Madam Speaker, I urge you to consider it as being a breach of the
privilege of every single member of this House. It is happening
with rapidity and it is going to destroy the way in which we
function. It is a breach of privilege by the source who leaked
the report. It is breach of privilege by the person who
published it. I urge you, Madam Speaker, to consider this
question.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
was at the committee meeting this morning with the chairman who
just raised this question of privilege. I thank him for raising
it in the House. I will only take a minute to lend my words of
support to him.
I am somewhat reluctant to blame the newspaper. I am pretty
upset with the person who leaked the report. The newspaper man
somehow levered it out of somebody who had a copy of the draft
report who felt there was some political mileage to be made from
leaking it. It is really unfortunate, but it is not unlike what
has happened to most committee reports this fall.
It would be a rare exception when the reports have not been
leaked. I do not know who is doing it, but it is a very
disturbing trend.
1355
What it means, of course, is that parliamentarians or someone in
the system is saying that the committee does not deserve to be
able to deliberate and, if it does, they are going to cut it off
at the knees by leaking the report to the media.
Secondly, it tells parliament that its work is not that
important, because before parliamentarians get to see it they are
going to put it in a national newspaper. Someone is saying that
and it is a shame.
Lastly, it is a concern especially for backbenchers. I am
certainly not blaming the cabinet; I am just saying that often
the only meaningful work for backbenchers is the work they do in
committee. They bring a report to parliament and ask for a
government response.
Someone is laying down the trump card. They are saying “I just
trumped all of your work by leaking it to a newspaper”. It is
no wonder that backbench MPs from all sides of the House get up
some mornings and say “What is the point of going to committee
if that is the way someone is going to treat the work?” The
work is secondary. It is not important. I do not know who is
saying it, but someone is saying “It is not nearly as important
as the headline I might be able to get”.
Members of the committee discussed this morning the hope that,
at the very least, the Chair would refer this matter to the
liaison committee. The liaison committee is made up of all of
the chairs of all of the committees of the House of Commons.
This is a systemic problem. All of the chairs are facing this.
All the work they do is being undercut by these constant leaks.
I would urge the Speaker, at the very least, to refer this to
the liaison committee for immediate study to see if there is some
better way to draft reports so that material is not available to
reporters or to some unscrupulous person who may want to leak it
to them.
At the very least, I would hope that the Speaker would find it a
question of privilege and refer it back to that committee for
immediate study. Perhaps it could come up with a better solution
that will gain the respect of this side and backbenchers on that
side of the House, so that we can move forward with confidence
and so that the House and committees will come first and the
headline seekers will be put in their place.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker,
concerning this issue, the Bloc Quebecois also deplores the leak
we were made aware this morning. Some people think this is a way
of intimidating the foreign affairs committee so that it will
refrain from making recommendations to bring about a foreign
policy more attuned to our times.
This morning, we determined that we should support the chair of
our committee, and all opposition party members felt it was
necessary to make a statement in the House to insist on the
independence of the foreign affairs committee and its members,
and on the independence of parliament in this matter.
We think that this statement will clarify the situation, and
help prevent further intrusion in a process that has been
confidential up to now and should have remained so. If there was
a breach, it would appear that some people want to use the process
to—
The Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if any more members want to
take part in this debate.
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Speaker: Then we will come back to this issue in due course,
but since it is now 2 o'clock we will move on to members'
statements.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
LATVIA
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to pay tribute to the people
of Latvia and Latvian-Canadians who, along with me, celebrated
the 80th anniversary of Latvia's independence yesterday, November
18.
In Latvia the occasion was commemorated by the laying of wreaths
at the Freedom Monument to symbolize the attainment of liberty
from foreign rule. The day was recognized by ceremonies
throughout Latvian-Canadian communities and here in Ottawa by
flying the Latvian national flag at city hall.
Canada has never wavered from its recognition of Latvia's
sovereignty throughout the period of Soviet occupation. Since
its re-independence, Latvia and Canada have enjoyed wonderful
partnerships in such areas as technical co-operation, NATO's
partnership for peace program, as well as humanitarian and civil
rights issues.
1400
This spirit of co-operation will continue to thrive in the
atmosphere of a free market economy where both Canada and Latvia
will benefit.
As the first member of parliament of Latvian heritage to take a
seat in the House, I am proud to offer my best wishes on this
memorable anniversary.
* * *
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberals are not giving Canadians want we want in terms of
health care, tax relief, democracy, parliamentary reform and
tougher penalties for criminals. The list goes on.
As we see in question period, the arrogance of Liberal ministers
goes too far. They ridicule members and frequently confuse the
public regarding opposition positions on issues. They often
pretend they know what Canadians want but actually they do not.
They fail to learn.
This attitude is best shown by the following quote. “He who
knows not and knows not that he knows not can never learn. Shun
him”. They are the Liberals. “He who knows not and knows that
he knows not can learn. Teach him”. They are the PCs and NDP.
“He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep. Awake
him”. That is the united alternative. “He who knows and knows
that he knows is a prophet. Follow him”. Here we are, the
official opposition. We speak for all Canadians. We know what
Canadians want.
* * *
WORLD TRACK AND FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to rise and
congratulate Edmonton's bid for winning the right to host the
2001 World Track and Field Championships.
This the first time that the International Amateur Athletic
Federation has ever awarded this event to North America. I want
to highlight the strong support for the bid given by the Minister
of Justice, the MP for Edmonton West and the Government of
Canada.
Yesterday the Prime Minister wrote the president of the
International Amateur Athletic Federation. As the Prime Minister
wrote, on behalf of all Canadians, we are hopeful that Canada's
bid will be successful.
Today we know that Edmonton has been successful and hats off to
everybody involved. Way to go.
* * *
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November 20 marks the sixth anniversary of National Child Day as
proclaimed by parliament. This is a day when children all over
the country are being celebrated for their uniqueness and
importance as valued members of our society.
National Child Day is a day that calls on us to address the
rights of our children and children around the world. These
rights should include but are not limited to proper nutrition,
access to health care, education, protection from exploitation
and abuse and the right to express themselves.
This year's objective on National Child Day is to increase
awareness and understanding of the importance of healthy child
development, particularly in the early years of life. In valuing
children we can and should take action to help our children reach
their full potential.
Investing in children through promoting good physical, mental
and social health outcomes benefits all Canadians. I therefore
encourage all hon. members to work to ensure that investing in
children is a significant priority in our parliamentary agenda.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour for me today to point out that November 20 will be the
sixth edition of national child day, which was proclaimed by an
act of parliament as a result of the efforts of the member for
Ottawa Centre.
As members of parliament, as parents and as concerned citizens,
we must never forget that our children are our responsibility.
[English]
We must make a commitment to their welfare, safety and education
and remember that as citizens it is our obligation to make a
difference in the lives of future generations.
I quote the elders of the Cree Nations. There is a common
belief among the Cree Nations that a child is a gift or a loan
from the Great Spirit and that one is given the responsibility to
raise and care for that child. Since that child is a gift from
the Great Spirit the child is sacred and must be treated with
respect and dignity.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister finds himself on the horns of a
dilemma because of his EI cash cow.
The minister has chosen over the past year to gouge hardworking
Canadians but I advise this minister to back off before he finds
out that those horns can also gouge.
The official opposition has been calling for a cut in EI
premiums, not only because they are too high but because fully
half those funds are not going to employment insurance at all.
There are over 900,000 small and medium size businesses in the
country that can use that extra $500 per employee to create new
jobs. There are nearly one million self-employed Canadians who
can use the extra $850 being taken from them every year, and of
course there are 14 million workers who have overcontributed $6.5
billion in income taxes in this past year who can make better use
of their own money rather than financing the minister's rainy day
fund.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
INFORMATION CONFERENCES/FAIRS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to use my allotted time to highlight an excellent
government initiative designed to help present and future
entrepreneurs in Quebec regions do business.
This fall, Canada Economic Development organized a series of
information conferences/fairs. The first one, which was held in
Shawinigan on September 24, attracted almost 1,200 business
people.
On November 13, it was the Hull region's turn to host an
information fair.
Two more of these events are scheduled, for November 21 in
Saint-Hyacinthe and December 4 in Chicoutimi.
With this one stop approach to promoting government programs and
services, we are hoping to help build tomorrow's businesses and
provide them with the best opportunities for the future.
This is an unequivocal commitment our government is making to
our follow citizens.
* * *
[English]
TARA SINGH HAYER
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with deep regret that I inform this House of the death of Mr.
Tara Singh Hayer who was assassinated last night in my community
of Surrey North.
Mr. Hayer, a prominent Sikh leader, published the
Indo-Canadian Times newspaper and was well known for his
views against militancy.
This courageous man's freedom of speech and his freedom to
publish his moderate views were continually being challenged by
threats and attacks on his person.
In 1988 he was shot at his newspaper office, resulting in his
confinement to a wheelchair. He has now been silenced.
I urge this government to provide all appropriate means of
support to local authorities to ensure his killer is brought to
justice swiftly. A sense of security and faith must be restored
to the citizens of my community.
Mr. Hayer was a man with the courage to give voice to his
convictions and for that he paid the ultimate price.
On behalf of myself, my family and the constituents of Surrey
North, I extend my deepest condolences to the family of Mr. Tara
Singh Hayer.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
vote for the Parti Quebecois is a vote for a referendum on
separating Quebec from the rest of Canada.
A vote for the Parti Quebecois is a vote for breaking up the
country. A vote for the Parti Quebecois is a vote for the
continued economic uncertainty that is costing Quebec so dearly.
A vote for the Liberal Party is a vote for a brighter future for
Quebec within Canada. A vote for the Liberal Party is a vote for
the economic growth of Canada and Quebec. A vote for the Liberal
Party is a vote for a leader who will be able to stand up for
the rights of Quebec within the Canadian federation.
On November 30, I will be voting for the Liberals. I urge all
Quebeckers to do the same.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNOR GENERAL'S LITERARY AWARDS
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I welcome,
recognize, celebrate and thank the artists who are with us today,
the poets and playwrights, the storytellers and translators, this
year's winners of the Governor General's Literary Awards.
Those stout hearts who wrestle with characters and words and
story arcs and stories that fall apart and Canada Council grants
applications and sleepless nights and cold light of day reviews;
wet babies and telephone bills and no money or diapers or printer
ribbons; long dry years where no praise comes; kids who ask “why
don't you get a real job”, and you asking the same question.
Yet because of it all and out of it all springs new life. A
feast of stories rise out of our earth, our precious northern
souls to delight us, to lighten us and to move us through the
darkness toward the stars.
We thank you, we salute you and we need you, so do not stop, do
not ever stop. You are our heritage and our hope.
* * *
FERTILIZER INDUSTRY
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one
of the many Canadian industries has often overlooked is our
fertilizer industry.
This industry employs nearly 12,000 people in the manufacture,
wholesale and retail levels. This does not include the thousands
of jobs in transportation and related sectors supported by our
fertilizer industry or the function that fertilizers serve in
Prince Edward Island agriculture and agriculture throughout
Canada.
From our 23 million tonnes of production, $2.5 billion worth is
shipped within Canada and $3 billion is exported.
Today, while we have representatives of the fertilizer industry
here in the gallery, I compliment them on creating an
internationally competitive Canadian industry.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the PQ were
returned to power, work on a referendum would resume apace.
However, Quebeckers are no fools. They understand that the
Bouchard referendum is another way to hold a referendum and
that, for the next four years, we would again have the sword of
Damocles hanging over our heads, with its uncertainties and
problems.
1410
According to Lucien Bouchard, Quebec cannot deny itself.
However, Quebec has not only twice said no to separation, it has
said no to another PQ referendum.
We do not want the winning conditions for a Bouchard referendum.
We want guarantees of a better future for Quebeckers. This
guarantee means a yes to a stronger Quebec within Canada.
On November 30, let us vote Liberal. On November 30, let us
vote for a guaranteed future.
* * *
[English]
FERTILIZER INDUSTRY
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
farmers are currently suffering one of the worst financial
crunches in years. It is through no fault of their own. They
have followed prudent management but they do not have the tools
to compete fairly with other countries.
As a result other players in the industry are starting to feel
the aftershocks of the farm income crisis. Particularly I am
speaking of the fertilizer industry.
Farmers will have no choice but to drastically cut back on their
input costs by whatever means they can. This means other
industry stakeholders will be at risk, not only the primary
producers.
This, combined with the government's hasty environmental
commitments at Kyoto, will greatly affect the fertilizer
industry. A carbon tax would be deadly.
If our domestic industry faces a greater burden than foreign
competitors we will not remain competitive. That can translate
into fewer jobs, fewer jobs in my riding and across the country.
Perhaps it is time for Canada to stop playing the boy scout and
develop a plan that will not put our domestic industry at risk.
I would also like to welcome members from the Canadian
fertilizer industry in the gallery this afternoon.
* * *
[Translation]
HOUSE OF COMMONS PARLIAMENTARY INTERNSHIPS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to draw attention to the presence in the gallery of
political science students from the University of Sherbrooke,
who, as part of a parliamentary internship, have been twinned
with Quebec members from the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal Party
of Canada and the Progressive Conservative Party.
I would also point out that, of all the faculties of political
science in Quebec and Canada, that of the University of
Sherbrooke is the only one we know of offering this sort of
internship. For three days, these students have followed their
MP and have seen political life from the inside.
We are delighted to have them here in the House of Commons,
because their presence means that Quebec young people are
interested in politics, something that is healthy for democracy.
Congratulations to the organizers of this program and a tip of
the hat to the students on their interest in parliamentary
democracy.
* * *
QUEBEC REFERENDUM
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the PQ has a very unusual conception of a referendum
debate. A future referendum would be a winning referendum only
for the PQ. This is a strange way to preserve democracy. By
preparing for another referendum, the PQ would once again lead
Quebec on the road to uncertainty and insecurity. This is a
dangerous approach that looks like intellectual fraud. It is an
approach that looks like contempt for Quebeckers.
It is hard to be more biased than the PQ. We are talking here
about the future of a society, not a PQ convention.
* * *
SCRAPIE
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that
special assistance would be provided to Quebec sheep producers
who are experiencing serious financial problems.
Those who were abandoned by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
and who lost 11,000 sheep between January 1, 1997 and October
27, 1998, will be eligible for a three-year interest-free loan of
up to $100,000 per business.
Quebec has taken action. It is now up to the federal Minister of
Agriculture to do his share after doing a major injustice by
creating two classes of producers in Quebec, one of which is the
victim of the minister's lack of compassion.
The Bloc Quebecois has confidence in the Bouchard government and
it salutes the courageous measure taken by a credible and
responsible government which Quebeckers will be proud to re-elect
on November 30.
* * *
[English]
LOBSTER FISHERY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on November
30 thousands of West Nova fishers will once again brave the icy
cold conditions to mark the official beginning of the 1998-99
lobster fishery.
It seems that each year opening day is marred by very adverse
weather conditions, yet these brave fishers battle the elements
and go out to set their traps, praying that once again they will
reap the benefits of our rich ocean floors.
1415
This year there is a completely different feeling of anxiety
among fishers. Following a contemptuous summer in which illegal
lobster fishing was allowed to operate almost unabated by DFO,
registered commercial lobster fishers feared that their catches
could be severely affected by the illegal activity.
Another major concern arising from the illegal lobster fishery
is whether market prices will be affected by the glut of illegal
lobsters that pervade our markets. I have continually raised
these concerns with the minister of fisheries and I sincerely
hope for all concerned that these fears do not come to pass.
I would like to take this opportunity to wish all fishers in
West Nova a very safe and prosperous season.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the solicitor general can run but he cannot hide. There
is now concrete proof that the solicitor general publicly
discussed a sensitive police issue which was under investigation
and has prejudiced that investigation. For six weeks he has
denied that in this House, counting on an old friend to back up
his alibi. But yesterday that old friend decided to tell the
truth rather than perjure himself.
When will the solicitor general be held accountable for his
actions and resign from his position?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend's question is wrong. Mr. Toole in his
affidavit said very clearly that he heard nothing from the
solicitor general that indicated that he had a role in
determining the outcome of the APEC commission. Mr. Toole went
on to say “nothing in our conversation suggested to me that Mr.
Scott knew what the outcome of the APEC commission would be”. My
hon. friend's premise is wrong and his question is off base as
well.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the solicitor general said that an RCMP sergeant had to
take a hit for this whole affair. The Liberal solicitor general
has lost the trust of the country and he must resign. If he does
not have enough sense to resign, he must be fired.
Earlier today in Asia the Prime Minister ducked out of a meeting
with Canadian reporters and has refused to answer questions.
Why did the Prime Minister not make firing the solicitor general
his number one piece of business today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is in China with a very important
list of commitments to advance the interests of the entire
country, not to help the leader of the Reform Party play
unnecessary political games.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I think we should get to the real question which is
still floating around here. Two witnesses have alleged that the
solicitor general said that RCMP Sergeant Hugh Stewart might have
to take a hit or a fall for pepper spraying protesters. This
House and Canadians are wondering for whom is Sergeant Stewart
supposed to take a hit. Is it for the solicitor general? Is it
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Or is it for the Prime
Minister himself and that is the reason for this exactly?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject the unwarranted and unjustified premise of the
leader's question because Mr. Toole in paragraph 21 of his
affidavit said “At no time during our conversation did Mr. Scott
suggest to me nor have I learned subsequently that he was a
person who had a role in determining the outcome of the APEC
commission”.
Why does the Leader of the Opposition not put that on the record
instead of his unwarranted innuendoes and premises?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Fred
Toole said that the solicitor general said that Hugh Stewart was
going to take the hit or the fall. That is what he said.
I wonder where the solicitor general is. Maybe in the sweat
lodge. Why are the Liberals going to such lengths to protect a
minister—
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to be very judicious
now in his choice of words.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, how many sworn affidavits
is it going to take before the Prime Minister fires the solicitor
general? How many sworn affidavits does it take? How many?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on sworn affidavits, I want to read again from paragraph
22 of Mr. Toole's affidavit: “Nothing in our conversation
suggested to me that Mr. Scott knew what the outcome of the APEC
commission would be”.
1420
Speaking of where members are, I know one thing about the hon.
member. He is strictly out to lunch.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is an absolutely ridiculous reply to that question.
The minister knows that Fred Toole said that Hugh Stewart was
going to take a hit or a fall. The question is who is he taking
it for?
When is that minister over there going to tell the solicitor
general that he has to resign? When is he going to do the
honourable thing and resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why does the hon. member continue to fail to recognize
the fact that the law gives the solicitor general no role
whatsoever in carrying out the hearings, in reaching the report
and reaching a conclusion on this important matter? Why does the
hon. member not let the commission do its work? Why does he try
to parallel the commission in an unwarranted way on the floor of
this House?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general's conduct in the “Peppergate” affair is
absolutely crazy. It is absolutely ludicrous.
First, he does not remember who was the person sitting beside
him, not even if this person was a man or a woman. Twenty-four
hours later, he remembers he was sitting next to an old friend
but not what they talked about. In an affidavit, he tells us he
does not remember what he said but that it was nothing
compromising.
Frankly, will the government recognize that enough is enough and
that the solicitor general must step down?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not understand why the hon. member does not recognize that the
solicitor general has no role in the decision to be made in this
matter.
In his own affidavit, he even insisted that he had not prejudged
this case. We recognize this and also in our discussion today.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
would really have liked to discuss this matter today with the
solicitor general.
But what I do not understand is that the Deputy Prime Minister
is still defending him. Or could it be that the Deputy Prime
Minister is really defending the Prime Minister for whom the
solicitor general only serves as a cover.
Is this not enough? Has this matter not lasted long enough? If
there is an ethics counsellor and some sense of responsibility
on that side of the House, the solicitor general should be asked
to resign.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
there is a cover here, it is the hon. member who is covering for
Lucien Bouchard.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have two
affidavits stating that the Solicitor General made presumptions
about the conclusions of the RCMP inquiry during his chat on the
plane.
We also have the Solicitor General saying “I do not remember
what I said, but I did nothing bad”.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister finally admit that the Solicitor
General has a very serious credibility problem and that his only
option is to resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder why the hon. member fails to recognize Mr. Toole's words
in the affidavit, and I quote, in English:
[English]
“At no time during our conversation did Mr. Scott suggest to me
nor have I learned subsequently that he was a person who had a
role in determining the outcome of the APEC commission”.
[Translation]
The Solicitor General plays no part, under the law, in judging
the commission. This is clear.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Solicitor General could have resigned immediately after his chat
on the plane without losing face or credibility.
Now that he no longer has any credibility, should the Prime
Minister not ask him to resign in order to salvage what dignity
he has left?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. Solicitor General continues to enjoy the confidence of the
Prime Minister and of his colleagues.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on October
5 the solicitor general told Canadians he would have to consider
resigning if statements attributed to him by myself were
corroborated. Yesterday his long term friend Fred Toole did just
that.
Now that both the political friend and the political ally of the
solicitor general have verified what he said about RCMP Staff
Sergeant Hugh Stewart, my question for the Deputy Prime Minister
is when will the Prime Minister be accepting the resignation of
his solicitor general?
1425
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask my hon. friend when will he read paragraphs 21 and
22 of Mr. Toole's affidavit and realize that it undermines the
credibility of his question.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
unconscionable that this solicitor general remain one more second
in his position. The Deputy Prime Minister knows full well that
is the point. Even if the Deputy Prime Minister refers to my
writing as hen scratching, it has given your members opposite
lots to itch about over there—
The Speaker: My colleague, you should always address your
remarks to the Speaker.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. My
question is very simple. When will the solicitor general resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when will the hon. member read carefully each and every
word of both affidavits in question?
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Fred Toole and the member for Palliser filed
affidavits that clearly destroy the veracity of the solicitor
general. We now have sworn evidence from two people that
completely contradicts nearly two months of denials. The
solicitor general's story has more changes than the maritime
weather. The Deputy Prime Minister has quoted extensively from
these affidavits but Mr. Toole is not the person to force the
resignation of the minister. When can we expect the solicitor
general to do the honourable thing and resign over this matter?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the basic issue is whether or not the solicitor general
has any role whatsoever in taking part in the hearings, in
conducting the hearings or in writing the report as a result of
the hearings. The fact of the matter is he has no such role. He
has said over and over again, including under oath, that he has
not prejudged the situation and in any event he plays no role in
making the judgment.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, what a wicked web. The APEC panel is in shambles,
the RCMP is challenging the process itself, Gerald Morin and the
solicitor general are both under suspicion of prejudging the
outcome, there are discrepancies, denials, PMO cover-ups and the
removal of any hope of a satisfactory conclusion. What will it
take for the solicitor general to take responsibility, to act
responsible? He has tainted this investigation hopelessly. When
will he resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, parliament, in passing the relevant law, has not given
the solicitor general responsibility for the commission in
question, for its panels, or for the conducting of the hearings.
That is very clear. So I ask the hon. member, when will he stop
trying to taint the work of the commission by playing out his
political concerns on the floor of this House?
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is all about the Liberal solicitor general inappropriately
discussing a sensitive police matter that is still under
investigation and doing it in public. It is about a breach of
his duties. It is about failing to live up to the most basic
responsibility that Canadians have entrusted to him. The
solicitor general had a job to do. He was to do the job, be
honest, be discreet and keep his mouth shut if necessary. He
failed on all accounts. It is late but not too late. When will
he do the right thing and tender his resignation? Do it now.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the solicitor general has been doing his job. That job
does not include running the public complaints commission. It
does not include running the panel. It does not include
conducting the hearings. It does not include writing the report
or making its judgment. So he has been doing his job but not a
job which the hon. member wants him to play so he can score
political points.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is pretty sad. The solicitor general's seatmate, Fred
Toole, swore an affidavit about what was said on that airplane.
He did it because he refused to perjure himself to cover for the
solicitor general. Just think for a second over there about what
that says about the solicitor general. It says that he has to
resign and he has to resign now.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member places such faith in Mr. Toole's
affidavit, then he ought to give equal and overall weight to
paragraphs 21 and 22 which show that the hon. member's premise is
wrong.
* * *
1430
[Translation]
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although at
the time certain commentators were labelling him a saboteur,
yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was boasting
that he had been the main architect of the regulations on French
and English school boards and on manpower.
Will the minister acknowledge that, in order to settle the
manpower question, which the Prime Minister at one point
labelled a whim of Quebec, it took a sovereignist delegation to
Ottawa and a sovereignist government in Quebec, and his role was
merely that of a messenger of the federal government?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not understand whether the question was on the
manpower agreement or the school boards. However, I can assure
the House that in both cases the Government of Canada had to do
the bulk of the work. We did so despite the fact that there was
a pro-independence government in Quebec which was trying to prove
that federalism did not work.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister is so efficient and so extraordinary, how can he
explain that, in the important matter of social union, which was
supposed to be his responsibility, the Prime Minister chose to
foist it off onto the Minister of Justice?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are in the process of negotiating something very
important, the enhancement of federation as it affects social
programs for the people. We have one of the best social unions
in the world and we are going to improve it still further. That
improvement will be a lot easier when we have a government in
Quebec which wants a stronger Quebec within a united Canada.
* * *
[English]
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
about seven hours ago I was in the same room in this city as the
solicitor general. About three hours ago the government whisked
the solicitor general out of town on an airplane to avoid the
responsibility he has in the House to answer.
Is the solicitor general now at home writing a resignation, or
will the government demand his resignation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the same spirit as the hon. member's question, where
is the leader of the Reform Party? Is he out in the lobby
writing his resignation?
The Speaker: That is about even.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that response is absolutely disgraceful.
For fellow colleagues and people watching, this is an issue
about integrity which the solicitor general is lacking. I want to
say to members of the House that this issue of integrity affects
everybody.
I would like to know when the government, in the face of—
The Speaker: I did not hear the question. If the Deputy
Prime Minister wishes to address it, I will let him do it.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will answer the question and in reply I will ask the
hon. member a question.
Why are both front rows of the front bench of his party
completely vacant? Where are all the people? Where—
1435
The Speaker: It is a long time tradition of our House
that we do not mention whether a member or members are here. I
will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw the last
statement.
Hon. Herb Gray: I withdraw the last statement, Mr.
Speaker. They are all—
The Speaker: I wonder if I could ask the Deputy Prime
Minister just to withdraw.
Hon. Herb Gray: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker, because of my
respect for you.
* * *
[Translation]
ICEBREAKING POLICY
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister surprised everyone when he announced yesterday that no
icebreaking charges would apply to the Quebec City-Lévis ferry
service, which suggests that charges will apply to all other
ferry services in Quebec, starting December 21.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Does
the minister realize that ferries, which provide an essential
public service, must all be completely exempted, as are the
Newfoundland ferries?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of what the hon. member is talking
about. I am also well aware of the fact that the federal
government is spending $36 million a year on bridges crossing
the St. Lawrence River in the Province of Quebec.
This is the single largest amount we spend in any Canadian
province in this respect.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the minister also told us that discussions were under way
concerning the status of ferry service not covered by
constitutional guarantees.
Could the minister tell this House with whom he is having these
discussions?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Of course, Mr. Speaker. At present, we are reviewing the
comments received to date, at the request of industry
stakeholders. A revised scale of fees will be distributed for
public consideration. However, a final decision has yet to be
made.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is simply and totally unbelievable that the
government continues to defend the solicitor general.
Yesterday Fred Toole's sworn statement proved that yes indeed
the solicitor general said that a Mountie named Hughie would take
the fall. We are still missing the answer to the very most
important question. Who is Staff Sergeant Stewart going to take
the fall for? Is it the Prime Minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): The hon.
member is doing exactly what he is accusing the solicitor general
of doing and that is trying to prejudge the matter. Why does he
not let the commission do its work?
1440
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 5 when the solicitor general gave his now
infamous stun scrum he said he could not remember anything about
his conversation just a few days prior. He could not remember
what he talked about, who he was sitting with, even if it was a
man or a woman.
In yesterday's affidavit he swore on the Bible that he knows he
did not say anything wrong even though he does not know what he
said. Who over there is going to take responsibility and fire
this clown?
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to withdraw that last
word.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is doing exactly what he has been quite
wrongly accusing the solicitor general of doing.
He is not only prejudging the matter. Now he wants to conduct
the hearings, including a discussion of affidavits, right here in
the House. This is not the place for that. That should be done
before the commission. Why does he not let the commission do its
work?
* * *
[Translation]
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Transport confirmed at last that the
Laurentian Park and Trans Labrador highways were eligible for
his strategic highway improvement program. There is only one
problem: there is no more money. Unbelievable.
Could the minister tell us if his representations to his finance
colleague were successful and if he has any reason to believe
that there will be money for highway improvement in the next
budget?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance and all my cabinet colleagues
are well aware of the need to improve the Canadian highway
system.
This, however, is a matter of fiscal priorities and a matter to
be debated among Canadians and among government members. But as
soon as we are in a financial position to do so, I think we will
start with a highway reconstruction program.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Could the minister give the House a status update on the
veterans legislation and more specifically how it would address
the concerns of our merchant navy veterans?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, consultations with the main veterans group are coming to
a close. We had a very fruitful discussion with all groups.
I am pleased to report to the House and our colleagues that I
expect the first reading of the bill to be some time in early
December. Following second reading the bill will go to report
stage for discussion in the appropriate committee.
With respect to the merchant navy veterans who get exactly the
same benefits since 1982 as uniformed veterans, their allowances
will actually be changed from the civilian war allowance to the
Veterans War Allowance Act. They will all—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister in his stonewalling keeps telling us to
let the process work. The solicitor general whenever he has the
guts to show up says let the process work.
The Speaker: I want the hon. member to withdraw that last
statement.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why it is that
the solicitor general when kibitzing about this on the airplane
did not just tell Fred Toole to let the commission work?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why is the hon. member, who I think is a former director
of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, showing such satisfaction
with the government's financial policies? Neither he nor his
colleagues throughout almost an entire question period have said
one word about the government's financial policies, its policies
on economic growth and its policies on tax reform.
Obviously they are very satisfied with the work of the Minister
of Finance and the Liberals. Thanks again for that vote of
confidence.
1445
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is getting more bizarre by the minute.
Every member of the Liberal caucus knows that the solicitor
general is now going to be forced to take the fall by the Prime
Minister. They all know it. They are just going through a
tortuous process now.
My question is very simple. Instead of allowing the solicitor
general to get away with this kind of complete violation of due
process, why does the government not let the process work? Why
does the government let the solicitor general get away with
misleading this House, as he did, and misleading Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject the totally unwarranted premise of the hon.
member's question. Why does he not let the process work instead
of trying to taint it with his innuendoes and insinuations right
here in this House? If he wanted the process to work he would do
his job and ask questions about the very fine financial and
economic policies of this government.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
this is a serious issue before this House. It is not about who
is here or who is not. It is not about name calling. It is
about integrity and justice.
The Deputy Prime Minister says that the solicitor general has no
role in the process. The solicitor general voluntarily created a
role and is now a witness before the very commission that has to
report to him.
When will the government not recognize the conflict and call
upon the solicitor general to resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should take a look at the act setting up
the commission. All the solicitor general does once the
commission makes its report is receive the report. He is not
charged with reviewing it, revising it, or doing anything with it
other than receiving it. Therefore, I do not see any conflict of
interest.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Deputy Prime Minister has been fond in this question period
of quoting from the affidavit of Mr. Toole.
Let me quote part of paragraph 15. “To this Mr. Scott said:
`Oh, you mean Hughie' and commented to the effect that Hughie
might have to take `a' or `the hit' or `fall'.”
The real question is, when did the Prime Minister's office know
that Mr. Toole's affidavit and account of events contradicted the
solicitor general's?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the affidavits were filed at a certain point in time.
That speaks for the whole situation. As to other information, if
I have any that I can provide the House I will do that.
But the important thing is that both affidavits are there. Both
affidavits confirm what the solicitor general has been saying
over and over in this House. Mr. Toole's affidavit, especially,
confirms what the solicitor general has been saying in this House
and that is that he has not prejudged this matter, even though he
has no role in making any judgments about it.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, on June
11, 1997, the member for Fredericton took the following oath: “I
solemnly and sincerely swear that I will be a faithful and loyal
servant of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, as a member of the
Privy Council of Her Majesty in right of Canada. I will keep
secret any matter that comes to my knowledge in that capacity,
and anything that is treated secretly by the council. I will
always act in an appropriate way as a faithful and loyal servant
of Her Majesty. So help me God”.
Now, on November 19, 1998, we have proof that the solicitor
general has broken his oath of office and must resign.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
totally reject the premise of the hon. member's question. He
read the oath of office of a privy councillor. He will not get
any closer to the facts by reading this oath in the House.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, an
oath is an oath.
The evidence is there. You know and everyone knows that the
solicitor general spoke about the APEC issue. He broke his oath
of office and he broke his word.
Enough is enough! He must resign immediately. What other
alternative does he have?
1450
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
totally reject the hon. member's premise, to the effect that the
solicitor general broke a secret in violation of the oath in
question.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of
Justice.
There have been a number of disturbing cases recently of
wrongful convictions coming to light.
What is the minister doing to make it easier for cases like
these to be corrected?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians across this country
know the names of Donald Marshall, David Milgaard and Guy Paul
Morin. In fact, those names are a tragic reminder that at times
our justice system does make mistakes. Because our system does
make mistakes, it is important to have a mechanism to ensure that
justice is ultimately done.
The existing mechanism is section 690 of the Criminal Code. I
have indeed begun a public consultation into the operation of
section 690 because I believe it is my obligation to ensure that
we have the most transparent, timely, fair and efficient
mechanism—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what we have heard and seen here today from the government is an
example of its ethics, and that is to defend indefensible
actions.
The solicitor general compromised this whole situation by his
comments. The Deputy Prime Minister, as the former solicitor
general, knows that.
I ask again, will he simply do the right thing and ask for his
resignation now?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, speaking of ethics, why does the hon. member not do the
ethical thing and not try to compromise the Public Complaints
Commission hearings before they have barely begun?
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of National Defence.
The latest statistics concerning sexual assaults in the army
show that the total number of reported cases is now 241; that
means there were 45 new cases during the last month.
How can the minister explain that there is almost one new case
of sexual assault reported each day in the army despite the zero
tolerance policy and the appointment of an ombudsman?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we simply are determined that the
patterns of the past will be avoided now and in the future.
We have opened up, through the national investigation service, a
1-800 line. We have asked people who in fact have allegations
and issues that were not properly dealt with previously and where
justice was not properly attained to come forward. That is why
there is an increase in the reporting of these cases.
Many of these cases go back many years. But we are determined
to get to the bottom of these matters. We are determined that
justice be done.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
future of the Halifax port is key to the future of the Nova
Scotian economy. But economic development is crippled by the
patronage politics of the past.
Urgent calls from business, labour and even the provincial
Liberal government have demanded that the problems with the port
advisory committee process be addressed. These are urgent calls
that have been ignored by the minister.
Will the transport minister listen to Nova Scotians? Will he
commit today to go to Halifax to hear these concerns firsthand?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have been setting up port advisory committees
across the country. We have put a public notice in the
newspapers in Halifax. We put a group of people together, six of
whom represent the chamber of commerce. Four represent the
Halifax shipping authority. One represents organized labour and
was the unanimous choice of organized labour, the longshoremen's
union. They have come together to devise a process for future
nominations that will be incorporated into the letters patent.
We have been doing this with every single port across the
country. Halifax is no different.
The group has selected categories of users and we will have to
select people to represent those categories.
Not one director has been appointed. We are certainly open to
suggestions, even from the opposite—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
* * *
FINANCE
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday for the first time the finance minister credited the
previous PC government for his debt reduction plan. He said
“They set up a deficit reduction plan. What we are in fact
doing is doing exactly what his government set up”.
1455
The Economist magazine has also said that the PC policies
are responsible for his government's success in eliminating the
deficit.
Now that the finance minister has admitted that his best
policies have come from the previous PC government, I ask him to
do it again, take good PC policy and reduce taxes for Canadians
today.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that the Progressive Conservative
Party is very good at setting up plans. It has had a lot of
experience. It set one up every six months. The difference is
that they never kept them.
The deficit, every single year, kept creeping up. Time after
time the minister of finance would stand in this House and
apologize. He would say “I have a new plan”. The next thing
would be that that plan would be blown and he would have a new
plan. Then he would have a new plan.
They planned this country into a $42 billion deficit and we
eliminated it.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary
Secretary for International Trade. I just read in one of our
newspapers that the U.S. is investigating charges that Canadian
cattle is being unfairly subsidized and dumped into the U.S.
market.
What is the minister going to do to defend our Canadian cattle
industry?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact the United
States government has not yet started an investigation. If it
does proceed, the Government of Canada is confident that U.S.
authorities will find no factual basis to these allegations, just
as they have done in the past.
In 1987, 1993 and 1997 our cattle exports were investigated by
the United States. They found no basis for any trade action
against Canada at that time.
If they do decide to go forward, the Canadian government will
work with the cattle industry and the provinces to defend our
interests.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let us
recap. We have two sworn affidavits proving that the solicitor
general compromised the Public Complaints Commission.
We have two lawyers for both the RCMP and the students trying to
kill the commission because it has been compromised, but the
deputy PM keeps stonewalling.
The only process that has credibility is an independent judicial
inquiry. When are we going to get one?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me recap. If an inquiry was set up, it would be set
up by the Prime Minister. He would appoint the commissioner,
even if it was a judge. He would set the terms of reference. He
would set the life of the commission. He would receive the
report.
I am glad the hon. member and the Reform Party show their
confidence in the Prime Minister. We have the same confidence.
It is time they began showing that confidence in the same way as
the majority of the Canadian people.
* * *
[Translation]
AUGUSTO PINOCHET
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was obviously not
aware of the request filed by a torture victim of the Pinochet
government in 1973.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Will the minister
proceed with the request of this person, and will the government
have the courage, like other governments, to bring charges
against General Pinochet for crimes against humanity and to ask
for his extradition?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the request to
which the hon. member refers. In fact I have referred the matter
to the RCMP.
In addition, I have asked the war crimes unit in my department
to consider the facts of this case.
* * *
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. The
minister knows that western farmers are in crisis. Net farm
income is down 70% to 84% since last year. It is the lowest
since the depression. European and American governments are
backing their farmers. Farmers are telling me in Craik, Tugaske
and Nokomis, Saskatchewan, that they cannot pay their bills now
from last summer.
When will the minister of agriculture announce an emergency aid
program for farmers in crisis?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times we have to
tell the hon. member and the members opposite that we are working
with the provincial governments and the industry to put in place
short term support, along with the support that is already there
for the farmers of Canada, as well as mid-term support.
In addition, we are working with the WTO so that we can help
alleviate these types of situations in the future.
* * *
1500
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the
presence in our gallery of a group of Canadians of extraordinary
talent and accomplishment in the field of Canadian literature.
They have devoted their energies toward enriching the cultural
life of Canada.
[Translation]
They received the 1998 Governor General's Award for Literature,
the most prestigious tribute to the great writers of Canada.
[English]
I will call out the names of these 13 recipients who are with us
today. I know many of you know many of them personally.
François Archambault, Stephanie Bolster, Angèle Delaunois, Sheila
Fischman, Christiane Frenette, Janet Lunn, Kady Macdonald Denton,
Charlotte Melançon, Pierre Nepveu, Pierre Pratt, David Adams
Richards, Diane Schoemperlen, Djanet Sears.
[Translation]
Please welcome warmly the 1998 laureates of the
Governor General's Award for Literature.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: There will be a reception for
our guests in room 216. I invite you to come.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the official opposition of Canada I shall be
delighted to put Thursday's question to the government House
leader.
What is on the agenda of the House for the remainder of this
week and for the next week?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in a word, plenty. Let me give
a more full answer.
Today is an opposition day. Tomorrow we will take up the second
reading of Bill C-58, the railway safety bill. On Monday of next
week we will resume consideration of report stage of Bill C-53,
the small business bill. If time permits we will then consider
third reading of Bill C-42, the Tobacco Act amendments, the
second reading of Bill C-48, the marine parks bill, Bill C-49,
the first nation lands bill, and Bill C-56, the Manitoba land
claims bill.
1505
On Tuesday we will do the third reading of Bill C-53 given that
we will likely have completed the report stage on Monday. For
any time that remains on that day we will continue with any
unfinished business that I previously described beginning with
the third reading of Bill C-42.
On Wednesday we will continue with the list I have just
indicated and at the end add Bill C-35, the special imports bill.
It is my hope that we will complete this very full agenda by the
time I described next week.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Deputy Prime
Minister in numerous questions during question period quoted from
a document, an affidavit, that is well known now to members of
this House. Can we please have that affidavit tabled?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I understand the document in
question has been laid. Therefore it will constitute a public
document. If that is the case, I will endeavour to have it
tabled as soon as possible. I thank my colleague for raising the
question.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): When we interrupted the
debate for question period we were discussing a question of
privilege.
Are there other members who would like to be heard on the
subject? The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, I
will be very brief.
The question of privilege that was raised this morning, I will
recall, concerns the fact that the report from the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs dealing with nuclear matters was
published in a newspaper this morning. The committee felt its
position was somewhat jeopardized and we thought it was
important to raise this matter in the House.
I do not want to repeat what the committee's chairman and my
colleagues have already said.
However, I want to assure the House that even if the matter
under scrutiny deals with nuclear matters, we in the foreign
affairs committee will make sure that the independence and the
sovereignty of this Parliament and of this country will prevail.
Never will the committee accept to be told what to do or what to
say by anyone, wherever in the world.
There seems to be a problem with committee reports. The chairman
asked the Speaker to look into it. While we regret this
situation, we want to assure our colleagues in the House and our
fellow Canadians that the committee remains independent and
sovereign and that it will strive to protect and defend the
interests of all Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I too want to make some comment on the matter raised by
the hon. member from Rosedale.
He has brought to the attention of the House the apparent
publication of contents of a draft report of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs. Such publication or disclosure of
committee reports at draft stage or disclosure of committee work
in process before it is made public, particularly work done in
camera, has always been considered and classed as a breach of the
privileges of the House. From what has been told to the House
today I can only accept that there has been what we sometimes
refer to as a prima facie breach of privilege.
In listening to members today I see no difference emerging in
their views. The question is what should the House do, what
should the committee do in responding to this.
1510
It is my view that this might well be an appropriate case for
the House, for colleagues on both sides of the House, to draw the
line in the sand, first so that we will all know and the public
will know where this stands in terms of parliamentary law and
that we are not doing this simply to assert a parliamentary
position. We are doing it to protect what we regard as
representatives of Canadians as the public interest, that we need
the flexibility to deal with these public interest issues in
camera from time to time. When we do that we must demand that
the rules of the House and the privileges of parliament be
respected.
We now have to determine what we should do. Should we just make
the point and walk away? Should we deal with the case
generically by referring it to one of our committees? Or should
we make use of this instance to draw a line in the sand and
actually attempt to locate the source of the leak?
Experience in this and other parliaments seems to show that
while it is easy to find the publication of the information, it
is not so easy to find the location of the leak. Locating the
person or the mechanism by which the leak occurred would involve
calling witnesses and require testimony from individuals who
might not wish to provide testimony.
While the House has the undoubted authority and power to do
this, it is an exercise which colleagues on both sides of the
House would want to undertake with a fair bit of dedication and
commitment. There would be no point in pursuing this and doing
half a job.
The member from Rosedale did not indicate that he wished to move
a motion, but I am sure he would move a motion if the Chair found
that the facts in this case did constitute a breach of the
privileges of the House. I am confident that the Chair will find
that and I want to make the following suggestion.
It may not have occurred previously in this House but I gather
it has occurred in the British House which takes the same
position, incidentally, in relation to the premature publication
of committee draft proceedings or in camera proceedings. That is
to refer the matter not to the House management committee, which
would address the breach of privilege issue, but to the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs out of which the problem first
arose. That committee would attempt to put together the facts
surrounding the unauthorized publication and release, the leak,
call witnesses as appropriate and report back to the House with
comment on how serious the unauthorized publication would have
been, how serious for public interest it would have been and what
importance the House should attach to it.
The House will probably agree that there are times when a leak
of a phrase will not mean too much. But in this case it was a
report dealing with the formation of this country's policy on
nuclear disarmament and it is a matter of no small importance to
the way this country formulates its policy and carries on
business in the international community.
I suggest it is a fairly serious issue, but members best
equipped to comment on that would be the members of the foreign
affairs committee.
I simply hold that out as one option available which the Chair
or members of that committee may wish to look at more closely. In
the event that approach is not taken, I believe if a breach of
privilege is found by the Chair the matter should stand referred
to the House management committee which looks at these matters
generally.
1515
I for one would want to see that committee pursue the matter
aggressively, making this case for all Canadians and the media
that sometimes rely on MPs to entertain the masses and to write
their stories without having to do their homework. We should
look at this case as a serious breach and attempt to make use of
it to draw the line in the sand so that we would have fewer or no
breaches of this important parliamentary privilege.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I want
to add my comments to this question of privilege. I am thankful
that it was raised by a member on the government side because it
has happened to me personally on two occasions.
The first occasion it happened to me was as a member of the
justice committee when we considering the recommendations of the
10 year review of the Young Offenders Act in in camera hearings.
Those recommendations were prematurely leaked and carried in the
Ottawa Citizen.
It is interesting that the reporter who covered the story wrote
verbatim some of the recommendations that we were contemplating
at that time. I approached the reporter and challenged him if he
had been used by the government side to leak the message it
wanted leaked to the news media. He admitted that was the case.
When I jokingly challenged him to reveal the name of the
individual, he refused to do so.
On a second occasion, with the same justice committee that was
dealing with recommendations on victims rights in in camera
hearings, the same reporter prematurely leaked those
recommendations. I want it placed on record for the
consideration of those members of the House or the committee that
this matter might be referred to. If they are interested, the
fact of the matter is that reporter from the Ottawa Citizen
is now working for the federal justice department.
As I said earlier, I was very grateful that this question was
raised by a member on the government side. It has been ongoing.
There is no doubt in my mind that on each of the occasions I was
involved in there was no member of the justice committee involved
in the leak.
The concern expressed by all members of the justice committee
clearly indicated to me that someone else probably beyond the
members of the committee was using, for whatever reason, the
information contained within these in camera meetings for his or
her purposes. It is very serious. Either we deal with it as a
serious matter or, as my whip said earlier, we simply ignore the
importance of the work of members of committees.
I lend my support to the need to have a serious look at these
breaches of confidentiality that ought to be regarded with the
greatest degree of severity as work commences and proceeds within
these committees.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There being no other
comments on this question of privilege, the Chair will take all
comments under consideration and get back to the House.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
The House resumed consideration of the motion; and of the
amendment.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, for those
watching TV today the Bloc has put forth a motion. This motion
is one where the Bloc directs the debate and is asking for some
money to be put back into the health care system.
1520
This is a fascinating debate because how often do we see the
provinces in Canada united. Every province in Canada is calling
for some funds to go back into our health care system. They have
basically said that unilateral federal actions are unacceptable.
They have also made a unified call to reverse medicare cuts.
It is very difficult to get unanimity even in one party. I note
that there are individuals from a host of parties who have joined
in this call.
Why have they in fact united in this way? I will try to be
absolutely non-partisan in my comments by suggesting that health
is important individually for each of us. Nothing has more
import for our loved ones. Ill patients do not care how, when,
what or where the funds come from for their care. They simply
want good and timely access to cost effective care when they need
it. They are quite annoyed by jurisdictional or party arguments
on this subject.
Why has the public expressed this degree of concern on health?
While I have been a member of the federal government the public
has watched funding drop from $18.7 billion to $11.1 billion.
According to my math that is $7.6 billion in cash that was
designed to go to the provinces for health care. I call that the
free fall of funding.
I listened to a couple of colleagues on the other side of the
House say that there has been a reinvestment in medicare. I
would like everyone to know what that reinvestment means. It
means that in the free fall of funding it did not go to $11.1
billion. The government pulled the rip cord and just before we
slammed into the roof top it stopped the funding reduction at
$12.5 billion.
A young student in elementary school would be able to calculate
that we did not drop down quite as far as we were intending to
go. We stopped at $12.5 billion and that is not an increase in
funding to medicare. That is pulling the rip cord before
medicare is finished.
Some other things have happened during my tenure in the House. I
came here in 1993. I left my surgical practice to try to bring
my viewpoint to the medicare debate. We have lost 1,400 trained
Canadian physicians in the last two years to other jurisdictions.
We paid for, we looked after and gave them all the advantages,
and they chose to leave this country. They are lost to us.
During that same time span we dropped from number two in the
world when it comes to spending on health to number five. Waiting
lists, which were really quite small in 1993, have grown until we
now have at any one time in Canada around 190,000 people waiting
in pain. The drop in public spending is 3.1%. We are talking
about billions of dollars.
Interestingly enough, in terms of confidence of the Canadian
public in our health care system in 1993—and this question has
been asked for years—55% of Canadians rated health care as
excellent to good. Asked the very same question with the very
same words today in 1998 and 29% of Canadians are willing to say
that our system is excellent to good. We certainly have a change
in the confidence level of the public.
1525
It is instructive to talk about individuals. I get a lot of
individual stories about people who are concerned. Today I will
tell two stories.
The first story is about a fellow from Saskatchewan who
contacted me two weeks ago. He had been healthy all his life. He
is in his mid-fifties. He was diagnosed with a sore on the back
of his tongue. It was biopsied and came back as cancerous. It
luckily did not spread. He went to the nearest big centre in
Saskatchewan and because it was a severe problem he was referred
immediately to a surgeon. Canadian health care still does pretty
well on major issues like this in terms of immediacy.
The surgeon said he needed a radical neck dissection, a
dissection of all the nodes in his neck. He wanted someone with
some experience in the area because it was major surgery. He was
told that he would lose his voice, that he would need a feeding
tube and that he would probably never be able to swallow again.
The surgeon he had been referred to said that he did about one of
these operations a year. The man felt he would like to have
someone with more experience than that. He found there was no
one available to him in a reasonable time span. He was told he
needed to have the surgery within six weeks.
During the six weeks he tried to find someone in other
provinces. He tried to find someone in Ontario but was unable to
do so. There was no one available to him in British Columbia. He
heard there was a surgeon who could do this surgery in the U.S.
at the Mayo clinic, so he went there. He said that he was not a
wealthy man or guy with a lot of resources but that he valued his
life more than anything. He found a surgeon who did about 30 of
these operations a year, almost one a week. The surgeon, who was
vastly experienced, said that he would not have to remove his
voice box or put him on a feeding tube. He told the man he was
pretty sure he could get him fixed without those terrible side
effects.
The man came immediately back home and said that his system said
we would be looked after here but that it did not look as if he
could be looked after here. He was asking to go elsewhere and
wanted health care to look after him if he went to the Mayo
clinic. The answer was no, that he would need to have surgery in
Canada. He chose to go to the Mayo clinic with his own
resources. He spent a huge amount of family money that could
best go elsewhere.
He had successful surgery at the Mayo clinic. I am very
thankful for that. He can still talk. He is not on a feeding
tube. He is able to swallow and he is back home. To my mind the
fellow was let down by our health care system in terms of the
waiting list he would have to go through at home. Having to go
elsewhere out of the country says to me that the system is not
acceptable for this man.
I will now talk about a fellow from Ottawa who visited me last
week. This gentleman is a little older than the first man I
mentioned and is diabetic. He had something that sounded much
less serious. He had an infection in his toe. Diabetics lose
some of the blood supply to their feet and are susceptible in
that way.
In May he went to the diabetic foot clinic in Ottawa. He was
told there was not enough space in the foot clinic and that he
would have to go to a private clinic where there were significant
costs. He could not afford that so he was told to take
antibiotics and that he would be able go to the public clinic in
October. By the time October came around he had very nearly lost
his toe from a simple infection. He treated his toe with an
antibiotic which made no difference and he felt he had to wait.
That relatively minor problem could have literally become
serious. He should have been able to see somebody sooner but he
was turned away. He was probably too shy to know that he should
have gone back to his family physician.
On one hand there was a fellow with a very serious problem who
was able to see a specialist but could not get treatment. On the
other hand was a fellow with a relatively minor problem but with
such a long wait the problem could have been much worse.
1530
Because health is so important I cannot imagine why we would not
simply say let us look at any solution. Really that is what I
would hope the government will do.
If there are extra funds available is there any room now to put
some of those funds into health care? In that way I listen very
carefully to the government in response.
Opposition parties criticize and look for faults but on this
topic we should not just do that. We should be constructive. We
should be looking for solutions.
So what I tried to ask is who is calling for some more health
money other than politicians who are always looking for an
advantage. I picked up a few who are asking for exactly what the
politicians are calling for. Maybe they have more credibility
than politicians.
I looked at the nurses association of Canada. I am holding up a
document that names virtually every health group in Canada. They
are all biased too, we might say. They are trying to look after
their own interests, trying to put more loot into the old pocket.
All those nurses are just looking after their jobs.
Okay, so we will set aside those individuals but what is the
public asking for? What do the patients want? I go back to my
statement that they really just want timely care and they do not
really want arguments about where that timely care comes from.
The public does for sure want a small government doing a few
things well. The public does want wasteful spending weeded out.
Because I said I would not be partisan I am saying these things
as broad principles.
Does the public want forgiveness of other countries' debt when
we have some shortfalls in health? I do not think so. Does the
public want long waits for substandard services? I do not think
so. But it wants co-operative federalism especially in health.
It wants a dispute settling mechanism if there is disagreement.
If the federal government says one thing and the provinces say
another, the public would like to have a neutral dispute
settlement mechanism. That is fair. All provinces are calling
for that.
I suggest that Canada works best with co-operation. Medicare
works best with co-operation. My plea today as somebody who did
surgery, somebody who dealt with patients directly, is for us to
think of the patients. My plea is to think of the sickness. My
plea is to stop thinking of jurisdiction or political party or
ideology. When the patient is happy and well Canada will be
happy and well.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased to have this opportunity to address today's opposition
motion concerning the Canada health and social transfer.
There is no doubt that health care is a matter of very high
priority for Canadians. It is an essential thread in our
national fabric, a source of pride and security for Canadians
from coast to coast, in every region, province and municipality.
It is truly a unifying force, one that highlights the Canadian
commitment to mutual support and the one that distinguishes us
dramatically from our huge neighbour to the south. As such, it
is always an issue that deserves the full attention of the House
and I thank the hon. member of the Bloc for proposing an
immediate $2 billion increase in provincial transfers provided
under the CHST.
There is no doubt that the long term security of Canada's health
care system is a timely and relevant subject for debate. However,
I must caution the hon. member that the motion he has brought
before us today may actually do more to obscure or misdirect this
important debate than to advance it.
How does this motion obscure the debate? The answer to this
question lies in the assumptions on which this motion and the
opposition rhetoric around it are based.
1535
First of all, we must remember that the fact that health care is
a major priority of Canadians, even the major priority, does not
mean it is their only priority.
I am sure that most of my hon. colleagues have received the same
volume of public input as I have on the issue of lowering taxes.
This, too, is of importance and the finance minister has made
clear our commitment to ongoing tax reduction.
What about employment insurance premiums? Across Canada labour
and employer groups have targeted EI reductions as a critical
step in encouraging business growth and new jobs. In other
words, they see employment insurance premium reduction as a
priority.
There is another fundamental priority that Canadians have made
clear in two federal elections. That is the continuing necessity
to good financial management of and by the government itself. I
see few if any voices saying that increased spending is more
important than maintaining a balanced budget. Most Canadians
remember too well the price we pay for relying on deficit
spending, higher interest rates, lower economic growth and jobs
lost. To them a key priority will be to avoid getting back into
that vicious cycle.
The issue of priorities is neither simple nor self-evident and
any debate that attempts to focus on a single need in isolation
risks becoming simplistic and self-serving.
Let me again emphasize something said by all my government
colleagues. We are committed to boosting support for health care
but we will not do so through knee-jerk decisions that ignore the
fiscal reality, the world environment and the proper role of
government.
This was something the finance minister addressed in his October
economic update before the House finance committee. He pointed
out that our work as a government reflects a basic recognition of
a vital fact, that the days of governments trying to be
everything to everyone at any cost were over and that the need to
have clear priorities to realize where government could make a
difference and where it could not was essential. These are
principles that must govern all policy making and debates such as
this one today in the House.
Again let me remind my colleagues of what the finance minister
said in his update. Given the volatile condition of many parts
of the world economy, we are in a situation that calls for great
care and caution and we must be realistic about the resources at
our disposal. Today some seem to believe we have mountains of
money to spend. We do not. They seem to feel we are now in a
position where we do not have to continue to make careful
choices. We do.
The minister pointed out what has happened to the average
forecast of economic growth by private sector experts since only
the beginning of this year. In January they were estimating
nominal income growth of 4.7% for 1998. That has now been
revised downward to 3%. For 1999 they were projecting 4.9%
growth. That too is down to 3.5%.
What do these revisions mean for the size of the dividend as
projected by the private sector? The answer is those projections
would knock over $5 billion out of government revenues in
1999-2000.
Only a few months ago these forecasters were estimating a
1999-2000 surplus before any new budget actions of around $10
billion. The recent downward revisions would lower their
estimates to around $5 billion, or $2 billion once the $3 billion
contingency reserve we are committed to is subtracted.
At the time of our last budget many criticized us for being too
prudent, too cautious, and we are receiving the same criticism in
today's debate when we are attacked for not moving to immediately
to increase CHST transfers. But the dramatic downward revision
in private sector forecasts illustrates more clearly than
anything why this government must stick to its careful approach
to budget planning and why we simply cannot afford the risks
associated with changing planning assumptions so drastically
month by month.
This is not academic, some arcane point from economic theory.
Consider the result if we had followed the advice of some not so
long ago to take $9 billion to $10 billion worth of tax action,
action they claimed we could afford.
1540
We would now be heading for a substantial deficit.
Further, while we have noted that the downward revision to
economic forecasts could lower the private sector estimate of the
dividend to $2 billion once the contingency reserve is taken out,
with all the uncertainty that exists worldwide it may well be
that further downward revisions will occur.
In any event, it is clear the dividend in the next two years
will be modest, much less than would be required to provide
sufficient funding for the size of initiatives, on taxes and
spending, that many are calling for. Clearly, careful choice in
allocating that dividend will be required.
In his appearance before the finance committee, the minister
said some would throw caution to the wind, saying maybe we will
have the money. Maybe the dividend will be larger than we think,
that it is worth the risk to cross our fingers and pray that
things will turn out that way. In other words, it is time now,
acceptable now, to set aside the careful and cautious approach we
have been following.
He said “In my opinion that is the financial equivalent of
reckless driving. You may not have an accident, but if you do
you not only hurt yourself but you can sideswipe a lot of
innocent people. The very reason we have met our targets, the
very reason we are now able to say that despite the global
economic crisis we are still on track not only to balance the
books but to have a dividend, all of this is anchored in the
caution we have applied from the very beginning”.
Clearly the finance minister was anticipating challenges such as
today's opposition motion on the CHST. I think his explanation
of why we must be cautious was right on.
The update also provided Canadians with a telling example of the
type of spending dilemma we could develop if we only looked at
single issues, health or taxes or debt, in isolation.
For example, some are saying we should implement a major
personal income tax cut of an average of $600 annually per
taxpayer. That would cost about $9 billion per year, not just
this year but every year.
Some are demanding employment insurance premiums be reduced to
the so-called break even level. That could cost more than $6
billion per year.
The provinces are asking that cash transfers be increased. Their
proposal would cost another $6 billion per year, not just next
year but every year.
Still others are saying we should mount a larger attack on the
debt. That could cost, for example, another $3 billion per year.
If all that is added up, the total bill is $24 billion each and
every year, and that is a long way from a complete inventory of
the demands being made.
Adding up all the proposals would very clearly put the country
back into a situation of serious chronic deficits, and I for one
am not willing to go back to that country full of deficit and
pain for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would not miss this opportunity to ask a few questions to the
hon. member who, I think, belongs to the progressive wing of the
Liberal Party. It is surely not by accident that she is
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
But there is what I would call a gap. I can hardly understand
the hon. member's position, not because I did not listen to her
speech, not because I am insensitive, but because I think there
is a basic contradiction.
To begin with, when we were young—and of course we still
are—and we were learning about federalism, we were told it was a
political system characterized by two levels of government, both
being independent. Thus, the situation is at the very least
confusing.
Given the actual state of federalism in Canada, it is possible
for the federal government to completely destabilize the
finances of the provinces.
The issue here is the fact that they are cutting $42 billion
unilaterally, without any consultation, in a totally cavalier
fashion that is almost insulting, if not downright indecent.
1545
If officials from finance, or human resources development, or
other departments were here today, they would have to agree with
the Bloc Quebecois's conclusion that, since the Liberals came to
power, their budgets have taken $42 billion from the provinces.
This is serious and dangerous. I think it is almost
unconstitutional.
What this means is that because the government shamelessly
deprived the provinces of funds they had budgeted and
anticipated, that they expected to find in their own budget, we
are now left in a position that generated poverty and where the
Government of Quebec, for instance, found itself unable to
deliver all the services it could have.
Of course, one must admit—and I think my colleagues will
agree—that the Government of Quebec was nothing short of
extraordinary in managing the province's affairs. Deep down, you
are probably thinking of the $5 day care program and the tuition
freeze. But had it not been for the Quebec government's
unfailing determination, it could not have avoided major
impending difficulties.
What would be really interesting today would be for all the
premiers to endorse the consensus reached in Saskatoon. I see my
colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, nodding
in agreement. I hope he will be able to convince his cabinet
colleagues. Usually, they listen to him very carefully. I am
even told he sits quite close to the heritage minister.
That leads us to ask ourselves if we can expect the government
party, backbenchers as well as ministers, to endorse today the
consensus reached in Saskatoon. This consensus means that the
government would immediately be prepared to authorize the
Minister of Human Resources Development to transfer $2 billion
to the provinces, because this amounts to the loss of revenues
in the health transfer.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague
across the way for his compliment in thinking I am part of the
progressive wing in this House, a wing that I think he also
belongs to. He and I have discussed many issues and we often
agree.
In answer to his questions, he was talking about the cutting
that was done by the federal government. I think it is fair to
say that if it was painful to him, it was painful to everyone.
Actually the main pain was borne by Canadians, but they wanted it
done because it was their general wish to get the nation's fiscal
house in order.
I must correct the hon. member in that the cutting to the
provinces was not $42 billion. That is definitely wrong.
I remind him that Quebec, in its attempt to get its fiscal house
in order, an attempt which we applaud, in its 1997-98 estimates
announced its intention to cut health and education spending by
3.2% and 5.8% respectively. This cutting exercise, which is very
hard to do when you are in government whether it be the federal
government or the provincial government, has to be done.
Governments around the country know it and that is why they are
doing it.
I agree with the principle of federalism and I do not agree with
the member's interpretation that we are being heavy handed. We
have done everything we can to seek partnerships with the
provinces to work together on setting priorities. In the long
run I think he and I would agree that the role of government is
most important when it takes care of the sick and the vulnerable.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like
to follow in the vein of the member for Macleod. I believe in
his own way he indicated that this is such an important issue
that we must all treat it with a sense of responsibility to
Canadians, with a sense of the responsibility that we have for
looking after the health care of Canadians and the other needs of
Canadians from coast to coast. I follow in that same type of
non-partisan vein.
[Translation]
It must be recognized that when we came to power five years ago
there was a $42 billion deficit.
1550
The national debt exceeded $500 billion. We were forced to take
measures to control the deficit and finally start reducing the
national debt.
It was not easy at all. For our part, we began by reducing
federal spending. It was clear that with $120 billion for all
Canadian programs, we would be forced to cup spending, and we
did with great difficulty. We cut expenditures by at least $15
billion, bringing them back to the level of spending reached
just after World War II for federal programs as a whole.
Some of the cuts we made were to transfers to provinces.
We replaced existing programs with the CHST. Of course, the
result was that provinces had less money for things like
education or health care.
Let us look at what we have done for Quebec. For the last five
years, cuts for Quebec totalled $4,6 billion. That is true, but
we did lots of other things. We gave an additional $2.1 billion
in tax points. Equalization for Quebeckers, $1 billion more.
Infrastructure programs, $650 million. Child tax benefits, $200
million. The innovation foundation, $800 million invested
everywhere in Canada. There is also the sum of $1,8 billion over
five years to raise the floor level of the CHST.
Quebec has not really lost much, and neither did the other
provinces.
When we dig a little bit deeper we can see the savings in the
interest paid by Quebec on its debt. Quebec has really benefited
over the past five years as far as transfers are concerned.
As I just said it was very difficult for us to cut transfers
and programs for Canadians as a whole. However we have to admit
our debt is now at 68% of the GDP.
[English]
Our federal debt is 68% of our GDP. Provincial debts on the
other hand are only 26%. This means that out of every tax dollar
paid to the federal government, 27 cents go to pay just the
interest on our debt. At the provincial level this is only 13
cents. So I say, who is better equipped to share with us this
necessity to put our fiscal house in order than the provinces?
1555
[Translation]
Moreover, we have to admit that cut in transfers to Quebec was
at the most 3% of its expenditures. However the province
nevertheless cut its transfers to municipalities by 6%. It is
exactly what Bernard Landry was saying at the National Assembly:
“We must admit that we must do our share so that the Canada we
have helped to put in debt can eliminate that debt”.
It is in this spirit that governments, whether federal or
provincial, work for all Canadians. As the Prime Minister, the
finance minister and the health minister said, we are going to
contribute, in the next budget, to health care services for
Canadians. That is the priority set out by our government which
will respond to the needs not only of provinces, but of
Canadians themselves, because we are talking about health care.
It must be recognized that the vast majority of health care
expenditures, totalling about $80 billion a year, are the
provinces' responsability. As the federal government, we
recognize our obligation to contribute to the health care
services for Canadians. That is why one of the first
expenditures by our government was a $1.5 billion increase in
health transfers.
We announced this would be our goal in the next budget. While we
were facing this economic challenge, we increased expenditures
in at least 10 or 11 areas of health care.
[English]
There is the health services research fund, $65 million; health
transition fund, $150 million; Canada health information system,
$50 million; national HIV-AIDS strategy, $211 million; Canada
breast cancer initiative, $35 million; aboriginal health
initiative, $25 million; private health and dental insurance for
the self-employed, $200 million over two years; increases to the
Medical Research Council, $134 million; hep C, $1.2 billion. That
does not take into account the Canadian Foundation for Innovation
or the on reserve aboriginal head start programs.
In conclusion, I would say that during this difficult fiscal
period, we have made health care a priority. We have put our
money where our mouths are. We do care and at the same time by
acting responsibly we have been able to restore the fiscal health
of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
member thought he could get away with it, but it will not be
that easy.
According to him, this government, of which he is a member, has
done a very good job of managing public finances. This is
questionable to say the least. I hope the hon. member will rise.
I know he always speaks the truth but the problem is he does not
always tell the whole truth.
1600
This opposition day should allow those who are listening to
understand that this government has helped destabilize other
governments' finances. How can anyone find it acceptable that,
year after year since 1993, provinces have accumulated a
short-fall of $42 billion in services that they have become
unable to provide to the public?
The hon. member, who is parliamentary secretary—I know he would
like to be minister but for the time being he is only
parliamentary secretary—says they had no choice but to cut. They
had no choice but to put their fiscal house in order.
We agree on the first part, but we do not understand why this
government did it by transferring responsibility to the
provinces. Will the hon. member not admit that this is a rather
dishonest way to do things? The situation is this: by cutting
$42 billion in provincial transfers, this government has forced
the provinces to face difficulties they had not anticipated.
Will the hon. member admit that this government could have cut
elsewhere, that it should have spared some sectors? Cabinet
ministers should have decided to spare some sectors.
The Government of Quebec has said the same thing. You are all
aware of our optimism as to the outcome of the November 30
election, but I can guarantee you that this optimism will make
us work to the very end.
We will take nothing for granted.
But the fact is that the hon. member could have agreed to follow
the Quebec government's example and say that all social
programs, all programs to fight poverty by helping people go
back to work and to improve living conditions for the
disadvantaged, would not be cut.
It would have been most gracious and totally appropriate on the
part of this government to say: “Cuts in provincial transfers
are out of the question”.
I ask the hon. member what we have been trying to find out since
this morning: Can he tell us before we adjourn whether an
influent member of this government will acknowledge the
consensus reached in Saskatoon and immediately give some money,
$2 billion, to the provinces? That is what we are waiting for.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Madam Speaker, the maximum that was cut from
annual transfers to the provinces was about $6 billion.
At the same time, one must admit that the provinces benefited
from other transfers, including the infrastructure program, the
child tax benefit and equalization. Quebec got $1 billion more
with equalization, other transfers and lower interest rates.
This was a major advantage in that they spent only 13 cents for
every dollar in revenue whereas the federal government spent 26
cents for every dollar in revenue.
The member is wrong when he suggests that $42 billion was cut
from provincial transfers. This is completely false. We have to
be honest with people.
Although transfers were indeed cut, increased funding for other
programs aimed at the provinces almost made up for these cuts.
Provinces really benefited from our fiscal achievements.
In response to the hon. member's statement that we destabilized
provincial economies, allow me to repeat what Bernard Landry
said in the National Assembly: “We must take steps to help the
country shed the debt we contributed to”.
1605
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with my colleague, the new member for
Sherbrooke, who won a victory we are very proud of.
I am happy to rise to speak to the motion we put forward this
morning. Our demand is clear. We are demanding, on behalf of the
Bloc Quebecois, that the federal government pay back the amounts
it has cut from the transfer payments for health, education and
social assistance.
We are requesting that the House of Commons, and I quote from
the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois:
—endorses the provincial consensus reached in Saskatoon on August
7, 1998, that the federal government must restore, via the
existing provisions of the Canada Health and Social Transfer
(CHST), its contributions to front-line health-care services,
starting with a payment of at least $2 billion, given that the
federal government has already recorded an accumulated surplus
of $10.4 billion for the first six months of the 1998-99 fiscal
year.
In fact, since 1994, the Liberal government has cut $6.3 billion
from transfer payments to the provinces for health, education
and social assistance. Quebec's portion of these cuts amounts to
$1.8 billion, including $1 billion for health only.
What does this $1 billion represent annually? Wait till you hear
this, because the list may be a long one.
This amount stolen by the federal government represents, in
Quebec alone, 20% of the cost of running all the hospitals in
Quebec and the c1osure of half the hospitals in the Montreal
region. I come from a Montreal riding and I can talk about it
for a long time. This amount represents the cost of caring for
370,000 in-patients, the salaries of half the nurses in Quebec,
the cost of running all local community service centres and
twice the cost of all youth services.
Yet, the Prime Minister said, during the 1993 election campaign,
and I quote:
Our program does not include any plan to cut payments to
individuals or provinces, it is clear and it is in writing.
Once elected, the Prime Minister did not hesitate to break his
promise. By merging all transfer payments to the provinces into
the Canada health and social transfer, the government cut
transfers and shifted to the provinces, including Quebec, the
cost of the fiscal restraint policy.
It is unacceptable for the federal government to use the fact
that the provinces decide how to allocate the money as a smoke
screen to hide the damage done by its own decisions.
Had it not changed the system and introduced the Canada health
and social transfer, the Liberal government would have had more
explaining to do with respect to the cuts in health care,
especially since it reduced cash transfers for social services
to their level of 15 years ago. Total transfers currently
amount to $12.5 billion, which is a far cry from the $18.8
billion in 1993, when the Liberals were first elected.
My words are not too strong. It is unacceptable for the federal
government to cut transfer payments unilaterally by 33% in less
that four years. If you take into account the increase in
population and cost of living, social transfers have never been
that low in decades.
In 1998, we have social transfers which are 45% lower than their
record level of 1985 and 43% lower than their 1994 level.
1610
Thus, within only one term, the Liberal government has virtually
cut in half the federal contribution to health care and then it
brags it has eliminated the deficit. The truth is it has not
eliminated the deficit, it has transferred the debt to the
provinces and to the sick who are affected by these cuts.
Besides, while cutting billions of dollars in provincial
transfers for health and social programs, the federal Liberals
never stopped interfering in the health sector, and in a heavy
handed manner.
First, I will mention Bill C-14 on drinking water, that infringes
upon health, natural resources and the environment, three
exclusive Quebec jurisdictions.
Moreover, this bill provides for national standards on the
quality of drinking water, which is also a provincial
responsibility.
That is not all. The Liberal government has proposed an overall
policy on the management of new reproduction technologies. Once
again, the federal government is interfering in provincial
jurisdictions.
As for health programs, for home care, the Liberal government
refuses to give the provinces the right to opt out with full
financial compensation. On this issue, we see a replay of the
millennium scholarship project. I want to remind the House that
this is a $2.5 billion fund aimed at providing students with
100,000 scholarships of $3,000 each, based on merit.
I also want to remind the House of the consensus on this issue
in Quebec. Since 1964, Quebec has used its right to opt out with
full compensation.
Quebec set up a financial assistance system for students in
1964. This is what we used the opting out with full compensation
provision for. Our financial assistance system might not be the
best in the world, but at least Quebec students graduate with
half the debt load of their counterparts in the rest of Canada.
This is exemplary. This is what one uses opting-out with full
compensation for: to let the provinces run services they can
manage better than the federal government.
That is not all. In its 1997 budget, the federal government
announced a $150 million three year fund for health services
adjustment to help provinces set up pilot projects to provide
home care or pharmacare, when Quebec already had its own
programs.
The Constitution prevents the Liberal government from opening
federal CLSCs in Quebec. This is fortunate, because the federal
government provides services through the back door, as it is
doing now 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 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 not ironic for the government
to find millions of dollars to enhance its visibility when it
refuses to reimburse the provinces for the shameful cuts they
had to endure.
On September 7, 1998, the Minister of Health mentioned in his
speech before the Canadian Medical Association that he wants to
create a national report card on the health care system to
assess, each year, the quality of health care in Canada. Once
again, the minister seems to be forgetting that health care is a
provincial responsibility and, therefore, the provinces are in a
better position to know what the health care situation is in
their respective jurisdictions.
In conclusion, we urge the minister to say right now that he
will not use this annual report card to penalize those provinces
that do not want anything to do with it. But, for the Minister
of Health, anything is a good excuse not to give the provinces
their money back.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois is fighting to help Quebec
recover the money that was cut from its transfer payments and
will continue to fight until Quebec is treated fairly.
1615
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like an explanation. It is just a matter of logic, not
politics, just logic.
The reduction in cash transfers to Quebec represents only 3% of
the revenue of the Quebec government. From what I hear today, it
seems that that was a wrong decision to make.
Without any notice, however, the Quebec government imposed the
equivalent of a 6% budget cut for municipalities, which is
double what the federal cuts were. Can somebody tell me where
the logic is in all of this?
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Speaker, it is pretty easy to explain.
If the parliamentary secretary cannot understand, he surely must
have a hard time managing his own personal budget.
It is quite simple: when a government has its tax base cut and
ends up with less revenue, it can deliver fewer services. The
fact is that the transfer payments to the provinces for health,
education and welfare have been reduced by $6.3 billion. The
Quebec government has seen its financial margin, its financial
capacity, reduced and the Liberal Party, of which the
parliamentary secretary is a member, is to blame for this.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
say, like my colleague, that it is quite fascinating to hear the
questions from the members opposite.
In politics, especially here, in this House, I have to say that
we see some rather amazing things. Politics is the art of
managing our collective affairs, of organizing the ties that
bind us together.
I notice that, sometimes, politics here is not really an art.
The government sees that it has spent way too much money, that
it has not taken good care of the nation's finances, and then it
decides to try to eliminate the deficit. But when I say that
politics is easy for the federal government, the only thing it
has to do is to tell the provinces that they cost too much and
that it will cut their transfer payments.
As a matter of fact, that does not come from me. The Prime
Minister himself, when he was in France, said how easy it was in
Canada to balance the budget simply by making cuts in transfer
payments.
I know that a lot of people are not really familiar with
politics, transfer payments or areas under provincial
jurisdiction. About four years ago, I was one of them.
Sometimes, when people watch the news and hear sovereignists say
“no, this is an area under provincial jurisdiction”, it may seem
somewhat difficult to understand.
But it is so simple and, at the same time, it shows us how
difficult it is to run a machine like this government, because
there are two governments that are competing not only in terms
of programs, as my colleague from Rosemont was saying earlier,
but also in the pursuit of fiscal balance.
When people ask what Quebec wants, all we want in the end is
efficiency. I hope that when my constituents pay a tax dollar
that it produces the best in services and in solidarity.
I know that a huge percentage of my tax dollar does not come
back to the provinces. We know that it is within the provinces'
jurisdiction to provide services directly to the public: health
care, education and a social fabric.
So it is regrettable to see voters often criticizing the
provincial governments. But we have to understand them. We
have to see where that is coming from. It comes from here.
I have used up my time, but I will be back.
1620
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Speaker, I am very happy my colleague
mentioned that the Prime Minister said recently that cuts to the
provinces were the price to pay for a balanced budget.
Just to show how this government contradicts itself, I will
quote what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign
in 1993: “In our platform there are no plans to cut payments to
individuals or to the provinces”. This is rather clear. It is in
writing. These are the Prime Minister's own words.
Then he said cuts to the provinces were the way to a balanced
budget. How contradictory!
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Madam Speaker, before I
start, with all I have heard in this House from the members
opposite, I am more and more convinced of the advisability and
relevance of our motion. There is an urgent need to invest in
health care.
This motion is based on democratic, humanitarian and sound
management principles. It is based first on a consensus reached
by all the provinces in Saskatoon, on August 7, asking the
federal government to give back transfer payments.
Another consensus was reached during pre-budget consultations
held by the Bloc Quebecois throughout Quebec, where all the
people asked the government to give back the money from transfer
payments for health, education and social programs.
In asking that these amounts be reinvested in front-line health
care services, we are also looking to the future.
Health care is important. It is the basis of our society and our
development.
This is also a matter of prudence, because we are prudent and we
know how to effectively manage public funds. We are asking the
government to do so in several instalments, without risking
another deficit, because we in the Bloc Quebecois asked the
government to pass anti-deficit legislation.
In 1994, the President of the Treasury Board told us he was able
to reduce government spending by $18 billion. Today, we know
that he could have saved twice as much. Imagine if he had done
his job properly. We would have $9 billion more to reinvest in
the Canada health and social transfer.
We see this government has no sense of priorities and
responsibilities. It would rather cut the essential than the
superfluous.
In its effort to put its fiscal house in order, the Liberal
government sacrificed the health of Quebeckers and Canadians.
But everyone knows that physical and mental health is essential
for individuals to develop personally and collectively so they
can contribute to the social and economic health of their
communities.
The Minister of Finance has a duty to Quebec and Canada. He has
cut transfer payments by $6.3 billion. Now that the minister has
a surplus, he is duty bound to restore health care funding.
Instead, the minister is trying to dodge the issue by having us
believe that there will be no surplus over the next three fiscal
years, from 1999 to 2001.
I cannot understand why he will not restore transfer payments.
He is so adamant that, in a moment of transparency, he clearly
showed his lack of credibility, which has already been denounced
by the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties as well as
the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. For the fourth time, the
auditor general questioned the government's financial
statements.
1625
In fiscal year 1997-98, we were to have a budget surplus of $5.9
billion. Yet, the Minister of Finance, intent on showing the
lowest surplus possible, for fear of having to reinvest in
transfer payments and give money back to the provinces, has
intentionally changed the regular format of financial statements
as of March 31, 1998.
The auditor general questioned the accounting methods of the
federal government, as used in the last federal budget. He
objected in particular to the way the millennium scholarship
fund was accounted for.
As we know, the $2.5 billion earmarked for the millennium
scholarships have been included in the financial statements of
March 31, 1998, which is contrary to normal accounting procedure
and auditing standards.
The auditor general objected to that, but the minister of
finance goes even further. He claims that this is simply an
opinion, that there are other ways of looking at it.
The auditor general is independent, he is supposed to give an
opinion based on accounting standards, auditing standards, and
his judgment should never be challenged. Yet, this is exactly
what the Minister of Finance is doing and he even backs up his
position, that it is one opinion among many, by quoting an audit
firm. No, this is the auditor general's opinion, and the only
one he could express in the circumstances.
The Minister of Finance is, to a certain extent, showing what I
would call his incompetence, because he does not know the
difference between financial statements and a budget. He says it
is normal to put these estimates in his budget, but these are
financial statements.
When we see something like that occurring, when the auditor
points out that some funds, $2.5 billion in this case, have been
allocated in the financial statements to an institution that
does not yet exist, in other words, to mere intentions, and that
notes had to included to indicate that events will follow, we
realize that the finance minister went overboard, but what is
worse is that he is challenging the opinion of the auditor
general.
The finance minister is sticking to his guns. He maintains that
the surplus should not exceed $3.5 billion. However, the
Conference Board thinks the surplus will be closer to
$10 billion, the Mouvement Desjardins estimates it will be close
to $15 billion, and we, in the Bloc, believe that it is heading
for $15 billion. Even the public servants now estimate that it
will reach $10.4 billion.
Of course, the government is now back pedalling and trying to
convince us that there is some economic uncertainty, which is
precisely why we want the payments to be made over a period of a
few years. If there is uncertainty, it comes from elsewhere, not
from Quebec nor from the other provinces. The uncertainty is
created by the federal government, which can cut provincial
transfers at any time.
A billion dollars is a lot of money for the regions.
In Estrie, one billion dollars in health means $41 million that
the people do not have, and the potential closure of such
important centres as the university's geriatric institute, the
Centre de réadaptation de l'Estrie, and the Centre
Notre-Dame-de-l'Enfant, because of $41 million in cuts in a region
that has already been pretty hard hit by federal government
cuts.
We are asking the federal government to reinject its duly
identified budget surpluses into health, education and social
transfers.
1630
In order to proceed more cautiously, and to spare us insecurity
and uncertainty, it would be preferable if the $2 billion were
paid back in tax points rather than in transfer payments.
This is a suggestion that ought to be looked into, because one
never knows. If it is just in transfer payments, we know that
at any hour, or on any day in the year, the federal government
can turn up and cut it out from under us. It is the Liberal
government, then, that is creating the uncertainty.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased by the comments of the hon. member for Sherbrooke, since
he is in a position to see what this government has been doing
for the past few years.
We know what the auditor general thinks of the finance
minister's behaviour. We also know how the provinces are
reacting to that behaviour. They all condemn that way of doing
things.
I want to ask the hon. member for Sherbrooke if he has a word to
qualify the minister. How does he see him? Does he see the
minister as being competent, incompetent, a bit lost,
unrealistic?
I leave it up to him to answer.
Mr. Serge Cardin: Madam Speaker, the minister may be
incompetent. Based on what I referred to earlier, one would
think so. What is more serious though is that the minister is
rather sneaky. Why does he insist so much on minimizing existing
surpluses? Is he again hiding something from us? How many
initiatives such as the millennium scholarship foundation will
he come up with? It is anybody's guess.
So, there is a combination of incompetence and obvious lack of
transparency.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
one comment to make following the speech by my colleague, who
mentioned many interesting facts.
First of all, it is very important to note that my colleague is
himself an accountant. Therefore when he speaks about the
finance minister's accounting practices, I trust him fully. When
the auditor general himself questions the way the finance
minister applies accounting standards, we have every right to
wonder.
My colleague also talked about millennium scholarships. I have
worked on this issue, and I can say I have seen all kinds of
weird things. First, education is an area under provincial
jurisdiction. It is an area of jurisdiction over which Quebec
has full authority. What is the federal government doing with
its surplus, the result of cuts to the provinces? What it takes
with one hand it gives back with the other in an area over which
it has no jurisdiction. I find this totally absurd.
I believes it lowers efficiency. I said earlier that one of the
problems with federalism is that it leads to competition among
governments; they compete with their programs. The Prime
Minister himself acknowledged this measure was aimed in part at
increasing federal visibility. I had asked the question of the
Prime Minister, who replied “When we send a cheque to students,
we want them to know where it comes from”. It is sad to play
politics that way.
I could say a lot more about the millennium scholarships,
especially the fact that the management of something public is
being entrusted to a private body. I wonder where democracy is
going. The democratic deficit and eroding political power are
things that concern me a lot, as I tend to see them in terms of
globalization of the economy.
But when, in this chamber, elected representatives are
voluntarily renouncing their powers, I think we have some
serious problems.
1635
I know this is not what this debate is about, but I wanted to
point this out because when I hear about this it makes my hair
stand on end.
The other point raised by my colleague is a crucial one. It
deals with the physical and mental health of individuals, of our
fellow citizens. The education and health services we provide
them with are very important indeed.
I am running out of time, which is unfortunate, but I will
conclude by saying that, in a democracy, it is extremely
important that every citizen be able to point the finger at
those responsible for the cuts.
Right now, in most of the regions in this country, the people do
not know if they should point the finger at the provincial or at
the federal government, because in the end the cuts always seem
to come from the next level up. And this, in my mind, undermines
democracy.
Mr. Serge Cardin: Madam Speaker, in the 15 seconds I have left,
I would like to say that health is not simply the absence of
disease.
Health is the possibility given to individuals to develop fully,
physically as well as mentally. Investments in social programs,
education and health help keep people healthy and therefore
productive in their communities.
[English]
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
will read the motion which I thank the hon. member opposite for
bringing. It states:
That this House endorses the provincial consensus reached in
Saskatoon on August 7, 1998, that the federal government must
restore, via the existing provisions of the Canada Health and
Social Transfer (CHST), its contributions to front-line
health-care services, starting with a payment of at least $2
billion, given that the federal government has already recorded
an accumulated surplus of $10.4 billion for the first six months
of the 1998-99 fiscal year.
The effect of the motion is to increase the CHST by
approximately $2 billion.
There is a block transfer that already occurs of about $26
billion in tax points and cash to the provinces. The expectation
is that over the next few years that will increase to about $28.5
billion.
While the cash floor remains static, the tax point portion is
increasing and it increases quite dramatically for some
provinces, particularly the province of Ontario, which is where I
am from.
The other beauty of the CHST is that it addresses a
long-standing grievance of some of the provinces, particularly
the more prosperous provinces, that they were not getting a fair
share of the transfer on a per capita basis. Over the course of
the program, namely into the year 2002, that inequity in
distribution on a per capita basis will in fact be addressed.
This brings me to the Ontario situation because that is the
province from which I hail and about which I care deeply.
Ontario has received a reduced portion of the cash transfer. For
Ontario that translates this year as a reduction of approximately
$1.2 billion. The amount of $1.2 billion on its overall budget
of $50 billion roughly translates into something in the order of
3% to 4%. That is what it means to Ontario, a reduced cash floor
of the CHST of about 3% to 4%. When that is compared with the
ill advised tax cuts it is in fact a negligible amount of money.
The philosophy of the reformatory government in my province is
such that it puts tax cuts ahead of almost anything, including, I
would argue, fiscally conservative and sound principles like
reducing the debt, or even getting a handle on the deficit, both
of which it has ignored. It has ratcheted up the debt over the
course of its mandate to something in the order of $30 billion.
That amount on an overall annual budget of $50 billion, to my way
of thinking, is somewhat less than prudent fiscal management.
1640
This is why increasing the CHST, particularly to the province of
Ontario, in my view, is somewhat problematic. Our problem, from
a federal government standpoint, is that we cannot trust it. We
can get no real assurance that even if we were to agree to a $2
billion transfer, or Ontario's portion of that $2 billion
transfer, that it would be applied to where we think the Canadian
people want it applied, namely, to medical services.
Our fear is that it will simply go to backfill ill-conceived tax
cuts. We cannot see how this will go to the legitimate needs of
the people of Ontario.
I wish to let you know, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting
my time with the hon. member for Thornhill.
I would also like to tell a story about how these policies have
played out on the ground in my riding. These are ill-conceived
policies. This story is about how Ontario's housing policy
contributes to homelessness, how its medical policy puts people
on the street who should never be put on the street and for whom
there is no private market alternative. It is naive in the
extreme to think that the private market would pick up some of
these people. It is also a story about how Ontario has
devastated our hospitals.
The nation was transfixed with the death of a police officer
over the course of the summer. The death of that particular
police officer occurred in my riding. It was a tragic event, but
let me explain the background.
The two women who are accused in that matter were initially
residents of a medical facility in Toronto. With the cutbacks
they were put on the street. Because my riding houses
approximately 1,000 homeless people every night, who are largely
there due to dubious government policies, these women ended up in
my riding. Shortly thereafter they were transferred to another
facility in St. Catharines, but for reasons best known to them
they returned to the riding on that fateful night.
These are people who are in need of medication. These are
people who should not be on the street. They came to the riding
and went to the local hospital. They had a psychotic episode.
They refused treatment. When they left the hospital they walked
150 metres across the street and are now accused of murdering
that police officer.
To give some graphic illustration of why this is an intersection
of such vicious social policies, I will tell the House about this
particular hospital. This hospital is situated very close to the
401. It was originally designed for trauma. The expectation was
that with a freeway there would be trauma incidents.
When the ambulance driver came to service the bleeding police
officer, who was probably almost dead at that point, he made the
decision that that hospital had inadequate resources and that he
would not drive 150 metres across the parking lot, but would
drive the ambulance another 25 minutes to downtown Toronto in
order to help the police officer.
This is a vicious intersection of a policy regarding
homelessness, a policy regarding rental, a policy regarding how
medical facilities are staffed and funded. These are the reasons
that we in Ontario feel very uncomfortable about transferring any
additional funds to the Government of Ontario because we are not
satisfied that the moneys will be used for what they were
intended. These are very problematic issues for members from
Ontario.
Health care is important to the government. The very first
thing the Government of Canada did once its fiscal house was in
order was to increase the cash floor for the Canada health and
social transfer. This move marked the end of cuts and signalled
the priority we place on health care.
1645
In the government's economic statement the finance minister said
that the concerns related to the strengthening of medicare will
be addressed. He said no one can take on the challenges of a new
economy while preoccupied with the availability of basic health
care, no parent of an ill child and no child of an aging parent.
I have tried to put this matter of quality of care in context
and the assessment in the proper context. This means making our
system more responsive to and responsible for Canadians. The
government has made it clear that health care is a very high
priority. The Prime Minister has said that the federal
government intends in our next major reinvestment to deal with
the subject of health. The Minister of Health is committed to
working in collaboration with all the provinces, including
Ontario.
* * *
CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
BILL C-53—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
regret to inform the House that an agreement could not be reached
under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or Standing Order
78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of
Bill C-53, an act to increase the availability of financing for
the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of
small business.
[Translation]
In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I
give notice that a minister of the crown will introduce a time
allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the
purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the
consideration and disposal of proceedings at these stages.
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
The House resumed consideration of the motion; and of the
amendment.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I heard
my colleague twice repeat a statement I would not consider very
well thought out. I almost wanted to say that it was a bit
preposterous. He said that, if the government sent money to the
provinces, and Ontario in particular, the Government of Ontario
would misuse it. What he said for Ontario goes for Quebec and
the other provinces. How can he say such a thing?
You too, Madam Speaker, no doubt reacted within yourself as
well.
Ask anyone to say who is better able to manage public funds.
The answer is those closest to the public. Everyone agrees,
except the hon. member. In his opinion if the government sends
money to the provinces they can waste it as they like.
Let us just look at what goes on here. Earlier, he mentioned
transfers. He seemed to think it was nothing. This is another
terrible thing he said. When the government cuts transfers to
the provinces, very often no mention is made of it, and very
often the cuts happen during recess. It looks alright, no one
sees it.
On the other hand, when a little money is given back to the
provinces, you may be sure that the Canadian flag will be flown
and press conferences held to say that everything is fine.
The government pulls out all the stops to restore its
reputation.
However, the people in my riding of Matapédia—Matane are
suffering. Unemployment there is very high. Why? Because the
belt is being tightened so much. I always say that when the tap
is partly shut off, there is no water down below. For years,
the federal government has been shutting off the tap bit by bit
and not entirely honestly. At this point, people at home and in
other ridings are suffering terribly.
1650
I have a question for my colleague. Will he have the decency to
say that the cuts really hurt the provinces?
[English]
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question.
Ontario had its CHST cash moneys reduced something in the order
of 4% vis-à-vis the overall budget.
What the hon. member needs to know is that in 1995 the federal
government provided 19% of the budget for Ontario. In 1996 it
provided 19% of the budget for Ontario; also with 1997 and 1998.
The overall percentage stayed exactly the same. Where the
viciousness of these social policies comes into play is a
philosophical commitment to reduce taxes in priority to all else.
When that happens, I argue that the federal government has its
overall supervisory responsibility for this nation to fix the
province with the responsibilities as set out in the Canada
Health Act, to adhere to those principles and to make those
principles for each province.
If someone goes from Prince Edward Island to Quebec to Ontario
to British Columbia, they can expect a level of health care that
is universal and accessible, et cetera. That is the role of the
federal government.
When the federal government cuts back transfers but in
percentage terms it is exactly the same, I argue that it is the
viciousness of the policies of this government that creates these
horrible intersections which result in tragedies for our
citizens. I will not speak for Quebec. I will simply speak for
Ontario.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity today to rise in this debate. I think there are some
very important facts that Canadians watching this debate should
remember.
It was a Liberal government that originally brought in medicare
in Canada. It was a Liberal government in 1984 that brought in
the Canada Health Act under the leadership of Monique Bégin. That
act was passed in the House in a rare vote of unanimity. All
members supported that important and incredible act.
In 1993 it was this Liberal government that inherited a $42
billion deficit and a growing debt that was threatening the
fiscal health and the economic prosperity of the country.
If it had not been for the prudent fiscal management and the
important commitment to the health of Canadians, we would not be
in the position today to be debating what we will be doing with
the surpluses being generated because of that prudent and
important fiscal management.
This Liberal government has seen the elimination of the deficit
and a balanced budget emerge. We also know that as prudent and
responsible fiscal managers, we cannot ever again put on blinders
and not look at what is happening around the world and not ensure
our policies are right for today and for tomorrow.
Ensuring the fiscal stability of our country through prudent
economic policy must remain a priority, particularly in these
times as we see crises around the world, sometimes referred to as
the Asian flu, the desperate situation in Russia and the concerns
in Latin America and South America.
I want to make it absolutely clear from my perspective that
health and health care and sustaining medicare, which all
Canadians cherish, are priorities of the government.
The reason I gave that very short history lesson is that people
on this side of the House are not newcomers to that position. We
have been staunch supporters of Canadian medicare. In 1993 the
Prime Minister, during very difficult economic and fiscal
situations, that very difficult and challenging time, established
the national forum. The first recommendation of the forum was
that the floor for transfers to the provinces under the CHST be
established at $12.5 billion. That is exactly what the
government did. We listened to the national forum, we took its
advice and we raised the floor, adding $1.5 billion to the
transfers to the provinces.
1655
Many people watching this debate may not understand how this
works or what the federal role is, so I would like to take a
minute to explain it. Medicare is a partnership and the federal
government has a role not only in helping to fund it but to leave
the debate in ensuring that medicare is strong and secure and
accountable to the people of this country.
The health and social transfers in 1998-99 will amount to $26
billion to the provinces and territories in support of health
care, post-secondary education, social assistance and social
service programs. This block funding gives the provinces
flexibility. However, what is often overlooked in the House is
that the CHST is a combination of dollars, $12.5 billion, and tax
points, which too often people overlook in their calculation of
the federal contribution to medicare.
We know that as it stands today, the Canada health and social
transfer, with a floor of $12.5 billion, will increase by some $7
billion additional to the provinces until 2002-03.
We all know that as a result of the important decisions taken by
the government and the decisions taken by provinces across the
country there is a need for further investment in health care, in
medicare and in the health of Canadians.
The Minister of Health said it best in a speech in Whitehorse:
“The complex problems that confront health care in Canada will
not be solved by dollars alone. The point is not simply to spend
more but to spend more in a way that will produce better
results”.
That is why as we look to the future, as we ensure money is
invested in the health care and the health of Canadians, we have
a responsibility to work with the provinces to make sure there is
greater accountability and greater transparency in the use of
those dollars. I speak now from an understanding to focus the
services we deliver at the provincial level on patient needs and
that we take care of people through that whole continuum of care
so they do not fall through the cracks as too often happens
today.
Simply throwing money, as suggested today by the motion, is not
the right approach. The right approach in my view is for the
federal government, through discussions with the provinces, to
talk about the need for greater integration and greater
accountability, accountability in the way of report cards to
Canadians, letting people know how this non-system of ours really
works or does not work in some cases.
1700
Simply throwing money at it is not going to fix it. As the
minister said, we have to make sure that the dollars we invest
give us the results we seek. We all know it is important that
future investments restore the confidence Canadians have always
had in our medicare.
I saw an article in the newspaper just this week that said that
U.S. doctors, nurses and health care providers are at the
Canadian embassy and are rallying around Canadian medicare. Their
message to Canadians is very clear and that is not to be so quick
to trash what we have. They say to look south of the border
where there are 43 million people with no access to care and over
100 million people with inadequate coverage. They are spending
40% more than Canadians. They are spending almost 14% of their
gross domestic product.
If ever there was a lesson to learn, it is to make sure that we
invest properly and do not listen to the Reform Party which would
take us down the road to the American style of medicare where
people pay and do not have the coverage for the services they
need. We know that is the Reform policy. That is not the policy
of this government.
I know that the people of Thornhill, the people of this country
believe that the federal government has an important role in
ensuring that medicare is there for future generations. They
also know that this has to be done in a thoughtful way, not to
simply throw money into the air outside of the budgetary process
because we think things are looking good, or to throw away any
fiscal prudence and respond to the political whims and desires of
members in the House who change their tune on a moment's notice.
We stand steadfast behind medicare. We always will. We will
ensure it is there for Canadians.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the speech by the parliamentary secretary
to the Minister of Health. She referred to important dates in
history. She talked about health care in Canada in 1994 and
about the Canada Health Act passed in 1993.
I ask her why she would not continue the tradition. Why does she
not follow the same rules and continue to do more for health
care, since she keeps repeating that merely throwing money at
the problem is no solution?
With budget surpluses totalling between $12 and $15 billion, as
is the case this year, and after denying the provinces the money
they need for health care, it should be embarrassing to say in
this House that providing money is not enough. Yes, it is enough
and it must be done for each province. They are all asking for
it. Our health care system is in a very sad state.
The government transferred money and tax points. But this is not
what we are asking today. We are asking that Quebec be given
back the money necessary to continue to administer and manage
its health care system properly.
According to some surveys, between 90% and 95% of all in-patients
are pleased with the services provided. Managing our health care
system is not a problem when we have the money to do so.
To compare us to the Americans is ludicrous.
As a society, we made a choice a long time ago and that choice
has little to do with unfettered capitalism. This means that we
should be prepared to assume that choice and provide the money
necessary to do a good job.
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Madam Speaker, let me make it
abundantly clear. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Health
have said it repeatedly in the House that health care and
medicare are a priority for this government. As funds are
available we expect that in the future there will be investments
in medicare for Canadians wherever they live in this country.
1705
I say to the member opposite that I believe she is wrong to
suggest it is not important to look at how medicare is evolving
and changing and making sure that it is and in the future
continues to be responsive to people whether they are in Quebec,
Ontario, British Columbia, Newfoundland or any of the provinces
and territories. We know that each province does it a little
differently. That is appropriate in this great country, as long
as we all adhere to those principles which have served us so
well.
We on this side of the House know that it is important when
future investments are made that they be done in a way which will
give Canadians confidence that medicare will be there in the
future and that they will have access to the health services when
and where they need them. We also know that while we respect the
right of each province to do it differently, we expect all
provinces to adhere to the principles of the Canada Health Act
which gives Canadians a sense of security and well-being. It
also gives us a very significant competitive edge when dealing
with our trading partners.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, I would like to dedicate my speech to the Minister of
Human Resources Development, who is honouring us with his
presence. I am sure that, being a Montrealer himself, he will
understand.
Let us tell it as it is. If the opposition, one of the best this
House has ever seen, felt the need to sound the alarm today, it
is because there is an urgent need to take action. There is no
doubt that, in a criminal court context—and I can safely make
this statement because of your legal background—formal charges
would have been laid for misappropriation of funds.
Money was stolen. I think this is the least unparliamentary way
to put it.
This means that the federal government maliciously and
unilaterally misappropriated funds, without showing any respect
for the provinces and their priorities. It went all out. If we
add up all the amounts cut from transfers the government was
supposed to return to the provinces but failed to do so, we
arrive at a total of $42 billion.
Obviously, one might say this is inconsequential, but to say so
is to behave irresponsibly and without sensitivity. We will not
stand for that.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, we are asking all government members,
from the most obscure backbencher to the most visible minister,
including the Minister of Human Resources Development, to tell
cabinet it is imperative that the provinces get back what was
taken from them.
I want us to be clear. Earlier, I listened to the parliamentary
secretary, who was saying that a minimum level had been set.
This is like telling our fellow citizens that happiness is the
absence of unhappiness. Forty-two billion dollars is missing.
Health is not a partisan issue. In fact, we always have a hard
time acting in a partisan fashion. Health is not a partisan
issue because we all know people in our ridings, who are growing
old.
1710
Having grey hair is not what makes a person old, that is not
what I mean. In each of our ridings we are familiar with people
who are ageing and in need of care. Because the federal
government refused to give them $42 billion, care that ought to
be delivered is not being delivered.
Of these $42 billion which we consider ought to have been
transferred, the allocation to the health care transfer ought to
have been $6 billion. Of that figure of $6 billion, the
Government of Quebec would get back more than $1 billion, closer
to $2 billion, that is $1.8 billion.
In my opinion, it would not be asking too much for hon. members
to reach a consensus in this House so that we may conclude today
that the missing $1.8 billion must be returned to the Government
of Quebec, and to all of the other governments.
Federal-provincial diplomacy is nothing to be passed over
lightly. Such diplomacy goes back as far as Honoré Mercier—the
hon. member for Sainte-Hubert will recall her local history—who
called together the first interprovincial conference in 1888.
Something very significant, very weighty, has taken place in
federal-provincial diplomacy.
All provinces, with one voice, regardless of the political
stripe of their government, without any partisan considerations
whatsoever, all the provinces, in a block—a formation we
love—joined together in what has since become known as the
Saskatoon consensus, and called on the federal government to
restor its contributions to health care services. The Minister
of Health should bow to this demand. He should draw up the
cheque forthwith, and hand over to the provinces, to the
Government of Quebec in particular, $1.8 billion.
All of the provinces are calling for it. Can consideration be
given to this? It is not, after all, a commonplace occurrence
in our political system for all of the provinces to get together
on one demand, in this case for the return of this money, as
they did in the Saskatoon consensus.
There is something tragic about our situation. Every dollar not
transferred to the provinces for the health system marks one
more step closer to poverty for our citizens.
These people do not care about that.
Where is this just society we were told about in 1968? If Judy
LaMarsh were here, if Lester B. Pearson were here, if those
people who helped build the Liberal tradition were here, would
they not support this opposition motion? Of course they would.
One cannot speak from both sides of one's mouth. One cannot
claim to be fighting against poverty and, at the same time, with
a total lack of sensitivity, slash transfers to the provinces.
If government members still have just a touch of sensitivity, if
they still have some kind of social conscience, if they still
have some dignity—this word has a meaning—they will vote with
the Bloc Quebecois and will ensure that the transfers are made.
It is not easy to convince the Minister of Health. He is a
stubborn man.
He is a man who, when one gets to know him, is rather obtuse. I
would like to quote some numbers and I would ask him to take
them into consideration.
This amount of $1.8 billion, which is sorely needed in Quebec to
provide services to the population as a whole, represents the
hospitalization costs for 370,000 people and 20% of the
operating budget of all hospitals in Quebec. It represents the
cost of all the CLSCs put together. This is not an academic
debate. What we are talking about today is not theory or
scholarly debate. What we are talking about today is the
capacity of the provinces as providers of health care to
continue to serve the public.
1715
I do not understand government members. I do not understand how
our colleagues can behave as if nothing has happened when funds
have been misappropriated. If today we were in a criminal court,
charges would be laid. This is what one has to realize.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I will end with a heartfelt cry to them: loosen
the purse strings, move money to the provinces and everybody
will feel better for it.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. It being 5:15 p.m., it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief
government whip, the vote stands deferred until Monday at the
conclusion of Government Orders.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent
that the House would agree to see the clock as being 5.30.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the
hon. member for Durham that he is unable to move his motion
during private members' hour on Friday, November 20, 1998.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in
the order of precedence. Accordingly, I am directing the table
officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order
of precedence.
[Translation]
The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business
will, therefore, be suspended and the House will continue to
examine the matters before it at that time.
* * *
[English]
REFORM'S ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-442, an act to prohibit profiteering during emergencies, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have the opportunity to
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and all Canadians
to debate my private member's Bill C-442, an act to prohibit
profiteering during emergencies.
The purpose of the act is to prohibit persons or businesses from
engaging in profiteering in respect of essential goods, services
or resources during emergencies that seriously endanger the
lives, health, safety or property of persons in Canada.
1720
During the ice storm we heard reports of increased prices for
gasoline, diesel fuel, batteries, water, generators, candles,
salt, firewood and other materials needed to fight the
circumstances being dictated by natural causes.
We want to stop prices on essential goods from being
unnecessarily increased during emergencies. Bill C-442 is
submitted to provide rules of conduct to be followed during
future calamities or disasters. I have had this extensive piece
of legislation drawn up on behalf of Canadians who were victims
of the last ice storm, Canadians who suffered during Manitoba's
flood and the Saguenay flood in Quebec.
The constituents of Surrey Central and all of us who work and
live in the lower mainland of British Columbia know that some day
there will be an earthquake which will affect all of us in
British Columbia. Scientists have predicted with great certainty
that there will be an earthquake but they can not tell us when.
An emergency can occur anywhere within a second. For example,
the day before yesterday our planet was showered by meteors.
Scientists say it could have been devastating.
If enacted into law my bill would come into effect within 60
days from the date it receives royal assent. We may be lucky
that Bill C-442 is enacted into law before the next disaster hits
us. It would not be too late for the coming disaster of the year
2000 computer bug that is threatening the world.
Canadians know what happens during crises situations. Ice
storms, floods, earthquakes, even the millennium computer bug
problem all have certain things in common. Water ceases to flow
to our homes. We may lose electricity. Everything can virtually
stop. None of the appliances in homes will work. We cannot take
everything for granted. The stores where we do our shopping will
be closed or inoperable. We may not be able to travel. There
may not be gasoline available in the market.
Hospitals have difficulties during normal times due to the
drastic cuts in federal transfer payments. Maybe our hospitals
will stop working during emergencies. Hospitals can run into
serious problems because there will be more patients than they
can accommodate. The horrors of the situation are not easily
forgotten.
Canadians are very generous and very good natured people. We
can all be proud of the contributions made by our business
community and our citizens during emergencies. Right now we are
helping people in Nicaragua deal with the devastation of floods
from the recent storm that hit their country. At home in Canada
when there is an emergency we see our firefighters, police,
hospital, municipal, hydro and telephone workers, volunteer
organizations, and many other groups working around the clock for
days and weeks at a time to deal with the emergency.
The year 2000 millennium computer bug is threatening everything
from operation of our airlines to bank tellers. The people of
Surrey Central want the House to act with a vision. Canadians
want the government to be proactive in preparing our nation for
the challenges we may face in the future.
Our nation has already seen natural and man-made disasters. We
should learn from these disasters and prepare for the next.
During the ice storm we heard many reports about exploitation, of
unreasonably increased prices for various products needed to
fight the circumstances being dictated by the natural disaster.
Let us look at some of those reports. A Quebec garage
advertised gas at 51.4 cents a litre and then charged 79 cents at
the pump. A wood seller upped his price for a cord of wood from
$50 to over $100. It was a 100% increase. One hardware store
broke open packages of batteries and sold them individually for
triple the normal price. That was a 300% increase in the price.
Some businesses told employees living in emergency shelters they
would be docked pay if they did not show up for work.
1725
There are many examples. I will read a few more. A depanneur
charged $1 extra for a bag of rock salt which people needed to
get rid of ice from their driveways. A tree nursery hiked the
price of a cord of wood by $10. A gas station upped its price at
the pumps by 3 cents a litre. A traffic officer did not even
spare devastating people. He slapped an $82 parking ticket on a
frozen car.
It looks mean but it is true. When disaster hits it does not
always bring out the best in people. Whether it is opportunism,
price gouging or overzealousness, some people did their best to
take advantage of the people in dire straits. There are many
other examples I could quote from the newspapers. These price
increases were not technically illegal but they were morally
wrong.
Other countries have anti-profiteering laws in place. We
encourage competition but we need to prevent the negative impact
of free marketing which can result when things like electricity,
clean water, heat, medicine, hardware tools or even food are
scarce or non-existent. My bill is submitted to provide rules of
conduct to be followed during future calamities or disasters.
I have letters from the Better Business Bureau and the Consumers
Association of Canada supporting my bill. Clearly the bill does
not speak to a matter that can be deemed trivial. My bill is
extremely important in terms of addressing the protection of
consumers. Bill C-442 is both timely and proactive in terms of
protecting Canadians from unscrupulous persons or businesses
during times of emergency. It is important to note that it is a
non-partisan issue and should be treated that way.
Canadians want all of us in the House to look at Bill C-442
through the lens of issue and not through the lens of political
stripes. Canadians want our elected representatives to
demonstrate that the business of the House has vision. Bill
C-442 exhibits vision. The legal drafters found no other laws
with which Bill C-442 conflicts. No other law accomplishes what
the bill proposes.
I have found nothing on the government's legislative agenda to
deal with profiteering during emergencies. However there was a
full-fledged debate in the House on the ice storm. Many
references have been made in the House to the flood in Quebec and
the flood in Manitoba and the many inadequacies we can face.
I cannot think of another way for the House to deal with the
matter. Only laws that are on the books will deter profiteering
during emergencies.
I have collected news reports from January 1998 quoting the
Liberal industry minister's reaction to the ice storm. During
his press conference on January 17, 1998 the Liberal industry
minister commented on the problems of profiteering during the ice
storm. On January 18, 1998 the Edmonton Journal quotes the
minister as saying “Consumers will take care of ice storm
profiteers”. During the ice storm consumers could only take
care of themselves by paying for whatever necessity. They traded
in their innocence and their confidence and were victimized and
exploited.
In the Montreal Gazette the federal industry minister was
quoted as saying “Price gougers beware: Minister urges
consumers to expose businesses that overcharge”. In this
headline the minister is turning the matter of dealing with
unscrupulous profiteering completely over to innocent Canadians.
That is not good enough. The people of these communities will be
vulnerable again and will be at the whim of the unscrupulous
businesses or people who exploited their needs.
Bill C-442 is a private member's bill. The issue is
non-partisan, but if it were not non-partisan I would trash the
minister and expose his weaknesses. I am not doing that.
I introduced Bill C-442 to encourage all sides of the House to
put more thinking into the problem of profiteering during
emergencies. Many members have congratulated me outside the
House for introducing the bill. The members of parliament from
Ontario and Quebec who were involved in the ice storm know very
well that something has to be done.
1730
We must not shirk our responsibility to our constituents and
particularly to all Canadians in the path of natural disasters.
By acknowledging that a problem exists and by admitting that
there were incidents of profiteering during the ice storm and
other disasters, the minister set up a toll free number for
consumers to report overcharging. That is not enough.
In the press conference I referred to earlier the industry
minister went as far as to say that price gouging appeared to be
in the minority. The fact it exists is enough. The federal
government has to do something about it. There is no excuse to
ignore this.
Perhaps the minister was looking for an initiative from one of
us in this House. Maybe he was looking for Bill C-442, which I
have introduced. I am looking for support from all members of
this House before an earthquake hits us or before the Y2K
computer problem or another disaster hits us.
If an earthquake occurs in B.C., look at what will happen. If
it is a serious earthquake we have virtually no emergency
preparedness. CFB Chilliwack has been closed by this Liberal
government. There is no military base nearby. The lower
mainland is connected to other communities by various bridges.
Those bridges will collapse. We do not know how long it would
take before the bridges could be restored.
The community of Richmond, which is on the edge of the
earthquake line, may be submerged under water. There may be
fires. There may be injured people to take care of. There may
be dead people as well. At a time when food and medicine are in
short supply, it is hard to imagine what would happen if someone
increased prices.
Bill C-442 is a comprehensive bill. It has been carefully
drafted by our legal staff in the House of Commons. I thank them
for doing a good job. The legal staff has very carefully looked
into the various definitions of emergencies, offences,
punishments, proclamations of emergencies, revocation of those
proclamations, jurisdictions and many other things.
The legal staff also looked into how profiteering affects
people, how we can control it and how can we outlaw it. I cannot
believe that the Minister of Industry would throw away all the
work which we have done.
When we are hit by one disaster we should learn to prepare for
the next disaster. We the politicians cannot give anything else
to the victims. We cannot change mother nature, but we can enact
an appropriate law and this is the time to do that. We should
put the law in place before the next disaster hits us. We need
to prepare our communities for serious disruptions in everyday
life.
I will give two options to members of the House. Either give
Canadians a guarantee that the next disaster will not hit us or
support this bill so that we can prepare to protect innocent
Canadian victims.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this private member's bill
addresses an issue that is of concern to the Minister of Industry
and all ministers who are responsible for consumer affairs
throughout the country.
I should advise the House that consumer ministers from across
the country addressed this specific issue last Friday during
their annual meeting in Charlottetown. The ministers committed
themselves to working closely together in times of crisis so that
allegations of price gouging and other unfair business practices
may be freely and quickly exchanged among the various
jurisdictions when natural disasters and other emergencies occur.
However, the ministers stopped short of agreeing to enact laws
that would target all businesses whose prices rise during
emergency situations. Let us examine the reason for that.
First of all, it is worth examining how serious the problem of
profiteering during emergencies actually is. Are Canadian
businesses systematically taking advantage of their customers'
vulnerability during these times of crisis and charging them
exorbitant prices for essential goods? That is the question.
The fact is, there is little concrete evidence to show that many
businesses are conducting themselves in such a reprehensible
manner.
1735
Let us look at our most recent experiences.
During and in the immediate aftermath of the ice storm which
affected Quebec, eastern Ontario and New Brunswick in January
1998, there were many reports in the media of alleged instances
of price gouging. The Government of Canada and, in particular,
the Minister of Industry took these allegations very seriously.
In response to these allegations, Industry Canada immediately
commissioned Option Consommateurs, a respected Quebec based
consumers' organization, to conduct an analysis of specific
allegations of price gouging, especially with regard to generator
sales.
It was found that very few merchants had charged what might be
considered an excessive price for some products. Therefore, the
first problem with the proposed legislation is that it would be
killing a fly with a steamroller. When emergencies occur,
verifiable cases of price gouging do not arise very often.
Discussions between officials in Industry Canada, with their
consumer protection colleagues in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba,
have confirmed this observation.
In those few instances where price gouging appeared legitimately
to be a problem during the January ice storm, the full glare of
media coverage raised consumer awareness and worked as an
effective antidote to reverse the position of merchants.
On the whole, however, most merchants who had been accused of
profiteering from the ice storm were found to have raised their
prices for very good reasons.
Working overtime to fill numerous orders for generators with
very short notice, under unfavourable conditions, merchants were
seeking generators from distant suppliers throughout other parts
of Canada and the United States.
The demand for fast delivery, combined with unfavourable weather
conditions meant that merchants' outlay to obtain products
increased sharply. Merchants usually had no choice but to pass
the cost on to their consumers. That is how the free market
works.
If parliament should choose to interfere with the law of supply
and demand, it could potentially make the situation for Canadians
worse, not better, when disaster strikes. Merchants will fear
that they may be exposed to enormous fines or even imprisonment
for suddenly raising their prices.
Thus, they may refuse to go that extra mile for their customers.
They may tell them that they will not look for a generator on
such short notice because they would not be able to charge the
real price and could risk an indictable offence. In this way
Bill C-442 would prevent, not promote, access to goods.
Given that the problem has been shown to be a minor one and
given that the proposed legislation could have the opposite
effect it is intended to have, we must ask whether parliament is
best suited to enact such legislation.
It is well settled law in this country that consumer protection
is principally in the purview of the provincial and territorial
governments.
As for the federal Competition Act, the statute prevents
profiteering resulting from collusive agreements among
competitors. It also prevents profiteering which is made
possible by the making of misleading representations, in the form
of false advertising for example. However, price volatility is
largely a provincial matter.
The government believes it would be prudent to stay out of an
area that is not its own and to allow the provinces to enact
legislation, should they choose to do so.
Indeed, officials from provinces recently affected by natural
disasters have expressed little interest in doing so. It would
seem odd, then, that parliament should step in and set a consumer
affairs policy for them.
By not supporting this bill the government is not forgetting its
responsibility to the Canadian people in times of emergency.
Indeed, in preparation for one of the most extreme emergency
situations that we as a nation could possibly face, that of an
international emergency, the Emergencies Act already provides for
cabinet to make such orders or regulations with respect to the
authorization and conduct of inquiries in relation to hoarding,
overcharging, black marketing or fraudulent operations in respect
of scarce commodities as the governor in council believes, on
reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency.
In summary, the government believes that to go beyond these
measures, to legislate against a problem that experience at both
levels of government, federal and provincial, has shown to be
very marginal, would constitute not only heavy-handed
interference with the free market, but also an unreasonable
intrusion into provincial and territorial consumer affairs.
1740
I am totally surprised and personally disappointed to hear the
member for Surrey Central, who on the one hand remarks that
government should not be interfering in business, but who himself
wants to interfere in business over the heads of the provinces.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
always an honour for me to speak in the House on such an
interesting bill. I will say right off, however, that we oppose
it and for various reasons, which we will look at in the next
few minutes.
First, I have to say that the title of the bill surprises me a
bit. The short title is the Reform's Anti-Profiteering Act. I
am a lawyer, and this is the first time I have seen the name of
a political party in the title of a bill. It seems rather
partisan to me and contrary to our parliamentary traditions.
We cannot discuss this bill without raising one aspect of it
that is a bit of a concern, namely the constitutional problems
it raises. I refer specifically to clause 6.
This clause concerns the proclamation of a national or local
emergency. This bill accords fairly broad and exceptional
powers to the federal government to proclaim not only a state of
national emergency, as already provided in the preamble to the
Constitution, but a state of local emergency. This means
skirting what we consider to be provincial jurisdictions.
No one will be surprised by the Bloc's total rejection of the
principle of having the federal government intervening in order
to declare a state of emergency, in Quebec for example, or in
some other province. This prerogative should rest with the
province in question and not the federal government.
In its current wording, clause 6 of the bill reads:
6.(2) Where the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable
grounds, that a national emergency exists, the Governor in
Council—
may, on the request of the lieutenant governor in council of the
province—
issue a proclamation declaring that emergency to be an emergency
for the purposes of subsection 3(1).
Why should a province then ask the federal government to please
declare an emergency in that province?
This is a rather domineering and unacceptable form of
federalism, and I am surprised that a political party such as
the Reform Party, which calls itself decentralizing, would
present a bill such as this. But the Reform Party is not short
on contradictions, and I will come back to this later.
I was saying this prerogative of declaring a local emergency
should be held by the provinces. In the United States, 43 states
out of 50 have given themselves the prerogative of declaring an
emergency, because the government of an American state or of a
province is much closer and has different services that are
close to the people and that should be implemented.
This control over various local governments and various local
instruments is the responsibility of a provincial government—or a
state government, in the United States—and not of the federal
government.
I can hardly imagine the current Prime Minister declaring a
state of emergency in Quebec during the ice storm crisis, for
example.
1745
The other problem is the very broad definitions contained in
this bill. What does the Reform Party mean by “goods and
services” or by “unreasonable or inflationary prices”?
The interpretation that can be given to those important terms is
nowhere to be found in the bill and does not reflect what should
have been the underlying values of this bill. The government is
given such latitude that it is ridiculous.
In the Reform philosophy, when it comes to
punishment it is amazing to see to what lengths Reform members
are willing to go to please their constituents, namely voters
from western Canada.
The bill provides that the amount of the
fine for a second or subsequent offence may be double the amount
of the previous fine.
The amount of the various fines that may be given to those who
commit this offence can be multiplied. That goes completely
against the philosophy that exists in Quebec.
Similarly, according to the Reform logic based on law and order,
the person is liable to be convicted for a separate offence for
each day on which the offence is committed. Therefore, if a
person commits the offence over a period of ten days, he or she
will be charged ten times, which is not only redundant but also
ridiculous.
Another contradiction I would like to mention is clause 9. Under
clause 9 of this bill, the Senate or the House of Commons may
revoke a national emergency proclamation. For a political party
that is against the Senate in its present form, it is a little
surprising to see that it is willing to give the same power to
ten senators as it is giving to twenty members of the House of
Commons. It is surprising and even disappointing for us to see
senators being given that kind of power. We want to see the
Senate abolished.
This was another contradiction of the Reform Party that I wanted
to point out.
Finally, under clause 12, the governor in council may make
regulations for carrying out the purposes of the act. We believe
that this regulatory power, as defined in this bill, is much too
broad and that letting a government rule by order in council in
a critical situation like an emergency is definitely not in the
public interest.
Therefore, the title of the legislation is inappropriate, in
that it is too partisan. The bill lacks clarity and opens the
door to misinterpretations. The principle of the act and the
order proposed by Reformers would be served only too well by
this bill. The Senate would play a key role in implementing this
legislation, which is unacceptable, as senators are appointed by
friends of the government.
As a result, the federal government would have too much latitude
to interfere in areas that must remain exclusively under
provincial jurisdiction.
For these reasons we oppose this bill.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me to rise following my Bloc colleague whose
comments I always take seriously.
The bill talks about anti-profiteering during times of emergency
or disaster. I come from a part of the country that is no
stranger to disaster or to emergencies. The Atlantic region or
any region that relies on a resource based economy knows the
meaning of disaster.
Coal has historically been a major source of employment and a
major industry in the part of the country I come from. Where the
fishery and steel mills have been major sources of employment and
industry, we are all too familiar with emergencies and disasters.
I need only mention some of the great historical disasters that
have occurred in my province and in the Atlantic region. The
Swissair disaster is the most recent, and disaster goes as far
back as the Springhill mine disaster where hundreds of miners
suffered a dangerous fate. They worked with dangerous
consequences to free miners who were trapped underground.
I can talk about the Ocean Ranger, the terrible loss of
life that occurred off Newfoundland in the cold and stormy waters
of the Atlantic Ocean. I can talk about many disasters and many
emergencies coming from my part of the country.
1750
What this has done for us is taught us the value of
co-operation. It has taught us the value of working together as
communities in times of stress and also in times of plenty.
Coming from that historical background we know that while good
times may be here today, they may well be gone tomorrow. Out of
that has developed a culture that understands the need of
neighbour to assist neighbour, of community to work with
community, of sharing with those who do not have at the present
time, and ensuring that there are social programs and community
programs in place to assist when those emergencies and disasters
occur. It is not just my region of the country that has this
history, it is all of Canada. One of the great things we can be
proud is our ability and willingness to share with our fellow
Canadians whenever disaster strikes. That again is part of our
history.
In the 1930s during the Great Depression when parts of western
Canada became a dust bowl it was from Atlantic Canada that goods
and food were collected and sent across the rail lines, some of
which no longer exist, to the western provinces to assist them.
I mention the Halifax explosion as one of the great emergency
disasters that occurred in the Atlantic region. When that
happened many parcels and medical needs were sent from the
western provinces to the Atlantic region.
The most recent examples are the floods in Manitoba and the
Saguenay region in Quebec where many Canadians from all parts of
the country worked together to assist fellow Canadians in
ensuring they did not suffer from those disasters, or suffered
minimally. We have to thank the armed forced, Canadians from all
parts of the country who work shoulder to shoulder with those who
sometimes receive better pay and work in better conditions, given
the recent report of the Standing Committee on National Defence
and Veterans Affairs. Canadian forces have responded in times of
emergency in a way that we can all be proud of.
Indeed it is out of that co-operative sense of working together
that the New Democratic Party and its predecessor were born. It
was out of the roots of the Great Depression when it was
understood that purely market driven individual forces would not
ensure the betterment of communities that there had to be a sense
among communities of working together and sharing resources. It
was out of that that the seeds of social democracy were born.
I am pleased to see the Reform Party understand that in times of
emergency we have to come together and work together. I also
understand it looks at the darker side of that, those motivated
purely by greed or individual profit who would exploit those
circumstances. I recognize that would be a dangerous thing and
indeed a wrong thing.
I turn now to the bill. I found it a curious bill at initial
reading. I recognize the comments from previous speakers who say
this is proceeding into provincial jurisdiction or that it is
sometimes against business. I read the bill in an entirely
different way and perhaps I can give it a different
interpretation.
I think we currently have emergencies. When I read the
definition of a national or local emergency in the act that is
declared to be such an emergency by a national or local emergency
proclamation that has not expired or been revoked under this act,
I can talk about the economic emergency that we currently have in
my riding of Sydney—Victoria. I have raised in the House on
many occasions and have spoken with the Minister of Natural
Resources about the fact that we have a crown corporation that
employs 1,600 people, the chairman of which has said that as of
December 1 they may not be able to meet their payroll. This means
that the miners who work underground may not be paid. The
secretaries who work in the office may not be paid.
1755
Consequently the merchants and shopkeepers in the communities
who purchase their Christmas inventory, in preparation for the
sales that may occur in the next month, may not sell their goods
and will face their creditors. I suggest that under this bill we
have an emergency. We could easily declare it as such.
I then go on to read that a local emergency means an urgent and
critical situation of a temporary nature—temporary for us but
sometimes the mismanagement has been going on longer—whose
direct effects are confined to one province and that seriously
endangers the lives, health or safety of the persons in that
province. Clearly the lives, health and safety are threatened
when we have an economic crisis.
I like the fact that the bill recognizes that persons who are
victims of any emergency that seriously endangers their lives,
health, safety or property should be able to purchase essential
goods, services and resources during that emergency at reasonable
prices. On should this bill be enacted, I could go back to my
riding and say if you cannot make the bank payment or the
mortgage payment, there is an act here that says you should not
be deprived of your property during this crucial time.
I suspect the only way we could deal with that is to ensure
there are government funds available in an economic crisis to
assist those people who suffer from it. This could bring this
whole debate to what this government has done with the
unemployment insurance fund and how less than 40% of the people
who pay into that fund are entitled to receive it. Should they
find themselves in an economic crisis where their property is
endangered they do not have access to an insurance policy they
paid for.
I also look at a national emergency which means an urgent and
critical situation of a temporary nature that seriously endangers
the lives, health, safety or property of persons in Canada. Today
we finished a whole debate on health care, the crisis in health
care and the emergency in health care. People are finding their
lives endangered because of an economic crisis.
The bill brought forward by the member from the Reform Party
could be interpreted broadly. I welcome that interpretation,
especially if we were to apply the terms economic emergency to
the debate.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker,
I am happy to speak today to the bill put forward by the member
for Surrey Central. I am sure the intent of the bill is fair.
Times of crisis are not times for profiteering. During the ice
storm of 1998 there were a great deal of stories that circulated
that would make a lot of people cringe.
During the ice storm people were suffering. As I am sure
members will recall, there were a great many people affected such
as those in my riding of Compton—Stanstead. They had no
electricity. They had no light. They had no heat. For many
people, especially elderly people and families with young
children, this situation was an emergency. These people needed
help. In some cases people required food and water. In all
cases people required heat. Strangely enough in this country we
all cherish there were people who, rather than volunteering a
helping hand to those in need, took advantage of the situation to
turn a profit. Some of these stories are somewhat disgusting.
I will mention just a few so that members are aware of the
situation I am speaking of. This was a time when people were
suffering and yet incredibly these are the stories I have heard.
One person, knowing the food in people's freezers had gone bad
because they had no electricity, sold hamburgers for $20 each.
Another person brought big candles to people's houses offering
light and heat, a neat little package for only $50.
Other people sold blankets, flashlights and generators all for
profit.
1800
These acts during the ice storm are a demonstration of the worst
of human nature, taking advantage of the weak and the
disadvantaged. It is not something that happened only during the
ice storm. During the floods in Manitoba and the Saguenay
similar stories have been heard.
What do we do about this? The government, as usual, would like
people to think that everything is okay, that there is no problem
and that everybody is happy. By the way, it does have an extra
$10 billion that it took from Canadians which it does not need,
and if there is a problem during an emergency the government
would rather not hear about it. The military did an incredible
job during those emergencies. Maybe some of this money could be
used to help the military have a better, everyday quality of
life. Would we not call this a form of profiteering by our
government? Quite simply, the government does not care.
The Reform approach is not ideal either. The bill was brought
forward by the same member who wants stiffer laws to punish
immigrant law breakers as opposed to regular law breakers. He
has recently said he wants to scrap government multicultural
programs. He wants Canada to consider sanctions against our
friends in Israel. Coming from this member, looking at any bill
that might become law one must be very careful.
As I said earlier profiteering during emergencies is indeed a
disgusting practice, but there are ways to avoid this activity
and to self-police such activity that need not be legislated from
this place.
During an emergency the first thing that happens is people who
are affected form a special bond, a special community. I was
mayor of a community that had a plan like most communities should
have. Three years ago we had a train wreck in the middle of the
community of propane cars. It was very dangerous and volatile.
We had to evacuate but it was all planned. We had volunteers
ready and places for the people to go. It was people working
together as volunteers. This is more in the direction we should
be looking.
For the most part this community is created out of necessity and
is there to help those in need. For the most part this community
provides hamburgers, candles, blankets and generators to those in
need.
It is important to acknowledge that the stories of people doing
good in an emergency always far outweigh the stories of people
taking advantage. Maybe it would be a good idea for communities
to be more aware of the profiteering that has gone on in past
emergencies so that when an emergency transpires the community is
ready not only to provide help to those who need it but to put a
stop to those people who want to profit.
Maybe one person or a group of people from the community will
undertake to take note of profiteers. Maybe it can be made
public by creating a list of those people. This might serve as a
deterrent.
During the ice storm in Quebec this happened in a way. In terms
of electrical services, for instance, where electrical entrances
were broken down by the ice, certain contractors took advantage.
Immediately as it was found out the Corporation of Master
Electricians put out a notice in the papers naming those
contractors. People remember after they have been taken
advantage of. These are good deterrents.
Unlike the government that believes it has an answer but does
not want to share it, and unlike the Reform Party that has all
the answers so long as we agree, I do not have all the answers. I
do know, however, that a problem like the one raised by the
member for Surrey Central is best served if it is brought to the
attention of local communities and not legislated from Ottawa.
On my part I will inform my community of Compton—Stanstead on
the issues discussed today and ask my colleagues in the House to
do the same. By being aware, our communities can help
themselves. After all, this is Canada and I remain optimistic.
Although I recounted tales of profiteering earlier, there are
always many happy stories which emerge from crises like these.
There are stories of people helping people, of people giving
their hamburgers, candles, blankets and generators and all they
ask in return is that their community remain strong and healthy.
That is the Canadian community I know and the Canadian community
we will always have.
1805
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to say a few words in support of
the bill of my colleague from Surrey Central. Bill C-442 is a
simple private member's bill. It is common sense yet politics
are being played.
I was involved in an extraordinary situation involving a
snowstorm. We were marooned in the city of Winnipeg for three
days. All the telephone wires were down. All the hydro wires
were out. There was no contact with our family at home. The
majority of people were awfully good. They did what they could.
They helped shovel.
The one restaurant open within walking distance because nothing
was moving charged double for everything it sold. That did not
bother me as far as the dollars were concerned. However we
suffered mental anxiety during those three days not knowing
whether our family was safe or alive because it was -35° to -40°
and there was no heat. That really bothered me.
The bill is like a warning light. It says that in the case of
an emergency where essentials should be available there is no
right to profiteer or to ask exorbitant prices.
Free enterprise works very well when commodities are available.
The market price will determine what the price should be or the
right price. The bill does not say that there cannot be
increases in costs if suppliers have extra cost factors. However
it would be a warning light for people of the consequences if
they take advantage. I would call them gougers, not just
profiteers.
I heard my colleagues on the Liberal side saying this was a
provincial matter. Maybe it is provincial, but when there are
natural disasters the federal government steps in. It has to
step in. Why not have some warning lights?
There are stop lights for traffic approaching highways in any
province or country. The traffic going up and down on the
highways can be seen but there are also stop lights. When I look
at the farming industry everybody knows that running pulleys or
PTOs are dangerous, but every machine company is forced to put
warning decals on them. Shields have to be in place. They are
there for our own protection. They are there for common sense
reasons. They are there to tell people to hold it, to stop, to
look and to listen because there is a danger.
That is what the bill would do. It would give us some protection
when we occasionally run into a disaster where people's lives or
health could be at stake.
Why would we want to make this private member's bill political?
If it comes to punishment of crimes or something that affects
each one individually or differently, we can argue politically
which is the right sentence or which sentence is probably too
harsh or too lenient.
But here we are talking of natural disasters that will affect
probably everyone in this country. It will come at a time when
we do not expect it. It will come when we will probably be short
of the necessities of life to get us through the disaster.
1810
Let us think back to the Red River flood of 1997. The House
heard that chipboard and other products to fix up homes almost
doubled in price. I wonder, why does the government really help
people in these emergencies? Because when they know there is
money available, these gougers will take advantage of it. If
they knew that these people were not willing or able to pay for
it, it would not happen. So what are we doing? Are we really
putting ourselves into danger of promoting this type of an
enterprise?
I want to commend my colleague from Surrey Central for looking
at this in a common sense way and for pointing out that it should
only affect the cost of goods in a reasonable manner. Everybody
in this country who has lived for the last 30 or 40 years knows
that we have increases in the cost of living. But we also know
what is reasonable and what is exorbitant.
This bill would prevent people from encountering more problems
in future disasters and I hope members opposite will realize
that.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the comments made by the members who
spoke. I sincerely thank all members who took the time to
prepare their speeches to support this bill, because I know that
those who support this bill must have taken the time to read it
very thoroughly.
I also thank those who have taken the time to oppose this bill
because they have actually spent some time on it. But I would
urge them to look carefully at it. Then they will probably
support it.
There were some pretty good ideas from those who opposed the
bill. I am very flexible. I am flexible enough to accommodate
some reasonably good ideas. Therefore, I urge members to allow
this bill to go to committee where we can look at those good
ideas to make this and even better bill.
I originally said that my intention was to make this a
non-partisan bill. I did not bash Liberals at any time, which I
could have done very easily. But one thing I would like to point
out is that on the government side of the House the well is
completely dry. As far as talking about benefits for Canadians
or values for Canadians, the well is completely dry.
Unfortunately, members on the government side have no vision.
Some of them have a blurred vision. They put on glasses,
and the glasses they look through have the lens of political
stripe. They only have one type of glasses.
Some members have another problem. They have something
obstructing their vision. They have blurred vision. They have a
cataract. The cataract is that they do not know what the problem
is. Let me tell them what their problem is. They do not know
that they do not know. That is the problem with them. There is
an old saying that goes, he who knows not and knows not that he
knows not can never learn. That is their problem.
On the other hand, they have a long hierarchy list that says how
not to do the right thing, which they follow.
The hon. member from the government side said that discussions
had taken place.
After their discussion they will forget what their discussion was
and then their discussion will start again. This process will
continue until they reach a point where there is no action taken.
1815
The minister set up a toll free number. Why did he set up a
toll free number for victims to expose those who gouge prices
during emergencies? He had a reason. He wanted to give them
sugar coated medicine. He just wanted to console them.
There is another problem in relation to what I said earlier. I
was misquoted two times by my Progressive Conservative colleague.
He who knows not but knows that he knows not can learn. That is
the problem with them. I do not want to go into the details. The
hon. parliamentary secretary said there is little evidence of
price gouging although he confessed there has been price gouging.
There are tons of media reports. I have 25 media reports that
state there is a problem. The Better Business Bureau is
supporting this bill. So many organizations are supporting it.
Insurance companies will not insure businesses or individuals who
will be affected by Y2K computer problems. Insurance companies
refuse to cover them if there is damage resulting from a computer
problem.
We on this side of the House do not want to interfere with
competition, we do not want to interfere with the free market but
we do want to fire a warning shot that prevention is better than
cure. We know the value of the shade of a tree when the tree is
not there.
The hon. members should have looked into the details of the bill
and they should have supported this bill. I would like the
unanimous consent of the House for the subject matter of this
bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry so we
can look into this and take some effective action for our
constituents and for all Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being 6.17 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.)