36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 73
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 28, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT
|
| Bill C-463. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
|
| Bill C-464. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1010
| ENDANGERED SPECIES SANCTUARIES ACT
|
| Bill C-465. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Breast Cancer
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1015
| CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
|
| Bill C-13. Third reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1050
1055
1100
1105
1110
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1115
1120
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
1150
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1155
1200
1205
1210
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1215
1220
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1225
1230
1235
| Mr. André Bachand |
1240
1245
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1250
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1310
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1315
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1335
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1340
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1345
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| DR. FRANK PLUMMER
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1400
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| QUEBEC MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
| NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| NISGA'A TREATY
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1405
| CANADA STUDENT LOANS PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| PIERRE-ALEXANDRE ROUSSEAU
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| WORLD THEATRE DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| CANADIAN ALLIANCE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| RENFREW—NIPISSING—PEMBROKE
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1410
| HUDSON BAY ROUTE ASSOCIATION
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| STUDENT SUMMER JOB ACTION PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| ORGAN DONATION AWARENESS
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1420
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1425
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CANADA LANDS
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1430
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| TRANSGENIC FOODS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1440
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1445
| BILLBOARDS
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Hon. John Manley |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1450
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CANADA LANDS COMPANY
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1455
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| TORONTO WATERFRONT
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1500
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. John Manley |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration—Speaker's
|
| The Speaker |
1510
| Mr. Joe Fontana |
| Motion
|
1515
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1520
1525
1530
1535
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1540
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1545
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1550
1555
1600
1605
1610
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1615
1620
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1625
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1630
| Mr. Joe Fontana |
1635
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1640
1645
1650
| Amendment
|
1655
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| Mr. Joe Fontana |
1700
1705
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1710
1715
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1720
1725
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| SHIPBUILDING ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-213. Second reading
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1750
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1755
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1800
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1805
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. John Herron |
1810
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1815
| Divisions deemed demanded and deferred
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
1820
| Mr. John Cannis |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 73
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, March 28, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-463, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited
Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with all the confusion that has been
going on around the definition of marriage, I thought it was
appropriate to introduce a private member's bill that will amend
the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act.
It will say that a marriage is void unless it is a legal union
of one man and one woman as husband and wife and neither the man
nor the woman was married immediately prior to that union.
I believe with these amendments it will give guidance to the
supreme court if there is a challenge in the future and it will
clarify the issue once and for all.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-464, an act to amend the Evidence Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my bill has to do with the expression of
dates numerically. For example, 02/03/99 could mean either
February 3, 1999 or March 2, 1999. That ambiguity has always
been there, but now that our year numbers are also less than
twelve there is a great multiplication of ambiguities possible.
My bill would set it out so that if it is not explicitly stated,
the numeric designation would be year/month/day and it would end
all these ambiguities.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
ENDANGERED SPECIES SANCTUARIES ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-465, an act
respecting the creation of sanctuaries for endangered species of
wildlife.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are over 300 species in Canada
today that are in danger of imminent extinction. What is the
greatest failure in our not dealing with that? It is the failure
to protect habitat.
This private member's bill will do just that through four
mechanisms. The first is an objective identification of species
at risk using COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada, which will recommend to the minister those
species that are in imminent danger of extinction.
The second is to provide for the establishment of sanctuaries on
federal land and for agreements with both provinces and private
land owners.
The third is to provide for expropriation or restrictive
cognizance to be placed on those lands when there has been a
failure to negotiate in good faith. When that has occurred,
compensation would be given to both the provinces and private
land owners at fair market value.
The fourth is that it enables individuals to donate land that
has been deemed to be sensitive habitat and they would get an
income tax break for doing so. I hope the bill passes. It would
go a long way toward protecting endangered species in Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present a petition on behalf of some 250 people from the
St. John's area who are very concerned with the issue of child
pornography.
The petitioners want to draw the attention of the House to the
fact that the British Columbia Court of Appeal on June 30, 1999,
dismissed an appeal to reinstate the appropriate section of the
criminal code making it illegal to possess child pornography.
They quite rightly make the point that the well-being and safety
of children are now in jeopardy as a result of that ruling. They
call upon government to invoke section 33 of the charter of
rights and freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, to override the
B.C. Court of Appeal decision.
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first one
deals with breast cancer.
Canada has the second highest incidence rate of breast cancer in
the world, second only to the United States. The United States
has had a mandatory mammography quality assurance standard since
1994. Canada has no legislation for mandatory mammography
quality assurance standards.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to enact
legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition has to do with rural route mail
couriers.
These couriers often earn less than the minimum wage and have
working conditions reminiscent of another era. Rural route
couriers have not been allowed to bargain collectively to improve
their wages and working conditions.
Therefore the petitioners are asking parliament to repeal
subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act in order to
allow these Canadian workers to earn descent wages and to
collectively bargain their rights as workers.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (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 Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1015
[Translation]
CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for Minister of Health) moved that Bill C-13,
an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research,
to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of
Health, I am very pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-13,
an act to establish the Canadian institutes of health research,
at third reading stage.
Last week, on the very day that this House completed debate on
the report stage of this bill, members of Canada's health
research community gathered together to bid farewell to the
Medical Research Council, and to greet the new era of the
Canadian institutes of health research.
Farewells are often tinged with sadness. But that is not at all
an accurate description of the prevailing mood. Instead of
sadness, there was excitement. Instead of regret, there was
tremendous optimism and hope.
Throughout the day, at the MRC-sponsored symposium, researcher
after researcher spoke about the tremendous gains in knowledge
that had been made by Canadian researchers under the Medical
Research Council, and about the potential for new knowledge, for
new discoveries, under CIHR.
The CIHR concept brought together the largest coalition of
interests in the history of Canada's health research community.
This concept was not imposed from above by government, but
created and developed as a direct result of the efforts of so
many members of the community from across the country. It would
not be fitting to let this occasion pass without paying tribute
to Canada's health researchers who took up the Prime Minister's
challenge to excel in our areas of strength,
in particular, members of the original task force on CIHR, as
well as members of the interim governing council of CIHR. The
interim governing council devoted tremendous time and energy
meeting together and engaging the broader health research
community in discussions to ensure that CIHR would meet the
priorities of the health research community, of Canadians and
of Canada as a whole.
Special mention must be made of the truly special efforts of Dr.
Henry Friesen, president of the Medical Research Council, and
chair of the interim governing council and the IGC vice-chairs
Dorothy Lamont and Eric Maldoff.
[English]
The Canadian institutes of health research is an achievement
that was brought about by the hard work and deep commitment of a
great number of people
To the 75 men and women who served on the task force persuading
the Government of Canada that this concept could become a reality
and to the 35 members of the interim governing council who have
worked so very hard to find solutions to the challenge of
expressing that vision in legislation and addressing the tough
issues of structure, processes and accommodation between diverse
disciplines, I want to express my gratitude and my admiration.
As we all know, every great cause needs a leader, and a leader
in the work to create these institutes was Dr. Friesen. Dr.
Friesen had already secured his place of honour as a result of
the remarkable leadership that he had provided as president of
the Medical Research Council since 1992. He saw the
possibilities and seized the opportunities as only a true leader
can.
Let us not underestimate the size and complexity of the
challenges that he overcame. In designing and defining the
institutes, he must have sometimes felt that his task was like
building an airplane in the air. Somehow he made it fly and
somehow he has brought it safely to ground.
[Translation]
On behalf of Canadians and the health research community, I
want to express our sincere appreciation to all these
individuals for their tremendous contribution.
1020
With Bill C-13, the Medical Research Council hands on the torch
of health research to CIHR. Over the past 40 years, the MRC has
been a godsend for researchers, providing them with the support
they needed to devote themselves to research full time.
It is very easy to say that Canada's health researchers are
among the best in the world.
As I reflect on the MRC's legacy of excellence, from the early
days, with Wilder Penfield and the surgical treatment of
epilepsy developed in Montreal, to more recent achievements,
such as the discoveries of Jude Poirier and Peter St.
George-Hyslop in connection with Alzheimer's, May Griffith and
her artificial cornea, and Arthur Prochazka and his bionic
glove, I marvel once again at the talent and creativity to be
found in our universities, hospitals and other research
institutions.
Canadian researchers are making a difference in health, in the
well-being of Canadians and of people the world over.
[English]
Today there are many reasons for all of us, no matter what our
role, to feel a strong sense of occasion. We are, after all,
sharing a moment of history as one great Canadian institution is
retired to make way for another. What a past to celebrate.
For 40 years the Medical Research Council has nurtured and
enabled the Canadian research community that has pursued
excellence expanding human knowledge, improving human conditions,
putting worldclass standards at the service of humanity both here
in Canada and around the world.
Our purpose today is not only to celebrate that legacy and to
honour that tradition. It is also to savour the new
opportunities that are upon us and to prepare for a limitless
future. We are about to embark on a new era in health research
in this country. The Canadian institutes will transform our
research enterprise providing a new and even better way to carry
on the process of discovery, to broaden its scope and deepen its
worth, to quicken its pace and to enrich its value.
We shall now move beyond medical research to health research
linking investigators in the biomedical sphere to those who
pursue inquiry in the clinic setting, connecting that work with
those who would better understand how to deliver health services,
and grounding it all in a better understanding of how illness can
be prevented and how good health can be promoted. New and better
treatments, better strategies for health protection and promotion
and for managing the health system, all of these things will be
crucial to improving and sustaining Canada's health system and
the health of our people.
The concept of the institutes is as novel as it is simple. It
will create a network of knowledge linking investigators who
tackle similar issues from different angles.
I recall reading some months ago a simple explanation of how
collaboration can enrich inquiry. An investigator wrote to a
colleague in the following words “I give you my idea. You give
me yours. Now we each have two ideas and together we have
four”. That is the arithmetic of a shared inquiry, adding in
order to multiply, sharing information in order to accelerate
discovery.
[Translation]
The nature of modern health research is changing and the issues
that arise are more difficult than ever. Today these issues
cover a vast array of disciplines representing many perspectives
and approaches.
The CIHR is a direct response to these contemporary challenges.
It is based on a new integrated approach to health that is
focused on understanding the factors underlying health and
illness.
The CIHR will create a link between researchers in a broad
variety of disciplines, enabling them share their knowledge and
work towards common goals.
1025
It will transform the manner in which health research is
conducted in this country by giving a national character to
Canadian efforts. By promoting the acquisition of new
knowledge, CIHR will help to improve Canada's health care system
and the health of Canadians. It will help make Canada's
research community a community of hope and encouragement where
the grants awarded to researchers will be comparable to those
awarded in other countries. The CIHR will be the principal
Canadian health research enterprise of the next century.
Thanks to additional large investments by the federal
government, CIHR will do more than support excellence in
existing research in Canada.
It will promote new synergies among researchers, helping to
resolve complex and difficult health issues through
comprehensive, collective and multidisciplinary approaches.
The CIHR will build on research in Canadian universities, health
institutions and research centres, provincial and federal
government teaching hospitals, and the volunteer and private
sectors.
The integration of health research into a network of virtual
institutes will make it possible to address important health
issues more effectively by using resources from four
intersecting health research approaches: basic biomedical
research, applied clinical research, research into health care
systems and services, and research into the social factors
underlying health.
The institutes will serve as centres for the transfer of
knowledge to local communities and the monitoring of Canadians'
social and health environment, as well as to present related
reports.
For a new generation of researchers, this new orientation will
result in the creation of training and innovation opportunities
in Canada. As a result, Canada will be among world leaders in
health research.
The creation of CIHR is a direct response by the federal
government to the opinions expressed by health research
directors, who were calling for change and modernization
generally of this activity in Canada.
And they are not alone. There is also a vast coalition of
researchers representing all views and disciplines in Canada.
These researchers know that CIHR is the most innovative and best
integrated approach to health research in the world.
Let me cite the enthusiastic and eloquent comments of our
Minister of Health:
We believe that CIHR will help us to attain the health research
policy objectives supported by Canadians throughout the country.
It will improve the effectiveness of our health care system,
further enhance Canada's image as a world leader in health
research, create new jobs in key sectors of the new economy and,
finally, curb the departure of our best researchers and
clinicians. Above all, CIHR will help improve the health of
Canadians.
[English]
CIHR will change the way we fund and carry out health research
in Canada. It will make the main priority of all research
endeavours in the country, first and foremost, about improving
the health of Canadians. A closer examination of the objectives
of CIHR as set out in its mandate reveals just how profound the
change will be.
1030
The main aim of CIHR will be to co-ordinate and support
multidisciplinary health research across Canada. The legislation
states that CIHR's mandate is “to excel according to
internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence in
the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved
health for Canadians, more effective health services and
products, and a strengthened Canadian health care system”. How
will it do that? The legislation says that it will meet its
objective by forging an integrated health research agenda across
disciplines, sectors and regions.
CIHR brings together researchers from across regions and
disciplines. It includes all four key areas of health research:
biomedical; clinical; health systems and services; and population
health research. It is an approach that will see research travel
from laboratory to bedside and to communities.
[Translation]
Health research in Canada already involves a multitude of bodies
with partnership potential. These are: the federal research
councils, charitable organizations involved with health,
universities, teaching hospitals, community groups, research
institutes and private industry.
Associated with greater financial resources, this more
integrated and more dynamic research framework that the
institutes represent will generate new knowledge, which will
result in improving the health of Canadians and improved health
care, earlier discovery of new treatments, and enhanced
possibilities of effective political intervention.
The institutes will foster the establishment of an integrated
health research program which will make it possible to make
discoveries earlier in identifying new health threats and their
treatments. They will deal with the increasingly numerous
statistics indicating that some of the most significant health
factors are not being addressed by clinical and biomedical
interventions.
The institutes will provide a far better liaison for the health
research partners already in place, and will encourage
co-operation with the volunteer, community and private sectors.
Hon. members will have understood that the role of these
institutes is not, first of all, to invest in bricks-and-mortar
structures, but rather to put into place in the form of a
network in synergy with researchers in other disciplines with
different horizons, within the framework of what we have already
named the virtual institutes around various themes.
To give one example, in a research institute focussing on
asthma, basic genetic research might be carried out in a
hospital in Quebec, while clinical trials and evaluations of
asthma treatments might be carried out in Saskatchewan or
Ontario. Research assigned to social science specialists or
public health authorities might be done in rural areas of
Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Finally, evaluation of such a pilot project with a view to
determining the best treatment approach might be done in another
part of Canada, British Columbia or PEI, for instance.
Thus the institutes are intended to bring together researchers
in the social sciences into a solid national network, which is
then, in turn, part of a broad international health network.
This national network would work in conjunction with scientists
in other disciplines of health research, with researchers in
such areas as sociology, psychology, education, social work,
nursing, psychiatry, economics and public health, demographics,
epidemiology, and public administration. All of these could be
associated with health research in one way or another, according
to the role planned for the institutes.
I would also like to point out that a number of organizational
principles will guide the selection of institutes. First of
all, there will not be just one model of institute.
1035
Each institute will be able to take a different path as far as
its programs, its structures and the number of projects funded
are concerned, depending on the determined needs of the
community. Second, all health researchers will have the
opportunity of a place within the institutes.
Identification of the institutes, which will be 10 to 15 in
number, will be based on several criteria, including their
fundamental capacity to contribute to improving the health of
Canadians.
The structure of the institutes must be simple and
cost-conscious. Finally, the institutes will encourage
interdisciplinary research in the four key health sectors
already referred to.
[English]
A key element of CIHR's stated objective is to facilitate the Translation
of knowledge into better health services and a better
health care system for Canadians. Research has little value if
its result cannot somehow be applied whether into new directions
for further research, new ways to maintain the health of
individuals and communities, new treatments and cures for disease
or a new understanding of how best to deliver health care to
Canadians.
By building the translation of knowledge gained from research
into practical applications right into CIHR's legislative agenda,
we are ensuring that we achieve the utmost value for our research
investment.
[Translation]
There is another key element in the institutes' agenda.
Promotion of research projects and assistance in their
completion must be according to internationally accepted
standards of scientific excellence. Peer review is the best
guarantee available to government and to the Canadian public
that taxpayers' dollars are being directed to science of the
highest quality.
The institutes will build on a longstanding tradition in this
country of rigorous evaluation of research proposals to ensure
that we may continue to meet international standards of
scientific excellence and take into account the special
requirements of the institutes' expanded mandate.
The legislation before us provides as well that the institutes
will carry out their mission by assuming a leadership role in
Canada's research community and by co-operating with the
provinces, volunteer organizations and the private sector.
Having the institutes organized by theme will bring together all
the principal stakeholders—researchers, donor agencies, research
users—to develop a strategic research program promoting
researcher creativity while meeting the needs and priorities of
Canadians. Herein lies the test of real leadership.
This leadership, need I point out, will be exercised in
co-operation with the provinces, whose responsibility it is to
provide health care to Canadians. This leadership will be
exercised in the respect of provincial jurisdiction.
We consider such federal-provincial-territorial co-operation vital
not only to the advancement of health research but to the
promotion, dissemination and implementation of new knowledge
with a view to improving the health care system and services.
Canadians take a special sense of pride in their publicly funded
health care system. They believe that leadership in the areas
of health care, research and education are key elements of the
Canadian advantage that will help us maintain a quality of life
that the United Nations continues to consider the best in the
world.
The government shares that belief. The institutes are part of a
deep and abiding commitment that we have made to supporting
health research in this country.
1040
[English]
The Government of Canada understands that it must do its part if
the new enterprise is to succeed. By next year in relation to
1998 we will have doubled the annual federal funding for health
research in Canada to a total of almost $500 million per year. If
as we expect the institutes' promise is fulfilled, that will not
be the final point, it will be a new point of departure. The CIHR
is only part of a determined effort by the Canadian government to
encourage and reward innovation.
[Translation]
Over the past three years, we have invested more than $5 billion
in direct and leveraged funding. We have continued to fund and
expand the network of centres of excellence, seven of which
focus on health related topics.
In 1997, we established the Canada foundation for innovation,
and, this year, we contributed an additional $900 million to it.
A total of $1.9 billion is helping to modernize and improve the
research infrastructure in our hospitals, universities and other
research institutions. We also established the Canadian health
services research foundation to provide us with the data we need
of how to deliver excellent, efficient and cost-effective health
services to Canadians.
In the latest federal budget, presented a month ago, the
Minister of Finance announced the creation of 2,000 Canada
research chairs, a $900 million investment intended for
researchers at the peak of their careers and the most promising
researchers still at the start of their careers.
As well in this budget the Minister of Finance announced a
special one-time allocation of $160 million to Genome Canada to
fund five genome science centres in Canada.
On top of all these initiatives, in two years, government
investment in the institutes will be double the amount it had
invested in the MRC. And this is only the beginning. We fully
expect that, in future years, the federal government's
investment in health research through the institutes will
continue to grow.
The end result of these investments will be a country where
researchers see opportunities for support and innovation
throughout their careers. A country others throughout the world
see as the place to be for health research. A country which
offers its citizens the very best in research and health care
based on a solid foundation of excellence in this field.
[English]
I want to reiterate that our government understands these kinds
of investments must continue to ensure that Canada can cultivate,
keep and attract the very best and brightest. By creating an
environment for research excellence where good people take up
challenges with enthusiasm and confidence, we strengthen the
vitality of our country and we enhance our economic dynamism and
competitiveness in a shrinking world. We have produced results
particularly when we speak of health research which makes our
communities and families healthier and happier.
Someone once said that the best way to predict the future is to
invent it. I believe that is what those who have developed the
institutes have done. Our future will be assured because of the
hard work we are doing now which will be to the benefit of
generations to come. What is more, the institutes will be an
exercise in national solidarity linking not only scientists but
also Canadians with each other in a common cause.
1045
[Translation]
The institutes represent the most deliberately innovative and
integrative approach to health research. They form a structure
uniting individuals and networks of researchers in a broad range
of perspectives on health research. I sincerely believe that
the institutes will set the example for the world.
As the Prime Minister of Canada has said, the institutes will
truly make Canada the place to be for researchers in the field
of health.
The Standing Committee on Health heard from a wide range of
witnesses during its hearings into Bill C-13, representing
different regions, different areas of health research, different
perspectives. Despite their differences, though, there was one
constant point of similarity. Every individual, every group
appearing before the committee began by expressing their strong
support for the establishment of this new vision for health
research in Canada.
I would like to salute these witnesses and thank them
enthusiastically for their support and their contribution to the
advent of the institutes. The expression of such unanimity
during hearings for a piece of legislation is extremely rare, we
must confess, but this is the extent of the support shown by the
health research community: researchers, volunteer organizations,
universities and the private sector.
In conclusion, I would like particularly to thank my colleagues,
the members of the Standing Committee on Health, who made a
considerable commitment to their work. In addition, I would
encourage the members of this House—including those of the
various opposition parties, whose co-operation during the
examination of this bill I wish to recognize—to show the same
commitment to excellence in health research in Canada through
their unanimous support for this bill.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-13, a bill
which would create the Canadian institutes of health research.
As the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan and the deputy critic of
health for the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, I am
pleased to state that we will be supporting this bill. However,
before I go into the actual body of the bill and give a bit of a
critique on the substance of it, I would like to say a few words
about our health care system in Canada today.
If we look at the most recent opinion polls asking Canadians the
question “What is the most important issue that you believe this
country faces today?”, health care comes out on top. Health care
is the most important issue to Canadians. Why is that? We do
not have to look very long or very hard to see why this would be
the case. Simply put, we have a health care system that is in
crisis.
When we look at why the health care system is in crisis we can
see that part of the reason is the lack of funds. While the
provinces are responsible for the delivery of health care
services, we can see that the majority of this problem rests with
the federal government. Over the past five years it has cut back
transfer payments to the provinces which would have supported the
provincial health care systems by some $2.5 billion.
The government has made a great deal about the fact that it is
going to put back into health care some $14 billion over the next
four years. If I have done my math correctly, that still leaves
a considerable shortfall.
1050
This shortfall will be downloaded to the provinces, which will
then force the provinces to prioritize their spending. They will
have to take spending from other places, like education, road
building and things like that, and they will have to put the
money toward health care, which is the number one concern of
Canadians across the country.
It puts the provinces in a tremendous dilemma. How will they
prop up, fix or change a health care system that is in crisis
when they do not have the money to do it?
If we think that there is a health care crisis now, wait for the
next 10 years or so when baby boomers start to demand the kind of
health care that is needed when people reach the age of
sixty-five. We know what happens. That little bit of arthritis
in the knee or the hip joint gets worse and pretty soon a hip
operation is needed. Or, in the worst case scenario, the cough
that is persistent turns out to be lung cancer.
As those things come on in later years as we grow older, we
become more of a burden to the health care system. There are 9.5
million people who will put an incredible strain on the health
care system. There will be a need for more facilities, more
nurses, more doctors and more innovative research, all the things
that go into making a good health care system.
Over the last number of years as the deputy health critic of the
Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance—and I am very proud that
we have become the Canadian Alliance, with a huge mandate from
reformers across the country—I learned a great deal about health
and health care. I have come to have a deep admiration for the
many people who operate and run our hospitals and our clinics:
our very dedicated doctors, nurses and medical researchers.
We all know that care is not something which comes out of a
bottle or a box. We simply cannot prescribe care. It is not
something we can send by courier. It comes from within the
people who interact and attempt to make life better for the
patients in our health care system.
Time after time during the past number of years the federal
Liberals have attempted to talk about health care in strictly
monetary terms. The health minister or the finance minister will
stand during question period and refer to the millions of dollars
which they will put back into the health care system. Like the
compensation package that was offered to the hepatitis C victims,
we have not seen a great deal of it yet.
What they fail to acknowledge is that the Canadian people are
not as gullible as the Liberals would like to think. Canadians
know and understand that the Liberals have taken away far more
than they have returned.
Let us examine some of the facts in a bit more detail. In 1993
when the Liberals took power the Canada health and social
transfer per taxpayer was $1,453. In the 1999 budget the Canada
health and social transfer was $1,005 per taxpayer. That means
that the federal government is giving each province $448 less per
taxpayer for health and social programs. That is a 31% drop in
federal transfers to the provincial governments.
In fact, since 1966 when universal health care was introduced in
Canada, the Liberals' financial commitment to health care has
dropped from 50% to 9.4%. How can the system be sustained on
that kind of funding? It cannot.
We know that health care delivery is a provincial matter.
Unfortunately, paying for it has also become a provincial
responsibility. The Harris government in Ontario pays more
annually to health care in that province alone than Ottawa does
for the whole of Canada.
Let me repeat that. Ontario pays more annually to health care
in that province alone than Ottawa does for the whole of Canada.
There is something deeply wrong with the Liberal commitment to
health care with those kinds of statistics.
1055
Taken as a cumulative total, in 1993 the Canada health and
social transfer was $18.8 billion. In the 1999 federal budget,
even with the so-called new money, the new total was $14.5
billion, a difference of $4.3 billion. That is money taken out
of the national health care system. It represents $143 for each
person in Canada today.
It is not just in dollars that the Liberals have failed. They
are responsible for violating the universal health care system of
this country in many ways.
We all know that there are five main tenets which make up the
universal health care system: accessibility, portability,
comprehensiveness, universality and public administration. While
I could speak at length to all of them, I would like to give two
examples of where the government has failed to meet these
principles.
First, I would like to speak to accessibility. Where the system
is to be equally accessible to all Canadians, the British
Columbia NDP government, which has a pristine record of being in
favour of a universal health care system, regularly sends it
Workers' Compensation Board claimants with knee injuries to the
United States or to a private clinic in Alberta. This amounts to
nothing less than queue jumping, sanctioned by government,
promoted and paid for by a quasi-governmental body. This sounds
a lot like two tier health care, the same two tier health care
which the government loves to rant against when indeed it is
responsible for the creation of it.
Second, I would like to speak to portability. The universal
health care system is not intended to penalize any province
against another. Full and equal services are intended for all.
However, the province of Quebec—and it is not the only
malefactor—will only reimburse other provinces $450 per day for
Quebecers who are in other provincial hospitals. The rate for a
day of hospital care in Ontario is about $745. Based on this
rate difference, Quebec owes millions of dollars to the other
provinces. This goes on all the time across the country. The
federal government allows this to take place and allows the
violation of the principle of portability under the Canada Health
Act.
In reality, who has created two tier health care in this
country? The Liberal government. Our hon. colleagues across the
way do not like to hear that, but when truth stares them in the
face they have to admit it.
How does this affect you and I, Mr. Speaker? We are the ones
who pay for this. When our knees get to the point where we have
to have an operation, when the arthritis is too bad, what are we
to do? What is the net effect of this loss of money to the
system?
One of the first things that we see is the waiting time that
many Canadians experience when they or a loved one needs a health
care service. For instance, in 1993 if a person wanted to see a
specialist, on average he or she would have waited 3.7 weeks to
see a specialist in Canada. In 1998, five years later, the
average waiting time would have increased 38%, up 1.5 weeks. Is
that acceptable in a country which is purported to have the best
health care system in the world?
Many of us may have experienced even longer waiting times, as
these times vary from region to region and according to the
specialist who is required. We have all heard the horror stories
of the cancer patient who needs radiation treatment and is forced
to wait 10, 12 or 14 weeks, and in some cases much longer, for
treatment to begin.
I recently heard a gentleman on a radio talk show which
originated in Vancouver at CKNW. The program spent a whole week
on the health care system in Canada. This gentleman phoned in
and told the very sad story of his wife who, at one point in her
life, had been discovered to have a very small spot on her liver.
The waiting time between the time she could get to a specialist
and then eventually get treatment for her disease was so long
that she died in the process. That is the sad story, repeated
time and time again across Canada, because of the inadequacies of
our health care system. It has to change.
1100
It is at that personal level when it actually affects people
that the federal government loses its credibility. While it
looks at the money it has failed to recognize the human quotient.
The cancer patient, the person waiting for an organ transplant,
the elderly family member who is immobile and requires a hip
replacement are people who have feelings. They may be in pain or
their quality of life may have been diminished. They have family
members, loved ones around them. They may be missing work and
therefore unable to fully provide for their families and
contribute to the economy both locally and nationally.
The real impact of the serious health care crisis in Canada is
not just monetary. It is flesh and blood. As people are forced
to new levels of stress, they are forced to make difficult
choices for their loved ones.
There are lots of ways to split up the problem. We could look
at the number of hospital beds that have closed. We could
acknowledge the doctor shortage in rural areas, the inadequate
pay level of nurses and the conditions that many of them work
under. We could tabulate the tax level and the effect of the
brain drain and losing some of our best and brightest medical
people to south of the border.
However the Liberals will never acknowledge that this is a
problem of their own doing. This is a problem they have created
by wantonly cutting the Canadian health and social transfer and
failing to keep the principles of universality without realizing
the full effect upon the people who need to use the health care
system.
As the official opposition we believe it is important to address
all these issues, to get them on the table, and to have this huge
consultation from coast to coast with medical people, with
professionals, with researchers and with Canadians. We need to
find new and better ways to cure the diseases that affect those
around us: our loved ones, our friends, and in some cases
ourselves.
As we enter the 21st century communication and technology are
moving at an unprecedented pace. As we all know, it is now
possible to do work, research and communicate worldwide through
the benefits of Internet and e-mail.
This brings us directly to Bill C-13, a bill to create the
Canadian institutes of health research. In spite of the concerns
I have about the government's handling of health care, I
acknowledge that this is a good step forward on behalf of the
government, and that is why we support it.
The technology available today allows an individual or a small
company the opportunity to work and communicate with a major
university, a public institution or a private company. I believe
the sharing of data, theories and information between large and
small parties, regardless of location, has the potential to be of
enormous benefit to all Canadians, and indeed citizens of the
world.
While I support the bill I believe, however, that there are ways
that the bill could be improved. We are always in need of
improvement. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree that you are
not perfect. I am not perfect and none of the bills in the House
are perfect.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to several
issues. I believe the bill should have a new section, for
instance, limiting administrative bureaucracy to a maximum of 5%
of the total budget of the CIHR.
While the scandal continues over the HRDC grants and the damning
audits pouring out of the department of Indian affairs, the EDC
and other financial fiascos will undoubtedly be added to the
list, it is imperative that transparent and accountable financial
controls be placed upon all government spending.
I suggest that Bill C-13 should contain directives that the
governing council must ensure that no more than 5% of its annual
budget is directed toward administrative expenses, using
definitions that are normally applied to departments by the
treasury board.
I believe, if handled appropriately and based upon the positive
results received through research, that the CIHR should strive
for partial or complete self-sufficiency based upon funds raised
through new medical technology, through the use of patents,
licensing, copyrights, industrial designs, trademarks, trade
secrets or other like property rights held, controlled or
administered by the CIHR. There exists the opportunity for the
Canadian institutes of health research to recoup a portion of the
public dollars invested in research institutes.
It is a novel idea. Imagine a government agency that actually
recovers financial resources rather than simply spends them.
1105
I also believe that it is an opportune time to ensure that the
selection of the research that will be funded through the CIHR
will be based upon scientific merit. The allocation research
funding should be based upon the validity of the project, not on
the basis of employment equity groups or one province versus
another. Funding should be upon merit alone.
If the goal of the CIHR is to strengthen and ensure that we have
improved health for Canadians through more effective health
services and products and a strengthened Canadian health care
system, there must be a transparent and accountable process using
standard acceptable accounting procedures. The research must be
valid and likewise the financial accountability must be clear as
well.
I also believe that this act and the Standing Committee on
Health itself missed an opportunity to strengthen the section of
the bill dealing with ethics. Topics such as biomedical
research, reproductive technology, gene therapy advancements and
other future ethical issues will be a part of future medical
research.
While not all solutions may be determined now, the framework for
an ethics board will provide future direction. The preamble
should state that it will take into consideration ethical issues
with special attention to the highest value and dignity accorded
to human life. This is an issue that will be fraught with
contention in the future and a resolution process should be
included.
As we have witnessed most recently with the HRDC debacle,
political patronage cannot and must not be part of the decision
making process. The research that is done must be seen to be
without political interference. The decisions must be seen as
being valid and necessary and with the broad based support of
Canadian medical researchers. Without this support the CIHR will
only be viewed as another Liberal slush fund.
The CIHR should be subject to a parliamentary review every five
years. While I support the premise of the CIHR, there may come a
time in the future that it needs to be revisited, revised,
modernized or perhaps eliminated together with something better
that comes along. That is exactly what we did with the Canadian
Alliance. We now have the opportunity to ensure that we
undertake such a review on a regular basis.
If the CIHR remains the most appropriate venue for conducting
health research then we should endorse the program and ensure
that it continues. If it can be improved we need to take the
necessary steps to improve it for the next five years. We should
always look ahead to the future, never looking backward.
As with any organization consistency is appropriate. However I
also believe that positive gains could be made by bringing in new
council members. By having a maximum of three terms for each
council member, there is sufficient time to ensure consistency
over the long term and yet allow a regular planned turnover of
council members, thus ensuring a steady influx of new thoughts
and ideas. Furthermore, for the same reasons I believe each
member of the advisory board should serve a term of no more than
five years and a maximum of three terms.
If the CIHR is to begin and remain non-political, I would
support the premise that all governor in council appointments be
ratified by the Standing Committee on Health by a two-thirds
majority. The accountability process must extend to all aspects
of the CIHR. In order to achieve this level of transparency the
membership should be ratified by more than just the government
majority on the Standing Committee on Health. Such appointments
should move beyond the partisan politics of the House and ensure
that the health of all Canadians is maintained.
Another aspect of transparency should extend to the companies
and individuals that grants and resource funds are allocated to.
At no time should there be a connection between members of the
governing council, institute chairs and the recipients of the
resources.
To do otherwise does not ensure that the allocation remains
transparent. Canadians are demanding full government
accountability.
1110
In order to achieve financial accountability and transparency
through the CIHR I believe the report of the auditor general
should be made public, for without public accountability all the
measures in the world are for nought.
With the use of the auditor general and his reporting mechanism
to all Canadians we can be assured that the highlights and low
lights of the financial accountability of the CIHR will be seen
by all.
My final point on the bill is to enshrine a method of rebuttal
within the CIHR. The governing council should develop a
subcommittee that can act as an ombudsman for complaints brought
forward by researchers or their private sector partners. We all
recognize that disagreements will occur. Rather than wait for a
problem to arise, let us put a dispute resolution process in
place. It would take so little effort now, and yet the bill does
not contain this kind of allowance.
I am in favour of the intent of Bill C-13. I believe the bill
has the potential to partially address the problems of our
medical brain drain. We need to be sure to attract and keep our
best and brightest. Our loss of these people is definitely some
other country's gain. We cannot allow this to continue.
Of course a major part of this problem involves taxes. However
I will save that particular part of my argument for another day.
Bill C-13 is an improvement over the Medical Research Council.
Throughout the committee hearings we heard from numerous medical
and associated groups which asked that the bill be passed at our
earliest convenience, and I agree with their comments.
The bill could be better, as any bill could be better, but the
comments I have offered today could improve Bill C-13 in the
future. In the broader perspective the Canadian Alliance and I
personally are very happy to support the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
try to pull myself together, even though I am not in a great
mood, and begin by saying that we agree with the principle of
the bill, but we will not be able to support it at third
reading.
We tabled amendments, on which I will elaborate later on and
which would have greatly improved this bill and made it much
more acceptable. More importantly, these amendments would have
made the bill extremely compatible with the scientific policy
statement proposed by the Quebec department of science and
technology, while also making it respectful of Quebec and of its
policies in the area of science and technology.
Be that as it may, committee members from both the government
and the opposition worked very hard. I do not think I missed a
single committee meeting and I took a great interest in this
issue, which involves research and a major concern to us, namely
health.
Let us begin by the beginning. If we wanted to look at the
historical background of this legislation, we would go back to
1994. At the time, I was a young member of parliament full of
idealism, an idealism that is not totally gone. A report
published by the OECD indicates that Canada lags far behind when
it comes to public spending on research. During the pre-1994
years, Canada was far behind the other OECD members.
Not only is Canada far behind in terms of public spending and
initiatives to promote research, but research is also
fragmented, there is a lack of co-ordination and the myth of
Professor Calculus, whom our young pages will surely remember, a
researcher who works in isolation in his laboratory and has
little interaction with the other members of the scientific
community, was somewhat pertinent here in Canada, in the early
nineties.
1115
This is why we support the bill in its intent, which is to put
researchers in contact with one another and to establish virtual
research networks from very precise thematic orientations so
that they can communicate their results to one another.
A few months ago, the government established a board of
directors consisting then and now of really interesting people
from all walks of life. I would like to take this opportunity to
thank them for their involvement in the scientific community,
because some of them have been involved for many years.
I am thinking of Dr. Henry Friesen who, as everybody knows,
chaired the Medical Research Council of Canada. The bill before
us will abolish this council. I am thinking, of course, of
Michel Bureau, from the Fonds de la recherche en santé du
Québec, who also worked very hard to guide the interim board of
directors. I am thinking of Andrée Demers, the director of the
research group on the social aspects of prevention, of Eric
Maldoff, who is a lawyer, which goes to show that one may be
trained in law and be interested in research, of Dr. Yves Morin,
professor emeritus at the faculty of medicine, of Cameron
Mustard, the director of research at the Institute for Work and
Health, of Dr. Louise Nadeau, an associate professor, and of Dr.
Neda L. Chapel.
I also want to thank Maria Knoppers, an assistant professor at
the University of Montreal faculty of law, who is a specialist
on ethical issues relating to research protocols and on the
precautions to take to ensure that research complies with the
ethical standards that we are entitled to expect.
I will make a digression to point out that it is rather strange
to see that research work has been done in Canada for over 50
years but the government has never felt the need to put in place
a policy on ethics in research. There are of course granting
agencies such as the Medical Research Council, the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council that came together and
drafted a common policy. The fact remains however that the
government itself has failed to do it.
I think of course of Paul Lucas, whom I know, as I have been
very interested in the whole question of drug patent review, who
is the chairman and chief executive officer of Glaxo in
Mississauga. I think of Robert Mackenzie, who is the dean of
advanced studies research at McGill University; of Murray
Martin, the chairman of the board of the Vancouver Hospital; of
Robert Perrault, a medical consultant in heart health; of Robert
Pritchard, from the University of Toronto, and the list goes on.
We must remember, however, that a provisional governing council
has suggested directions.
The intent of the bill before us is to get researchers into a
network so that the whole scientific community can benefit from
the results of the work done by a particular group of
researchers.
This is not what we have a problem with, and I will have an
opportunity to revert to this point.
What we do have a problem with is the fact that—and we find this
quite strange—the provinces have not been associated with this
bill. We will have some numbers to provide on this later. We
know there is a great deal of catching up to do in Quebec, in
the field of intra muros research, research done in federal
laboratories.
For example, Quebec, which is developing a science policy, has
provided $400 million over two years. Quebec, which represents
25% of the population, has managed to provide in its budget $400
million for research over two years, while the federal
government will provide $500 million for all of Canada, at the
most important point in the establishment of Canadian institutes
of health research. It seems to me it would have been
interesting to associate the provinces with this, to agree to
take their recommendations into consideration.
1120
It is especially important to recognize that health care is a
provincial jurisdiction. The fact still remains that, when the
government was seeking to establish the Canadian institutes of
health research, it called on a number of actors. It called on
people from industry, representatives of consumer groups,
colleges and universities, which are responsible, as we know,
for most health research; it also called on the hospitals. As I
said, the provinces were consulted very weakly, very reservedly
and very timidly.
To show where things stand in health research, I will take the
year 1998 as an example. I will take great care to speak slowly.
I realize that, in the past, I have made things a bit difficult
for the House interpreters; I was criticized for it and, in the
next few months, I intend to adjust my speed.
Members of the House will surely join me in applauding the
interpreters who work very hard for us. Thus, it is important
that we keep delivering our speeches calmly, which makes them
easier to understand anyway.
I was saying that, according to available data for 1998, which
is therefore fairly up to date, $2.3 billion was spent on health
research.
For clarity sake, here is a breakdown of how the
responsibilities were divided: 27% of health research was
carried out by companies and 7% by provincial governments. This
is a national average. Understandably, British Columbia ,
Ontario and Quebec invest more; an average being a measure of
the central tendency, this can reflect a biased reality.
The federal government invested 16% of the funding available for
research, while the others, namely private lenders, invested
18%; foreign sources, 8%; private non-profit organizations, 12%;
and hospitals, universities and institutes, 12 %.
We can see that it is primarily the private sector that is
funding research in Canada, when the total of $2.3 billion is
broken down by source.
However, if we were to apportion intra-muros research mandates,
namely the research being done by public institutions—as opposed
to extra-muros research which is done in the private sector—by
various federal laboratories and by various governments, the
breakdown would be as follows: hospitals fund 18% of research
and private non-profit organisations, 6%.
During the 1990s, the OECD reminded us that the federal
government, which funds only 3% of the research, had to make a
effort to catch up.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: This is truly shameful.
Mr. Réal Ménard: This is truly shameful. I agree with my
colleague from Chambly, who is a trained notary. I like to point
that out because I know he has pleasant memories of his training
years on the North Shore, if I am not mistaken—
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: At Laval University.
Mr. Réal Ménard: At Laval University. If memory serves, he also
hated administrative law, yet it does not prevent him from
having an interest for politics.
Furthermore, provincial governments fund 1% and the private
sector, through mandates and partnerships with the public
sector, funds 27%. The most interesting information I want to
point out is the fact that hospitals and universities fund 45%
of research.
1125
Close to 50% of health research is performed in hospitals
and universities. It is therefore important to have a bill which
will take this fact into account.
If I asked who is responsible for health institutions and
hospitals, who has jurisdiction constitutionally, I believe that
we would all be tempted to answer that it is, of course, the
provinces.
We are facing a situation we have questions about. The federal
government wants to invest in research and development. I remind
the House that the Bloc Quebecois, an eminently responsible
political formation, has always asked an investment be made in
research.
I wish you had been there in 1993 during the electoral campaign
led by an extraordinary campaigner, Lucien Bouchard. The current
Premier of Quebec and his team of candidates asked the federal
government to put an end to our historical lag in the area of
research and development, with data to support that request. We
repeated the request in 1997.
But it took two electoral campaigns, masterfully led by the Bloc
Quebecois in Quebec, for the federal government to finally
understand this request and to invest in research.
The government is to be thanked for investing in research, but
there is a problem.
I am convinced that my colleague, the member for Chambly, will
agree. Let me digress for a moment just to say that, according
to the referendum results, the riding where participation was
the highest in 1995 is Chambly. I know that down deep the
member for Chambly must be very proud of that fact.
Getting back to the subject at hand, I was saying that we hope
there will be some major investments in health research.
However, could we not be led to believe—I ask the question to my
colleagues who all seem extremely interested in that bill—that
what we have here is a nation building bill? By presenting this
bill on Canadian institutes of health research, is the federal
government not looking for greater visibility?
If its main objective were to consolidate biomedical research
and to promoters greater interaction between researchers who
work in that field, it could have allocated money to the
provinces. Members should not forget that Quebec has its Fonds
de la recherche en santé du Québec, chaired by Dr. Bureau.
Quebec has had a policy for several years already and has been
investing in research and has defined major directions.
There is a paradox in the bill. There is an insistence on nation
building and, yet, there is a divorce between where the research
will be conducted and the responsibility the Canadian government
wants to have confirmed by this bill.
This is not to say that historically research is exclusively a
provincial jurisdiction. No. We know better on this side of the
House than to suggest that.
What we say, however, is that it might have been more
interesting, for efficiency's sake and out of respect for the
provinces, to allocate money to existing initiatives, especially
considering that half of the medical research is done in
universities and hospitals, which are themselves agents of the
provinces.
The Government of Quebec is not comfortable with such a bill.
Things would have been a lot simpler if the government had
accepted the amendments moved by the opposition.
1130
We said “Yes, let us establish institutes of health research.” I
will, if I may, digress, because if people take a cursory glance
at the bill, they may get the impression—and the minister said
this many times publicly—that 15 institutes will be established.
The government says that there will a budget of $240 million to
begin with, that $500 million will be provided at the most
crucial phase, in 2001-2002, that the Canadian institutes of
health research will have a thematic focus.
Each institute will have four major research focuses: bio-medical
research, clinical research, research to improve people's health
of populations and research on our health care system.
Yet, because I have been extremely vigilant in examining this
bill, I noticed that there will be only one institute and that
the governing council is very centralized.
This centralized institute will oversee 15 other institutes that
are not really independent. They will not have genuine
operational independence, at least not according to what is
provided in this bill. This is a trap and is of concern to us.
Just to show that there is no genuine operational independence,
the bill provides that all equipment acquired shall remain the
property of the federal crown. All research projects submitted
to the different advisory committees in each institute and
approved by them will have to get the approval of the governing
council. I think members will agree that we have seen better
instances of operational independence.
There is another paradox. The chairperson of the governing
council and the chief executive officer are the same person. I
hope that the parliamentary secretary, my friend from
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, with whom I share a passion for
Montreal, will remember that we asked him questions about that
in committee. We asked him why the two functions were performed
by the same person.
I will give an example for the enlightenment of my colleague,
the parliamentary secretary. Let us take the Régie des
installations olympiques—$500 million is a lot of money—whose board
of directors recently had a new roof made for the stadium. This
organization has a budget of less than $500 million.
Yet, as is the case with most crown corporations and other
public organizations, it was felt that the chairperson of the
board and the chief executive officer ought to be two different
persons.
Such a distinction is important and, according to philosopher
Montesquieu, it is essential in order to have checks and
balances. The chief executive officer must make decisions for
the day to day administration of the health institutes so they
can fulfil their terms of reference.
The role of the chairperson of the governing council is one of
supervision and control, that of a watchdog.
Are we to conclude that this role of monitoring, of control,
this eminently desirable watchdog role when the public's money
is concerned, can be properly exercized when we realize the
chairman of the board and the CEO are one and the same person?
Really now, that makes no sense.
The government has failed in its duty. I repeat, we are in
favour of the principle of this bill. We acknowledge the
government's desire to create links, forums for interaction, for
exchange, for focusing researchers' efforts. We agree that this
is the path modern research needs to take, but we believe this
bill has a certain number of flaws, and have sought to improve
it.
1135
I must admit, however, that the government has unfortunately
turned a deaf ear to our amendments. It has not, in fact,
accepted a single one. We introduced about thirty of them, each
one more relevant than the last, and these were amendments which
witnesses had called for. Unfortunately, the government turned
a deaf ear to them. That is its prerogative, but I am forced to
say that the bill would have benefited considerably from them.
Before going into any further detail on the research institutes,
I would like to point out that, on February 14, the Government
of Quebec, the government of Lucien Bouchard, through Mrs.
Marois, the Minister of State for Health, and Jean Rochon, whose
name is always mentioned with pleasure in this House because of
his past accomplishments, wrote to the Minister of Health, over
the signatures of the two ministers but on behalf of the entire
government, to express its opposition.
I will read the letter in question, if I may, for the sake of
transparency. I will also say that we moved 33 amendments of
every nature, and that it would have been desirable for the
government to agree to them. I will now begin reading the
letter:
This is pursuant to the introduction in the House of Commons, on
November 4, 1999, of Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research, to repeal the Medical Research
Council Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Your government had already announced, in its February 1999
budget, that this new structure would be responsible for
distributing $240 million to fund research projects until the
year 2001-2002.
Therefore, it is no surprise that Bill C-13 was welcomed by the
scientific and research community which,
needless to say, was severely affected by the federal cuts made
in recent years.
I will continue reading this letter, but I want to take this
opportunity to remind the House that the federal government cut
$33 billion in cash transfers and in transfer payments to the
provinces. Obviously, when the government makes cuts to transfer
payments, it affects the provinces' ability to support the
research efforts of the various granting agencies for which they
have primary responsibility.
The next excerpt is very important. I do not know if my comments
can be heard in dolby or in stereo, but I hope they will be
clearly heard in the House, particularly by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who is here with us today.
While the Government of Quebec shares and understands the
satisfaction expressed by the research community in Quebec in
that regard and recognizes that it is necessary for our two
governments to co-operate in the area of research, it is troubled—
The term used here is quite strong, and meant to be. Could
someone give me the Latin root of the word troubled? Does the
hon. member for Chambly remember?
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It comes from the word trouble.
Mr. Réal Ménard: It comes from the word trouble, as in
troublemaker. The Government of Quebec is troubled. I will
go back to the letter:
—by the fact that Bill C-13 seems, unfortunately, to reflect the
federal government's determination to exceed its jurisdictions
by trivializing those of the provinces and by distorting the
sharing of powers provided for under the Canadian Constitution.
The fact that a government would use such strong wording as
constitutional powers is quite something.
1140
The letter further states:
Health is an area under provincial jurisdiction. In fact, what
successive governments in Quebec have always claimed has indeed
been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in various
matters, including in Bell Canada v Quebec.
The Government of Quebec reminds the federal government that
health is first and foremost an area under provincial
jurisdiction, as recognized by the supreme court.
In that context, certain aspects of your bill reflect a
centralizing vision and a desire to reduce the provinces' powers
and responsibilities, with regard to health, which we cannot
accept.
In other words, the Government of Quebec wants funding for
research, but it has some concerns about the fact that this bill
could open the door to interventionism and interference. With
regard to research, the letter says:
The approach based on networking, interdisciplinarity and the
pooling of knowledge and experience is part of a trend that
already exists in Quebec, where researchers in several areas are
already used to working as part of a network on an
interdisciplinary or inter-university basis.
Of course, the Government of Quebec, which, each year, allocates
more than adequate budgets to research funding, supports the
objectives of this networking approach.
The federal government must not think that there is anything new
in asking researchers to do team work. It is a practice that the
Government of Quebec has enshrined in its research policies.
I apologize if sometimes I do not keep still, but by way of
historical background, I will remind the House that Henri
Bourassa, whose last nationalist speech was delivered in the
eastern townships, used to move or walk about a lot when he was
a member of this House. I have read that in the archives. I will
stay close to my microphone, because technology is much more
advanced now, but that does not mean that we are not inspired by
Henri Bourassa.
He was an ultramontane. He was also a very committed nationalist
who opposed the conscription bill motion tabled in this House,
as the member for Chambly undoubtedly knows since he is a
scholar.
The Quebec government blames the federal government for not
consulting it. I read further and I hope you will get the gist
of the letter:
However, by giving the institutes a leading and centralizing
role in health research and by mentioning the development and
implementation of an integrated health policy, Bill C-13
reflects a federal government's desire to assume
responsibilities it does not have in that area under the
Constitution.
I mentioned Henri Bourassa for a reason. We have had young
nationalists, like Henri Bourassa and Armand Lavergne, who were
great orators. Why is there a strong sovereignist movement
constantly striving to assert itself, which is about to succeed?
Because throughout Quebec's history, and that of Canada, the
roles assigned to each level of government have systematically
not been respected.
It is very important to note that this government's health
department alone employs more public servants than all the
provincial departments, whose primary responsibility is health.
1145
This is typical of Canadian history. The history of Canada is
riddled with encroachments, all unjustified constitutionally, on
other jurisdictions.
If I may, I would like to quote again Ministers Rochon and
Marois:
There is cause for concern to have a bill which, while
recognizing the provinces' role in health, tries to relegate
them to the level of actors, just like any other Canadian or
foreign individual or organization that have an interest in
health.
This is quite something. Clause 4 of the bill puts the provinces
and voluntary organizations on an equal footing. We have nothing
against voluntary organizations. We believe on the subject of
Canadian institutes of health research, all sectors having an
interest in research, namely consumers, voluntary organizations
and industry, should be heard.
I am sure members will agree that there is nevertheless a
distinction between the voluntary and community and the various
governments. The bill pays lip service to co-operation between
the federal government and the provinces, despite the fact that
health care is primarily a provincial jurisdiction.
I believe that the Government of Quebec is right to be concerned
by this bill and that we were also right in moving more than 30
amendments to the bill.
The letter goes on:
The Government of Quebec can only welcome any action taken by
the federal government to increase the funding of health
research, as long as such action does not encroach on Quebec's
responsibilities and role in this area as well as in other areas
which it considers a priority.
However, it is totally unacceptable for your government, under
the guise of action taken in the area of research, through
agencies under its control, to seek to have an influence on the
directions, the management and the implementation of health
care services and programs over which, it must be pointed out,
the federal government has no jurisdiction.
I believe members get the point of this letter.
At the end of my speech, I will seek unanimous consent of the
House to table this letter so that every member can benefit
from of it.
I also want to emphasize that the Quebec government has
priorities. It has identified areas where it has developed
know-how, a specific expertise.
I am referring to the whole area of genome, heredity and
genetics. I am referring also to AIDS. AIDS is part of the large
family of concerns that is virology and immunology. Quebec has
concentrated on its territory a number of researchers extremely
conversant with broad international trends in that field of
research.
I am also thinking of cancer, which has taken an enormous toll,
as we know.
I dare hope that in establishing the Canadian institutes of
health research the government will take into account the
strengths and the weaknesses of every province.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have only three minutes
left. That is unbelievable; it feels like I just started to make
a number of important points. I will have to speak quickly of
the amendments we have put forward. I have only three minutes
left, but it is not totally unthinkable that I could get the
unanimous consent of the House to continue my speech.
In the interests of good relations, it would certainly be
possible to obtain such consent, as ought to be the case,
obviously.
1150
I would like to recall five of our amendments. We would have
liked to have the following in the preamble:
Had the government agreed to incorporate this amendment in the
bill, we would have voted for Bill C-13. We think it important
in the field of health to establish clearly that the provinces
have the primary responsibility.
We also would have liked to amend clause 4 as follows:
This takes no special talent. It seems to me there is nothing
outlandish in that.
In another type of amendment we would have liked to see agreed
to, with regard to clause 5, we said that there was a need to:
This means more than just co-operating. It recognizes the central
role of the provinces, which must be involved in the choice and
in the directions.
The most significant I would have liked to see agreed to, in
addition to the recognition that this is a matter of provincial
jurisdiction, is the one in which we said:
7.1 The Governor in Council shall appoint the President of the
CIHR and the—members of the governing council from lists of names
provided by the provinces.
Would this not have been a good example of co-operative
federalism, as the provinces could make proposals? Not only
would they make proposals, but the federal government would
agree to draw, for the appointments to the various governing
councils and in the various institutes of health research, on
the lists provided by the provinces.
In view of the wild enthusiasm my speech elicited, I wondered,
Mr. Speaker, if you could make sure that the letter sent to us
by the Quebec ministers of health and research be first made
public for the benefit of all parliamentarians.
I will conclude on three points. This is a nation building
bill. We would have been pleased to vote for it had the
responsibilities of the provinces been recognized. Despite all,
we are pleased the federal government is investing in research.
I hope as things unfold that the federal government will involve
the provinces and their networks of researchers.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
allow the hon. member to table the documents to which he has
alluded?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity on behalf of my
colleagues in the New Democratic Party to express all our
concerns about Bill C-13.
There is no question we are talking about a bill that makes
progress in terms of health research in this country today. The
New Democratic Party from day one has indicated that we support
the principle of the bill.
We support the idea of increased dollars for health research. We
support the idea of transforming the country's health research
agenda to ensure that it includes the whole range of health
concerns, that it approaches health care and health research on a
holistic basis and that it looks not only at biomedical research
and applied research, but also at the soundness of our health
care system and those determinants of ill health so much at the
heart of everything we are dealing with today.
I want to make it perfectly clear that we support the idea and
spirit of the bill.
However, at the outset when the bill was before the House at
second reading we said that we had serious concerns which we were
prepared to raise at committee and would propose serious and
constructive amendments. We looked to the government to listen
to those concerns and to respond where those concerns were
clearly identified and reinforced by testimony from witnesses.
1155
I have to say with some anger and bitterness that we were not
successful for one second in moving the government to consider
any changes to the bill. From the beginning of the committee
process right through to the completion of report stage
yesterday, we did not have the ear of the government. We did not
have any kind of interest on the part of Liberal members in
improving the bill to address those concerns.
We are very disappointed and disturbed at the arrogance of the
government in its refusal to broaden its approach to allow for
democratic participation on the part of Canadians everywhere. It
is with profound regret that today we stand in the House to
express our opposition to Bill C-13.
Let me put it in the context of the health care system as a
whole because one cannot, as some have tried to do in the House
today, separate our health care system from our health research
agenda.
All members in the House know that we have very deeply felt
concerns about the general direction of our health care system.
Time and time again we have raised the degree to which our health
care system is being privatized. We have asked the government
time and time again to provide leadership and direction to ensure
that the private sector is not the major dominant force in our
health care sector.
It is no coincidence that today we are dealing with Bill C-13 at
the height of Canadians' concerns on the future of medicare and
our health care system. It is interesting to note that today as
we debate this bill there are Canadians all over this city and in
this place, the House of Commons, talking to, lobbying and
pressuring Liberal members of parliament to rethink their
direction on health care and for the government to come to its
senses on what Canadians treasure the most and what needs to be
done. Privatization of the health care system on the one hand
cannot be considered separately from what is being done by the
government in terms of health research on the other hand.
From the beginning we have had four or five major concerns with
Bill C-13. We have tried to seek changes in those areas. We have
been unsuccessful so our concerns remain. Let me clearly outline
those major concerns with the hope at this last minute of having
the ear of the parliamentary secretary and other members of the
Liberal government. It is hoped that we will be able to make
some changes at the last moment or at least work toward
redressing these serious issues in the future.
The first concern is the degree to which our health care system
is being privatized and commercialized. This bill is about
research. It is about the role of the Canadian government in
advancing public health research. The bill is about how we can
actually address the causes of ill health and move to make our
system more efficient and equitable. One of the measures of a
bill is the extent to which it ensures that the public good is
preserved and that there is no explicit reference in legislation
to allow the private sector to take precedence over the public
agenda.
Our concerns have been very clearly outlined in the House and at
committee on a number of occasions. Those feelings, sentiments
and opinions have been reinforced by dozens of witnesses who
appeared before the committee and made representations to the
government.
1200
Obviously, if we are concerned and interested in advancing the
public research agenda in the country today, we have to take
extra special steps to ensure that the public good is protected
at all costs.
This bill, however transformative in nature, does not address
the fundamental question of ensuring that the public good is
paramount at all costs. The bill leaves open the question of the
degree to which commercial efforts, private health sector forces,
can have control over the health care agenda and the health
research agenda in the country today.
Many of the reputable organizations that appeared before the
committee raised those concerns. I do not need to go through the
whole list, but I remind members that this is not an opinion
coming from one small part of the country. It is not just coming
from the New Democratic Party members. It is a concern that was
raised by professionals, health activists and ordinary citizens
from one end of the country to the other. When it comes to
health research, the role of the government should be to protect
the public interest and advance the public good.
While this bill makes progress in terms of transforming our
health research agenda, it does not address that fundamental
question of ensuring the public good is paramount. If we look at
the bill we will clearly see the reference to commercialization
as part of one of the objectives of the new Canadian institutes
for health research.
Our objective at committee was straightforward and simple.
While acknowledging the role of the private sector in Canada
today and the role of the government in ensuring the commercial
advantage of Canadian businesses in society, we felt that the
bill should specify that the public good was paramount. We tried
to convince the government to take a simple step and acknowledge
that concern and eliminate any ambiguity in the bill. We called
for the government to entrench in this legislation words that
would show that any commercialization of research would be
secondary to the public interest.
We presented some 15 amendments, all of which were turned down
by the government. They were hardly considered for a moment by
the government. We suggested that the government could have, in
all seriousness, changed the wording of the bill and improved it
by adding the words “consistent with the public interest”. Does
this not sound simple? It only had to add the words
“consistent with the public interest” so that there would be no
ambiguity and no doubts remaining about who was controlling the
agenda.
Liberal members on the committee gathered together, brought
their members out and defeated that straightforward proposition
to ensure that the public interest was protected.
How in good conscience can we support a bill that could not even
ensure that a fundamental principle was attached to the content?
How can we support the government's move to change the research
agenda if it is not prepared to be upfront and clear about the
direction in which it is taking the country? I do not think we
are asking too much by requesting the government to remove that
ambiguity and protect the public interest. I do not think it is
too much given the kinds of incidents and situations we are
dealing with on a day to day basis.
I do not have to remind members about the situation facing Dr.
Nancy Olivieri, a scientist who did considerable research on a
particular drug dealing with—
Mr. John Solomon: A very good scientist.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, a very good scientist, as
my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre just said. She
was doing research on a particular drug called L1. She was
trying to help people with a blood disease called thalassemia and
who needed repeated transfusions. She worked very hard on this
drug and came to the conclusion that the side effects might be
greater than the actual benefits. She chose to inform the drug
companies sponsoring this research about those concerns. As a
result of that expression of concern, she was silenced. To this
day, she is still fighting for the right as a scientist to
operate with integrity and to ensure full disclosure of any
information that would be important in terms of the public good
and the public interest.
1205
I do not need to tell members about Dr. Anne Holbrook, with the
Centre for Evaluation of Medicines at St. Joseph's Hospital in
Hamilton, Ontario, who was threatened recently with a lawsuit by
a major pharmaceutical company when her findings showed that the
company's widely sold ulcer medication had essentially the same
effect as two cheaper medicines.
I do not need to tell members about the outcry from scientists
in the government's own Bureau of Veterinary Drugs who felt
pressured by representatives of one of Canada's largest drug
companies, Monsanto Canada Inc., on the whole issue of reviewing
bovine growth hormone, or BST.
I do not need to tell members about how the government, in one
of its first initiative when it took office in 1997, eliminated
the drug research bureau, the one independent body within
government to provide ongoing analysis on an independent basis of
drugs approved in this country.
I do not need to tell members about how the government gutted
the food research laboratory and how the government has, at every
step of the way, weakened the capacity of government to ensure
ongoing, independent, science based research around the drugs
Canadians must take, the food we eat and the medical devices that
are essential for health and well-being.
I do not need to tell members about the auditor general's recent
report, following its review of the most serious incident of food
borne disease in this country to date. It documented very
clearly the question of scientific investigation being influenced
by owners of, in this case, a meat packing plant and documented
interference right from beginning to end around the safety of
Canadians when it came to food products being purchased in
grocery stores today.
I do not need to tell members about the recent decision by the
government to fast track drugs through a new provision that has
no basis in law, the notice of compliance with conditions.
I do not need to tell members about how our whole Health
Protection Branch has been under tremendous change and direction
from the government to deregulate, privatize and off-load.
I do not need to tell members about how much danger Canadians
are in because the government has made a decision to actually
withdraw from the whole area of public research and independent
science based investigation in this country today.
I raise all of this so that we can all understand just where
this bill fits in with the broad Liberal agenda in the country
today, and just how much is at risk because we are letting
commercialization and privatization rule the day.
My plea today is for us to acknowledge the very important role
of government to ensure that the public good is protected, that
in whatever partnerships are developed between the private
sector, the labour movement and the public sector, that we
clearly understand and delineate the rules of government and
realize its paramount obligation is, in the final analysis, to
uphold the public good.
The whole issue of commercialization was one of our concerns. I
see my time is going much more quickly than I expected.
My second concern has to do with the way in which this bill
allows for appointments to the governing council. One way we can
actually ensure that the public good is paramount is by having
very clearly defined requirements in place with respect to
appointments to the governing council. The bill does not provide
for clear conflict of interest guidelines and regulations,
something we tried very hard to get in our amendments that were,
as I said at the outset, just ignored by Liberal members on the
committee.
The bill permits the appointment of representatives from the
pharmaceutical industry, the biotech industry and the medical
devices private sector, which carries with it the potential for
conflict of interest between the goal we have on one hand of
improving the health of Canadians at the lowest possible cost
versus the objective of increasing profits on the part of the
pharmaceutical industry.
This should come as no surprise when we realize that this
government, when it was in opposition, promised to nullify the
Mulroney patent protection legislation for drug companies but has
failed to do so. Not only did it fail to keep its promise, it
went a step further over the last number of years and has
improved the conditions for brand name drug companies by giving
them a greater share of the market and denying Canadians access
to cheaper safe drugs.
1210
We presented to the government some very concrete amendments for
ensuring conflict of interest provisions were built into this
bill to avoid precisely that kind of situation that all Canadians
are worried about, and we failed.
We also made a concerted effort to ensure that the board would
be more representative of the population by ensuring that smaller
provinces, which do not have the ear of government the way
stronger provinces have, would have a say on this governing
council. We wanted regional balance. We wanted to ensure that
the board reflected the population. We asked for gender parity,
something the government claims is part of its ongoing philosophy
and the way in which it governs as a political party. Did we get
gender parity? No, we did not.
We tried to get a commitment from the government for a women's
health institute to assist with their goals for promoting women's
health policy. We were unsuccessful.
We tried to get the government to commit to addressing in a more
serious way environmental and occupational health as part of one
of these institutes. We were unsuccessful.
We tried to get a serious commitment from the government around
aboriginal health, ensuring a very focused research endeavour in
that regard. We were unsuccessful.
Finally, and this is a point I am sure my colleagues across the
way will be interested in, we tried very hard, and were looking
forward to measures being adopted at the report stage of this
bill, to get more transparency and accountability. A five year
review was something basic and something we expected would be
adopted by the Liberal government when it came to report stage
over the last couple of days. Did that happen? No, it did not.
The basic elements of transparency, accountability, protection
of the public good over private interests, gender parity and
ensuring that we actually have a new transformative research
agenda based on population health, based on environmental illness
and occupational problems, all of which have not been dealt with
by this government.
The government had an opportunity to improve a bill that does
make progress and makes an important transition from the Medical
Research Council to a more holistic approach to health care but
it failed in the final analysis to do what Canadians expected it
to do, which was to ensure in that bill absolute guarantees of
protection for public good, absolute accountability to the public
and openness and transparency in the way it is run.
The government refused to give even a token of consideration to
these very important amendments and to the testimony presented to
the House of Commons by numerous experts and witnesses.
It is with great regret that we cannot support Bill C-13 in the
final analysis. However, we will continue to do whatever we can
in the days, weeks and months ahead to ensure that the translation
of this legislation into research bodies and
organizations that are reflective of the population will be
carried out. We will be monitoring the appointment process and
the way in which the institutes are established. We will be
outspoken in our attempts to ensure that this bill in terms of
its noble objectives are actually transformed into action so that
the words and the reality are one and the same.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I guess the debate that is taking place here today is
one of strange interest because so far all of the parties have
indicated that they will be supporting the bill but that they
have some reservations about it. I sometimes wish we could
actually sit down with each other, maybe in a circle somewhere,
and hammer these different ideas out.
1215
Of course, one always runs a danger when one expresses himself
or herself in this Chamber. Come the next election even the
slightest nuance of what one says can be misinterpreted, twisted
and turned. Therefore, it is tough for me to formulate the
question that I want to ask. It is, I suppose, a philosophical
question: What is it that actually drives research?
I think of a number of friends who work not only in medical
research but in other areas of research. It seems to me that
Canada has a very great stifling effect on medical research, in
particular because of the fact that we are so entrenched in the
socialistic way of thinking. Somehow we do not think that we
should reward those who come up with some really good ideas and
inventions in the medical field, whereas we are quite willing to
give those rewards to people in other areas where perhaps we are
even more successful. Is there a Bill Gates on the horizon in
the medical area?
I sometimes wonder why we have this great objection to the fact
that somehow private enterprise should be involved in both the
delivery of health care services and also in the development of
new ways of doing things in the medical area.
I do not know whether the hon. member wants to respond. I
believe that in the Canadian context we need to reach a balance.
I would like to stop punishing people who do good work in medical
research, sending them to the United States, which is the only
place they feel they can get a reward for the magnitude of the
good work they do. I would like that to end.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question and the very thoughtful issues posed by the hon. member.
With respect to his first comment, I too would have liked the
opportunity to have avoided this kind of confrontational
environment and found a place where we could sit down in a circle
to seriously discuss where we are going in terms of health
research and how we could balance the different interests in
society today, one being the public interest and the public good,
the other being the fact that, yes, we cannot as a nation deny
that we need private sector involvement in the development of new
products and new technologies, as well as ensuring Canada's
commercial advantage in the world economy.
However, why do we see a role for the private sector in the bill
in terms of driving the research agenda? Our point is very
clearly this. There is a role for government to balance the
private sector and the public research communities. This bill,
in our view, does not make clear the lines. It does not
differentiate between those priorities.
What we have said over and over again is that it is the role of
government to ensure that the board, the governing council and
the structure that will be put in place will not be geared to
allow private commercial interests to determine the agenda or to
use public funds for profitability.
I think that is something we surely can agree on, that it is the
role of government to fund our academic community, to fund our
health research organizations and to develop partnerships
appropriate in that context, but not for a bill to outline from
the start that the commercial sector in the country has an
advantage or is able to set the agenda and use public funds to
advance private gain. I think the member would have concerns
with that.
I would hope that we would at least understand the role of
government in terms of public funds for advancing a public health
care system and working on public health research which addresses
the root causes of ill health and ensures that we have a much
more comprehensive and broad based approach to these very
difficult issues.
No one is opposed to the private sector being involved in
research. What we are questioning today is the role of
government in supporting, aiding and abetting commercialization
and privatization to the detriment of the public organization of
health care and serving the public good in the final analysis.
1220
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre
for her remarks on this very important bill.
I would ask my colleague what distinguishes the New Democratic
Party's view of health care from that of the Alliance-Liberal
style government we have in the country. Could the member give
us some pertinent information as to why we are at this point in
health care and on the cutbacks we have seen over the years?
Maybe she could give us some information as to actual numbers in
terms of cutbacks and the pressures that have been applied to our
very important health care system. Who basically drove the
Liberal agenda? Was it the Reform Party's drive for two tier
health care or the Americanization of the system? Maybe she
could give us an overview as to how those positions differ from
the NDP's.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague for that question. It is very pertinent to the debate
today. We are at a crossroads in terms of where our health care
system will go.
My colleague knows that the New Democratic Party has always
stood for a universally accessible, publicly administered health
care system. We have been strongly opposed to any move toward
two tier, Americanized, privatized health care in this country.
The same goes for health research. We are very concerned about
ensuring that the public good is served at all times.
What is obviously the case in the House today is that the
Liberal government has chosen the path of inaction and passive
response in the face of those threats from the private sector,
and has created the climate and conditions for the likes of Ralph
Klein to proceed with the privatization of hospital service in
the province of Alberta.
Mr. John Solomon: Did you say Ralph Chrétien or Ralph
Klein?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It could be Ralph Chrétien or
Jean Klein. We are talking about two peas in a pod.
I have to say, that is an agenda, from all I have understood and
heard recently, which is supported by the Canadian Alliance.
Our biggest worry is that the Liberal government will not be
able to stand in the face of the extreme pressure from right wing
forces in the country today who want to open up our health care
sector to market forces, something which we know will destroy
medicare and make the five principles of medicare meaningless.
It will put us on a direct path to a system of health care in
which, if people have the money, they can get what is needed,
when it is needed and at the best quality, versus those who do
not have the money, who will have to stand in line and wait for
handouts from the government of the day.
Medicare is a model that is worth sharing with the world, not
destroying and tearing apart at this critical juncture. The idea
of making a system universally accessible to all citizens,
regardless of income or where they live in this vast country, is
as good today as it was when Tommy Douglas first pioneered the
notion.
I would hope that somehow we could convince the Liberal
government to address how it has created this situation, with its
tremendous cuts to transfer payments to the provinces and its
failure to apply the Canada Health Act in the face of the likes
of Ralph Klein. Surely it can hear the voices of Canadians from
one end of the country to the other crying out for the
restoration of funding cuts, for leadership in terms of a new
vision of health care and for holding firm to the principles of
medicare and upholding the Canada Health Act.
We have a battle ahead of us and I would hope I could convince
my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance to rethink their position
around private sector involvement in health care and start
thinking about how we could creatively develop a public health
care system which would be, in the long run, more efficient and
more cost effective.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my 20 minutes with our deputy House leader.
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate today. As my
colleague from New Brunswick Southwest has said, it is the first
major health bill to come before this parliament.
The bill would establish the Canadian institutes of health
research. It is worthy of support and we in the PC Party support
it because we feel it is a very good initiative.
1225
In the process of supporting it, my colleague from New Brunswick
Southwest put forth a number of amendments. However, we know
that government members have not been supportive of any of the
amendments, even though they sought to make the legislation much
better.
I am sure we all agree that this bill is long overdue. This
initiative was taken by the United States and most European
countries some 25 years ago. We are about 25 years behind the
times in setting up these institutes for health research, so it
stands to reason that we have a lot of catching up to do. It
stands to reason that we have a lot of ground to cover if we want
to be competitive with the rest of the world in terms of medical
research.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party have other concerns,
which include the makeup of the boards and who will pick the
people who will sit on the boards. For example, the president of
the Canadian institutes of health research shall be appointed by
the governor in council to hold office at the pleasure of the
government for a term not exceeding five years. The governor in
council simply means the cabinet or the prime minister, who will,
in the final analysis, appoint the president. As well, each of
the 20 members of the governing council will be appointed by the
prime minister.
We have a lot of concerns about the appointments. At the end of
the day the prime minister has the ability to determine the
agenda of the council. We are not saying that will happen on
every occasion, but the prime minister does have the ability to
determine the agenda of the council. It becomes a question of
control. That is why the government is not willing to entertain
any changes to the council, how it is set up and who will appoint
the people to the governing body.
The bill is good news for Canadians, with the exception of the
political overtones attached to it. As my colleague from New
Brunswick Southwest has said on a number of occasions, it is
incumbent upon the government to tell the House how these
institutes will be guided in their work over the next number of
years. That is our main concern and the main reason we have
introduced the amendments.
We are suggesting that there is a better way to do this. The
government had the opportunity to listen to the opposition, and I
am told by my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest that many of
these amendments were discussed in committee and voted down by
government members. The government should take a very strong and
a very long look at the makeup of these institutes and consider
some of the amendments which we have talked about.
The Prime Minister has been around for a long time. He has a
history of opposing appointments of this sort, whether
appointments to a board, to a council or to the Senate.
We are saying that the formula is flawed and the House of Commons
is the place to change it.
1230
The bill is good news for Canadians with the exception of who
calls the shots. The question goes back to the arm's length
relationship with government and the independence that we would
like to see associated with these institutes.
Our party cannot see where there will be any independence for
these institutes. We think that the strong arm of the government
will still be present on the very bodies it has created. We ask
the government, is there not a better way to set up a body that
will take us into the 21st century in medical research? These are
very serious concerns in my view.
Another concern the member for New Brunswick Southwest commented
on was the reporting mechanism. There is no provision in the
bill that will allow the House to debate the performance of the
institutes. We are very much aware the minister will table a
report of the institutes on a yearly basis, but that will be the
extent of it.
Parliament will not have the opportunity to review the
operations of the institutes to determine if the body is making
its mark or whether it is missing its mark totally. That is a
very legitimate concern. We want the institutes to get off to a
good start so that the body will not find itself in the same mess
as the health care system finds itself in today.
Over the past few years the country has seen unprecedented
amounts of money cut from health care and Canadians have suffered
a great deal. The bill is welcomed as a much needed initiative
aimed at improving the health of Canadians through a greater
network of research institutes. However, it is clear that
something must be done to improve health care if the health care
institutes are to be successful because it all goes hand in hand.
The minister did not provide stable, long term funding for
health care in the budget. Instead he provided a one shot
infusion of $2.5 billion for health and education spread out over
four years and spread out over 10 provinces.
The institutes should have their mandate expanded to examine the
effect that all of this lack of funding has had upon health care.
Funding has been spread pretty thin over the last four or five
budget years, for which the Minister of Health has been
responsible.
In my own province of Newfoundland, our share of the $2.5
billion which has been made available is only $10 million a year
for a four year period. If half that money is used for health
care, that will be $5 million spread over 34 hospitals and health
care institutes in the province. That equates to less than
$150,000 per institution, or about the cost of maintaining one
extra doctor per institution.
Maybe these institutes should be examining the effect of the
lack of funding on the province. Common sense will tell anyone
that the amount of money that has been cut from the system today
is having a devastating effect upon the provinces.
In short the minister's prescription for the health care system
is the same as putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. The health
care system needs money.
The Liberals seem to run from that. They keep denying the fact
that the system needs money saying that a new vision of health
care has to be created for the country. It is something they
will probably take into an election campaign. One has to wonder
if the problem here is that the federal Liberals are more
concerned about getting political credit for health care than
they are about the actual delivery of health care to our
citizens.
1235
I see that my time has expired so I will turn it over to my
colleague, the deputy House leader.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, as we
can see, when the truth is debated and spoken in the House,
nobody speaks. So I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague
whose speech has provided, I hope, food for thought for the
government.
Little time has been allotted to each member to speak to a bill
as important as this one. As my hon. colleague from Newfoundland
has said, we are going to support this bill, even though we
would have preferred the government to be more open on certain
amendments that the Progressive Conservative Party, the real
conservative party in Canada, and the other parties, proposed.
We would have liked the government to have been more open. I
will elaborate a little bit on three or four main themes for
discussion or comments on this bill.
First, the provinces were mentioned frequently. My hon.
colleague from the Bloc Quebecois raised the federal-provincial
constitutional and jurisdictional issue. This has been looked
into. We are fortunate in the Progressive Conservative Party to
have people with a good knowledge of federal-provincial relations
and the Constitution. They considered whether, from a legal
point of view, the bill was consistent with the constitutional
laws of Canada. The answer is yes, it is legal.
However, even if it is legal in terms of jurisdictions, because
shared jurisdictions do exist, as is the case here, we have no
obligation to adopt the Liberal government's way of doing
things, which is wanting to control everything and then saying
to the provinces “Come to see me afterwards if you are not happy
with something”.
The government missed a golden opportunity to provide in the
bill for much broader participation by the provinces. It forgot
about that. Is overlap or duplication of the money invested in
research possible? I hope not, but when people do not talk to
one another, it is like when a husband and wife go out to buy
Christmas gifts. If they do not talk beforehand, they might very
well come back with two identical Pokemons for the same child.
In our view, it would have been wise to establish a permanent
process in this bill so that the provinces and the other players
in research could be partners. It is a matter of attitude and,
once again, we find it most damaging even if it is legal. We
would like to see the government reconsider it.
Yes, there is more money for research, but I remind members that
the bill does not mention any amount. We will have to go from
budget to budget to discover the amounts of money that will be
made available for research.
My colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador raised the issue of
patronage, of what is referred to here as the “governor in
council”, who appoints a lot of people. I do not know the exact
number of people the governor in council is responsible for
appointing. Some figures being mentioned are 200, 300, 400, 500,
600 or even 800 people.
This includes, of course, the other house. It is a lot of people.
In this case, perhaps the government could have agreed to be a
lot more open in appointing members to the governing council. It
would have been nice.
Why did the Standing Committee on Health not take the time to
look at the list and to listen to those whose names had been
suggested? Some raised the question as to why, for example, 50%
of the members of the governing council could not be suggested by
the provinces. There could have been a certain number for each
province or for each region. Why not?
1240
Again, it is a matter of attitude on the part of the government,
an attitude that, unfortunately, is not likely to change.
It would have been nice if parliament had been a lot more
involved. With this bill creating the institutes, parliament will
be involved once a year and we do not know exactly in what way.
The Auditor General of Canada will make his rounds and will
report to the minister, who in turn will report to both houses of
parliament, but nobody knows what will happen after that.
With all the scandals shaking up the government these days, it
would have been nice if, while protecting the confidentiality of
the research to be done, it had asked all parties to become its
allies to avoid surprises. This government is beginning to have
more than its share of scandals, but by involving other political
parties, it could say “Look, if there are problems, it is
parliament's fault and not the Liberal Party's fault”. There
could have been a new way of doing things, but the government
decided to keep on helping its friends.
We find that somewhat unfortunate. In the area of health and
health research, which Quebecers, Ontarians and all Canadians
believe is the most important, everybody could have been involved
and could have worked together.
That being said, the members of the governing council will be
appointed to hold office during pleasure, to use a phrase
commonly found in bills.
Members are appointed for three years, but during pleasure. In
other words, they may be removed, if such is the pleasure of the
governor in council or the Prime Minister. They will play
musical chairs. It will be like a game of Monopoly where houses
and hotels can easily be moved around. The membership of the
governing council will be easy to change.
This was seen in government agencies. If someone dares to speak
up and raise problems, they may removed in no time, unbeknownst
to parliament. We find it unfortunate. Parliament has a
constructive role to play. There are other very important
points.
This is also a very complex bill. Reference was made to the role
of the private sector. These last few years, Canada has become
more open to the world because of free trade.
Who was in office in the 1980s? Yes, indeed, it was a
Conservative government, and this government implemented free
trade. We have opened our business sectors to many more
countries, particularly through free trade, but also under the
World Trade Organization. It is important to bear that in mind
when considering legislation.
I mentioned the private sector's role. Clause 26 of the bill
provides that the CIHR may enter into a partnership with other
government or corporate bodies, including private corporations.
One thing will have to be monitored very closely, however, and
the auditor general will certainly do so: the CIHR may
incorporate by itself a corporation. When an institute is
independent from the government and may duplicate itself, this
causes problems.
All our questions may not get answered.
I do not want to underestimate the people who will be there, but
the bill states that the institute may enter into a partnership,
or incorporate “by itself or with others a corporation,
including a subsidiary”. It might decide to incorporate for a
very specific purpose. This is dangerous, because we will lose
contact with this institute.
It may also enter into a partnership with governments. I may not
be a legal expert, but I was reading the bill and it does say
“with any other government”. Great. May it enter into a
partnership with the United States, France or agencies from
these countries? Perhaps. Is this desirable? Why not? But once
again, what is the quality of the parliamentarians'
relationship, the representatives of those who pay taxes?
1245
These issues would not be raised if parliament were much more
involved. With regard to the private sector, we will have to
look into the structure of the institute to see how royalties
and patent rights will be divided. If the institute may
incorporate by itself, without coming under the direct control
of the auditor general, if it may enter into a partnership with
the private sector or with any other government inside or
outside the country, to whom will patent and licence royalties
belong? These are issues we will look at over time, but it would
have been important, to reassure Canadians in general, that
parliament played a much greater role in this sector.
My time is up. As I said earlier, we will support this bill, a
bill that is 20 years late compared to other major countries.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to make a few comments on what I believe to be
a very important bill for Canada. Bill C-13 seeks to establish
the Canadian institutes of health research.
By way of background so that hon. members will have an idea of
some of the dynamics involved with the bill, the Canadian
institutes of health research will create a series of institutes
developed to link the research and health needs of Canadians. It
is a very important concept. It means that we will make every
effort to translate health research into health care for
Canadians. This will improve the functionality, efficiency and
effectiveness of health care. A very important principle is
being espoused in the bill.
The institutes created under the Canadian institutes of health
research will not be buildings. They will not be institutes that
have bricks and mortar. In fact it is a virtual institute that
will support the linking of researchers who may be located in
universities, hospitals and other research centres to their
colleagues in other institutions in other parts of the country
and across all disciplines. In today's society linking people,
not physically but technologically and through our communications
vehicles, is extremely important to expand upon the synergy
available to us so that people can share ideas and work for the
common good of all Canadians.
A network of some 10 to 15 institutes will be established. It
will bring together the top research minds to bear on the most
critical health challenges and priorities of Canadians. There is
no question at all that this is an important step for us to take.
One of the witnesses who appeared before the health committee
described the institute as follows. This was echoed by many
witnesses, but I thought this was well put. The witness said
that this was a public body that would control millions of
dollars, in fact about $500 million of research money, and would
probably be “the most decisive institution in Canada with
respect to the health of Canadians”. Many other witnesses also
said that.
That should not be taken very lightly. This is a very important
bill. Notwithstanding the fact that all parties in the House
agree with the bill, they may have some concerns about some
aspects of the administration of the bill. In fact, no witnesses
came before the health committee to argue against the creation of
the Canadian institutes of health research.
It is very significant. This will be the replacement vehicle
for the Medical Research Council, which heretofore has been
responsible for the granting of research moneys. We have to do
this right, though. That brings me to basically the theme I want
to talk about in my comments: who said other things at committee
other than this is a great idea.
1250
I thought it was very interesting that many of the witnesses
represented the who's who of health care and health care
research. They all came before the committee and they were
talking about how important it was for their area of interest to
be one of these new institutes.
We have to think about it for a while, but then we come to the
conclusion that there are not enough institutes to provide for
all people, all agencies and all groups in health research to
have an institute. In other words there will be winners and
there will be losers. That is an important aspect of the bill.
As a result of the creation of these Canadian institutes of
health research there will be losers. The losers will be
fighting viciously to make sure everything they can possibly do
is done to get their health research area on the agenda of the
Canadian institutes of health research.
The very fact that there will be losers means that somebody's
interest is not being addressed. It could very well be the
interest of Canadians. It could be the interest of the broad
majority of Canadians that may not be fully represented. It is a
possibility. I do not anticipate that would be the case, but the
fact is we will not be able to do everything through this new
concept.
A number of other witnesses came before the committee that
wanted to talk about the administration of the act which deals
with the Canadian institutes of health research. When we
consider how so many had come before the committee and praised
the creation of this new body, there were some who had some other
observations and concerns. Members should ask themselves why
anyone would have concerns. What is the motivation?
There are some reasons. It could very well be that what
happened under the Medical Research Council was a situation that
they were not happy with. They did not want us to take one
institution and roll it over into a new institution and be faced
with the same kinds of frustrations or problems. In fact some of
those concerns were expressed. We have to be honest. As
legislators we have to ask questions about why they are raising
these issues.
The president and chief executive director of the Canadian
Healthcare Association, Mrs. Sharon Sholsberg-Gray, said in her
testimony:
To further strengthen this transparency and accountability, we
recommended that Bill C-13 include the provision for a
parliamentary review every five years. Given what is at stake in
terms of innovation, global competitiveness, the health of
Canadians, the effectiveness of our health care system, and the
enormous amounts of money that will be involved—we hope they'll
be even larger amounts those predicted now—a regular
parliamentary review seems necessary and appropriate.
It is a signal that something needs to be addressed. Many of
these agencies obviously have longstanding linkages with the
health care system, with Health Canada, with the Medical Research
Council and others. They were obviously very cautious not to be
critical, but in a very diplomatic way they were trying to raise
issues which might suggest to legislators that we have to be
careful about how we are doing this and to make sure that we get
it right.
There was also an intervention by Dr. Mary Ellen Jeans of the
Canadian Nurses Association who said:
We believe the criteria for the selection for the proposed
institutes, for their evaluation and monitoring, should be
articulated in the legislation. We'd encourage the addition of a
parliamentary review process to ensure true accountability to
Canadians. We recommend that it take place very five years.
The theme comes up again. In Dr. Jeans' response to some
questions she referred to historical inequities and lack of
balance in health research. It is a question that has been posed
to legislators to assess what happened and what is happening in
the Medical Research Council, and what it is we want to ensure
does not translate into the Canadian institutes of health
research. She said:
I mean, I would anticipate, five years from now, a significant
increase in research that addresses caregiving, quality of life,
relief of pain and other symptoms, coping with aging and chronic
illnesses, and so on.
1255
This is the vision of this group of caregivers, the Canadian
Nurses Association. She went on to say that we should see that
vision being reflected in the mandate and the actions of the
Canadian institute of health research.
That is why they recommended a parliamentary review, so that
they would have a place to go and tell legislators that they did
not get it quite right and ask what changes could be made to make
it right. That is why review and evaluation are critical. It
was another reference to a concern about what has been going on
historically and what should go on in the new institutes of
health research.
I want to look at this issue from the standpoint of whether or
not there was sufficient opportunity for parliament to have a
review. Today the health critic of the Canadian Alliance rose to
speak in favour of a five year review. I was absolutely shocked
because just last night when I rose to put that motion in the
House and ask for a vote on it, the whip of the Canadian Alliance
looked me straight in the eye and said no. Unanimous consent was
not granted by the Canadian Alliance, yet its health critic rose
today and argued quite the opposite.
We need to know why it is that members of the Canadian Alliance
can play political games with the health care system of Canada in
parliament. Why can they not be consistent? Why can they not
stand and be consistent in terms of what they believe in? If
they believe in accountability and transparency, they should not
have said no last night to the review by parliament. Canadians
should know that when it suits their purpose they play politics
with important issues related to Canadians. I think that is
shameful.
Report stage Motion No. 56, which I had put on the order paper
and which was in order, was not moved during report stage. The
finance committee was meeting at the same time. I sat in my
place at the finance committee and was unable to be here to
properly move that motion. I came to the House during report
stage debate, still having ample opportunity to put the motion on
the table. All parties at that point agreed to provide consent
to allow me to move that motion, but members of the Bloc
Quebecois said no.
They said no for one simple reason, because my motion said that
the review would be conducted by parliament. As we know,
parliament as defined includes the House of Commons and the
Senate. They withheld their unanimous consent to move this
important motion related to accountability and transparency
because they wanted me to amend the motion to exclude the Senate.
They wanted me to say that the review would be done only by the
House of Commons and not by the Senate, so I would have had to
eliminate the word parliament to effectively exclude the Senate.
Here again are politics coming into play. I will not question
the motivation of members of the Bloc Quebecois on why they
wanted certain amendments. I am a backbench member of
parliament. I came before the House to put a motion to amend the
legislation so that the administration of the act dealt with the
concern of witnesses and we would have a five year review of the
administration of the act. The health minister, after
consultation over several weeks, finally agreed and we worked out
a way to bring in the resolution in a manner that would be
constructive and useful for parliament to add to accountability
and transparency.
Ultimately the bottom line result was that the Canadian
Alliance, known then as the Reform Party, and the Bloc Quebecois
said no. They both said no to transparency and accountability in
parliament. They then said no to Canadians with regard to
supporting the health care system and supporting research. It
was all due to politics, and Canadians should know that.
During the review of report stage motions, and the critic for
the New Democratic Party articulated this, a number of
resolutions or suggestions were made on how to improve the bill.
I thought there were some very interesting questions.
1300
Under the bill the government will make order in council
appointments to the Canadian institutes of health research, a
governing body. Because they are order in council appointees,
they are subject to the conflict of interest guidelines for the
public service.
However, clause 10 of Bill C-13 says that the governing council
may establish by bylaw an executive committee and other
committees of the governing council. It goes on in paragraph 2 to
say that the bylaw establishing a committee other than an
executive committee may provide for the committee's membership to
include persons who are not members of the governing council. In
other words, in such an important body which will be responsible
for about $500 million worth of health research expenditure,
there will be people who are appointed by the governing council
who in fact will not be covered by public service conflict of
interest guidelines.
It was an important and valid discussion. Generally in the
terms of reference guiding the objectives and the operations of
the governing council, certainly something like establishing
conflict of interest guidelines for people who are not order in
council appointees is an important element. I am sure they will
do it. The request was to put it in specifically and I did not
disagree. It is on the record.
I am sure the governing council will understand because of the
importance and the sensitivity of the institutes of health
research, that these kinds of measures are needed. Conflict of
interest guidelines are needed to ensure that inappropriate
actions are not taking place with regard to commercialization or
special interest groups infiltrating committees by virtue of
their lobbying of members.
I understand that these people will be of the highest integrity.
They will be the best in Canada, guiding the shaping of research
in Canada. They will be beyond reproach.
We are talking about an enormous virtual institution that will
be influenced daily. If hon. members do not believe that those
people will have any influence on the decisions, why is it that
so many of them came before the health committee to lobby for one
of the institutes to be for their special interest? They came
before the health committee for one reason, because they believe
they have the opportunity to influence.
We should never risk exposing ourselves to undue influence
particularly when it comes to matters of importance. It is not
debatable. We have to make sure that all the tools are in place.
When I conclude my speech I will outline how I feel that
parliament will still have the levers, notwithstanding that we do
not have a five year review.
The bill lays out for parliament and Canadians what the
governing council will do. The call was that health research
objectives, priorities, et cetera should not be tied up with the
legislators. They should be independent and at arm's length to
make sure that our health care givers, those who are involved in
the science of research and development in our health care
system, are the ones who will measure the priorities and the
importance to Canadians and develop a vision that will not be
driven by political interests. That is why it will operate at
arm's length.
These are the buzzwords of some of the governing council's
objectives: to exercise leadership; to create a robust health
research environment; to forge an integrated health research
agenda; to encourage disciplinary integration in our health
research; to promote and assist in undertaking research that
meets the highest international scientific standards; to address
emerging health opportunities; to foster the discussion of
ethical issues; to promote the dissemination of knowledge; to
encourage innovation; to build the capacity of the Canadian
health research community; to pursue opportunities providing
support for the participation of Canadian science and
international collaboration; and to ensure transparency and
accountability generally.
The governing council will have the opportunity to run its own
show. But as I said, we need to make sure that the vision of the
governing council of the Canadian institutes of health research
is compatible and consistent with the needs of Canadians and with
the objectives and the visions of all the stakeholders in health
care in Canada.
1305
We already have mechanisms in place. In January 1999 the Public
Policy Forum published a proposed governing structure for the
Canadian institutes of health research in anticipation of the
importance of this to Canadians. This might be the most
important institution driving the health care agenda in Canada.
We need to think about the governance model.
The Minister of Health is going to be the primary lead on this
matter in terms of accountability to parliament. The Canadian
institutes of health research are going to be responsible to the
Parliament of Canada. The minister has the opportunity to make or
to cancel the order in council appointments. The auditor general
is going to do an annual review. His report will include tests of
economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
The report also recommended a five year review and appearance
before committees. We do have the annual review of the
estimates. I believe committees will have the opportunity to
have the chair of the governing council come before them to talk
about the success the Canadian institutes of health research have
had in meeting the health care objectives of Canada and of all
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before asking my
question, I would like to set the member who has just spoken
straight on a few points.
He talked about moving Motion No. 56. First, he was not in the
House. Second, he had presented the wording to our House leader,
who had agreed to its being moved, even in the member's absence,
on condition that certain words be changed. Third, after the
motion was discussed or debated and brought forward with
unanimous consent, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Health arrived with a proposal to again amend what had been
agreed on with the member who has just spoken.
So, when he accuses the Bloc Quebecois of playing political
games in this connection, I think he is showing obvious bad
faith.
As for the bill itself—and this is my question—when the president
of the governing council of an institute of health research is
also the organization's president—even an ordinary caisse
populaire does not make this kind of mistake and the director of
the board of directors of a caisse populaire is never the
caisse's director because of the potential conflict of interest—I
would say the government would do better not to present its bill
as the best thing since sliced bread.
In my opinion, it should—and this was suggested by the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in one of his many proposals—separate the
functions of president of the governing council and president of
the organization. There is no need to look very far; it is
immediately obvious. This is something that is open to
criticism.
What can the member say about this without getting into
political games? I would remind him that we are in parliament
and that we are just as entitled to express our views as he is.
I would point out to him that 66% of Canadians did not vote for
the Liberal Party of Canada in the last election.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, let me refer the member to
Motion No. 56.
The member knows that I had to leave the Chamber and go up to
the Bloc House leader's office on the fifth floor to discuss this
matter. The member was not there. I will not breach our
conversation and relate it to the House. All I can say is that a
proposal was agreed upon as to how we would deal with it in terms
of getting consent. The member also knows that I can only move
my own motion, I cannot amend it.
Another member is responsible for delivering that amendment.
1310
I came back to the House and got the consent of the parties to
move the motion. Subsequently the member who was to move the
amendment was not able to move the amendment in the form that the
Bloc had it. There was no way to undo that other than to do the
right thing which is exactly what I did. I rose in my place and
asked for the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the
motion because I could not deliver on the deal. I did that. I
wanted the motion badly and I think the House wanted the motion
badly, but unfortunately as a backbench member of parliament I
could not be running between the fifth floor and the lobby to
figure out the deal.
I wish that rather than playing politics the parties would get
together on matters of importance to ensure that we understand
what is in the best interests of Canadians. I found it
disgusting. I was very sad to see that politics overrode the best
interests of Canadians.
With regard to the member's comments, I understand the points.
We do not have time to debate it. I can say I have done my best
as a parliamentarian to assess whether conflict of interest
situations could arise and whether there was a control mechanism.
I assure the member and all Canadians that I have satisfied
myself as a member of the health committee and as a member of
parliament that mechanisms are in place that are sufficiently
appropriate to ensure there will be no reasonable possibility of
any conflict of interest without parliamentarians knowing about
it and having the tools to deal with it.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is certainly my privilege to talk about why we support the
bill.
The previous speaker said that the health critic for the
Canadian Alliance was guilty of some charge or other. I would
inform the House that I am the health critic for the Canadian
Alliance and that I have not spoken today about any issue. I
would ask the member to clarify that.
It is rather interesting and rather amazing to hear the—
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member has just raised the matter that his party member did
not speak. The Canadian Alliance spoke second in this debate.
If he would check the blues, he would see his information is
incorrect.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that is a point of
order. I think it is a matter of debate but the point has been
made.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, we do not need to debate
this. The fact is he did suggest the critic for the Canadian
Alliance and I was just straightening him out on that item.
It is amazing to hear the double-talk from the member about how
we should not play partisan politics. If anyone is playing
partisan politics with health care I believe it is the member
himself in his comments in the tirade he was on. Canadians are
sick and tired of playing politics with the health care issue.
Health care is too important to people to play partisan politics
with it.
I also want to clarify the position of the Canadian Alliance. We
are opposed to two tier U.S. for profit health care. We believe
in universal health care for Canadians as all Canadians do. At
no point has anyone in this party advocated two tier for profit
health care where there is one system of health care for the rich
and another for the poor. We are opposed to that and will
continue to be opposed to that. Canadians are opposed to that. It
is important that Canadians hear that firsthand.
To talk about the issue at hand, Bill C-13, the main thing is
that we are creating research, we are creating an organization
which will provide think-tanks and research which is so essential
to improve our health care system.
Canadians tell us there is something wrong. The status quo of
health care is not acceptable and it is not sustainable. We have
to fix that problem. We have to do it in an unemotional,
intelligent and scientific way.
1315
That is the message which all of us as parliamentarians should
be getting. This bill does that. It provides us with an
opportunity for research to flourish in the country. For that
reason it is important that all parties support it because the
widening of research is important to us in the 21st century.
It is important to look at what the bill attempts to accomplish.
There are some things lacking which should be pointed out. The
themes of the health research will involve basic biomedical
research. In that area, in talking to some of the scientists who
are working on things like reproductive technology and gene
therapy, we have not seen anything yet in terms of what will be
possible in the future to help provide a healthier, longer living
Canadian citizen, someone who could have a quality of life far
better and longer than ever before.
The application of clinical research, as well, is a theme of
this research project, and the use of clinical research at the
bedside has to be critical.
The third item concerns research on health care systems and
services. We have to look around the world to see the changes
that have occurred. We cannot stay with the 1960s, socialized,
state run, health care system. There are countries which have
done that, but unfortunately they are not at the top of the list
and would include countries like North Korea and Cuba.
We should be doing much better than that and research into
advanced technology is one way to do it.
Society, culture, the health of populations and preventive
medicine are but a few of the many things which would provide for
a healthier Canadian. We must also be very conscious of the
demographics. Today one in ten Canadians is over the age of 65.
In 26 years, one in five Canadians will be over the age of 65.
The implications of that spell out the need for research and the
need to improve the quality of life for people over 65. It is a
major concern and something on which a great deal of research
needs to be done.
A great many people told our committee what should happen. Of
course, my associate was part of that and has forwarded much of
what was said in the committee hearings.
The thing that struck me most came from Dr. Peter Vaughan, who
is the CEO and secretary general of the Canadian Medical
Association. We might itemize several of the things he said and
think about what they mean.
First, he said it is very important to transfer research from
the lab bench to the bedside. Strictly doing theoretical
research is one thing, but actually improving the quality of
health care with that research is quite another. To have this as
an aim of the institutes is most important and should not be
underestimated.
He said that we must focus on outcomes. The ultimate goal of
the Canadian health care system is to improve health status and
health outcomes for Canadians. One area where this needs to be
addressed in particular is in the field of health services
research, which is often restricted to either short timeframes
which limit the ability to observe health outcomes or to the use
of administrative data which more typically measures outputs
rather than outcomes. It is important that we listen when a
professional tells us the focus that we should be putting on this
particular agency.
1320
With respect to the capacity for building, he said that the CIHR
could play a key role in reversing the brain drain. Retaining
and repatriating our health researchers will improve Canadians'
access to quality care within our national medicare program.
We must recognize the fact that half of our graduates in the
medical field leave this country. The average age of a
specialist in Canada is 59 years. It takes 14 years to become a
specialist, from the time that person begins as a student until
he or she is able to treat patients.
It is essential that we keep well trained individuals in our
country. It is important as well that we increase the number of
courses for specialists, rather than the trend which has gone on
for some 10 to 20 years in which universities have cut the number
of students allowed into various specialty areas.
As an example, I have a daughter, about whom I will brag a bit.
She is finishing her Ph.D. in Holland. She went looking for a
job. She will graduate this spring. She had nine job offers,
four of which were from Canada. One of them was at the
University of Western Ontario. They offered her a position in
which she could teach 80% of the time, mostly first year
students, and she could do research on the side. To our
disappointment, she accepted an offer from Germany.
She chose that offer because the job will give her 100%
research. She will be working in a university which emphasizes
the importance of research.
Obviously in Canada we have to become more attuned to those
professionals who want to do research. This agency should help,
and that is a positive.
The fourth item that Dr. Vaughan suggested was that we need
balance. He stated:
—we recognize the need to work with others to improve the health
of the population by addressing the determinants of health,
including social, lifestyle and physical environmental factors.
The need for this balance is underscored by the persistent social
inequalities in health in Canada and other industrialized
countries—
Obviously that looks at the big picture, at all of the things
that influence the health of Canadians. These institutes will
address that concern, and that is extremely important.
Fifth, he said that we must be internationally competitive.
According to the OECD, and we have said this a number of times,
Canada spends only one-third as much per capita on health
research as any of the other G-7 countries, such as France, the
United Kingdom, the U.S. and so on. It is to be hoped that the
enactment of the CIHR legislation would help to change that
significantly less funding which exists in Canada and has existed
for a number of years.
These are the reasons we can support the bill. It is a step
forward in providing us with that research base which is so
essential.
We must also look at other factors. While we support the bill
and we see the bill as a step forward, we also have to show some
concerns. We have to look at keeping the issue of research in a
non-political environment. We have to be conscious of the turf
wars that are so much a part of our health care system. That
goes right down to the researchers in the lab. We have to make
these non-political, non-partisan, non-turf war institutes.
1325
We also have concerns about whether the federal government could
keep this in a non-partisan sort of format, or whether it could
keep from tampering with research and approving some projects
based on reasons other than merit. It seems most critical that
merit should be the only reason research is funded and supported
by these institutes.
As well, we must examine the Canada Health Act. It is extremely
important to realize how seriously flawed our Canada Health Act
is as it exists today.
We talk about accessibility. The Canadian health care system is
not accessible. People wait three or four months, or longer, to
see a specialist. That is not accessibility. Over 200,000
Canadians are on waiting lists. That is not accessibility. People
are going to the United States for treatment. That is not an
accessible health care system. We need to research that to see
how it could be fixed.
I emphasize that we have to work with the provinces and not
hammer them with an outdated Canada Health Act. We need to
modernize it and work with them in a co-operative manner.
As far as it being portable, ask someone from Quebec who ends up
in another province and needs treatment. Ask the people from
Quebec what they are told when they enter that hospital. They
are told that the Quebec system does not cover them when they are
outside the province.
Ask about it being comprehensive. Look at the many areas which
are not covered by medicare as we know it today. Each year more
and more things are delisted. What do Canadians expect from
their health care system? What do they want included and what do
they want taken out?
I have already addressed the area of universality. I think that
all Canadians want and would be proud of a universal health care
system to which every Canadian would have access. That is what
the Canadian Alliance wants. I believe that is what Canadians
want. I think that is what the Liberals might want as well.
The final area is public administration. We have all kinds of
problems there. The ownership of the actual bricks and mortar is
not the main emphasis, but it is something that should be looked
at.
There should be a sixth point, and that should be results. Are
we getting results from our health care system? Is it working
for Canadians? What do Canadians think about that?
We listened to the Prime Minister say that the status quo of
health care would be maintained. That is exactly what Canadians
do not want to hear. They do not want the status quo because it
is not working. It is not sustainable.
We often refer to Liberal members as the Jack Kevorkians of the
Canada Health Act. They have not funded the system adequately.
They have cut $25 billion from health care. Sure, they put $13
billion back, but they cut much more dramatically than ever
before and they left the provinces to go their own way. If the
provinces try something new the Liberals slam them with the
Canada Health Act, the very act which they have not bothered to
improve, fix or reform since the 1960s.
In closing, I would say that we will support this bill. In
terms of research, we must do it. We are 23rd out of 29 OECD
countries in terms of technology in health care. The health care
system is broken and needs to fixed. All Canadians want it to be
fixed. The federal government needs to provide the leadership
and work with the provinces to make this happen.
1330
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
hon. member for Red Deer could give us his views on how this
research should be managed.
We have a problem in the short term. Everyone agrees that the
provinces do not have the resources they need to deliver health
care, but our health problems require immediate solutions. The
research institutes that the government wants to set up and
support could pursue other objectives in the longer term.
Indeed, the health of people requires long term planning.
I would like to know how the hon. member suggests this problem
might be resolved? Does he think that investing in research is
an immediate solution? If so, how? If not, how does he think the
most urgent problems could be resolved in the short term, while
ensuring that the health of all Canadian and Quebec taxpayers
will be protected in the long term, this time by emphasizing
prevention?
Could the hon. member tell us how he thinks these two objectives
might be reconciled?
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Joliette for his question. He has raised several important
points, the first one being the need for long term funding.
It is essential that when doing research one is not inhibited by
grants that are there for one year and may not be there for the
next year. Research is not an exact process and one needs to
know there is sustainable funding in the research area. I think
that applies here more than anywhere else.
Researchers do not know when they will find a cure for whatever
it is they are looking for. To know they have the support and
the long term commitment of parliament is critical. I think that
should be written in. It is something that can be strengthened
in this bill.
Another item of equal importance is the administration of
research. More important, we should get to the nuts and bolts
and say that the provinces are partners in this research. All
the provinces are working with the federal government to provide
research for all Canadians. This is why I emphasize the lack of
partisan politics in this regard.
It is to be hoped that the administration will not fall victim
to the things we have seen in HRDC and many other areas, because
that will do more to hurt us as Canadians and to hurt our
position. When we are 23rd out of 29 OECD countries, it is not a
very favourable position to be in terms of our technological
advancements. We need to improve dramatically. Co-operation in
this whole area will be critical for it to be successful.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Red Deer
mentioned partisan debate and partisan politics. I am sure there
are times when all of us in the House are engaged in partisan
debates and we use statistics to perhaps stretch our position or
stretch the facts.
I heard the member for Red Deer and his colleague earlier. I
also heard the Reform-Conservative Premier of Ontario talk about
the transfers to the provinces for health care. The member
opposite also talked about that.
If we look at the facts, they are clear. The federal government
has restored the transfers to the provinces under the CHST to a
new level of $31 billion at a time when federal government
expenditure has been reduced by $4 billion compared to 1993. That
is the direct program delivery.
How can the member for Red Deer face his constituents with the
facts he has presented in the House, when the facts are clearly
not what he speaks? How can he justify saying that in the House
of Commons?
1335
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, let us go through the numbers
and we can round them off if the member would like.
In 1993-94 the money transferred for health care and education
amounted to $18.8 billion. In 1994-95, $18.7 billion; 1995-96,
$18.5 billion; 1996-97, $14.8 billion; 1997-98, $12.5 billion;
1998-99, $12.5 billion; 1999-2000, $14.5 billion; and now for the
next four years, $15.5 billion. If we went back to the level and
kept it frozen at $18.8 billion from 1993 to the year 2004, the
total would be $36 billion less than what would have been
transferred had the government just frozen it at the 1993 level.
That is very simple mathematics but obviously Liberal
mathematics is quite different from pure numbers. Those are the
facts and for whatever reason the Liberals do not want to
recognize them.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
following this debate with great interest. I remember that
initially the federal government was to support 50% of the
costs relating to health, while each province supported the
other 50%.
Today the federal government pays barely over 10%. It has
reduced its involvement. If we look at its track record in a
number of programs we can see a pattern where the federal
government establishes programs and then withdraws from them,
thus passing the buck to the provincial governments.
I have the same concern regarding the bill before us. The
government is taking initiatives that will have universities and
research centres buy equipment and train researchers. One
day the funding these people need for their research may just
stop. This means that these researchers would have to go looking
for other research centres, possibly abroad.
I wonder if our colleague from the Canadian Alliance could give
us his views on this.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, that is a very real concern.
Obviously, when we went into the whole medicare issue and the
Canada Health Act, the agreement was that the federal government
would provide 50% of the funding. For that it got control,
making sure that the provinces lived by the Canada Health Act.
That was a good deal for everyone. The provinces received
financial assistance and Canadians got a health care system of
which they could be proud.
The problem is that the federal government is now giving 13% to
Alberta instead of 50%. Some other provinces are getting
slightly more if other figures are taken into consideration. The
important thing that also needs to be mentioned is that the $580
billion debt on which we pay some $40 billion a year in interest
payments is also a very major factor in cutting funding for
health care and for many other projects. Let us think of what we
could do with $40 billion in any one of these programs, or even
part of it.
It is fine to say we will start the program and fund it for the
next three years but, as the member pointed out, if they drop out
after that, research will stop, those scientists will be lost to
us forever and we will not attract any kind of research in this
country. That will put us even deeper into the hole and we will
go from 23rd out of 29 to who knows where.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to add
a few words to my earlier remarks in order to have my Canadian
Alliance colleague comment further.
The Tokamak project, it will be recalled, was, and I describe it
in the past tense, a project involving a thermonuclear fusion
reactor located in Varennes. Funding for this project was shared
jointly by the federal government and the Government of Quebec.
The federal government decided two years ago to withdraw from the
project. Naturally, Quebec could not assume funding for the
entire project on its own.
1340
So this second generation reactor, which was on the leading
edge of technology, will have to be sold at a loss somewhere else
in the world. This is a dead loss of some $150 million.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks of this dangerous
precedent.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, if we worked on it a bit, we
could come up with an awful lot of burnt out projects like the
ones that have been started, where the building was built, the
funding stopped and the project collapsed.
That comes from a lack of long term planning. That is one of
the reasons Canadians have so little confidence in government.
Whether it is building ferries that do not float, whether it is
nuclear projects or whether it is the Avro Arrow, if we want to
go back in history, there all kinds of examples of where the
Canadian government has not continued its funding long enough to
reap the rewards. Again the member is totally right. It is a
major concern.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-13, which we are debating
today in at third reading. Let us keep in mind that the purpose
of this bill is to officially create the Canadian institutes of
health research, which will be mandated to organize,
co-ordinate and fund health research at the federal government
level.
The federal government, while constantly faulting other
governments for gaining their ends through devious means, has
taken an approach in this matter which lets it off the hook in a
way. It has appointed an interim committee council
comprised of 34 members from the scientific and academic
communities. That committee council worked for some weeks on
the definition and operation of these institutes.
Far be it for me to cast doubt on the competency of these
individuals to fulfil the mandate assigned to them, which is to
organize, co-ordinate and fund health research in Canada. The
federal government most certainly did not tell them “Take
care above all in fulfilling your mandate not to overstep the
jurisdictional boundaries of Quebec and the provinces”.
Simply put, the Canadian institutes of health research will replace
the Medical Research Council and will have a broader research
mandate. They will make it possible for there to be new ways of
doing research on biomedical themes but also on matters more
directly related to the social sciences.
We now know that these will be virtual institutes and will,
first and foremost, facilitate the exchange of information.
Researchers in universities, hospitals and the other research
centres across Canada will all be linked on a computer network.
The mission of the institutes includes some interesting and
innovative aspects. There are some new concepts involved here,
and many say that Bill C-13 constitutes a first in the history of
health-related bills as far as ethics are concerned.
Final decisions on the institutes to be created have not yet
been made. The interim task forcecouncil has, however, proposed
some themes around which the institutes might be formed.
Some examples are aging, arthritis, cancer, molecular biology,
the health of children and mothers, health services, clinical
evaluation and technology assessment, heart disease, strokes,
and so on. So far, officials estimate they have received close
to 150 applications for grants that will eventually result in
the creation of these institutes.
The bill emphasizes the need for integrated health research,
with co-operation between the groups, organizations and
governments now responsible for research, an important component.
The approach is clearly multidisciplinary. In addition,
because the bill does not specify any particular type of
institute, the permanent council will have its hands free to
create whatever kinds of institutes it wishes.
1345
One advantage of this is that it will allow the council to be
flexible and to change its priorities quickly in response to the
changing nature of society and to rapid innovation in the field
of research. This is a positive approach and is consistent with
the recommendations of the OECD, which since 1993 has been
asking Canada to increase its investment in research and
development.
The budget brought down by the Minister of Finance in February
1999 forecast a budget of $65 million for CIHR in its first year
of operation. In 2000-01, this amount will be increased by $175
million in order to create between 10 and 15 institutes of
health research in Canada.
With the base budgets already allocated to the Medical Research
Council, the government now anticipates that it will double its
funding, over a three year period, and that the funds for
Canadian institutes of health research will total $500 million
in 2001-2002.
The government set an extremely tight deadline and is trying to
rush us so that this bill is passed as quickly as possible. As
for researchers, the government made them believe that April 1,
2000 was a likely date for the coming into effect of this
legislation. Therefore, it is not surprising that researchers
really want the permanent governing council of the institutes of
health research to begin its work on April 1, 2000, while hoping
the government will not play tricks on April Fools' Day.
Once bitten twice shy, as the old saying goes. It is easy to see
that, over the past 20 or 30 years, Quebec did not get its fair
share of federal funds for research and development, given its
demographic weight. On average, depending on the year, Quebec
received between 14% and 18% of the federal funds for research
and development. This is still the case today.
The Bloc Quebecois fully supports the federal government's
intention to significantly increase funds for health research,
since that sector of activity is a fundamental one. We will
closely monitor the distribution of these funds, to ensure that
Quebec gets its share.
The Bloc Quebecois supports increased funding for research and
development. It also recognizes the efforts of the researchers
who were closely involved in the drafting of the bill so they
could have innovative equipment to improve the dissemination of
information in the field of health and to be able to develop
state of the art technologies in health.
However, we cannot ignore the fact that Bill C-13, as it is
drafted, seriously infringes on the jurisdiction of Quebec and
the provinces in health care. The bill refers, in several
locations, to “issues pertaining to health”, without ever
recognizing the responsibility to the public of Quebec and the
provinces in the field of health services.
With the government boasting about imposing clarity on others,
the Minister of Health should have made sure his bill referred
simply to health research and not to the health care system and
to services provided the public.
And yet, throughout it, the
bill refers not simply to health research but uses the more
general issues pertaining to health.
Quebec and the provinces are in fact nothing more than
ordinary players, like the people and organizations with an
interest in health. The federal government gives national
mandates to the institutes without involving the Government of
Quebec or of the provinces in this process.
The Bloc Quebecois pointed this out at all stages of the bill.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the bill in principle, but cannot
support it as it is currently written.
Let us make no mistake. It is not the creation of the
institutes that is the problem. Research and development falls
under the category of residual powers and therefore, in theory,
comes under federal jurisdiction. The Bloc Quebecois can live
with the fact so long as Quebec is a part of Canada.
1350
Where the problem lies, and it is a serious one at that, is that
this bill makes it possible for direct infringement on an area
under Quebec jurisdiction, health services to the public,
without any prior consultation of Quebec and the provinces.
In order to remedy this major problem, the Bloc Quebecois has
proposed a series of amendments which were mainly aimed at
emphasizing the importance of respecting jurisdictional
divisions and at reaffirming the primacy of provincial
jurisdiction over federal jurisdiction in the area of health.
Research and development investments are necessary, and much
desired in the hospital and academic research communities.
Moreover, a number of Quebec coalitions have made applications
for funding to the secretariat of the CIHR's interim council.
It is also important for Quebec to receive its fair share of
federal R and D funding. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of stepped
up investments in research, particularly health research. In
recent years Quebec has been heavily disadvantaged in this area
and it is high time that the federal government remedied the
situation by making available to researchers and universities
additional funding to facilitate their research.
Needless to say, the Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to this
government's increasing R and D budgets through the creation of
virtual institutes. This is why we support in principle the
creation of these institutes.
It is important for Quebec to receive its fair share of federal
funding, especially since we know that historically Quebec
receives but 14% of federal R and D funding, as far as
infrastructures are concerned.
It is, however, important to note that Quebec receives about 30%
of funding to researchers when there is peer review. Clearly,
since clarity is something this government is fond of, when
funding is awarded according to criteria which take merit into
consideration Quebec researchers have no problem holding their
own in a competition.
Although increased research funding is necessary, it is
important to point out that, by creating the Canadian institutes
of health research, the Canadian government is clearly
appropriating the power to impose its priorities and its
convictions in the health field, far beyond research per se.
Moreover, we know that the Quebec government is currently
developing a scientific policy and that it has stressed the
importance of certain areas where Quebec researchers excel,
including mental health, cancer, the genome and biotechnology.
The federal government must respect the specificity and
strengths of Quebec researchers so as to benefit from their
success and expertise in their respective fields.
While we salute the multidisciplinary vision of Bill
C-13, it is unacceptable that nothing was done to ensure that the
provinces have a say and truly participate, including in the
definition of mandates.
The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to better communications
between researchers or to better networking to facilitate
dialogue and the transfer of information.
However, we cannot endorse standards that would be imposed right
across Canada, and we cannot support any intrusion in the
jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces. Therefore, it
is critical to ensure that the Canadian institutes of health and
research not infringe on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the
other provinces, and that Quebec be a full fledged partner in
the selection and management of these institutes.
The government's bill ignores the division of powers between
Canada and Quebec and the other provinces. For the Bloc
Quebecois, it was important that this bill be about health
research and not a possible broadening of mandates beyond
research activity.
The Bloc Quebecois wanted to make sure that the decisions about
the choices and the principles underlying health networks and
services provided to the public be under the exclusive control
of Quebec and the other provinces.
Without watering down the content of Bill C-13, it would have
been possible to draft a bill that would have respected the
division of powers between the various levels of government.
By refusing to propose such a measure, the Liberal government is
denying the very principle of federalism. Respect for Quebec's
jurisdictions must be at the core of any intervention in the
health sector and this is why the Bloc Quebecois is in the
unfortunate position of having to oppose this bill.
1355
Once again, for the benefit of those brave enough to be
following the debate, I repeat that despite its feigned concern
with health-related issues, the government unilaterally and
irresponsibly pulled out of health care funding in 1993 when it
introduced its Canada health and social transfer.
It is all very laudable for the federal government to now invest
more in research, but it must not lose sight of the need to
restore transfer payments to the provinces. CIHR must not be a
way for the federal government to interfere in provincial
jurisdictions while ignoring its responsibility for the shameful
cuts it has made to date and for those that provincial
governments will still have to contend with until 2003.
The federal government must not turn a blind eye to the
difficult situations which the provinces are facing in health
care and for which it is directly responsible. Estimates are
that Quebec will be $1.7 billion short in social transfers in
1999-2000. Of this amount, Quebec has been deprived of close to
$850 million annually since 1993. For health alone, therefore,
we are talking about a cumulative loss of close to $3.4 billion.
The government can always stick its head in the sand or
haughtily decline to step into the fray, but there is absolutely
no doubt that it would have done better to have respected the
jurisdictions of the various levels of government in establishing
these institutes.
Bill C-13 should have stated clearly that the purpose of the
institutes is health research. Finally, it should have ensured
that the aim is to promote the sharing of information among
researchers in order to improve health networks rather than the
enforcement of rules defined without consulting the provinces.
Quebec has excellent researchers and institutions with an
international reputation in fields ranging from cancer to mental
health and genetics. It is essential that the mechanisms for
designating institutes reflect the strengths and expertise of
Quebec.
It is vital as well that the provinces, alongside their
researchers, be a part of the appointment process of these
institutes.
It is unfortunate that the preamble to Bill C-13 does not
recognize the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over health
services, but simply gives them a nondescript role in this field.
Furthermore, clause 14 provides that the governing council is
responsible for the management of the CIHR, unless it decides to
delegate its powers, duties and functions to one of its members,
committees or to its institutes. The provinces have no power to
choose the institutes.
Similarly, although clause 5(c) provides that the institutes
shall consult other parties, including the provinces, for
purposes of collaboration or partnerships, the wording of the
clause is broad and dilutes the importance of the provinces by
putting them on the same footing as the other interested parties.
It should have provided that the provinces have full
responsibility for managing health services on their home
territory and that their approval is necessary when the
government wants—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. She has
another three minutes and may speak again following Oral Question
Period. We will now begin with statements by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
DR. FRANK PLUMMER
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during a recent visit to Nairobi, Kenya I had the pleasure to
meet Dr. Frank Plummer. He is an internationally respected
Canadian physician specializing in HIV infection.
In sub-Saharan Africa, 10% of the world's population live on 1%
of the global income and bear the burden of 68% of all patients
with HIV infection in the world, most of whom lack access to the
most basic drug treatments. In Nairobi alone, 500 people per day
die from AIDS.
Through Dr. Plummer's research he has identified a group of
African women whose immune systems are resistant to the HIV
virus. He is conducting clinical trials on the transmission of
HIV and possible vaccines which this government is proud to
support.
On behalf of all Canadians I want to offer Dr. Plummer our
continued support. I wish to thank him for his selfless
dedication and tireless efforts.
* * *
1400
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I continue to draw the government's attention to its
abysmal record regarding Canada's hepatitis C victims. Yesterday
was the second anniversary of the health minister's plan to
compensate these people.
What is the status of the compensation plan? To date, the
lawyers have been paid. What about the actual victims who need
the money? Well, the lawyers have been paid. What a sad excuse
for compassionate health care.
Two years ago the Liberal government made a personal commitment
to Joey Haché on behalf of all hep C victims. However, people
infected with this incurable disease have seen no compensation
and no apology. The only action the government has been
consistent with is its failure to honour its obligations.
For each day the federal government continues to stall on this
issue, more hep C victims are dying and losing their personal
dignity. Not only has the government treated these people
poorly, it has completely dismissed all other victims who did not
fall into its arbitrary 1986 to 1999 window. How callous.
On behalf of all hep C victims, the Canadian Alliance will
continue to hold this government accountable for its inaction
regarding compensation. The government ought to be ashamed of
itself.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Monday I was greatly surprised to learn from La Presse
that the Minister of Transport for the province of Quebec did not
consider it necessary to have a monorail or LRT on the
ice-control structure of the Champlain Bridge in my great riding
of Verdun—Saint-Henri. He prefers buses instead.
Can hon. members imagine the pollution, the noise, the heavy
traffic that this will mean for most of Nuns' Island, not to
mention the loss of the bicycle path, which is used by 125,000
cyclists? Property values on the island may also be threatened.
What a mess and what an insulting gesture coming from Quebec
ministers who boast of wanting Montreal to have a good modern
public transit system.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the winners of the National Aboriginal Day poster
competition who were honoured at a ceremony earlier today.
Christine Sioui Wawanoloath is a first nations artist in Quebec
who won under the Celebrating First Nations category. Ramus
Avingaq, a young Inuk from Nunavut, won under the Celebrating
Inuit category. David Hannan is the Metis winner under the
Celebrating Metis category. He is from Ontario.
The work of these aboriginal artists are bold beautiful pieces
that now adorn the official posters for National Aboriginal Day.
June 21, 2000 will mark the fifth year Canadians will gather to
celebrate National Aboriginal Day.
I invite all Canadians and all MPs to make this trio of posters
available to their constituents so that we can all join together
to celebrate the cultures and achievements of our national
aboriginal culture through this day and throughout the year.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today,
from sea to sea, the Canadian Cancer Society will start knocking
on the nation's doors.
Thousands of volunteers will be out in all of Canada's
residential neighbourhoods collecting donations for the Canadian
Cancer Society.
Each year, the campaign starts with Daffodil Day, which is held
on different dates in different regions.
[English]
Daffodils are flowers of joy. They symbolize our hope to find a
cure to this devastating disease that affects so many Canadians.
Daffodils show cancer patients and their loved ones that we care
and we are all fighting for a cure.
[Translation]
The Canadian Cancer Society is a national volunteer
organization. I congratulate all volunteers and members of this
community-based organization whose mission is to eliminate cancer
and also to improve the quality of life of people with cancer and
their family members.
[English]
I ask all parliamentarians and all Canadians to support the
efforts of the Canadian Cancer Society. Together let us find a
cure.
* * *
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
on Thursday last week, Willard Estey, retired Justice of the
Supreme Court of Canada, made an appearance before the Senate
regarding the Nisga'a treaty. His written brief, which every
member of the House should read, was also presented on behalf of
retired Supreme Court Justice McIntyre and retired B.C. Supreme
Court Justice Goldie.
These pre-eminent experts, whose credentials are impeccable,
warned the Senate that the Nisga'a treaty is unconstitutional and
illegal. Their brief states, “An independent self-governing
nation state will be created within the boundaries of Canada”.
The retired justices also stated, “There is good reason to
conclude that the Nisga'a agreement contravenes the provisions of
the Canadian constitution and accordingly cannot have the force
of law”.
1405
The judges call on the Senate to delay ratification of the
treaty pending a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The House failed in its duty to uphold the constitution. It
remains to be seen whether the Senate has the courage to do what
the justices have called on it to do.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA STUDENT LOANS PROGRAM
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the success of a society largely depends on how it prepares for
the future.
This is why the Canadian government is providing our young
people with essential tools, such as student loan programs, to
help them finance their post-secondary education.
The Canada Student Loans Program is the solution for many
students. In fact, it is the key factor in allowing them to
pursue their education.
Over 2.7 million students have received a total of $15 billion
under this program since its inception in 1964.
This program provides assistance to more than 350,000 students
every year.
The federal government is fulfilling a most important
commitment: providing support to students in all regions of
Canada.
* * *
PIERRE-ALEXANDRE ROUSSEAU
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, at
the Canadian freestyle skiing championships held in Mont-Gabriel,
Pierre-Alexandre Rousseau from Drummondville won the individual
title for moguls. He succeeds Jean-Luc Brassard, who could not
compete because of a knee injury.
Following a silver medal in Bormio and a third place in the
World Cup general standings, this victory puts young
Pierre-Alexandre Rousseau in an excellent position for the
upcoming world championships, which will be held in Blackcomb,
Canada.
Here is another young Quebecer who displays this ability that
people back home have of representing us so well on the
international scene.
On behalf of my fellow citizens, I congratulate Pierre-Alexandre
Rousseau and thank him for this great victory.
* * *
[English]
WORLD THEATRE DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, March 27 marked World Theatre Day. Thirty-nine years
ago this day was first proclaimed by the International Theatre
Institute, a non-governmental organization founded by UNESCO and
international theatre personalities to recognize the universal
importance of theatre. It also promotes the importance of
artistic creation to cultural development and the exchange of
knowledge and practice in the performing arts.
This year the International Theatre Institute chose Canada's
Michel Tremblay, the world-renowned Quebec playwright, to pen the
International World Theatre day message. The message was read in
countless theatres around the world and embodied within it
Canada's value for theatre and the performing arts as a vehicle
for creative expression and international harmony.
From Vancouver to Halifax, theatre groups celebrated the
occasion in many different ways. This year, events were made
possible through new and innovative partnerships among the
Department of Canadian Heritage, its portfolio agencies and
theatre organizations across Canada.
* * *
CANADIAN ALLIANCE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we have uncovered the top 10 reasons why real
conservatives are leaving the Joe Clark party and joining the
Canadian Alliance.
Ten: More people have joined the Canadian Alliance in the last
month than the PCs currently have in their entire membership.
Nine: Contrary to what Joe Clark has said, things actually have
changed since 1979.
Eight: They want a party that has not spent itself so far into
the red that it makes a Liberal look like a tightwad.
Seven: We want a party where Jurassic only refers to a movie.
Six: They do not want a party where endangered species actually
refers to them.
Five: They want a party where if the leader was arrested for
being a conservative, the case would not be thrown out for lack
of evidence.
Four: They want a party and a leader who can actually count.
Three: David Orchard.
Two: They want results in their lifetime.
The number one reason why real conservatives are leaving the Joe
Clark party and joining the Canadian Alliance is that they want
an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of an exciting 21st
century political movement that will bring common sense to the
House of Commons.
* * *
RENFREW—NIPISSING—PEMBROKE
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to welcome today the
warden of Renfrew County, Barry Moran. I know that Warden Moran
would want me to tell you that Renfrew county is the most scenic
and largest geographic county in Ontario.
Bordered by the indomitable Ottawa River on the north, by the
picturesque Algonquin Park on the south, by the lovely Laurentian
lowlands and Arnprior to the east, and the mighty Mattawa plains
to the west.
In the great county of Renfrew, we have traditional lumbering
and farming industries which have been the mainstay for over 150
years. Our economy has been diversified for the 21st century,
from high tech to manufacturing, to tourism. We capitalize on
the talent of our people and the natural beauty of our land.
We also have two major federal institutions, CFB Petawawa and
Atomic Energy of Canada at Chalk River.
Renfrew County and the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is
a microcosm of our great country Canada.
We embrace and explore our cultural and ethnic differences. We
cherish and celebrate our heritage, as should all Canadians.
* * *
1410
HUDSON BAY ROUTE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Saskatoon I spoke to the annual meeting
of the Hudson Bay Route Association and it has a message for the
Minister of Transport.
The association is based in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and its
members believe we would achieve benefits by making greater use
of the port of Churchill.
The only way to move grain and other products to Churchill is by
rail, so the association is very interested in anything related
to rail transportation.
The association, as I mentioned, wants to send a clear message
to the transport minister regarding the Estey Report and its
follow up. The message is this: The federal government must
maintain the statutory rate cap on the movement of western grain
by rail. This is necessary to protect farmers against railway
monopoly. Second, the Canadian Wheat Board must retain its
current prominent role in the assembly and shipping of grain by
rail.
This is what most farmers want, and they want me to send that
message to the minister before he makes up his mind on what to do
about the Estey report.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the third
annual employment insurance monitoring and assessment report
confirms that seasonal workers, women and young people are the
main victims of the system. The results also confirm what the
Bloc Quebecois has been repeatedly telling the Liberal
government.
We also have the results of a recent study by the Canadian
Labour Congress, which indicates that over 70% of unemployed
women—low and middle income women, young women and new
mothers—receive no benefits. However, the Congress reminds us
that the opposite was true ten years ago: 70% of unemployed
women received benefits.
Statistics Canada researchers go even further, recognizing that
EI cuts are the most important factor in child poverty in Canada.
With an annual surplus of $6 billion, the Minister of Human
Resources Development must put a stop to this scandal and amend
the EI scheme as soon as possible.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
every April from coast to coast the Canadian Cancer Society's
fundraising campaign takes place across Canada to collect funds
in the fight against cancer.
The Canadian Cancer Society's campaign is kicked off each year
with Daffodil Days. The support and dedication of the staff and
volunteers helped raise more than $5.5 million in 1998.
I hope all Canadians will help in the fight against cancer by
purchasing a daffodil during this year's Daffodil Days.
* * *
STUDENT SUMMER JOB ACTION PROGRAM
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday I questioned the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of HRDC about the deadline for applications for the student
summer job action program. She said the deadline was March 31.
The federal government changed the deadline to March 10, causing
a lot of misunderstanding and missed opportunities for students
and employers.
Now the government is saying that the deadline is being extended
to March 31, but for some reason this information was only
released on Friday, March 24. That means that from March 10
until March 24 the program was effectively closed. Now all of a
sudden applications are being accepted for another week.
I am sure that this information will be of interest to people
who missed the unusual March 10 deadline. However, it makes me
wonder how and to whom the government expects to disseminate this
information about the extension. All students and employers
deserve an equal opportunity to access federal programs like this
one. This is another example of the HRDC minister's
incompetence.
* * *
ORGAN DONATION AWARENESS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the spirit of spring, a season that has come to symbolize new
life and new beginnings, several campaigns are now under way to
raise the awareness of organ donation.
Last spring, for example, the city of Ottawa was touched by a
campaign inspired by the Craig family's courageous decision to
donate the organs of their 11 year old daughter, Sandrine, after
she tragically lost her life in an accident. The Craig family's
gift helped to save six lives and the campaign raised awareness
by handing out 90,000 donor cards.
April is a time when volunteers, businesses, government and the
public at large can work together to help thousands of Canadians
who are waiting for much needed organs.
Schooley-Mitchell Telecommunications staff and their franchisees
across Canada will be providing organ donor cards to Canadians to
promote awareness and participation during National Organ Donor
Awareness Week.
Let us all get behind it and support it. It is very important
and Canadians need to do their part.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it turns out that the residents of
Shawinigan not only have a lovely fountain to celebrate, they
have the suds to celebrate with.
The PMO intervened in the grant application for a local
microbrewery and a tourist attraction. He got them $700,000.
The brewery got its grant just two weeks after the corporation
was formed. That is pretty slow actually by Shawinigan
standards.
When it comes to taxpayer funded boondoggles in his riding, just
how much is too much for the Prime Minister?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is possible the hon. member is making
reference to a project called Le Baluchon, which was an
undertaking to help develop the tourism industry in la Mauricie.
I am glad to say that $300,000 went to this project with the
expectation of creating 20 new jobs, but in fact 28 jobs were
created. From our point of view that is a good investment.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Well thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I am sad to say
that government officials were wary of funding these projects all
along. They said, “Analysts from financial institutions are very
critical as to the profitability of the project”. But the Prime
Minister pressed on. After HRD officials had a discussion with
the Prime Minister's office, the TJF grant was upped to $15,000
per job. That was $5,000 more than even the provincial
government recommended.
Did the Prime Minister think that he knew better in this case,
or did he just figure that taxpayers deserved another hit?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we thought was that 20 people
deserved the opportunity to be employed in this area of la
Mauricie. We are very glad, as I pointed out, to indicate that 28
people are now working. In fact the average cost per job is
about $10,000 which is in concert with the recommendation of the
province of Quebec.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): What a concert, Mr. Speaker.
In fact I bet that 20 people could get a job here. Maybe we
could have the great Canadian boondoggle museum. There could be
model canoes, armouries, fountains, security roads, golf courses
and maybe sell figurines of René Fugère and Gilles Champagne.
There could be weekly seminars entitled “My Time at the Trough:
A Liberal Retrospective”. Of course we know there is no
shortage of accommodation for the out of towners.
The Prime Minister said, “It is a great Canadian story”. Was
he referring to Canadian taxpayers that are now in the brewery
business or was it that he wanted to bleed them for another
boondoggle?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Reform Party were to do a little bit of research
it would find that this project, Le Baluchon, has been recognized
by the provincial authorities as the best tourist project. It is
visited by thousands of people and it is creating more jobs than
expected. They are expanding all the time. They have made
another application to expand because it is a very good
operation. I am very proud that people now can visit the
Saint-Maurice valley and enjoy the beauty of this great part of
Canada.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the PMO was directly involved with the HRDC minister's
office to ensure that the TJF subsidy for the brewery got
approved at $15,000 per job. This is precisely the sort of
interference that HRDC officials have been complaining about in
their radio ads. Moreover, after the interest free loans from
Canada Economic Development were included, the cost per job shot
up to $20,600, exactly the type of problem that CED audits warned
about.
If these types of programs are so legitimate in their own right,
why do they require so much political interference?
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in one of the Baluchon files and
in other files as well, the Economic Development Agency of Canada
intervened to help develop la Mauricie region.
As we know, this region has extraordinary potential for
development as a tourist site. What we are doing is developing
its capacity to attract tourists internationally.
On this side, based on our Liberal values and on our desire to
help in regional economic development, we will continue to
intervene not only in the Mauricie region but throughout the
Province of Quebec.
1420
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, what is extraordinary is that the Prime Minister's
riding seems to be a bottomless pit for money. Every time we
turn around we uncover another file that the Prime Minister has
interfered with. Audit after audit complains about too much
flexibility and too many broken rules.
Is it not true that this flexibility is deliberately designed to
allow these kinds of Shawinigan shenanigans?
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the extraordinary thing
here is having a party that would have eliminated all regional
development agencies criticizing our intervention in regional
economic development. It is shameful.
We are acting as a responsible government. Our priority is to
create jobs. So long as we have regional development agencies,
we will continue to intervene in all regions.
I hope that in the next election campaign, people throughout
Canada will remind them that a government is there as well to
help the people as a whole.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with clause 10.1 of the contracts between Human
Resources Development Canada and the recipients of funding:
The following constitute a breach of contract by the recipient:
the recipient becomes bankrupt or insolvent, the recipient is in
receivership or invokes any legislation in force at a given time
relating to bankruptcies.
How could the minister authorize the payment of a grant of $1.2
million to Placeteco, in violation of the terms of her own
department's contract, when Placeteco was under the protection
of the Bankruptcy Act?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Again, Mr. Speaker, we have responded to issues on
this file on a number of occasions. It has been clear that at
the senior level of officials in my department this project has
been reviewed. The invoices that we received clearly supported
the transitional jobs fund program.
From our point of view, what was important was to make sure that
the 170 people who are working in these two projects now continue
to work. I cannot expect or believe that the hon. member
opposite would rather have them out on the street looking for
work.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, Placeteco lost jobs, it did not gain jobs.
The matter is a very simple one. Funding cannot be given to a
company which is under the protection of the Bankruptcy Act, in
accordance with clause 10.1 of her own contract.
How could the minister violate the terms of her department's own
contract by creating a trust, against the advice of Treasury
Board? That is what I would like her response on, and I would
like her to stop using the workers as a camouflage of the
illegal acts that may have taken place in her department.
The Speaker: Once again, I remind hon. members that care must be
taken about words such as illegal acts.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I only want to reiterate that it has been
very clear not only to this side of the House but to people like
Bernard Landry, like the Government of Quebec, like the PQ member
Claude Pinard, that investments in that part of Quebec are very
important ones.
In the context of this undertaking, officials have reviewed the
file and found that there was no overpayment created. Again I
repeat that while the numbers of employment have been up and
down, today there are 170 people working and that—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, neither Bernard Landry nor anyone else from
the Government of Quebec ever signed that contract. It is Human
Resources Development Canada that signed a contract with Globax,
a contract which led to the $1.2 million grant to Placeteco.
Why did the minister give the grant to Placeteco, considering
that the contract clearly provides, in clause 10.1, that she
cannot and must not do so?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from our point of view again what is
important is that we give people opportunities to work. I would
like to quote from a recent article in La Presse:
[Translation]
This article says:
Since 1994, the image of La Mauricie has changed. The tourist
industry has been developed and we have succeeded in changing
people's defeatist attitude.
This was said by Claude Pinard, the PQ MNA for the riding.
1425
[English]
He is no friend of this government but certainly he is a man who
understands that investments in la Mauricie are important and
that they are making a difference.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is simple: What is the use of the
minister's signature if she herself does not respect it when she
gives grants?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everybody is advising me to clarify that
Mr. Pinard is not a Bloquiste but a Péquiste. That allows me to
make the point again that in these undertakings the Government of
Canada is not alone, that it is together with the Government of
Quebec which appreciates these investments. Individual members
provincially appreciate these investments. It is absolutely clear
that the people of la Mauricie appreciate the investments because
they are working.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
We have built our health care system on the principle, on the
dream that health care would be there for Canadians when they
need it regardless of their financial circumstances and
regardless of where they happen to live. Canadians are rallying
here on Parliament Hill behind that dream because the federal
government has walked away from the health care partnership, has
failed to enforce the Canada Health Act and has actively
encouraged privatization.
When and why did the federal government give up on the dream of
a universal, not for profit, public health care system?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member were to be objective she would
recognize that the only government that ever took money away from
the provincial governments because they were not respecting the
five conditions of medicare was the government of today.
I said very clearly to Premier Klein that he has to respect the
five conditions of medicare. He told me that he wants to respect
them. Good for him. But if he does not respect them, he will be
revisited the same way he was visited a few years ago.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
premier of Alberta is not respecting the five principles of
medicare now and he is not being penalized.
How can the Prime Minister pretend that the universal, not for
profit, public health care system is healthy? Tell that to
patients who are forced to pay $4,000 for routine eye surgery.
Tell that to patients who are paying $400 an hour to get access
to operating rooms for essential surgery.
Is that the government's idea of a public, not for profit,
universal health care system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has already demonstrated its commitment to the
Canada Health Act. We know that private, for profit delivery of
services is not the way to go. It does not help with waiting
lists. It does not help control costs. It does not provide
equal access. We do now and we will always stand for the
principles of the Canada Health Act.
* * *
CANADA LANDS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in November 1997 Canada Lands sold 30 acres of prime industrial
real estate to John di Poce for $1.7 million. Thirty days later
Mr. di Poce resold the same land for $5 million. That is 184%
profit.
Does the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
believe that this deal was a good deal for Canadian taxpayers?
1430
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this property was on
the market for resale for 18 months and Canada Lands did not get
any offers.
It put it for sale again and had an offer. I have been told
that it was a normal transaction. A few months later someone
came with a better offer and it was sold. For 18 months this
property was for sale and we did not have anyone to buy it.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think they looked too hard for 18 months. The
average selling price for industrial land in north Brampton in
1997 was $225,000 an acre, but the Liberal government decided to
dump 30 acres of land across the street from the Chrysler
Corporation for only $58,000 an acre. My question for the
minister is why.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I do not
think the hon. member has the dates right. I think he should
also call his friend, this gentleman who was involved in this
piece of land, who strangely enough is very supportive of the
Conservative Party. If he has anything to ask, maybe he should
call the Harris people.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, when the government has to kick in over 50% of the
funding for a business deal and government officials question the
viability of that deal, taxpayers are put at risk. In the case
of the PM's brewery, over $1.25 million of the $2.1 million spent
on this project was public money.
Why should taxpayer money be risked on a project that the
private sector would not touch with a 10 foot pole?
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the problem here is
not what we are doing.
The problem is that they know very well that, since 1993, the
Reform Party—I cannot keep track of what they are called, they
have changed names so often—or the new party would never have
taken into account all regions of Quebec and of Canada.
I am proud to say that since 1993 this Liberal government has built
links with all regions of Quebec and of Canada. We have created some
wonderful partnerships.
We will continue to do so and, during the next campaign, all
Canadians will remember the great job we have done.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, with beer and bringing home the bacon, I am sure Bob and
Doug McKenzie are firmly on side. This is yet another example of
a boondoggle in the Prime Minister's riding.
Why does this government, this minister and the Prime Minister
continue to hose taxpayers with their own money?
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we are now doing, not just
in the riding of Saint-Maurice but throughout Quebec, is making
smart investments, investments that will further the cause of
all regions.
But first, what is needed—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, what they refuse to hear is
that since 1993, with the review of economic development
programs, we have introduced refundable contributions.
Second, again in 1993, the public sent us a clear message.
It wanted the government to be able to position itself according
to the real situation and needs of individual regions.
We have developed a program called the regional strategic
initiatives program and in partnership with the community we
are developing the international tourism capacity of the large
Mauricie region of which we are proud in Quebec, and we are
going to continue as the government.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
questioning the Minister of Human Resources Development on the
matter of contracts her department signed with the businesses
receiving grants.
Clause 10.1 was included in the contracts to protect the
government and public funds so that no grant money could be paid
to a bankrupt or failing business.
Were the Placeteco lobbyists not effective and influential to
get the minister to set aside the contract she signed and break
her department's rules?
1435
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that this file was
reviewed by the highest level of officials in my department. It
was reviewed in detail and it was assessed that the invoices that
had been received were in concert with the transitional jobs fund
program.
Indeed there were issues with this file in terms of the company
itself and the associated companies, but in the end the decision
was the right one because people continued to be employed and
they would not have been had we not continued to support this
undertaking.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us be
clear. We are accusing the minister of failing to honour the contract
between the Department of Human Resources Development and Globax.
This is what we are accusing her of.
Was the fact that the Placeteco lobbyist was so effective not
due to his being the lawyer for the individual purchasing the
company, the creditor of the company and the government's trustee
all at the same time?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject the allegations being made by
the hon. member and say again that from our point of view
ensuring that 170 people continued to work at Placeteco and at
Techni-Paint was the right thing to do.
They may have wanted to pull the plug there and found
alternatives for those people, but I am not sure where they would
have gone. From our point of view the partnership founded by this
government, the Government of Quebec and by the private citizens
was the right thing to do, and the people working there know that
is true.
[Translation]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister intervened in the application for a grant made by
a micro brewery in his riding. The financial experts said that
the project was not cost effective.
Instead of canceling the project, why did the Prime Minister
insist the grant be increased?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can understand that on the
new party side they do not have an inkling of the meaning of
“regional development”. But, thank God, on this side we have
people who take into account the economic development of all
regions.
I will simply say that since 1994-95 we have reorganized our
programs. We intervene on the basis of the real needs of all
regions. We created the strategic regional initiative program,
which applies in the Mauricie region, where we are developing
international capacity in the great Quebec City region in the
context of technology, and internationally as well, in the Gaspé
region, in the eastern townships and we will—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, what we would like is for the rules to be followed in
these programs. Let us listen to what the old HRDC minister said
on October 9, 1997: “The Prime Minister has never lobbied or
influenced me”.
We now have evidence that the PMO lobbied directly on this file.
My question is simple. Was the old HRDC minister so worried that
he had to protect the Prime Minister?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat it in
English. It is quite simple. We are talking about economic
development of all the regions of the province of Quebec and
across Canada as well.
I want to tell the hon. member something. We did very well
since 1993 in the Mauricie region and across the province of
Quebec. As they do not know about economic development and we
want to make sure that we keep being involved in all the regions
across Canada, my friends and I will campaign in western Canada
next time.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSGENIC FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, consumers,
farmers and even scientists have concerns about the consequences
of genetically modified organisms and the lack of government
control.
How can the Minister of Health justify his investing in
advertising on the safety of GMOs when there has been no study
of their long term effects?
1440
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that party and
the people who criticize us for giving information to Canadians
are the same people who accuse us of hiding information on
biotechnology.
What we are doing is providing information to Canadians on food
safety and biotechnology in Canada.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since 1994,
the government has paid close to $6 million to biotechnology
industries in order to promote GMOs. It recently spent $300,000
in advertising in order to tell people they are being well
protected.
Instead of wasting people's money on promoting GMOs, would the
minister not be better off investing it in studies informing us
of their real consequences?
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
should at least wait until June to see what is in the
advertisements rather than criticize something she knows
absolutely nothing about.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the government recognizes
the many leaders we have in my party. the Export Development
Corporation says that it will adhere to the highest standards of
environmental protection.
My question is simple. Right now the former minister of HRD is
wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money o to
fund clear-cutting companies in Indonesia and to fund gold
companies in the Far East that are putting toxic tailings into
the ocean. Why is the government wasting taxpayer dollars to
fund environmental disasters?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
should know that the Export Development Corporation has rigorous
rules when it looks at these projects in other countries.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade recently did a study on the Export
Development Corporation and made recommendations to the
government regarding the environment and transparency. It will
report on this issue by May 15.
Primarily our discussions at committee were to make sure that
the Government of Canada was in no way funding environmentally
damaging corporations in other countries.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, sure they have rules. The problem is
that they break them all the time. That is the problem. I have
a list on my desk of over half a dozen gross environmental
disasters that this government is using taxpayer dollars to
support.
Once again my question is very simple. The government is using
taxpayer dollars to fund these toxic megaprojects, which people
say the government has no rules on. Why is the government
wasting taxpayer dollars to fund projects that violate
international norms and in fact violate the rules the member just
mentioned?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from
the Reform Party, the united alternative, the Canadian reform
alliance party or one of those parties should know—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary
secretary has the floor if he wishes to use it.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know
that the Government of Canada looks vigorously at environmental
situations in other countries.
We take them very seriously. Before the EDC can give loans to
corporations dealing with these other countries it has to go
through rigorous standards.
1445
The EDC has just gone through a review by not only the House of
Commons standing committee but also an independent group,
Gowlings, which gave messages of endorsement in terms of what the
EDC does and in terms of keeping Canadian environmental standards
in other countries.
* * *
[Translation]
BILLBOARDS
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Transport has confirmed that Mediacom billboards would be
installed in the vicinity of Montreal's bridges and along some
of the highways, on land belonging to the federal government.
Can the minister tell us whether the language of the signs will
be governed by Quebec's Charte de la langue française or the
federal Official Languages Act?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these are federal properties and I believe the federal
legislation will apply.
I must however contact the president of the bridge corporation
for clarification.
* * *
[English]
INDUSTRY
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Industry.
What is the Minister of Industry doing to ensure that Canadian
corporations have leading edge statutes in order to promote
better job growth?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne the government made the
commitment to modernize our legislation to improve Canada's
chances of winning head offices from global corporations around
the world.
On March 21 we tabled in the Senate a bill to update and renew
the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Canada Cooperative
Associations Act. The legislation will bring many of these
changes to bear, including, in particular, expanding
shareholders' rights and helping Canadian corporations by
clarifying the role of directors, officers and shareholders. In
short, it is responding to the needs of a consultative—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last Tuesday the Minister for International Trade told
the House that the Export Development Corporation acted at arm's
length from the government in deciding to fund the Three Gorges
dam project, and yet we know that Canada account loans of over
$50 million must be approved by cabinet.
Why did cabinet time its decision to fund the Three Gorges dam
project to coincide with the Prime Minister's team Canada trade
mission to China?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
continues to talk about the Export Development Corporation like
it is a corporation that does not do a good job in the country.
Let me quote from Malcolm Stephens, former head of the British
equivalent of the EDC, who said “In my experience the facilities
available to Canadian exporters are flexible and are administered
with a professional expertise which few rivals in other countries
have”.
This is a corporation that is needed by Canadian small business
and medium sized enterprises to help them compete internationally
with other—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that the parliamentary secretary is not
answering the question because he does not know the answer.
Perhaps the Prime Minister can answer.
On March 21 the Minister for International Trade told the House
that the EDC works at arm's length from the Government of Canada,
and yet on June 8, 1998, Ian Gillespie, the president of the EDC,
wrote a letter to the former Minister for International Trade
recommending who should conduct an independent review of the EDC.
If the EDC is truly independent and at arm's length from the
government, why is the EDC's chairman telling the government who
to appoint in its review process?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the
Government of Canada, through the Minister for International
Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is responsible for the
crown corporation. They report to this parliament.
It is the Government of Canada which sends the message to the
EDC and helps in terms of the export support it gives to medium
and small enterprises.
1450
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said: “Export credit agencies
like the EDC play a vital bridging role which lend the support
companies need to break into foreign and high risk markets”.
The Government of Canada is sending that message.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health likes to speak in very general
terms about the Canada Health Act, but we would like to get down
to specifics.
Alberta's eye clinics are now charging fees for enhanced
services, which amounts to queue jumping. Clinics in Montreal
are charging patient fees of $400 per hour for the use of
operating theatres.
We want to know why the minister is not taking action in these
cases. Does he deny they are happening, or is it because he
believes they are consistent with the Canada Health Act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
some of the matters referred to by the member, if she is
referring to the same cases I have in my mind, are already being
investigated by provincial and federal officials.
I can assure the member that if practices are in place which
contravene the act, then steps will be taken to make sure they do
not continue. If the member has information about events that we
do not have in mind or that we have not investigated, I urge her
to provide me with those details and I will see to it that the
appropriate inquiries are made.
[Translation]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is clear that the minister does not support the five
principles of the Canada Health Act.
Not only is the minister not taking clear action against the
bill to privatize health care in Alberta but today, in Montreal,
patients must pay $400 an hour to get on the operating table.
What we are looking at in Canada today is private health care.
Does the minister not realize that his failure to take action is
having a terrible impact on citizens who are entitled to a
universal health care system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week, we heard about inappropriate practices in a private clinic
in Montreal. Minister Marois and I both announced that we were
taking steps to investigate the matter and to determine whether
unacceptable or illegal practices exist, and I intend to do just
that.
* * *
CANADA LANDS COMPANY
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, here is
a cute little story.
The Canada Lands Company owned a large industrial lot in
Brampton. This was a 30-acre lot. It decided to sell it for
$1.7 million. What happened? With every day that went by, the
property's value increased by more than $100,000. One month
later, it was worth $3 million more.
A week ago, the vice-president of the Canada Lands Company had
not even heard of this. Could the Minister of Public Works
reassure the House and explain how Canadian taxpayers benefited
from that transaction?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, that property
was up for sale for 18 months and the Canada Lands Company never
got a reasonable offer. After 18 months, we received an offer
that represented about 80% of the property's market value and we
decided to sell.
I would like to remind the hon. member that he should do his
homework before asking a question. A property adjacent to the
one in question sold a month earlier for $20,000 an acre, or 60%
more. I believe Canadians got—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, there
is someone somewhere who did not do his homework, as the Reform
Party wants to do.
What we are saying is that, within 30 days, someone pocketed
$3 million. A week ago, the vice-president of the Canada Lands
Company did not even know about the case.
Will the minister, who was surely not aware of it either, order
a full inquiry to find out what happened?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the Canada Lands Company and
for myself this was a regular transaction. When we learned from
the media about this alleged huge profit over a four month
period, I asked Canada lands to provide me with a report, and it
did so.
1455
Based on the information that I received, this was a normal
transaction at the time and it still is. Four months later,
people with specific needs made a better offer.
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, postal
services are very important for Canadians. I would ask the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services if he could tell
the House when we can expect Canada Post to sign a collective
agreement with its employees.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to inform
the member and the House that yesterday Canada Post and the
Canadian Union of Postal Workers signed a three year contract.
This is a new beginning for labour and management relations in
Canada Post. I encourage Canada Post management and the labour
union management to work together to make sure that Canadians
have the best postal delivery system and that employees have job
protection.
* * *
TORONTO WATERFRONT
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday Robert Fung unveiled an ambitious multibillion dollar
plan for the redevelopment of Toronto's waterfront. In order for
this magnificent vision to become a reality the federal
government must be a major financial partner.
I would ask the Prime Minister today whether he is prepared to
rise in his place and indicate to the people of Toronto that the
federal government will contribute its fair share to the
redevelopment of Toronto's waterfront. In other words, when does
the Prime Minister intend to show the people of Toronto the
money?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank His Worship for the question.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask members once
again to call each other by their proper titles.
Hon. David M. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, when I use that
title with Mel Lastman he is quite happy.
As I said yesterday, if we can realize this dream it will be
fantastic not just for the greater Toronto area but for all of
Canada. The federal government has a role to play, but a role
only in concert with the other levels of government, the province
and the city. We will work with the other levels of government
to make sure this magnificent dream becomes a reality.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the EDC loaned $50 million to Suharto's daughter in
Indonesia for a pulp mill which is said to burn clear cut rain
forest wood. The EDC loaned $50 million to a gold mine in
Kyrgystan, the site of a poisonous cyanide spill. The EDC loaned
China $130 million for a hydro project just a few weeks after the
massacre at Tiananmen Square.
Why are Canadian taxpayers bankrolling environmental disasters
and ruining the world's environment against Canada's own policies
and rules?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a
member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade and he should know that the committee looked
at all of these issues. They had over 40 Canadians representing
groups from across this country look at the EDC. There was a
consensus that the EDC was doing a good job across this country
in terms of making sure that small and medium sized industries
can compete internationally.
The Government of Canada believes that the EDC plays a very
important role in this country.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, to
our great surprise, the Minister of Industry announced in this
House that the provincial governments are the ones who can do
something about gasoline prices.
If the gasoline pricing issue is a provincial matter, can the
minister tell us why the federal government has commissioned a
$600,000 study, which will be of no use in the end?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
merely said that the provincial governments can regulate retail
sales prices, that is all. It is true, and I believe the hon.
member agrees.
But if he wants information on markets and market
interrelationships, he will have to wait for the study.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last April the auditor general of
Canada indicated that the DFO was managing the shellfish industry
in the same manner that it managed the groundfish industry prior
to the cod collapse in 1992, which, by the way, cost the
taxpayers of this country billions of dollars.
Now disturbing reports out of Newfoundland show that the fragile
snow crab industry is in serious decline.
First the west coast salmon, the east coast salmon and the cod,
and now the snow crabs off Newfoundland.
Will the minister heed the advice of his own scientists and put
measures in place to protect the resource, or will he again
ignore the advice of his own scientists and allow the crab to go
the way of the cod?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand the
commercial fishery of Newfoundland.
When we came to power in 1993, the landed value of the
commercial fishery was $208 million. At the end of 1999 the
landed value of the commercial fishery in Newfoundland was $515
million. That is a 148% increase in the time that we have been
in power. Liberal times are good times.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
wharfs have been neglected by the government for years.
Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans prepared to commit in
the House today to provide emergency funding to repair the wharves
between Port Lorne and Delaps Cove which were severely damaged by
a severe winter storm on January 21st?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday, Saturday and Sunday
I had the opportunity to visit the maritimes. I had the
opportunity to personally visit those wharfs that were damaged by
the storm. In fact, if the hon. member had been following our
actions he would know that I have already announced money to fix
some of the wharves that were damaged by the storm.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Shri T. Baalu,
Minister of Environment and Forests of India.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1505
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
during Oral Question Period, I asked the Minister of Public Works
a question about a problem relating to a land sale in Brampton.
The minister spoke of a report that would provide answers to a
variety of questions.
I would like to ask the minister to table that report in the
House, for it would surely enlighten all hon. members. The
matter has raised a lot of questions.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services informed this
House of the existence of a report but did not quote from it.
According to Marleau and Montpetit or Beauchesne, the standing
orders of this House do not require a document to be tabled if it
has not been quoted, and to my knowledge it was not.
The Speaker: I will look at the blues to see what was
said. If I recall correctly, the report was not quoted from, but
I will look at what was said and will get back to the
House on it if necessary.
* * *
[English]
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION—SPEAKER'S
RULING
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the
question of privilege raised by the hon. member for London North
Centre on Friday, March 17, 2000. I would like to thank the
member for having drawn this matter to the attention of the
House. I would also like to than the hon. member for Lakeland,
the hon. government House leader and other members for their
assistance in bringing the facts of this situation before the
House.
The hon. member for London North Centre, who chairs the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, indicated that the hon.
member for Lakeland had, in his opinion, breached the privileges
of all members by the premature disclosure of a draft report from
the committee. This disclosure was made by way of a press
conference which the hon. member for Lakeland held on March 16
using facilities provided by parliament after issuing a media
advisory using CPAC and the internal communication services of
the House. Subsequently, the charges against the hon. member for
Lakeland were repeated in the first report of the citizenship and
immigration committee tabled on March 21.
In responding to these charges on March 21, the hon. member for
Lakeland raised a number of issues. He pointed out that there
had been a deliberate decision of the committee at its meeting of
March 2 to undertake the study of its draft report on refugee
determination and illegal immigrants in public session. A motion
to that effect can be found in the committee's minutes of
proceedings of that date. The hon. member held that, while the
meetings at which the draft report was considered may have
actually been held in camera, the in camera nature of the meeting
itself was contrary to an express decision of the committee. In
protesting what he took to be an irregular proceeding of the
committee, he made reference to an earlier ruling of the Chair
given on October 9, 1997, in which all committees were cautioned
that care is necessary in laying out the manner in which draft
reports will be dealt with.
[Translation]
I want to say, first, that it is not the role of the Speaker to
oversee the internal conduct of committees. Committees are
masters of their own proceedings, and with that freedom goes the
responsibility to see that they carry out their work in
conformity with the appropriate rules and practices of this
House.
1510
The hon. member for Lakeland may well have a legitimate
grievance with the manner in which the citizenship and
immigration committee has conducted its affairs. However, when
members disagree with decisions made by committee chairs, either
tacitly or explicitly, our rules provide avenues either to
appeal those decisions or to air those concerns openly in the
committee before colleagues.
[English]
I have a different role to play. When a committee feels that a
situation is so irregular that it must be reported to the House
then this is where I am called on. As I mentioned earlier, a
report on this incident was tabled by the chairman of the
citizenship and immigration committee on March 21. The hon.
member for Lakeland has stated that he quite consciously and
deliberately held a press conference for the purpose of making
public the contents of the draft report. He felt that he was
entitled to take such action because the document was discussed
by the committee during a meeting which he believed ought
properly to have been a public meeting. Nonetheless, the minutes
of the proceedings of the committee for March 16, 2000 clearly
indicate that the meeting was held in camera. Similarly, the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration rejects the
member's view for its states unequivocally in its first report:
The members of the committee considered the matter...and felt
that their privileges had been breached and that the in camera
process had been jeopardized because of the disclosure by the
member for Lakeland, Alberta.
[Translation]
As Speaker, I am not called upon to judge the manner in which
the committee reversed its earlier decision and, since the
committee has seen fit to report this incident to the House,
then I, as Speaker, I must take very seriously the committee's
complaint.
[English]
Our rules are clear on the matter of the divulgation of a draft
report. At page 884 of House of Commons Procedure and
Practice members will find the following statement of
principle:
It is further stated on the same page:
Even when a report is adopted in public session, the report
itself is considered confidential until it has actually been
presented in the House.
The Chair appreciates that this rule may, at times, prove
inconvenient to some hon. members or to committees themselves and
that there are divergent views on how committees should conduct
their business when deliberating about the text of a report to
the House. However, as you Speaker, I am bound by the rules as
they exist. In the present case, I have concluded that I have no
alternative but to find that a prima facie breach of privilege
has occurred.
I invite the hon. member for London North Centre to put his
motion.
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate you having taken the time to look at this very
serious matter. On behalf of myself and the members of the
committee, I move:
That the matter of the premature disclosure of the committee
report by the member for Lakeland be referred to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
1515
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciated your earlier ruling on this matter. The
one question that was raised which I do not believe you answered
in your ruling, and perhaps you could clarify it for me, was the
question of whether a standing committee of the House of Commons
could go into camera without moving a motion that it is going in
camera.
It does seem odd to me. I do not know who has the power to
decree such a thing or to make it retroactive. It seems to me
that it does require a motion to move in camera. Otherwise, I do
not know how those decisions come about if it is not by a motion.
The Speaker: That will be decided by the committee
itself, whether indeed they did move into camera according to
procedures that were developed at that time. That will be
answered when we are in committee.
Mr. Bob Kilger; Mr. Speaker, I rise on a totally
different matter. Perhaps I could ask for the indulgence of the
House to dispose of the following matter. There have been
discussions that—
The Speaker: Order, please. We will wait for that. The
hon. member for Lakeland has 20 minutes for debate and 10
minutes for questions and answers.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have some questions that I would like to put. I would
appreciate it if members of the committee could answer these
concerns at some time, whether it be in debate in the House in
the question and answer session after my presentation or in
committee at a future date. There are some very interesting
points which should be answered and should be responded to.
The first point raised by my colleague, the House leader for the
Canadian Alliance, is the question of whether the committee acted
properly, by the rules to which the committee has agreed to have
a vote before going in camera. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker
that did not happen in this case. There was no vote to go in
camera and therefore the procedure was all wrong.
It seems interesting that the committee and the chair of the
committee can just throw aside the democratic process on a whim,
it seems, ignore the process agreed to by the committee and go
ahead in a dictatorial fashion to have this discussion of the
report in camera. Somehow that does not seem like anything they
are particularly concerned about.
On what I believed to be very honest consideration of the
matter, I decided that because of the improper procedure, because
it was in the minutes of the March 2 meeting that in fact this
report would be discussed in public. Because of these things I
thought that meeting should be considered to be a public meeting.
I am quite concerned that the chair of the committee would have
the nerve to stand in the House of Commons and express concern
about what I did, believing that this was a public document and
calling a press conference, not leaking this document to the
media in the way the Liberals leaked the documents.
We brought points of privilege to you, Mr. Speaker, on several
occasions expressing our concern that reports which were
confidential reports without a doubt were leaked by Liberal
members. They could only have been leaked by Liberal members. We
have done this time and again. In those situations, Mr. Speaker,
you have ruled that we should not do these things but there was
nothing you could really do about it.
1520
In this case the chair of the committee has the audacity to come
to the House of Commons and say that I am wrong because I did
this publicly and not in a sneaky fashion. They routinely leak
public documents. Most of the budget was leaked. We knew what
was in the finance minister's federal budget before it was
actually presented in the House, because it was leaked piece by
piece by piece. This has become completely routine, and I do not
think that is right.
Nor did I have any intention of doing anything wrong. The last
thing I would want to do is anything which would show a lack of
respect for the House, for the committee and for the rules of
these institutions. That is the last thing I would do.
You have ruled, and I respect your ruling, that under these
circumstances you have no choice but to put this back into the
hands of the committee. I respect that, Mr. Speaker. I am sure
you have examined the issue and I trust your word on that.
I would encourage the chair of the committee and other members
to respond to this apparent contradiction that somehow it is okay
to routinely leak documents which are clearly confidential, which
is what Liberal MPs have done again and again. It is undeniable.
I did it openly and honestly in a press conference. I presented
a report which was marked confidential, but which I truly
believed could not possibly be considered confidential. Because I
did that in a public fashion, somehow I am in breach of the rules
of the House in some way. I am interested in hearing the
committee explain this. It is a very interesting contradiction,
and I am looking forward to that.
As I said in my presentation to the House last week, if you
look, Mr. Speaker, at the minutes of the March 2 meeting—and I
tabled a copy of those minutes at that time—it said clearly in
the minutes that it was agreed that this report would be
discussed in a public meeting of committee, not in camera. I
take the decision of the committee on matters like that quite
seriously.
Also in Hansard, as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the
committee did agree to have a vote of the committee before ever
going in camera. That did not happen in this case. Furthermore,
at the very meeting before the committee went in camera, I asked
the chair of the committee to allow me to put forth a motion to
reaffirm it was the rules of the committee that we have a vote
before going in camera.
The chair would not allow the motion but said “You do not have
to worry about that. We all know that and I respect that”, or
something to that effect. That can be seen in the Hansard
of that March 2 meeting as well.
It takes an awful lot of nerve for the chair of the committee
and for the members of the committee to come to the House
claiming that I have done what is wrong. I respect your ruling,
Mr. Speaker, that this should go back to the committee, but I am
saying the committee should decide that in fact, no, I have not
acted improperly.
Yet they are saying I did, when they completely ignore the rules
of the committee which have been reconfirmed and reaffirmed by
the committee at the very meeting before the committee went
improperly in camera.
I am extremely concerned by the loss of democratic process in
this institution, not just in committee. In these committees the
process and the lack of respect for democracy, for the rules, the
very rules that are agreed to, to govern the committees, are
ignored routinely. I do not find that to be a laughing matter. I
take that as a serious matter.
If we look at the House generally, the lack of respect for the
democratic process has become routine. I have many people back
home telling me that they see our House of Commons behaving more
like an elected dictatorship than a democratic body meant to
govern a country.
They say that because they understand the Prime Minister and a
few key people make the decisions, the big decisions, in
governing the country.
1525
Do backbenchers and MPs in the governing party have influence on
the Prime Minister's decisions? I would suggest very little to
none. The only influence seems to be what can be exerted by the
members of opposition parties through the use of the media. We
can take an issue which we think is an important issue, go to the
media and get coverage. Through that method public reaction can
come against the government. That seems to be the only way that
we can have an effect. It is the only way that any member of
parliament, other than the Prime Minister and his little group,
have any effect on what goes on in the House. I am extremely
concerned about that, and I have expressed my concern about that
before.
Let us look at the issue of time allocation. It was a very few
years ago when time allocation or closure in the House was
something that was used rarely. Since this government took
office in 1993, how many times would you think, Mr. Speaker, that
time allocation and closure have been used in the House of
Commons? It is approaching 60 times.
Look at the last 10 bills that have passed through the House and
see how many times time allocation has been used to end debate
prematurely on legislation. How many times do you think in the
last 10 pieces of legislation which have passed in the House? A
majority of cases.
This has become absolutely routine. Debate is not allowed in
this place the way we expect it to be allowed on extremely
important pieces of legislation like the new elections bill. The
very act that will govern elections in this country, Bill C-2,
passed through the use of time allocation. Debate ended after a
very few hours. It is completely unacceptable. The official
opposition, which is supposed to be given ample time to present
our case to try to have an impact on legislation, was given only
a few hours of debate on this important bill.
This has become routine. It is shameful. That is why it amazes
me that the chair of this committee and the members of this
committee would have the nerve to accuse me of doing something
improper.
Look at the relative importance of these two issues. What was
my great crime? My great crime was presenting in a public way,
not in a sneaky way as they do, to the media a document which I
believe truly was a public document. I believe I was doing
nothing wrong. I was not willing to do it in a sneaky way, as
the Liberals have done in so many cases. That is my great crime.
At the very meeting after it was agreed that this report would
be discussed in public, after it was undeniably reaffirmed that
this committee could only go in camera, into secret meeting,
after a vote passed committee, in fact the committee went in
camera without a vote. Does that sound like democracy? Does
that sound like respecting rules of the committee? It just is
not.
Look at the relative importance of the two wrongdoings here. You
have ruled there was wrongdoing and I respect that, Mr. Speaker.
At the time I believed there was not. Yet the chair knew he was
violating the very rules of the committee when he took that
committee into secret meeting in camera without having a vote of
the committee and against the minutes as written in the document
I tabled from the March 2 meeting.
Because I understand that you have now put this into the hands
of the committee, Mr. Speaker, I ask the committee to seriously
consider the relative importance of the violations that have
taken place. As I suggested to you, Mr. Speaker—I asked you to
rule on it and I understand that you could not—I would like the
committee now to consider whether the chair of the committee
should be removed from his position as chair.
1530
To me, violating the very rules which were agreed on to govern
the committee is a serious breach. There is no way that could
have been done without the chair knowing exactly what he was
doing, because I made a point of that at the very meeting before
and Hansard will show this. I made a point of that in a
way which could not be easily forgotten. It was that important I
felt I should do that and that is what I did.
Mr. Speaker, I fully respect your decision. There are many more
points I could make. I am sure there will be more debate on
this, but I would like to ask the chair and the members of the
committee after contemplating this issue, to deal with the issue
of the actions of the chair. I would like them to seriously
consider removing the chair from his position in the committee
and I would like the committee to move on from there.
Last year with the former chair of the committee, we had a
committee which I would say was completely dysfunctional. It
just was not working. With the new chair we had a committee
which I thought functioned quite well. We went into what was an
honest discussion at committee dealing with the very sensitive
issue of illegal migration into this country.
Mr. Speaker, you know what happened this summer. About 600
people came into the country illegally by boat. Every year
around 23,000 people come into the country illegally through our
airports, border crossings and by boat.
The committee debated. Witnesses came from across the country
to deal with this extremely important issue. A Conservative
member on the committee asked for assurance that the work of the
committee would be considered in drafting the new immigration
act. That assurance was given.
I received a leaked draft of the new act along with a schedule
which showed that the new act went to the provinces for approval
on February 25 and that the minister was going to approve the new
act on March 7. The committee report which was supposed to be
considered in the new act was not tabled until last week.
So there we were. Witnesses came to the committee in good faith
and presented their thoughts on the issue of illegal migration.
How are they to feel now knowing that their thoughts were not
even considered in the new act?
The new act was not put together in a few weeks. It had to have
been virtually a done deal back when we started with this issue
before committee. Certainly the report tabled last week in no
way could be considered in the new act because the act was a done
deal at least three weeks before that. That is when I received
my leaked copy of the new act.
Those witnesses gave of their time, their efforts, their money.
They came to committee and presented their views believing they
might actually have an impact on the new act. How must they feel
knowing that they have been used by the committee? They have
been used by the committee because what they reported to
committee was completely ignored. The legislation was in place
before the committee even reported.
That shows an incredible disrespect for Canadians, for people
who care enough about an issue. In this case it is an issue
which is important to the security of our country, illegal
migration. They cared enough that they came and they spoke. I
listened to them. Other committee members listened to them. They
were completely ignored. How must they feel?
It is sad. When Canadians see these things happening they must
completely lose their respect for politicians, for the House of
Commons and for the committees of the House of Commons. They
cannot possibly do anything but become cynical about the whole
political process.
1535
It is a sad thing when Canadians have that reinforced in the way
they did by the chair and the committee. They ignored the
committee rules and decided to discuss the committee report, a
draft document, in secret and only then did they report it to the
House.
The committee is functioning poorly now. At the previous
meetings we were not even discussing a draft document. We were
only discussing the witnesses we had heard and the committee went
in camera. In other words it discussed the issue in secret. The
reason had to be because the Liberals on the committee, a
majority of government members who have control, were afraid that
something they might say would be heard by their constituents and
would reflect poorly on them.
Mr. Speaker, I see that I have no more time to debate this
issue. I am looking for debate from others who feel that this is
an important issue. I am looking in particular for a response
from the chair of the committee. I also hope others will get
involved in the debate because what debate in the House could
possibly be more important than a debate on respecting the
democratic process and respecting the rules of the House and of
the committee? What else could be more important than that? The
issue is that the chair of the committee and the committee did
not respect the rules.
I appreciate having had the time to present my views. I look
forward to hearing the views of other members.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we all know that any committee draft report is marked
confidential in big letters. I am a member of the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We all respect and
have a clear understanding that we must honour such
confidentiality. Mr. Speaker indicated exactly that in his
ruling.
As an all-party committee, we have worked very hard but the hon.
member repeatedly broke the rules and walked out on a very
important discussion. That is disgusting. It was without any
concern for his duty and his responsibility. The hon. member not
only breached the trust of all committee members with his
disrespectful attitude but with purposeful disregard he held a
press conference. I ask the hon. member how could he have such
nerve and disregard for his duty as a member of our committee?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
that question. She again expresses the concern about the
document marked confidential.
I explained why I believe the document was not confidential. The
committee had improperly gone in camera. I would like to ask the
member about her lack of respect for the rules of the committee.
I assume she was at the meeting where the committee went in
camera. At that time the member did not say to the chair, “It
is improper that we are going in camera. We discussed this at
the last meeting”. Why did she not do that? Unfortunately I
was not at that meeting. I was away on other matters of
parliamentary business.
She talked about my not being at some of the meetings. I
challenge her to have my attendance records at those committees
compared with those of any other member of the committee. I have
taken part in most of the meetings of the committee. I have been
involved. I took part in the debate.
When I found out that a copy of the new immigration act had been
leaked, I realized we had all been taken for fools. That
bothered me.
My co-operation at that point dwindled somewhat because this is a
serious issue.
1540
I would like to ask the member why at that committee she did not
stand and say, “This is improper. I am going to have no part of
it. I am going to respect the rules of the committee. I am not
going to allow you, Mr. Chair, to go in camera on this issue
without a vote. Mr. Chair, I am not going to allow you to go
against the minutes of that March 2 meeting and now decide to
have the discussion on the draft report in camera, in secret”.
I would like to ask the member why she has so little respect for
the rules that she did not stop that.
The Speaker: That is out of order. We are still on
questions and comments of the hon. member for Lakeland.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I have a very simple question.
I heard the member say that he was of the very strong conviction
that it was a public meeting. He said that was decided by a
majority vote of the committee. I am asking him to confirm that
was the case. Also, has he looked at the records of the
committee and was there a motion subsequent to that which
rescinded, reversed or changed that?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question. I would like to clarify that in fact the committee
had agreed I believe it was at the start of the fall session
pursuant to the normal rules of committees, that before going in
camera there would be a vote. That should not have to be
reconfirmed by a committee, but I have seen those rules breached
often enough that I wanted it to be reconfirmed. My memory says
this was done back in the fall but I cannot say for sure.
However it was reconfirmed when the committee went in camera when
we were discussing not even a draft of the report, but just what
the witnesses had said.
That meeting improperly went in camera. I made a point of
bringing that issue before the committee and asking why we were
in camera and that we should go public. There was no vote held
to have the committee go in camera. Therefore it should have
been a public meeting. Through my pressure the committee agreed
that the meeting was improperly in camera and it was going to be
made a public meeting and it was.
It was at that time I tabled a motion that before going in
camera again there will be a vote of committee members. The Chair
brushed it aside and said there was no need for that, that we all
knew the rules. At the very next meeting the chair took the
committee improperly in camera. I was not at that meeting. I
was on other parliamentary business. All of the members of the
committee allowed it to happen. Not one member raised his or her
voice to stop it. That is improper.
The other thing from that meeting is the minutes of the meeting
said that the draft report was to be discussed publicly. I would
argue that issue should not even be a particularly important one
because the committee had agreed not to go in camera without a
vote and there was no vote.
I brought the improper procedure before the committee. I said
there was no way we should be in camera that we should be holding
the meetings in the open. The chair continued to call it an in
camera meeting. That is when I decided it was improper. The rules
were not being respected. It was not truly an in camera meeting
and therefore the discussion should not be considered to be
confidential.
That was my decision at the time. It was a decision which I
made considering the evidence before me. I would suggest that it
was a good decision. I would be interested to hear from other
members of the committee. I would like them to answer the
question as to why they did not prevent the committee from
improperly going in camera and why they did not ask for a vote.
I would suggest that one of the reasons might be that there is
seldom quorum at this committee. We cannot hold a vote when
there is no quorum. We often have three or four Liberal members
at committee out of a possible seven or eight. The attendance of
the Liberal members is not exactly something I would think they
would want to brag about.
1545
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to follow up on the member's remarks.
First, the reason there was no quorum at the time I tried to
move my motion suggesting that the minutes of the committee come
out of in camera and be published as soon as the report was tabled
was because the Reform MPs had left the committee. In fact, every
time I tried to do something with respect to the minutes being in
camera, I could not move the motion because the member opposite
and his colleagues had left the committee.
I ask the member opposite how he can take this position,
especially with me who has always argued that committees should
not be in camera if they can possibly not be in camera. In this
case the chairman explained very clearly that it had to be in
camera up until the time the report was released. That was fair
but we all agreed that the minutes could be released as soon as
the report was released. Would that not have satisfied the
member?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, what the member says is
absolutely incorrect. At the meeting where the chair improperly
went in camera, I was not even in attendance. How could I have
left? To my knowledge, I never left the committee when a member
was trying to present such a motion. There was never any talk of
such a motion. I invite the member to review the record because
that is absolutely not what happened.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I should tell you that I happen to be vice-chair of the committee
and have found it necessary on occasion, when our chair was tied
up with other committee business, to run some of the meetings. I
have been very actively involved in the writing of this report,
as have most members and certainly most government members in
having input.
I am surprised that you, Mr. Speaker, did not rise to your feet
when the member opposite finished saying that he thought his
decision even today was a good decision. I would interpret that
as being a statement that he does not particularly agree with the
findings that you, Mr. Speaker, brought forward before this place
where you found in favour of the Chair that there was a prima
facie case of violating the privilege of the committee members.
Mr. Speaker, I heard you say that.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I made it very clear that I respect your ruling. I do
not see a contradiction.
The Speaker: We are in debate now. Rather than interrupt
each other on these points of order, I would prefer that we have
a full run at it if we can, which is what we did on the other
side.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I sat here with my blood
pressure boiling up as I listened to the hon. member.
An hon. member: That is not uncommon.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, that is not uncommon. However, I
must say that I waited until I had the opportunity to have the
floor. I can assure the House that this member will agree with
very little that I am about to put on the record.
If he wants to jump up every time he disagrees with me,
hopefully, Mr. Speaker, you will rule that those are not points
of order.
1550
If the member wants us to read Hansard, I would invite him
to do exactly the same when Hansard is printed wherein he
said that he thought his decision to hold a public press
conference was a good decision, in spite of the fact that you,
Mr. Speaker, have found him guilty of violating the privileges of
members of the committee. I do not know how that can be
interpreted in any other way than to say that he does not like,
agree with or respect your decision. He thinks what he did was
right.
There are a couple of basic principles here. One is that when
you are trying to get out of a hole you should stop digging. The
other one is the axiom that when a lawyer represents himself, he
is often said to have a fool for a client. When I hear the
defence that has been put forward by this member, it is
incomprehensible.
Prior to this unfortunate incident, I thought the member was
making good contributions to the committee. This obviously was
not the first issue we have dealt with. He was dedicated and
worked hard. I very seldom agreed with his position, the one
which the Reform Party said, through him, that it considered
anyone who arrived in this country as a refugee as an illegal.
We had a long debate over the use of the term illegal. This
member considers all refugees to be illegal. I certainly do not
agree with that but I respect his right to hold that opinion as
long as he does not mind me telling everybody that is his opinion
so they can judge for themselves the attitude the Reform Party
and this particular member have in relation to new Canadians,
refugees and immigrants.
You, Mr. Speaker, read from the rules which state that a
committee report is considered to be confidential even if it is
discussed in public at committee. Whether or not the committee
is in camera is totally irrelevant to the fact that this member
decided to make the document public on his own volition.
I could accept it if he was willing to stand and say “Mr.
Speaker, I made a mistake”. Instead, he stands and says “What
I did was good. What I did was right”. It is black and white,
Mr. Speaker, as you have obviously found out.
If we want to talk about denigrating the democratic process,
what does it do? I will take members back to the meeting on
March 2 which was held at the Promenade. It was to be an in
camera session. Why? As you, Mr. Speaker, and all members would
know, committees represent the 301 members of this House. The
reason for that is that we are unable to sit on all the
committees. While everyone might want to be on the finance
committee or on the citizenship and immigration committee, not
all members can be. We have to share the workloads and spread
the responsibility.
As a result, the committee does its work when it writes a draft
report and brings it into this place to show our colleagues, the
members of parliament, those who are duly elected to represent
the people of this country. We do that before we go public with
it. We do not release committee reports in draft or in final
form until we have completed our responsibility which is to
deliver it to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House of Commons. The
member knows that but he continues to try to defend the
indefensible.
It says on the document “Confidential until reported to the
House”. I ask the member: What word in there does he not
understand? Confidential means it is confidential.
It cannot be reported to the public until it has been reported to
the House. It is a very difficult concept. This means that
after the report is brought to this place, laid on the table and
reported as a public document the member is then not only
entitled to but probably obligated, as a critic, to hold a press
conference and to say everything he is saying. I do not have a
problem with him accusing the committee of not listening to
witnesses. I do not agree with that but if I were in opposition
I would probably say the same thing. I do not believe it is
true, but he has every right and indeed as a member of Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition he has a responsibility to do that. I
respect that.
1555
In that meeting of March 2 at the Promenade, the member spoke up
and said that he did not want the meeting to continue in camera.
The Chair, quite appropriately, told him that the reason the
meeting was in camera was because it was dealing with a draft
report and that it must stay in camera and confidential until the
report was presented to the House of Commons.
This member then said that he had a tape recorder. He showed it
to us and said that he was going to tape record the proceedings
of the committee if we refused to pass a motion to move out of in
camera. Can anyone imagine the audacity? He used the word
nerve; how the committee has the nerve to ask you, Mr. Speaker,
to decide on whether or not he has violated our privileges.
Imagine the nerve of a member of parliament in this great
democracy, called Canada, to come into a committee room and, for
whatever reason, actually threaten members opposite and even
members on his own side that he was going to tape record the in
camera proceedings and then selectively release the information
as he saw fit.
In my 20 years in public office, I have never felt so insulted
by a member who would come in and say that. If he wanted to
fight the good fight he should have put a motion to move out of
in camera. I would not have had a problem with that. The
committee could have voted on it. He did not do that. The
Chair, in a conciliatory way, the same Chair who this member is
now castigating and asking to be removed from the committee, said
that he would agree to a suggestion by the member for
Hamilton—Wentworth that the minutes of the committee would be
made public once the report was completed. The member agreed not
to tape record the proceedings and agreed with that suggestion.
All of this was agreed to before any press conference was held.
You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, how surprised members of the
committee were when we heard there was actually going to be a
press conference the next day.
I will now deal with that issue. The member said that he got a
copy of the draft legislation that was put out by the ministry
and had apparently been circulated to provincial legislatures,
ministers or stakeholders. Why would that happen? The member
said that it was for approval. In reality it was for input. If
the government were to change the Immigration Act or any act
without getting the input of the stakeholders that are directly
involved, we would be accused of the most dastardly things by the
opposition members, of not listening, of not seeking other
opinions and of not caring what their beloved provinces might
have to say about an issue that could have a tremendous impact on
the future of those provinces.
It is absurd to suggest that sending a draft-for-comment piece
of legislation to other interested stakeholders is wrong. That
is not wrong. That is consultation. It only makes sense to do
that.
Instead of just perhaps questioning that at committee and saying
“I have a concern”, what does the member do? He decides to
take the document that all of us have been working so hard on,
that people have had input on, that is stamped draft and is not
even 50% complete, an issue that became rather embarrassingly
obvious at the press conference, and he calls a press conference
with it.
1600
Let me tell the House why it was embarrassingly obvious that it
was incomplete. One of the reporters apparently asked the hon.
member what it was that he objected to. He said that he did not
like certain words, such as the word “should” where the
recommendations said “this should happen” or “that should
happen”.
While he was busy getting his notes ready for his press
conference the rest of us were going through the document. I
put a motion at committee—and members who were there will
remember this—that we should delete the word “should” and we
should send a strong recommendation to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration that would not say “this should
happen” but “this shall happen”.
The entire report, at the direction of the committee, was
rewritten by the clerk to eliminate that somewhat soft approach
of saying “this should happen” and it changed the whole nature
of the report. That one change took that document from being a
very thorough but somewhat soft document to becoming a firm
report with clear cut directions.
The hon. member did not even have the sense to release the final
report. It is incredible. He released a report that was 50%
done in the oven because he got all upset that, my goodness,
there was a draft piece of legislation that had been sent to the
provinces. It is truly hard to understand.
I would invite anyone to research the minutes of the committee
or the committee evidence or anything else concerning the
committee. It is standard practice for a committee agenda to be
sent out to all of our offices, saying that the committee on
whatever will meet tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock in Room 308 West
Block to consider the following items. Then it will say the
draft report of whatever the report happens to be. Then it will
have stamped on it “in camera”.
If a member objects to that, the member can say so. That member
can put a motion. That member can call for a recorded vote. In
no instance did this member do that at the meetings which he
attended. He did complain, I give him credit for that, but he
did not follow through. He accepted the recommendation and the
concept, which did not need to be formalized in some kind of a
motion with which the chair agreed.
The real issue here is that this member could do an awful lot
for his party, the Reform Party, as I will continue to call it if
members do not mind, and he could do an awful lot for his own
integrity if he would simply rise in this place and say “Thank
you for your ruling, sir. I appreciate the diligence and the
time. I am sorry that you had to come to that conclusion, but I
would respectfully ask for the House to forgive me for making the
error which I made”. If he would not like to use that term, he
could just stand and say “I am sorry. I made a mistake”.
It would be absolutely brilliant to hear that from that member.
I highly doubt that we will. Instead he rose to argue his case.
Guess what? When this motion goes to committee, this member has
just given us all the prosecution we need. We will just get
Hansard and say “Here is what he said”. He said it was a
good idea, that it was a good thing and that he was pleased he
did it. He does not care what the Speaker said. He does not
care what committee members said. He does not care about the
opposition. Mr. Speaker, he just does not care.
It is absolutely unforgivable, unless the member was to accept
responsibility for his actions, rise and say to the members of
the committee “I apologize for my mistake. I still do not like
the report. I still do not think you did the right job. I still
do not like the minister”—whatever. I do not care. I
understand and respect all of that. But to actually stand here
and try to defend something which the Speaker has ruled on, when
it is so clear, when it is so black and white, I can only
conclude by telling you, Mr. Speaker, as one parliamentarian to
another, that I find it embarrassing.
1605
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, this member is truly
very talented. He can say all of these things, but he seems to
ignore completely the reality of the matter. His version of what
happened at committee is suspect at best. He is a very talented
member of parliament, but it would be much appreciated if he
would stick to fact and reality.
If I misunderstood the ruling of the Speaker, and if the Speaker
did rule that something I did was wrong, then I certainly
apologize for that. I understood that the Speaker had referred
the matter back to the committee for the committee to decide.
That was my understanding.
Again, I want to make it very clear that I respect the Speaker,
and if the Speaker ruled that I had done something improper, then
I apologize for that. If the Speaker said that this will go to
committee, then we will deal with it at committee. I believe
that is what he said.
That I will find out. I will look over Hansard later. I
want to show no disrespect for the Speaker.
The memory of the member who has just spoken is very
interesting. First, he referred to the March 2 meeting, and what
he said about that meeting was absolutely incorrect. He said at
the time of the March 2 meeting that we were discussing a draft
of the committee report. We were not. At that time we were
discussing notes put together by the researcher about what the
witnesses had said. All we were doing was discussing that to
rehash what the witnesses had said. The chair decided to go in
camera to discuss that. I raised a fuss about it at the meeting
and the chair agreed that it was improper and he made it a public
meeting after that. That is what really happened at that
meeting.
The member is very talented, but not very factual. I would
prefer that he work on his memory and make it a little less
selective. I think that would be beneficial.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I guess being one out of
two is not bad. It would be nice to have at least a 50% success
rate. I will take talent.
I can be as accurate as the member wants.
Let me respond. The member is saying that the staff of the
committee and the clerk were doing something improper because
they brought forward the document. They said it was a discussion
of the draft report. If the member wants to hang his defence on
whether we were dealing with the notes from the researcher that
would lead us to draft a report or whether we were dealing with a
draft report, if that is his defence, I would suggest that he not
step on to the gallows. It is a bit flimsy.
Mr. Speaker, do not worry about my memory because I am going
back about three weeks. The member should think about his own
memory and go back about 30 minutes or so. He would find if he
checked that the Speaker's ruling was not to refer the matter back
to committee but to refer it to the procedure and House affairs
committee, which is the hangman. It will pull the lever and kick
the sandbag out as the body drops to the ground.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, all of this is talk,
but the real issue is the behaviour of the chair of the committee
and the committee and how it could decide to break the very rules
which the committee had set for itself and which the House has
set for committees. That is the issue.
1610
Across the floor they laugh about breaking those rules. They
think it really is not that important. The member brings up all
of this fluff, much of it inaccurate, and seems not to understand
the importance of respecting the democratic process and
respecting the rules of committee, which they routinely break.
As the procedure and House affairs committee reviews this issue
I hope it will look at the behaviour of this chair and of this
committee, because it is important.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, really, this is almost
silly. If there had been a request by the committee to review
somehow the behaviour of the chair and the Speaker had come in
and made some kind of ruling, I suppose maybe we would be dealing
with it.
I do not know if I am hearing a plea for mercy, an act of
contrition or the launching of some new defence. These guys
launch new things every day, so who knows, maybe the hon. member
has come up with a new way to try to defend being caught with his
hand in the cookie jar.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague knows that I am a member of the committee.
My colleague also knows that I have a recollection of what took
place.
I am sitting here listening to the member in his defence talking
about people who break the rules and people who have no respect
for the democratic process.
I would like my colleague to comment on the day—and I speak for
my privileges as a member of the committee—when he reached out
and put on the table in front of him, in full view of the entire
committee, a tape recorder and said that he was recording.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: That is scary stuff.
Ms. Jean Augustine: Yes, it was very heavy stuff and it
was very threatening, because what we were discussing at the time
were very sensitive matters. The member put a tape recorder on
the table and threatened us that he would be taping whatever was
said.
I wonder if my colleague remembers that occasion and the sense
that we had across the way as we saw that tape recorder.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, in one sense I was
outraged and in another sense I was highly amused. The meetings
are recorded anyway. Everything we do and say in committee is
recorded. It is made available in the record.
We had agreed that the transcript of the meeting held in camera
would be released to the public. I said to myself “Let me
understand this. The hon. member will be tape recording what is
already being tape recorded”. Boy, that is pretty scary.
Scary is not the right word. The thing that was so
offensive—and the member was right to bring it up—was that a
member could come in and actually threaten that kind of
silliness, that kind of nonsense, show that lack of respect for
members of the committee, for the committee process and indeed
for this place. That is just not appropriate behaviour on the
part of any member of any party in this place. It is shameful
and it is to be hoped that this member would realize the error of
his ways and stop this kind of nonsense.
I would add that if the member had put as much energy into
helping us write the report as he did in playing all of these
silly games, he might have had an opportunity for some input of
his own. As it was, he was no help at all.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in this debate I
do not want to impute any motives to my colleague from Lakeland,
who sits on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration, far from it.
Nor do I intend to turn this into a heated debate, as the
government and official opposition members are trying to do.
1615
I do, however, want the Liberal members to hear what I have to
say, because it is basically representative of my understanding
of the meeting of March 2 in particular.
I would remind hon. members that we received a notice to appear,
as is the case for all committees. I did indeed receive such a
notice, in proper form, a few days before the committee sat.
I was initially rather surprised to see that session 15 was to
be an in camera session. Why surprised? On the one hand,
because the notice indicated that we were going to examine a
draft report, whereas we had never received such a draft report.
A few days before the committee sitting, I recall very clearly
receiving a document in proper form, a well-prepared document, as
is usual with the research staff. To my mind, this was far from
being a draft report; it was instead a summary of options and of
the appearances of witnesses throughout the entire examination
of the refugee status determination system.
This document summarized what the witnesses had had to say. It
went so far as to provide summaries. This document contained no
potential recommendations. At no time did we have the position
or statements of position from the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration.
I recall that I spoke at that point in committee, and I would
refer you to the transcript of the committee meeting on March 2.
I had said clearly that the meeting should have been declared in
camera, not on the basis of the report we had at our disposal,
but rather on the basis of a study of a draft report.
I quote my statement of March 2:
However, I would hope that we would study the real draft report
in camera, the one our researchers have prepared for us on the
basis of the options we choose.
I stress the fact that basically I wanted the meeting in camera
because of the draft report for two reasons. First, I felt that
all the committee work we were starting and the report we would
be producing several weeks later had to be done as fairly as
possible, on the basis of the recommendations and evidence
gathered during deliberations.
Second, it seems basic to me that the meeting should be in
camera when a draft report is involved. Why? Because we had to
be sure we were free from influence from interveners outside the
committee, which could have affected our proposals and
recommendations.
That seemed so important to me that I said on March 2, and I
refer you again to the transcript of the committee's
proceedings:
If we study the report in camera, I hope we take the necessary
steps, as responsible parliamentarians, to ensure there are no
leaks.
1620
What I said at that time was that we could have a public
meeting. We could have outside interveners come to our committee,
based on the summary of options prepared by the researchers and
the Library of Parliament. There was nothing confidential in
that.
There was just a series of statements that we had heard in
committee and that we were examining. This is why I was surprised
to see, when I read the notice, that the meeting would take place
in camera, because of the document that we had in hand. I
questioned the committee and I expressed my astonishment.
I said “My first reaction was one of astonishment when I
received the notice about this committee meeting and saw that we
were going to study in camera the document that was sent to us.
It was supposedly confidential, having been prepared by the
library”. Again, I am quoting the transcript. I was surprised to
see that we were having an in camera meeting on the basis of that
document.
I was prepared for a public meeting, so that outside interveners
could read the summary of options. However, I was hoping from the
bottom of my heart that the review of the draft report, which was
supposed to be ready after March 2, would be conducted in camera.
I readily admit that I was disappointed to learn from some
assistants that this report, which I believed to be confidential
and which was jointly drafted by opposition and government
members, had been leaked and could be found in the pages of
newspapers outside Quebec.
This is my interpretation or my version of these events. I
believed and I fundamentally think that the review of the draft
report should be conducted in camera.
[English]
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am not on the committee but in following this debate I am a
little confused. Perhaps you could provide some clarification.
Did the Speaker rule that there was a prima facie case against
the member? If that is true, this is going to go to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. On the surface the
Speaker found there was enough evidence that the member leaked a
document to the public prior to tabling it in the House.
This debate is redundant. It could take place at the procedure
and House affairs committee when it tries to sort out what it is
going to do. The member might be a little confused. He thinks it
is going back to the immigration committee.
Mr. Speaker, maybe you could clarify the ruling for the member
and we could get on to the orders of the day.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Speaker was
asked to rule on whether there was a prima facie case of a breach
of privilege made by the member for London North Centre. The
Speaker ruled that in fact there was. Then the member who
brought the original complaint moved the motion that the matter
go to the procedure and House affairs committee. Subsequently
this debate has to do with that.
The debate upon whether or not this will go to the procedure and
House affairs committee will go on. It is not up to the Chair to
determine what is going to happen in this debate. The Chair has
no recourse other than to keep us in this debate. Theoretically
we could debate this for two or three weeks.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very brief comment.
It is very sad that events like this should happen in the House
of Commons and that there would be a breach of privilege. It
tells us that we are less mature than we ought to be and that we
could break the rules of decorum and procedure. That is very
sad.
1625
At the same time, I am heartened that the member for Lakeland is
prepared to apologize. The Speaker made a final determination
that there has been a breach of privilege. The member for London
North Centre deemed it right to refer this matter to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a more thorough
study of the facts of the case.
When the motion goes to that committee and the issue is brought
forward for further study, let me convey a message to that
committee through you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Lakeland had a
grievance about the behaviour of certain members of the
committee. Let me state one principle. Even granting that those
things happened and without admitting anything for the sake of
argument, let me say with respect to mistakes that two wrongs do
not make a right.
For future guidance, if we have a grievance against a process
within a committee, let us still abide by the rules that cover
all of us in the House. That is my contribution to this debate
at this point. With respect to mistakes, two wrongs do not make
a right.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has said that it is important to follow the rules. I
believe it is indeed important to follow the rules and it seems
to me that the rules indicated precisely that the absolute
confidentiality of this committee needed to be guaranteed in
order to ensure that its work might be carried out in keeping
with the rules and respecting the evidence given in committee
throughout the week, and sometimes more, sometimes two or three
weeks. It had to be guaranteed that the committee would be
leak-proof, therefore, in order to avoid press reports which
might, regardless of their possibly good intentions, influence
certain committee members.
It is important for these debates, the statements of position
and the formulation of recommendations to be carried out in total
objectivity. This is why I wish absolutely, and with no malice
whatsoever toward the hon. member for Lakeland, for him to
apologize to the House. I believe we have already seen a step in
the right direction on his part.
At the present time, I believe that it is the confidentiality of
the committee that requires us to refer this question to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. chair's words
from committee
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the member from Winnipeg said to the Bloc critic that it
is important that members respect the rules of the House. I
believe that to be true.
I would like to ask the member why it is that Liberal members on
committees routinely leak reports? We know that is true. We
have brought forward questions of privilege on this issue time
and again and the Speaker has said that they really should not do
that, that they are naughty and to go on with it from there.
I have a direct question for the Bloc critic. He commented on
the need to respect the rules.
1630
I want to ask him questions about the committee respecting the
rules. First, I want to ask the Bloc member whether or not it is
a rule of committee that a vote be passed in committee before the
committee goes in camera. Second, was there a vote passed at
committee to have the committee go in camera?
I have two straightforward, simple questions and I would really
appreciate my colleague from the Bloc answering them.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, as I explained in my speech,
it is my fundamental and total belief as an MP and a committee
member that, when the draft report of the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration was being examined, the session would
be in camera.
I said so, and expressed my wishes for this in my statement on
March 2. I would also point out that when I finished speaking
that day, the chair's reply was “That is true. Thank you”.
At that time I believed totally that we were in camera and that
the in camera status would continue throughout the study of the
report.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the
hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Gasoline Pricing.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to perhaps a little debate here. My
colleague, in a very objective way, has tried to point out what
all members of the committee are feeling regardless of political
party, except for the member of the Reform Party, now known as
the new Canadian Alliance. Old name, new name; it is the same
old stuff.
I do not think he gets the point of what the chair already ruled
on. It is unfortunate that he does not appreciate what the chair
said. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a
meeting was in camera. I look forward to the opportunity of
putting that case to the committee.
A standing order of the House protects the integrity and the
privilege of every member of the House. The point is that if
there is a confidential document it cannot be reported to the
public before it is reported here. That is the issue. That is
what the Speaker ruled on, that you are in breach of that
privilege. It is not whether or not we had a meeting in camera.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I hate to interrupt,
but particularly in a debate such as this one it is important
that members address each other through the Chair. This is an
interesting question and comment as we are doing it kind of in
the third person.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, this must not turn into a two
way debate between the Canadian Alliance and the Liberal Party.
The fundamental issue that must be examined is whether there has
been a breach of privileges. From what I understand, the meeting
was being held in camera. Was a vote held or not? No, no vote
was held on that issue.
However, my interpretation is that the committee was sitting in
camera. Out of respect for the members of the committee, it was
fundamental that this draft report not be released, but some
members of the House decided to do so.
My understanding is that the committee was working in camera
regarding this issue.
1635
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I feel privileged to be able to stand in Canada's House of
Commons once again in defence of democracy and in defence of the
people whom we are here to represent.
The issue before us this afternoon is a very serious one. It
has to do with an allegation that my colleague from Lakeland has
disclosed a document which was marked confidential. It was
brought to the attention of the House. The Speaker has ruled
that in fact there was a prima facie case.
As a result the chairman of the immigration committee has made a
motion. Since we have not heard it for a while, I will take this
opportunity to read it so that we know what we are debating. The
member for London North Centre moved:
That the matter of the premature disclosure of the committee
report by the member for Lakeland be referred to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
That is the motion we are debating and the vote that will
subsequently be held on this question is whether or not the issue
should be referred to the committee.
If we vote against it then it is the end of the matter. If we
vote in favour of it then the issue will continue in the
procedure and House affairs committee which, after hearing more
evidence, getting down to the nitty-gritty and hopefully
ferreting out the facts, will come back with a report to the
House.
That report, if it finds the member guilty, will probably
include some sanctions. If the committee finds the member not
guilty then it will so recommend. When the report is brought
back to the House there will be another motion that says we
concur in the report. Whatever the report says, if that motion
carries then the member will have to live by that decision. It
is a long, drawn out process.
However, I would like to point out to the people who perhaps are
a little fuzzy on what is exactly happening that a deeper
principle is being attacked or debated here: the degree to which
this place is democratic.
I certainly concur with the fact that in order for us as the
board of directors of the corporation called Canada to direct our
affairs in a proper way, we must have rules which regulate our
debate and regulate our work in committees. It is absolutely
important for all of us to agree with and to follow those rules.
It must be done in an orderly fashion. There is no question or
debate on that part.
We do find from time to time that while members of the Liberal
governing party have a majority not only in the House but also in
the committees, there are too many occasions in which the rights
and privileges of members who are not part of the governing party
are ignored, abused and sometimes trampled on.
It is very interesting. I happen to be a member who on one
occasion did go to the procedure and House affairs committee. It
was one of these cases where we had a huge question on whether or
not it was proper or improper to display a little flag on the
corner of our desks. Thinking that was fairly proper, I said
that I would display my flag. When the Speaker ruled that was
not acceptable, I accepted that ruling strictly and totally
because of my commitment to making this place work.
I know the Speaker made the ruling. I also know that by the
rules, just like in a hockey game, I am not permitted to
challenge the Chair. We need some place of final authority. We
may not always like it. I will tell you frankly, Mr. Speaker, I
did not like it, but I did accept it.
Members will notice that since that time some five years ago I
have not displayed my little Canadian flag on my desk strictly
out of respect for the process, even though I disagree with it.
1640
I suppose I would do the same if I were falsely accused of some
bad crime and landed in jail. I would gladly spend my time there
because I agree with the process even though I was improperly
convicted. I do not know how committed I would be to the cause
at that time, but that is how it works in this country.
I think this member has expressed his frustrations in the
committee. I have experienced those same frustrations. I
remember one occasion when I was substituting in the committee. I
guess I have a reputation, at least in our party, of always being
available. Whenever someone has to go away on other
parliamentary business and there is a vacancy for a
representative of our party in a committee, they will phone me
and ask if I can go.
I was substituting in committee. We got to the point where we
were doing clause by clause consideration of a bill. It was late
at night. It was one of those bills that the Liberals thought
they had to get through. It was probably 10.30 or 11 o'clock at
night. A strange thing happened. The chairman said shall clause
so and so pass. My colleague and I said yes and no one said
anything else.
You know the rules, Mr. Speaker. If you call for a vote and
there are two votes in favour and none against, does the thing
pass or fail? The fact of the matter is that if two say yes and
no one says no then it should pass.
As I recall, in our motion we were trying to amend a particular
clause. Two of us having said yes and no one having said no, I
was surprised when the chairman said that the motion was
defeated. I said that the chairman could do not do that. He
said “I just did”.
We must remember that this was a Liberal chairman of the
committee. I said “No, you can't, based on the rules of
democracy”. Every organization in this country is based on
democracy. When there is a vote, the vote must be declared
according to what the members said. Two of us had said yes.
Nobody said no. The motion had passed. That is what I said to
the chairman, and he said “No”.
At that time the sleepy Liberals woke up when we got into a bit
of a shouting match. I would not let it pass because it was
wrong that the chairman could overrule the decision of the group.
I objected, and I objected louder and louder. I would not let
him off the hook.
Finally he said he would call for a vote to see whether or not
the ruling of the chair should be upheld. By then the Liberals
had awakened. There were one or two more of them than the rest
of us. Even though they did not know what had gone on, since
they were sleeping, they at that stage, on command, voted in
favour and upheld the ruling of the chair.
Consequently I rose in this place on a question of privilege and
told the Speaker what had happened in committee. I related the
story. I will frankly confess to you, Mr. Speaker, that I was
very disappointed in the Speaker's ruling. The Speaker ruled
that the committee was champion of its own affairs. It can do
whatever it wants. The ruling stood and our amendment stood
defeated because the chairman declared it so, even though the
majority of the votes in that particular meeting said it had
passed. That was the end of the matter.
This is the first time I have raised it since it happened a
number of years ago. The only reason I am talking about it now
is that it fits in the context of what we are debating. Again, I
did not like the ruling of the Speaker but he is the final
authority. I accepted it, and that was the end of the matter,
but it is still wrong for a chairman of a committee to have such
unilateral power. That is not acceptable.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Oh, come on.
Mr. Ken Epp: It is not acceptable that the chairman can
do things which are straight out and out undemocratic.
1645
Hon. Jim Peterson: He did not do that. He is the best
chairman I have ever seen.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have just related the story.
I was there, the member was not. I was there and that is exactly
what happened, and there were other people who heard it.
Mr. Speaker, I will not listen to the heckling member on the
other side who does not want to listen to facts. I want to talk
about the issue that we have before us.
It is on issues like this on which democracy is trampled by a
majority government. I say this as kindly as I can to Liberal
members. They have an obligation, as do you, Mr. Speaker, to
preserve the democratic process. When there are decisions made
which run roughshod over the opinions and the ideas of other
members, the frustration level grows.
In the instance that we have before us, I would say that it is
not only because the member for Lakeland is in the riding
adjacent to mine that I stand in his defence, but because of his
proximity I frequently run across little things that he does in
the riding. Sometimes people come to me and say “We have such
and such a problem” and I ask “Where do you live?” and find
out that the person lives in the other member's riding. So we
have some dealings back and forth.
When the hon. member stands in the House and says “When I did
what I did I thought I was doing what was correct because we had
voted in committee that this was to be a totally public
process”, my inclination is to accept that what the member is
saying is in fact how he interpreted it at the time.
There is the other argument, which I will let other members
make, that even though the committee voted that this was to be
totally public, in fact the final report was not to be released
before it was tabled in the House. That argument could be made
and I will let others make it. It has validity.
However, I have a very serious question to pose. Every
committee that I have been on since I was first elected in 1993
has issued a number of reports and I cannot think of very many
which actually remained secret until they were tabled in the
House.
There were a number of times when I was quite convinced that
indeed Liberal members were talking to the press about specific
issues which were in finance committee reports. There were some
things which were in the reports that were leaked to the press
before they even came to the committee in the wording that was
quoted in the press. No other member even knew about it, except
for the chairman of the committee.
That is almost impossible to prove and I can understand why the
Speaker has been in a dilemma on numerous occasions when we have
pointed it out. Not being able to prove which individual leaked
it, as there is no paper path, it is very difficult to follow it
through. The Speaker has, on every instance, until this one,
ruled that that is the way it is. This time that is not the way
it is.
This time we are told the member for Lakeland must stand in
front of a tribunal to defend his actions. In his own words, the
only difference between what he did and what the Liberal members
have done over and over again is that he did it openly, in front
of cameras, at a press conference, whereas they did it
surreptitiously. That is the only difference.
The last budget is a perfect example. How many reports were in
the press in the weeks leading up to the budget? It used to be
that ministers of finance would resign if the budget was leaked,
and that was not very long ago. But in this particular round of
government, with the Liberal finance minister that we have, all
of these ideas are floated out there and then in the end we are
amazed to find that the budget speech given on Monday was fairly
accurately reported in the press the Saturday before.
1650
There are no repercussions any more. It seems to me that the
true lack of respect for this democratic process has come from
the government on the other side because it enjoys a majority.
Government members won the election. They will not win the next
one if I can help it, but they won the last election and they won
the one before that, so they have more members than we do.
I appeal to them that in order to gain and to keep the respect
of the Canadian citizens for this boardroom we must respect each
other. As I must respect government members, I appeal to them to
respect those of us on this side and stop routinely defeating
every amendment that we put forward.
There were a lot of people who wondered about the long Nisga'a
vote. I have had conversations with people. They asked me if
that was the best we could do in parliament, to stand up and sit
down for four days. In my more jovial moods I said that maybe
somebody recognized that I needed the exercise.
However, there is a deeper answer. Yes, we did vote on many
amendments to Nisga'a, not only because of members of our party,
but because of the people we represent and in fact thoughtful
Canadians right across the country who were very opposed to that
bill in the form in which it was presented.
We had a few substantial amendments which would have ameliorated
the concerns, but the Liberal government, with its majority,
would have none of those. We said that the issue was so
important that one way or another we would spend at least a week
of the time of parliament on the issue, not one hour or two
hours.
The government has the habit of using time allocation. I have a
list here. There are several bills which have been before the
House on which the Reform Party has only had maybe 30 minutes of
debate before the government has invoked time allocation.
There is no respect for it. So I said to some people that when
we have—
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, please stop your stopwatch.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I cannot recognize
the point of order because the member is not at his place, so
there is no point of order.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I view that simply
as a tactic to reduce my speaking time.
I said to many people on that occasion that our reason for
voting was because we were going to spend a week on it. It was
an important issue for thousands of Canadians. The Liberal
government had the choice to decide whether we would use that
time debating or whether we would use that time voting, because I
believe it had advance notice that we would oppose that bill with
every means possible. We did that because the government said
“Closure. Time allocation. This is finished”. We had no
choice but to spend that time voting because of the importance of
the bill to members of our society.
I plead for better democracy. I plead for giving our members an
opportunity to really be heard and not to be ignored. I insist
that all of us in the House, elected by the people in our
ridings, are here to do a job.
In conclusion, I would amend the motion that has been put by the
hon. member. I move:
1655
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment is in
order. Debate is on the amendment.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if the member putting forward the amendment understands
the word premature. It seems to me that the word simply means
something that came early, as in a premature baby. How about
that? Something came before it was ready. The fact that the
report was released by the hon. member when it was only 50%
completed might, although it is a stretch, qualify it as being
premature.
How can the member justify putting what is almost a comical
amendment—even though it is in order, as you have ruled, Mr.
Speaker—to delete the word premature, which obviously is the
crux of the matter? If the report was not prematurely released,
then perhaps the member would not have been found guilty of
releasing it prematurely by the Speaker.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can answer that question.
That is exactly why it was removed. It presupposes the guilt of
the person before it goes to committee. That is why we would
rather have the motion state that there was a disclosure and let
the committee determine whether there was something untoward in
that action.
I will answer his question. Do I understand the word premature?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the committee to
comment on the important work that we try to do as a committee.
I have spoken many times to the member for Lakeland and thanked
him very much, not only for his questions in committee but for
his approach to the subject matter, our refugee determination
system, which is of concern to Canadians. We must ensure that
the system works well.
The committee was working well together in dealing with this
issue, which is important to all Canadians. It is unfortunate
that it has come to this procedural wrangling, and it is
unfortunate that the member released a report that was still in
progress and still being worked on.
The Speaker has already ruled that there was a prima facie case
of privilege. At that time I could have moved a motion to
censure the member, but I did not. I said that I wanted this
issue to move to the procedure and House affairs committee where
it could be aired and where the member for Lakeland and other
members could talk to the committee. I sat on that committee for
two years and had to deal with some of the issues which hon.
members have talked about, such as the leaking of confidential
reports by all members of the House.
The procedure and House affairs committee found that to be an
unacceptable way for members of the House to conduct themselves.
At the end of the day, all we are trying to do in this place is
the nation's business and the work as well as we possibly can.
The point that seems to be missed here, which the member for
Lakeland is trying to confuse, is not whether it was appropriate
to go into in camera meetings, but whether there was a motion
duly put to the committee as to whether we ought to go in camera.
We were discussing options. We were discussing a summary of what
the witnesses said. We had yet to move to debate on the
confidential document, and for that we all agreed that it should
have been, and was, done in public.
The moment we start to draft a confidential report with
recommendations, at that point we must all respect the rules of
the House. We must respect one another. We cannot sit on every
committee. Therefore, it is incumbent upon every member to do
the nation's business in committee on behalf of all 301 members
of the House, and only release information to the public after it
has been reported to the House. That will ensure that members of
parliament will get to know and decide before the public as to
what should be made public and what should be concurred in.
1700
I must admit that the member for Lakeland was upset so he
decided to release the report which was confidential and in fact
that is why it was contrary to the rules. Perhaps he was upset
because he thought the immigration minister had already written a
piece of legislation without the input of the committee.
We tried to point out that was not the case. It was not the
case. A minister and the ministry over a period of time have to
consult with Canadians, provincial counterparts and a number of
people on a number of issues before a bill is put forward.
Because he was so disturbed that perhaps all of the hard work
that was done by the committee would be for naught, the member
decided it was incumbent upon him to take a confidential report
which was only half complete and call a news conference for the
purpose of letting the public know what the committee was dealing
with in regard to our refugee determination system.
The Speaker earlier today heard all of the evidence put forward
by me and the member for Lakeland, and in fact he found there to
be a prima facie case of privilege. I might be mistaken but I
also heard that the member for Lakeland expressed an apology. I
hope that is the case.
Some members are saying those are the rules of the House. We are
trying to be helpful here. We are trying to learn from one
another. We are trying to ensure that the House is respected,
that we can move forward and work together as much as possible in
a non-partisan way in doing the nation's business.
If the member has already apologized to the Speaker and to the
House, I would suggest that the House would be best served if I
withdrew my motion. I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my
motion on the basis that the member has already apologized to the
House for the breach of privilege.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry I was not
paying close attention, but I have been informed that the member
for London North Centre is prepared to withdraw his motion. If
the member is prepared to withdraw his motion, then he would have
to do it formally.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to formally
withdraw my motion. I do that on the basis that there has been
consultation among the House leaders and that I heard earlier
this afternoon that the member for Lakeland has apologized to the
House for breaching the privileges of the House and for releasing
the report.
Perhaps you could ask him to confirm that he has apologized to
the House. If that is the case, with the unanimous consent of the
House I am prepared to move that I remove my motion to refer the
issue to the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Because it is the
amendment that is before the House, we would have to ask to
remove the amendment and the motion. Speaking for the Chair, it
would be an elegant way to move beyond this.
The hon. member for London North Centre must request that the
amendment and the motion be withdrawn.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of moving
beyond this, I had asked whether or not the member for Lakeland
was prepared to confirm that he had apologized to the House.
I just asked him personally while you were standing and asking
me to do so. He said that he was not prepared to confirm that he
apologized to the House. Therefore I am not moving that my
motion be removed.
1705
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in light of the
fact that the hon. member for Medicine Hat, the finance critic
for the Reform Party if that is what I should call it, has not
had an opportunity during a month of question periods since the
budget to ask any questions about the budget, I would be happy to
answer any questions on it that he might have at this time.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have presented the situation as I see it. I have
pointed out some concerns I have with the way the committee is
operating. I have also heard the ruling of the Speaker.
Since I have examined the ruling of the Speaker, it is clear
that the Speaker said that a motion should be put forth to refer
the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs because I had violated some rules.
Because of that ruling by the Speaker, I do apologize. I would
never intentionally breach the rules of this House. I do
apologize. I hope that the committee can move forward in a much
more democratic fashion in the future.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
On the basis of what the hon. member for Lakeland has just said,
I would move, with the unanimous consent of the House, that my
previous motion to send the matter to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs and the amendment be withdrawn.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member for
London North Centre have the unanimous consent of the House to
move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am losing track of to whom I am directing the question. Is it the
hon. member for Elk Island?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
London North Centre was on debate. Therefore the question or
comment will have to be directed to him, but I am sure the hon.
member for Elk Island is all ears.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, when the issue is stripped
down what I am hearing is that the Reform member is arguing that
the ends justified the means. He expressed frustration at the
rules of the House and then knowingly broke them, I guess to
invite confrontation.
When there is a document that is marked “confidential until
tabled in the House” and a member has a press conference on it,
I would say that the member has knowingly and deliberately broken
the rules of the House. I do not know how we could come to any
other conclusion.
Does the hon. member share that view? Is this simply an
argument of the ends justifying the means?
Mr. Joe Fontana: Madam Speaker, I would hope that is not
the motive of the hon. member for Lakeland or the game he wants
to play.
This is a very important issue. The committee went in camera to
discuss not the options paper but to discuss the draft report
along with the recommendations. We spent the better part of a day
looking at that discussion paper and recommendations. The member
participated.
1710
He objected to the fact that he found in a brown envelope
legislation that the minister had already drafted. We went to
great lengths to point out to him that it was not a piece of
legislation that was before the House or before a committee and
in fact it was one way that ministries obviously look at
consultation.
Before he held his news conference, I went over to him to plead
with him not to release the hard work of the committee, that we
still needed to do 50% of the work and we still needed to have
two additional meetings. I invited him to attend the meetings. He
refused to participate any further in the meetings.
I told him that over the course of the six months that I have
been Chair and he has been a committee member that he has done
some very useful work. I pleaded with him to respect the rules
of the House, that when a committee is looking at something in
confidence he ought to have respect for his fellow members of
parliament and deal with it in a very conscientious and serious
manner. I said that if he had some procedure problems he may not
agree with that belong to the House and to the committee, then
perhaps he should put those concerns on paper to the Speaker so
the procedure and House affairs committee could deal with them
once and for all.
The ends do not justify the means. The fact is the House wants
to do some very good work and needs to do it. The standing orders
say that if there is a confidential report, it cannot be released
before it is tabled in the House. To do so a member would find
himself in breach of privileges. That is precisely what the
Speaker found this afternoon, a prima facie case of breach of
privilege to the House and to all of its members.
This kind of action is not to be condoned at all. It is
reprehensible when confidential committee reports are leaked by
any member of the House, regardless of whether or not they are
members of the government.
We are to respect the rules of the House. That is what
democracy is all about. It is about respecting rules. It is
about changing the rules if in fact we feel they must be changed.
The ends do not justify the means. Just because members do not
like the rules does not mean they call a news conference for the
purposes of making public something that should remain in
confidence until the House has had the opportunity to debate it.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I would like to bring to your attention on page 140 of Erskine
May a ruling of the Chair in a previous situation similar to what
we are dealing with here today. About halfway down the page in
dealing with these complaints of breach of privilege it says that
when the member accused has made a proper apology for his
offence, the incriminating motion has usually been withdrawn.
That is exactly where we are right now. The member for Lakeland
has said that having examined the ruling of the Chair earlier, he
has made an apology for his actions. He understandably has some
problems with how the committee is run, but that fight is going
to have to be fought in committee and will continue hopefully
without rancour in the days to come.
Nowhere does Erskine May say that the motion has to be withdrawn
with unanimous consent. It just says the motion has usually been
withdrawn. I would ask the Speaker to ask both the mover of the
motion, and the mover of the amendment in this case, if they are
prepared to withdraw their motions. It seems to me according to
Erskine May that should be acceptable and we could get on with
the business of the House because I think that is really what we
are all here to do.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): If I understand
correctly, the hon. member is saying that such a motion which was
presented earlier does not need the consent of the House. I do
not believe that is so. Any motion brought before the House needs
the consent of the House. What I could do at this time is put the
question again and see whether we have consent.
1715
Does the hon. member for London North Centre have the unanimous
consent of the House to withdraw the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Because of the time
we took to deal with the point of order, the time for questions
and comments has expired.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I rise on a point of order, Madam
Speaker. I want to know if we are going to debate Bill C-13.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): For the time being, the
debate is still on the motion before the House.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I believe the debate is now on the amendment.
It is my pleasure to rise and debate this issue. It is
important that we have a chance to really talk about what is
happening. Despite what we have heard from the Liberals across
the way, this is about more than whether my colleague did
something that broke the rules of the House by releasing a
document that was supposed to be confidential. We already know
that my colleague has very graciously apologized for anything
that he did that may have violated the rules. He has done the
right thing. This gives us an opportunity to talk about a larger
issue and that is very important.
A minute ago my colleague from across the way and, previous to
him, another Liberal colleague, said that the ends do not justify
the means. I suggest that the rules that govern committees
really are the means that justify the ends. This is a situation
where rules have been put in place that allow the governing side
to do whatever it wants and that justify any decision it makes
without really having to put up with the messy business of
democracy.
I will explain exactly what I mean. We have a situation where
my friend has complained that the committee agreed that the issue
of the draft report would be discussed only in public. It then
affirmed in a vote that the issue would not be discussed in
camera. It was to be discussed publicly. What did it do? It
did not vote to go in camera, it just went in camera. The chair
said “We are in camera now”. Apparently that is all that is
required. Mr. Speaker rose and said “That is the way it is in
committees. Committees govern themselves”.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Madam Speaker, we were gracious enough
to put the motion to withdraw but there was no unanimous consent
from this side. I wonder if you could clarify this, Madam
Speaker. On the point of relevancy, it seems to me that the
Reform Party is again challenging the Speaker—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that is
debate not a point of order.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Madam Speaker, in terms of debate, there
is a question of relevancy to the point. It seems to me that
what some members over there are talking about is challenging the
ruling of the Speaker with regard to this prima facie case of
privilege.
1720
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member for London North Centre knows full well that
is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. If he wants
to debate he should get on during questions and comments. Let
the debate continue.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I believe that the
hon. member for Medicine Hat was using his time for debate
properly.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, the point I was making
before my friend started to challenge the ruling of the Speaker
was that this is a situation where the government has done
everything that it can to ensure that the rules that govern
committees favour the government. There is no question about
that.
I have already recounted what has happened to my colleague. He
admits that he violated the rules and, out of frustration, went
to the lengths that he did, and that is absolutely relevant. It
also points to the problem in general of a mouthing of a
commitment to democracy in this place, but when it gets down to
brass tacks as to whether we are really a democratic institution,
I think the answer is no. We are not nearly the democratic
institution that we could be, and there are so many examples of
that. I am sure I could give a long list of examples but I do
not want to scare people.
I want people to consider what happens when we select committee
chairs in the first place. The opposition comes in, the
government members come in and not far behind them is the whip.
The whip sits there—
Mr. Jay Hill: The government whip.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Yes, the government whip sits there to
make sure that we have a democratic vote. All the government
people sit and vote in favour of a Liberal to be the chair of
that committee. That is democracy Liberal style. If they do
not, they will be punished. That is why that government whip
sits there every time and that is how that works.
I remember very well that when I sat on the Canadian heritage
committee a few years ago the Bloc Quebecois was the official
opposition. This was a Canadian heritage committee protecting
Canadian heritage. It was of course Bloc members who were made
vice-chairs of that committee because the government members were
told that they had to support—
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wonder if you might seek unanimous consent of the House to
suspend debate on the motion and begin Private Members' Business
at 5.30 p.m.
On a number of occasions now, for a variety of reasons, we have
put off debate on the hon. member's bill on shipyards.
He would be very happy if we could have unanimous consent to
suspend debate on the motion and proceed with Private Members'
Business.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, given the intervention of my
colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, I understand that there are
some discussions going on among the leaders of the parties, and
although we are getting close to 5.30, I would give advance
notice that I would decline unanimous consent at this point to
the request of the member. Hopefully between now and 5.30 the
matter might be resolved.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Rimouski—Mitis has put a request for unanimous consent, so I
will put the request for unanimous consent before the House.
Is there unanimous consent of the House to go to Private
Members' Business at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can finish what
I want to say. People keep interrupting me.
There are many examples of how the government mouths a
commitment to democracy and simply does not follow through, and
the rules allow it to do this. As Mr. Speaker pointed out in his
ruling, we have a situation where committees are really the
masters of their own affairs. When we have government members
sitting in a majority position on these committees, it
effectively means that they have carte blanche. There is no such
thing as individual rights for members of parliament.
1725
A minute ago I mentioned the situation a few year's ago when I
was sitting on the Canadian heritage committee. At that time the
Bloc Quebecois was the official opposition, but there was some
support for an opposition member other than a Bloc member to be a
vice-chair of that committee. Duly we saw the whip come in and
ensure that the Bloc Quebecois became the vice-chair on that
committee. We see this over and over again on other committees,
even the last time we put committees together. I think that is
wrong. Canadians expect the highest legislative Chamber in the
country to be the most democratic.
Completely to the contrary, we have a situation where we see an
elected dictatorship. I hate to use that term. My friend, the
transport minister, says “Oh no, oh no”, but we have a
situation where Canadians from coast to coast say exactly that
and they correctly suspect that we have a situation where between
elections Canadians are effectively gagged because members are
not allowed to represent their constituents. We have rules in
place that impede that.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
time is getting very close to a certain magical hour. I would
therefore ask hon. members for unanimous consent to move the
following motion. I move:
That the debate on the motion concerning the question of
privilege be deemed to have been concluded, that the question be
deemed put on the amendment and a recorded division be deemed
required and deferred until Wednesday, March 29 at the expiry of
the time provided for Government Orders;
That the question be deemed to have been put on the motion for
the third reading of Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research, to repeal the Medical Research
Council Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts,
and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until
Wednesday, March 29 at the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders.
That the House proceed forthwith to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent for the government House leader to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1730
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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]
SHIPBUILDING ACT, 1999
The House resumed from February 9 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-213, an act to promote shipbuilding, 1999, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all
parties and the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière
concerning the taking of a division on Bill C-213 scheduled at
the conclusion of Private Members' Business today. I believe you
would find consent for the following:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-213 all
questions necessary to dispose of the said motion for second
reading shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested
and deferred until Wednesday, March 29, at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As
the member sponsoring this bill, I agree to this proposal.
However, I would just like to make sure at the same time, with
the unanimous consent of the House, of having the right to
respond for the three to five minutes usually given all members
sponsoring a bill.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Habitually the right
to a five minute response is for non-votable bills, but by
unanimous consent it would be possible at the appropriate time.
As members say, we can do anything by unanimous consent.
Is there unanimous consent that the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière have the last five minutes of
debate?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are 45 minutes
left in debate, 40 minutes not counting the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to enter the
debate on Bill C-213, an act to promote shipbuilding in Canada
and to make Canadian shipyards more competitive.
1735
First I congratulate the shipyard workers who have worked
together tirelessly with industry representatives to press the
federal government to keep the commitment it made, upon coming to
office, to put in place a shipbuilding policy for Canada and, I
might add, to do it before it was too late.
Why do I say before it was too late? Despite the proud
tradition of our shipbuilding industry throughout the history of
the country and despite its importance to our economy, our
regional economies and our total national economy, it is
unbelievable that through the 1990s the Canadian shipbuilding
industry has been cut by more than one-half.
Seven thousand jobs and over $250 million in annual wages have
been lost to regions that desperately needed that infusion into
their economy but, most important, they were lost to families who
depended upon those jobs and those wages.
I take the opportunity to acknowledge the presence in the
gallery today of a number of representatives of those hard
working shipyard workers. They have kept the campaign going,
kept the issue before the Canadian public, and gained the support
of municipal governments, provincial governments, industry
representatives, labour representatives, and a very broad range
of Canadians.
In part, this debate is about how in the name of heaven we will
win the support of the federal Liberal government to put in place
the Canadian shipbuilding policy that is so badly needed.
[Translation]
I wish to congratulate the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for introducing this bill. It
is very brief—only three pages long. But I must say that if we
could convince the federal government to establish a nationwide
policy on shipbuilding, the impact would be enormous.
It would be enormous for shipyard workers throughout Canada. It
would be enormous for the Canadian shipbuilding industry. It
would also be enormous for our coastal communities, those of the
Great Lakes region and the St. Lawrence Seaway.
[English]
In a way the fight for a national shipbuilding policy is about
more than shipbuilding. It is about thousands of desperately
needed jobs in the least prosperous areas of Canada. It is about
skills that are crucial to our capabilities as a coastal and
seafaring nation. In that sense it can be said that this is a
fight that is not just about shipbuilding but is about
nation-building.
Let me say as a member of parliament who is privileged to
represent a constituency that is one of those communities with an
important shipbuilding component, I am very concerned about the
future of shipbuilding in Canada.
I would be less than honest if I did not say that I am extremely
angry at the federal government. The federal government was
given the privilege and the opportunity to govern. It promised
the people in Atlantic Canada and across the country that if it
were elected in the 1993 election it would make Canadian
shipbuilding a priority. Some priority. Seven years and people
are still waiting, seven very lean years for shipbuilders.
Last week I wrote to the Minister of Industry, as many people
have done. I pleaded with him to be willing, at the very least,
to respond to the pleas of shipyard workers and industry
representatives to convene a national summit on the future of
Canadian shipbuilding in a global marketplace before the entire
shipbuilding industry sank in the wake of Liberal neglect.
What the bill before us proposes is very practical. It is
concrete. It is doable.
They are measures that should comprise part of the Canadian
shipbuilding policy.
1740
[Translation]
The aim of this bill is reasonable. It could allow Canada to
enjoy the same opportunities as our competitors.
[English]
This problem has not just developed over this decade. The fact
of the matter is that in the early eighties the then Liberal
government removed some very important support to the
shipbuilding industry. Since that time we have witnessed a
steady severe slide in shipbuilding, particularly so for anything
but government purposes, defence vessels or patrol vessels. The
fact is that shipbuilding for commercial markets has been very
limited because Canada has placed itself at a very severe
competitive disadvantage.
Let us take one moment to look at what the situation is in the
United States, our nearest neighbour and our largest competitor.
The United States has put in place a comprehensive policy to
support its own shipbuilding industry. It actually succeeded in
getting Canada to agree to grandfather the Jones Act in the
flawed free trade agreement which had in place and kept in place
very distinct advantages that made perfect sense for an economy
to protect for its own benefit. The Jones Act continues to apply
and continues to require a very significant number of ships to
carry the goods being transported in and out of the United
States. It is also supplemented by title 11 financing.
What is title 11 financing? It is an aggressive industrial
policy to build for rapidly growing new markets in shipbuilding.
It is a policy that recognizes there needs to be a transition and
in fact has put in place measures to ease the transition from
military contracts to commercial vessels. Surely Canadians
deserve no less than a comprehensive national shipbuilding policy
for Canada.
Let me simply repeat the obvious and why it is so obvious to
most Canadians and so obscure for the federal Liberals to
understand. We need to put in place a Canadian shipbuilding
policy or we will not have the shipbuilding capacity or the
shipbuilding jobs we need. At the very least, we should convene
that summit, face the challenges squarely and examine what our
competitors are doing that makes it so difficult for us to
compete.
I congratulate the member for putting forward the bill. I hope
Liberal members will see the wisdom and the importance of
supporting it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are six
members who would like to speak and we have 24 minutes left of
debate. I realize this is a little unusual, but if we try to get
everyone to limit their interventions to no more than four
minutes we will be able to let many more people speak. We will
do this with unanimous consent. Otherwise we will go to 10
minutes as we normally do and we will only get a few people in.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for
unanimous consent that for the remaining 24 minutes of debate
members will speak for only four minutes each.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
understand that members may be excited to speak on this issue. I
find it difficult to object, in fact I am pleased, but we have the
same time limit. I think each party should be allowed at least
one speaker. It would be important that each party be able to
express its views on the matter.
1745
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All parties have
already had a number of speakers. We either have this before the
House or we do not. We will do it or we will not.
Does the House give its unanimous consent that the remaining
members will be limited to four minutes, with the exception of
the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière who already
has five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to respond to this private member's bill, put forward
by the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. Frankly,
the bill sounds a bit like a broken record and essentially
repeats the same old demands for subsidies and tax breaks which
our government has been hearing from the shipbuilding industry
since 1997.
The industry is asking for a tax haven, but the Canadian
taxpayers are asking for tax breaks.
Canadians are very clear. They do not want government to
artificially prop up industries through interventionist and
costly financial measures like the one suggested in Bill C-213.
During the second reading debate the hon. member for Elk Island
argued that the bill's proposed loan guarantee program, similar
to the American Title XI program, would be cost free. He said
“The American taxpayers have not shelled out one red nickel in
order to implement the program”.
Let me put this myth to rest right now. Loan guarantee programs
are not free of cost. In 1998 costs to the American government
were roughly $3 billion U.S. for contingent liabilities and
almost $2 million on default payments. Based on our neighbour's
experience it is evident that such a program would be very costly
to set up.
The hon. member also contended that if ships built in Canadian
shipyards were exempted from the regulations relating to lease
financing, the existing depreciation rates for ships would apply
without any restrictions. Consequently, he argues, the tax
disadvantage that prevents ownership or lease financing of ships
would be eliminated.
The fact is that the shipbuilding industry already has access to
accelerated capital cost allowances. These are more generous
than for any other industry in Canada, and even more generous
than tax credits in the United States.
Furthermore, Canadian taxpayers would never accept both an
accelerated CCA and an exemption from leasing regulations. If
this were permitted the cost of a ship could be written off more
than once and it would create a tax shelter. That is what the
current leasing regulations help us avoid.
A third measure proposed in Bill C-213 is yet another demand for
a tax break. It would create on a national basis the same type
of program that Quebec set up in 1996-97. The tax measures
proposed in the bill are not only costly to taxpayers, they are
old, tired, interventionist tools from the past, the very tools
which Canadians want us to stop using.
We must take charge of the future, not by returning to the past,
but by investing in innovation, by training smart workers and
giving them upgraded equipment and production techniques to do
the job, and by forging alliances that will lead industries in
the pursuit of excellence.
The policy instruments used by the federal government are modern
instruments. They concentrate on areas that can make a real
difference and that use taxpayers' money wisely. The acquisition
of new builds in Canada by the federal government is done on a
competitive basis and is restricted to Canadian sources.
I know that we have agreed to a four minute limit. There is
much more I could say in explaining in detail why this is simply
not a good suggestion in the private member's bill, however well
intentioned. Canadians simply do not want to return to those
kinds of mistakes from the past.
1750
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am not unsympathetic to the private member's bill put
forward by my colleague, because I understand his concern.
Canada was once a great shipbuilding nation and there are niche
markets in which we could probably still operate, given the
opportunity.
Unfortunately, there is a severe overcapacity in the
shipbuilding industry worldwide. The origins of that
overcapacity in shipbuilding relate directly to heavily
subsidized operations in other countries. Indeed, protected
markets and subsidies are major obstacles facing Canadian
shipbuilders. Nonetheless, we do not help matters by slapping a
25% duty on non-NAFTA imports ourselves. I think that sets the
wrong tone.
The world is fraught with overcapacity and trade distorting
subsidies, and the future is not bright for these industries.
The Canadian government could help. It could do something about
this. For example, we could take on the U.S. in trade
negotiations and try to strike down the Jones Act, which is
hurting Canadian shipbuilders to a great degree.
We could do other things. We could try to get relief by having
worldwide subsidies reduced through trade negotiations at the
WTO.
We could do something at home. We could reduce taxes, not only
to the shipbuilding industry, but to all industries in Canada.
That would be a big help. We could move to a different tax
regime in which we would have accelerated capital cost
write-offs. Those are things which we could do something about
in our own backyard.
The Canadian Alliance believes that there needs to be a healthy
shipbuilding industry as well. Certainly there are things like
ferries and tugs and special niche markets in which Canada could
operate, given a level playing field. Unfortunately, we do not
have that level playing field, just like we do not have it in
agriculture. Other countries are subsidizing their shipbuilding
industries. Canada should not be the boy scouts in this kind of
situation. We should not stand by when our industries are being
severely affected. The agriculture and shipbuilding industries
are severely disadvantaged. We have to take a much stronger
stance at trade talks and we have to protect our vital interests.
Having said that, I believe that our shipbuilding industry,
along with other industries, has to operate within the confines
of a market economy. Once we are able to achieve those
negotiations, if we are able to achieve them, then the industry
should be able to stand on its own two feet and not receive
subsidized loans from the federal government. That is our
position. We should have a strong shipbuilding industry, but we
have to put the proper environment in place.
An hon. member: That would only take about 10 years.
Mr. Charlie Penson: I hear a magpie from the other end of
the House. I assume he will have his chance to talk sooner or
later.
My point is that Canada has to set the proper environment
through tough trade negotiations to set some of these matters
straight, and then we could have a strong industry.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in spite of
the limited time at our disposal, only four minutes, I want to
take a moment to congratulate the hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for his extraordinary work in the
past two years to set up a coalition of employers and workers
all across Canada.
During that period, our colleague managed to visit every
shipyard in Canada, as well as some in Asia, including in
Taiwan, and in the United States. He made numerous
representations to the Minister of Industry and to the Prime
Minister. He also had his bill signed by 100 members of the
opposition, which allowed him to introduce it.
Our colleague did an extraordinary job and the community in
Quebec and Canada can never be too grateful to him.
It is to be hoped that, in spite of the comments made earlier by
the Liberal member, the government will wake up and stop
ignoring the perfectly legitimate demands of managers and unions
on this issue.
Shipbuilding has traditionally been a key sector, and for good
reason, since Canada is bordered by three oceans and we have
the St. Lawrence River and the largest seaway in the world. It
is only normal and legitimate for Canada to have had, and this
should continue to be the case, such an important naval shipyard
industry.
The hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has had to face
incredible apathy from the members opposite. We just had
evidence of that earlier, once more. In spite of all his
representations, our colleague's efforts have so far been in
vain, unless some Liberal members, in private and behind the
scenes—the Liberal excel at that—have shown some form of
openmindedness in the recent past.
1755
It is most surprising and even vexing to hear such things as we
just have, because in recent history the Liberals made
commitments in the red book, as they had on the GST and NAFTA,
saying that they would look after the shipyards. I can read a
resolution passed in a recent Liberal convention, one filled
with whereases, which states as follows:
Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urge
the Canadian government to immediately develop a national
shipbuilding policy in order to provide assistance to that
industry and thus to maintain and reinforce the level of
excellence of the technologies that have earned us a high
reputation we are now in danger of losing.
These are the words of the Liberal Party and yet the Liberal
government will absolutely not budge on this matter. There is
nothing but total lethargy; it refuses to do anything. To give
an example, not only is it doing nothing, but as far as the
measures are concerned which the hon. member for
Lévis—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is suggesting and which tax legislation
can improve, loan guarantees and tax credits, the Government of
Quebec has already established tax credits for Quebec
shipbuilders.
What has the Liberal government done since then, despite its
commitments in the red book, despite the proposals made at the
Liberal Party's convention? They are taxing the tax advantages
Quebec shipyards have received because of the Quebec
government's tax credits. That is what collaboration and
openmindedness means to this government, which is as lethargic
in this matter as in others, a government the people are going
to get rid of within a few months, perhaps.
There are thousands and thousands of jobs at stake. A few years
ago, Canada's shipyards provided 12,000 jobs and now the figure
is less than 3,000. What is at issue here is international
competition, with Asia for example, where there is a 30%
subsidy, with Europe and its 9% subsidy, and the United States
with its protectionist measures with which everyone is familiar.
The Canadian government must bring itself up to speed.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am very proud to speak to this issue. I want to congratulate
my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois.
[English]
I am very pleased to rise to speak in support of this bill.
There was no hesitation whatsoever coming from Atlantic Canada
and coming from the Progressive Conservative Party in lending our
unfettered support for this motion.
Shipbuilding has had a long and proud history in Atlantic Canada
and throughout the country. My riding of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has played a major role in the
shipbuilding industry in Nova Scotia and around the world,
particularly in the days of wood, wind and sail. The tradition
has been carried on through the recent efforts of MM Industra in
Pictou, Nova Scotia.
MM Industra constructs some of the finest yachts in the world
and is contributing greatly to the local economy in revitalizing
the historic Pictou shipyard.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has been clear and
consistent in its call for a national shipbuilding program. The
government has yet to commit, in typical Liberal fashion, to
Atlantic Canada, which led of course to its very poor showing in
the election results of 1997.
Our party supports Bill C-213, an act to promote shipbuilding,
which was introduced in the previous parliament as Bill C-493 by
the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. The bill
does not involve direct government subsidies, as has been
previously suggested, but rather it proposes tax measures which
would create jobs and move toward a more productive and
co-operative business atmosphere.
The bill essentially asks for three measures, which are called
for as well by the Canadian Shipbuilding Association. First, the
thorough establishment of a program whereby a maximum of 87.5% of
the money borrowed by a company from financial institutions to
purchase a commercial ship which would be built in a shipyard
located in Canada would be guaranteed by the federal government.
Second, it would bear a rate of interest comparable to other
available loans from financial institutions. Third, it would be
repayable on terms compatible with those usually granted by
financial institutions to large and financially strong
corporations.
There are a number of very positive aspects to the bill. It is
aimed at enhancing the age old industry which has been very
productive for Atlantic Canada and for other parts of the
country.
1800
Many Canadians in coastal regions have wondered why Ottawa has
done nothing in this regard after other countries continue to
announce and reannounce their support for shipbuilding in their
countries. The government tries to rest on its laurels but the
reality is that it does not have any to rest on. The
government's legacy, which is becoming very tired, stagnant and
arrogant—we know the terms—shows no vision. It rewards
mediocrity. It prefers to do nothing, which is what it is
bringing forward now.
It is ironic that an Atlantic Liberal report entitled “Catching
Tomorrow's Wave” tabled in November 1999 stated that the
Atlantic Canadian economy is hitting an all-time low and part of
the solution to the problem is to bring the shipbuilding industry
back up to its potential and proven strength by adopting a new
national shipbuilding policy. Not a single member from Atlantic
Canada on the Liberal benches had anything to say about this
private member's bill, not a word. It is very curious that they
have decided not to participate in the debate.
The Prime Minister shrugs and says “Higher taxes? Better jobs
in the States? Go ahead and leave”. The same approach is taken
when it comes to an important industry like shipbuilding.
Shipyard workers are suffering and so are the spin-off industries
and the Liberal government has chosen to do nothing.
It is like the Liberal promises on all kinds of other issues.
It is like the dense fog before the election; after the writ is
dropped and the election is over, it disappears. It evaporates.
That is what we have come to expect from the Liberal government.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
first like to express my gratitude to the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for all of his efforts on this issue.
For quite some time, for a number of years, he has formed a
coalition of people from the shipbuilding industry, unions,
builders and industrialists in the sector to draft Bill C-213. I
think the government should support it if only to help this
major industry.
At one point, the industry was thriving in Canada. It had
considerable potential for creating good, high end jobs.
To think that this government was elected on the promise of
jobs, jobs, jobs, and that today, at least according to my
colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, it appears to be
wanting to smother this industry.
Bill C-213 contains some extremely constructive proposals that
have none of the wastage found at the Department of Human
Resources Development and in other departments, as is being
shown increasingly these days. There is no wastage. On the
contrary, it is a framework, solid support, similar to what
already exists in the United States under title XI, which, since
its passage, has not wasted a single cent. In fact, all the
projects, all the programs set up in the United States in the
context of title XI, the guaranteed loan, have paid off
handsomely.
Why not institute a similar program here in Canada? Because the
government lacks confidence in the shipping industry and lacks
vision and does not have its heart in the right place to want to
create jobs of this calibre.
The fact that in a country such as Canada, which opens onto two
oceans, which has a seaway among the finest in the world, the
government does not want to go to the trouble to support this
bill, I find quite deplorable. I find it deplorable that the
Liberals do not want to support this bill as it should be
supported, because it is an excellent bill.
It could go a long way toward helping create jobs in this
sector. Once again, I would like to close by congratulating my
colleague, the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière on all the
work he has done in preparing this bill.
1805
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me tremendous pleasure and
pride to rise on behalf of my brothers and sisters in the
shipbuilding industry, those hardworking people who build the
greatest ships in Canada and around the world to speak to this
very important and timely bill brought forward by the great
member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. My party
congratulates the member for his outstanding work in bringing
Bill C-213 to the House.
I am very happy that the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough mentioned the Conservatives'
report although we would like to know what Joe Clark would have
to say about it. We only wish that the Conservative government
when it was negotiating the free trade deal, had included
shipbuilding in that deal, similar to what the United States did
when it protected itself with the Jones Act. If that had been
done we probably would not be having this debate right now. That
is old history. I have a little more history for the Liberals.
I see one of my good colleagues and friends over there, a soccer
player whom I admire greatly. In the 1993 red book, their
election promise was, “Vote for us. Trust us and we will give
the country a shipbuilding”. It is seven years later and not
one damn thing has been done about that, not one.
The government continually misleads the general public. Its
Atlantic caucus is saying very clearly to the government and to
the members of the Liberal Party that in order to improve its
electoral chances in Atlantic Canada it needs a shipbuilding
policy. What does the government do? It ignores its own
backbench members. It is absolutely scandalous.
I am going to give the Liberals who are here listening to this a
lesson in election 101. If they want to win any seats in
Atlantic Canada, then put a shipbuilding policy in now.
Organizations like the CAW, the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities, the chambers of commerce, provinces and others
are on side for a shipbuilding policy so that we can protect and
preserve the thousands and thousands of well paying and skilled
jobs that are in Atlantic Canada in Marystown, Saint John, my
great city of Halifax and in other ports across the country.
It is absolutely insane that the government does not listen to
the people of Atlantic Canada, western Canada, Quebec and
Ontario. These people are not asking for handouts. They are
asking for jobs, jobs that other countries have. Other
governments support their workers and industry.
One of the greatest sins in the House of Commons is that the
finance minister who runs Canada Steamship Lines Inc. has his
ships built in other countries. It is an absolute disgrace that
he can stand up in the House and say that he wants to lead Canada
in government, that he wants to be the prime minister, yet he
turns his back on Canadians and those hardworking people of
Atlantic Canada. It is an absolute disgrace.
Tomorrow we are going to have a free vote on Bill C-213. I only
hope and pray that the government along with the Reform Party can
actually see what has been happening in Atlantic Canada and will
vote with their minds and their hearts in support of Bill C-213.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker,
we are talking about a very important public policy issue that
has been advocated by a number of members of parliament on both
sides of the House.
There will be a vote on Bill C-213. All the vote is about is
whether the bill merits being sent to committee to be studied
further. If there are particular aspects of the bill that
certain individuals do not advocate, it is their opportunity to
use the parliamentary procedure that exists to amend it in
committee.
There are four initiatives in the bill put forward by the member
for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
The first initiative is to ensure that we re-establish bilateral
trade talks with the Americans.
The second initiative is to ensure that we have accelerated
depreciation within Revenue Canada leasing regulations, which is
a tax cut and not a subsidy.
The third initiative is to have a loan guarantee program very
similar to what the Americans have, known as title XI. This loan
guarantee program ensures that potential purchasers both
domestically and abroad have access to capital in the most
prudent and cost effective manner possible.
1810
The formula the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière
is advocating is similar to a program the Americans have had
since 1936 and there has not been one loan default.
I ask all members of the House to understand that we will be
voting on whether the bill merits being sent to committee. I
challenge all members to at least advance this public policy
issue and support it at second reading.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. members for having given unanimous consent to
allow me to respond and to conclude this debate.
First of all, I would like to thank all members who spoke to
this bill, not just today, but also in the first two hours of
debate. I am truly grateful. That goes for Liberal members as
well. We live in a democracy, and they expressed their views,
which I believe is important.
I was very pleased to see that the leaders of the New Democratic
and Progressive Conservative parties took the time to speak
during the debate today. Seeing the opposition party leaders
speak during a debate on a private member's bill is a great
honour for me.
I also wish to thank the 100 members who signed my bill last
spring so that it could be given priority. Had they not done
so, I would still be waiting for the luck of the draw and there
would be no debate today. I therefore thank these 100 members,
40 of them in the Bloc Quebecois, because not everyone could be
present, all members of the Progressive Conservative and New
Democratic parties, and 20 members of the Reform Party, now
called the Canadian Alliance.
I wish to pay tribute to the member for Elk Island, who came to
support me at public meetings.
The former Canadian Alliance critic attended a press conference,
as did the leader of the New Democratic Party, the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois, and a representative of the Progressive
Conservative House leader. Canadian Alliance members had
supported the idea of this bill last year. They wanted a debate
to be held.
I appeal to the Liberal members. Because of the size of the
majority, several have told me individually that they were
sensitive to this issue. I checked with the whip, and the
position of the Liberal party is that there should be a free
vote on a private member's bill.
I am well aware that some members represented the Minister of
Industry's view in the House. In recent months, when the
Minister of Industry began visiting people in the Atlantic
region or elsewhere, we saw that he was becoming more sensitive
to their problems.
I also noticed that the Minister of Labour was concerned as
well, as a member representing a riding in the Atlantic region.
Unfortunately, I did not hear many members from the Vancouver
region.
To say no to this bill is to say no to 150,000 people who sent a
postcard to the Prime Minister telling him that they support
this bill. To say no to this bill is also to say no to all the
provincial premiers. Twice during federal-provincial conferences,
once in 1997 and again in 1999, in Quebec City, they urged the
Liberal government to support a shipbuilding policy.
To say no to this bill is to say no to the Liberal grassroots
who, at the Liberal convention, two years ago, passed a
resolution in favour of such a policy.
To say no to this bill is to say no to a joint request from
Canada's shipyard owners, the largest shipyards, and it is also
to say no to all the workers who, through a labour coalition,
reached a consensus and decided to support their employers and
make the same request.
Why? Because, in 1993, there were 12,000 workers in Canada's
shipyards. There are barely 3,000 now. Two great shipyards are
facing closure.
1815
When the Minister of Industry says there is an overcapacity
worldwide, I suggest he read the London Journal of Commerce,
which says that demand has revived and that, at present,
Canadian shipyards, like the English shipyards, are capable of
entering this field.
I address my remarks to the members of the Canadian Alliance,
who think there are grants where there are none. There are no
grants, but tax measures and a program of loans with automatic
pay back like the one they have had in the U.S. since 1938.
The American government has not lost one cent in a similar
program.
As for the tax measures, they come after construction. When
people are put to work, revenues, taxes and the GST enable the
federal government and the provincial governments to recover
their costs. All those who wanted to create “jobs, jobs, jobs”
have their chance now. We know that second reading deals with
the principles of a bill, and the purpose of this bill is to
help shipbuilding.
I close by saying that a vote against this bill is a blow to the
shipbuilding industry.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I want to thank all
hon. members for co-operating in the debate tonight and moving it
right along. I think members will see that if people are
speaking extemporaneously from their hearts, the debate is much
more meaningful and works well.
Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to
dispose of the motion are deemed put and the recorded division
deemed demanded and deferred until Wednesday, March 29 at the
expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on February 22 I asked the Prime Minister why it was
that the U.S. energy secretary could find 17 things to do to help
Americans with respect to the energy crisis but that he could not
think of one thing to help Canadians.
The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions,
who is the brother of the former Liberal Premier of Ontario,
David Peterson, responded. In his response, as to whether or not
the government had any kind of action plan to defend the Canadian
economy from the OPEC oil cartel, he was so confused, so uptight
and so upset that his brother was beaten by the NDP that he made
an error. I will quote from Hansard. He said:
—when the NDP government was in power in Ontario and it raised
the Ontario excise tax on fuel twice, taking it from 10.9 cents
to 14.3 cents. As well, it increased the provincial excise tax
on gasoline twice, taking it from 11.3 cents to 14.7 cents.
That would make the provincial tax on fuel in Ontario 29 cents.
It is of course only 14.7 cents in total. Whereas the federal
excise tax is 10 cents and the GST is about 4.9 cents right now.
There are actually more taxes applied to oil in Ontario than in
any other province.
The supplementary question I asked was related to putting
forward an action plan to protect Canadians and the economy from
soaring energy prices. Rather than getting a response from the
secretary of state, I received a response from the Minister of
Natural Resources who avoided the question entirely as did the
secretary of state. He said:
This had nothing to do with my question.
I wanted to know the government's plan. The U.S.A., the land of
free enterprise and capitalism, is establishing a 17 point action
plan to defend its economy and its consumers from the OPEC oil
cartel price fixing situation with respect to energy. Canada has
no such plan and no such action.
I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking him if he had a
plan. If he did not have a plan, I wanted to suggest one to him.
He called the provinces and the major stakeholders in the energy
business to an energy summit. At the energy summit he locks the
door, caps the energy prices and says, “Let us find a solution
before I unlock the door”.
1820
I have some suggestions. Have his officials examine suspending
the GST until the price of energy declines. He could look at an
emergency fund for low income families who are under pressure
with respect to the high costs of home heating fuel. He could
look at a low interest loan to help truckers and small business
through this high price energy situation. He could examine
regulating the industry as has been done in other parts of the
world. He could undertake to facilitate an energy conservation
component. He could toughen up the Competition Act.
These are suggestions that his energy summit should be
undertaking to review. Instead we had the frivolous inane
responses from two ministers which had no bearing or relationship
to the questions that were asked.
I ask the parliamentary secretary tonight, what is the
government's action plan to defend the Canadian consumer and the
Canadian economy from the OPEC oil cartel price fixing situation
as it applies to energy?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know when the member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre speaks on this issue he speaks from
his heart. He has good intentions to try to do the right thing
not just for his constituents and the people in Saskatchewan but
for all Canadians.
This is indeed a problem that we are faced with today. Sometimes
we have to be responsible in what we say and how we respond.
The member referred to the 17 point action plan and what the
government was doing. He referred to regulations as well. Let me
point out very clearly that this issue has not just come to the
forefront today. I remind the member and everyone in the House
tonight that 47 Liberal members of parliament took on this issue
quite some time back. They exhausted the research and brought
the data forward. One of their main recommendations was to have
an extensive study. That is why the Conference Board of Canada
has been selected to address this issue.
As the ministers have pointed out in the past in their responses
to the questions in the House of Commons, the Government of
Canada is greatly concerned with this issue for businesses and
consumers. The price of gasoline is not set by government; we
all know that. It is set by competitive market forces
internationally, depending of course on demand. Many factors
influence the price factor, how it is produced and how it is
brought to market.
Let me point out three things the government has done. First,
Canada has joined its partners in the International Energy Agency
in calling upon the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
and other crude oil suppliers to increase oil production in order
to better balance global supply and demand.
Second, the federal government has contacted the provincial
governments to determine what actions are being taken there
since, I stress again as I have in the past, they have the
authority to regulate prices at the pump should they wish to
based on Canada's constitution.
Last, as I mentioned earlier, we have asked the Conference Board
of Canada to do an extensive study on this issue. This is an
inclusive process. It is not exclusive. We want to engage in
this discussion and the findings, not disengage.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.)