36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 127
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 5, 2000
1000
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1005
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT
|
| Bill C-501. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1010
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-502. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1015
1020
1025
1030
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1035
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1040
1045
1050
1055
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1100
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1105
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1110
| Iraq
|
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Snowbirds Air Squadron
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Gun Control
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hepatitis C
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Grain Transportation
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Canada Pension Plan
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1115
| CANADA HEALTH CARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER
|
| Bill C-45. Second reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1120
1125
1130
1135
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1140
1145
1150
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1155
1200
1205
1210
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1245
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1305
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1310
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1315
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1335
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Mr. John Solomon |
1340
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1345
1350
1355
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
| Mr. George Proud |
| Public Accounts
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH AND FARM MACHINERY SHOW
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| THE LATE RIGHT HON. PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1400
| BREAST FEEDING
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| STRATFORD FESTIVAL
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| CANCER AWARENESS
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| THE LATE RIGHT HON. PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
1405
| WORLD TEACHERS' DAY
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| WORLD TEACHERS' DAY
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| WORLD WOMEN'S MARCH
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| STATUS OF WOMEN
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1410
| CANADIAN ALLIANCE
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| GUN REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| TAXATION
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1415
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| YUGOSLAVIA
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1420
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1425
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| MAMQUAM BLIND CHANNEL
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1435
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1440
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| COLLÈGE MILITAIRE DE SAINT-JEAN
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
1445
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1450
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. John Manley |
| SHIPYARDS
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. John Manley |
| WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1455
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1500
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| Bill C-247
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1510
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-44. Second reading
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1515
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1520
1525
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1530
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1535
1540
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1545
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1550
1555
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1600
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1605
1610
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1615
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1620
1625
1630
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1635
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1640
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1645
1650
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1655
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1700
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1705
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-44. Second reading
|
1710
1715
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1720
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1725
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Motion
|
1735
1740
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1745
1750
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1755
1800
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1805
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1810
1815
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1820
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Gun Registry
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1825
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1830
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 127
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 5, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Pursuant to
section 66 of the Official Languages Act I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the annual report of the
Commissioner of Official Languages covering the period between
January 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(a), this report is deemed to
have been permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee
on Official Languages.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
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.
* * *
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(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table
the government's response to the report tabled on June 1, 2000 by
the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities. This report is entitled
“Seeking a Balance: Final Report on Human Resources Development
Canada Grants and Contributions”.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present
to the House, in both official languages, the report of the
Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which
represented Canada at the 103rd Inter-Parliamentary Conference,
held in Amman, Jordan, from April 30 to May 6, 2000.
1005
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the chair of
the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group annual visit to Diet
members, September 4 to 10, 2000.
* * *
MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-501, an act to amend the Marriage
(Prohibited Degrees) Act (marriage between persons of the same
sex).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a bill today
which would amend federal law to recognize the right of gay and
lesbian people to marry. Currently federal common law restricts
the institution of marriage to marriage between one man and one
woman. This is a clear denial of the right to equality for gay
and lesbian people extended under the charter of rights and
freedoms which, by the way, was pioneered by the late Prime
Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
The time is long overdue for recognition that the relationships
of gay and lesbian people are just as strong, just as loving and
just as committed as those of heterosexual couples. The bill in
no way diminishes the strength of heterosexual marriage. It does
not in any way affect the religious status of marriage. It would
amend federal law to ensure full equality for gay and lesbian
couples and to extend to those of us who are involved in
relationships the right to marry under federal law.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
The Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt tell the Chair which of the bills standing in
his name on the order paper he is proposing to introduce?
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice of this on
Friday. I am not sure exactly what number has been assigned to
it. It is an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act.
The Deputy Speaker: I would like to inform the hon.
member that the only bills we have on notice at the moment are an
an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (hours of polling in
Saskatchewan) and an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act
and the Canada Elections Act (fixed election dates).
I understand that notice may have been given yesterday of a bill
and if that is the case it would not be on the order paper for
introduction until tomorrow.
I am told the hon. member did file his notice on Friday last,
after 2.30. Because the notice time had closed and since the
House did not sit on Monday or Tuesday it does not count as
notice time, so he has to wait the appropriate time. It counts
as having been delivered yesterday for that purpose because he
was too late on the Friday. That is why there is this delay. He
will be able to do it tomorrow.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I realize now what has happened. Obviously as a result of the
death of a former Prime Minister the House did not sit on Monday
and Tuesday, so that is why this has happened. Rather than
having to wait until tomorrow, I wonder if I could have unanimous
consent of the House to introduce it today in light of the
circumstances.
1010
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent for
the hon. member to proceed with the introduction of this bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as I did
yesterday, to seek unanimous consent to adopt without debate
Motion No. 37, which would seek concurrence in the second report
of the official languages joint committee, encouraging that the
city of Ottawa, the capital of Canada, be officially bilingual.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
adoption of Motion No. 37 standing under government orders on the
order paper?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Unanimous consent was denied to my request to introduce a bill
today, but I believe that the hon. member who denied it may have
misunderstood. In any case, I believe I do now have unanimous
consent of the House to introduce the bill today.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent of the House to proceed with the bill at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-502, an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (work for welfare).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleagues
for extending me the courtesy of introducing this bill today. The
purpose of the bill is to require that every province will have
in effect a work for welfare program.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP) moved that the
fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights, presented on Wednesday, June 7, 2000, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to move concurrence in that
report and by way of background to indicate exactly why I am
doing that. I have very real concerns. I know those concerns
would be shared by other members of the justice committee, and
certainly by other members of my party.
In June of this year the justice committee met to discuss a
private member's bill dealing with the Westray mine disaster. The
justice committee considered that bill. A motion was moved by
me. A great deal of work was done by the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. There has been a great deal of
work done on this bill by the leader of my party, the hon. member
for Halifax, and by the hon. member for Churchill in Manitoba.
This issue is not just an Atlantic issue. It crosses all lines.
There has also been a great deal of work done by the hon. member
for Winnipeg Centre, our justice critic.
At the justice committee there was a rare and I think unique
feeling when the committee determined that the justice department
should bring back to the committee a bill giving substance to the
spirit of the report filed after the Westray disaster.
There are rules that determine when the minister can respond to
that motion from the justice committee. There is no requirement
for an election for another year and a half. I am concerned, and
I know my concern would be shared by other members of the House,
that if an election were called and the House did not proceed to
its full mandate this most important issue would die on the order
paper. We would have to begin all over again in a new
parliament, seeking to give life and legislation to the spirit of
the report of Justice Richard and to bring justice to the
families of those involved in the Westray mine disaster.
1015
I do not need to repeat the history of that unfortunate day in
Nova Scotia and, indeed, that unfortunate day in Canada. I will
for the record indicate the brief facts.
As many members who have followed this debate will know and as many
members who have led and allowed their names to stand as movers
and supporters of this bill will know, it was on May 9, 1992 that
the Westray mine exploded, killing 26 miners. The coal mine in
Pictou was officially opened eight months earlier. Federal
financial assistance was approved which permitted the project to
proceed. There were very real questions surrounding the
operation of that mine.
After the explosion on December 1, 1997, and after five and a
half years of work, a four volume report was produced from the
Westray mine public inquiry, entitled “The Westray Story: A
Predictable Path to Disaster”. The report was scathing.
Comments have been made by myself and by other members who have
spoken in support of some kind of legislation that would prevent
the same kind of thing from happening again.
I will quote, as I have before, from the words of Mr. Justice K.
Peter Richard. He said “the Westray story is a story of
incompetence, of mismanagement, of bureaucratic bungling, of
deceit, of ruthlessness, of cover-up, of apathy, of expediency
and of cynical indifference”.
The fundamental and basic
responsibility for the safe operation of an underground coal
mine, and indeed of any industrial undertaking, rests clearly
with management.
In this disaster there is no question that these labourers went
underground into a situation where they ought not to have gone
and they paid with their lives. There is no question that if
this act had been done by an individual there would have been a
charge of homicide. Because it is a corporation and because of
all kinds of legal implications coming from that, justice has
never been achieved.
In his report, Justice Richard recommended very clearly that
there be a new criminal offence that would impose criminal
liabilities on directors and other responsible corporate agents
for failing to ensure that their corporation maintained an
appropriate standard of occupational health and safety in the
workplace; that there be a criminal offence of corporate killing.
We know the statistics. We know that almost 10,000 workers die
every year as a result of their work and possibly because of
corporate negligence. We know that three workers are injured
every day on the job site. From the time the justice committee
met in June until today, how many months, how many lives how
much corporate irresponsibility have taken place? No mechanism
exists in the criminal code for the courts to deal with this in
the way that Justice Richard envisioned as a result of the
Westray mine disaster.
I know that members from the United Steelworkers were at the
justice committee hearing. They have done a tremendous amount of
work on this bill. They have provided background notes. They
have had legal counsel work on the bill. Everyone who was in the
room the day the justice committee met was impressed with the
spirit of co-operation from all parties that asked the Minister
of Justice to bring forward legislation. It was a most amazing
day. This crossed party lines. The member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough worked very closely with us on
this issue. The chair of the justice committee was moved by the
testimony he heard from families who had been affected by the
Westray mine disaster. Coming out of this was a moment when
partisanship was put aside in the name of justice.
We face the prospect of losing, if not today perhaps in the next
week or two, the momentum and the opportunity to have legislation
brought forward if parliament prorogues and an election is
called.
1020
Today I am rising to remind the Minister of Justice, the
Minister of Labour and members of the House of the importance of
this legislation. It has been literally years in the making. It
has taken the blood, the sweat and the tears of the families of
the Westray miners to bring it this far. It has taken the
perseverance of the United Steelworkers. It has taken the
putting aside of partisanship by members of parliament.
I would like to hear from the minister, either tomorrow or when
the House resumes on October 16, some indication that before an
election is called—and I have indicated that there is no need
for an election call—the legislation will be brought forward
immediately to be given passage in the House in whatever form it
takes to get it on the books and into the criminal code so we do
not lose this opportunity.
I have concerns about that from a number of perspectives. As a
lawyer who has dealt with the criminal code and as someone who
has been interested in justice for a long time, I have a very real
concern that when we have a report that makes a strong
recommendation and it is not acted on, then the administration of
justice falls into disrepute. Respect for the justice system is
a cornerstone of any civilized society.
We now have a situation that cries out for justice. We have
done the studies and have finished the report. We have agreement
from the parties. We have to give life to that if the public,
and especially the workers of this country, is to have respect
for the justice system.
I also have concerns about it because I come from a coal mining
community. The member who seconded my opportunity to speak
today, the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, comes from a coal
mining community. In fact, it was the coal miners in our
community who went into the Westray mine to retrieve some of the
bodies of the workers and who put their own lives at risk for
their brothers in the mine. Those people have contacted me and
the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and have asked whether
there is going to be legislation. They wanted to know if we
were going to give life to this legislation so that workers who
go down into the mines and workers who put their lives at risk in
terms of labour every day would be protected.
Will there be some accounting at the end that says the
corporation can be held liable for gross mismanagement, for
negligence or, and this is where we take a further step, for
malice aforethought, for deliberate actions, knowing that they can
result in the loss of life?
I and other members have heard from our constituents and from
people across the country who want this legislation passed. I do
not think I exaggerate the urgency of bringing this legislation
forward in the name of justice, in the name of the Canadian
people, in the name of the workers of the Westray mine who lost
their lives, and in the name of those people who came before the
committee and testified in the most moving way.
I remember when the brother of one of the miners who was killed
sat at the table and told his story of his quiet, dignified
search for justice. It moved everyone in the committee to the
point where we could put aside partisan differences and say that
something needed to be done.
What we need to do is amend the criminal code so that corporate
executives and directors are held accountable for workplace
safety. This is not something foreign. This has been done in
other jurisdictions. Such legislation exists in Great Britain
and Australia, and there is a movement in the United States to
review it.
It is not something that is unfathomable or that has never been
done in another jurisdiction. It exists.
1025
There is an opportunity to examine other pieces of legislation.
We have done that. I can cite chapter and verse of other
legislation in other countries that makes it an offence for
corporations to knowingly put the lives of their workers at risk
in order to maximize profit, open a mine or make sure that the
last shipment of goods gets on the train.
What price do workers in the year 2000 have to pay for corporate
profits, and not even for corporate profits sometimes, but just to
make sure that the order book is full and the work gets out?
In the Westray mine disaster, the corporation knew there were
faults in the mine and knew that the equipment was not working
safely,
but it put great pressure on the non-unionized workers to go into
the mines every day, and the workers went.
Some people have said that the workers had a choice and that
they did not have to go. When I hear that I think about all the
workers who go out to work every day in order to feed and clothe
their children, pay their mortgage and be courageous citizens.
That is their priority. They put their lives and safety at risk
in order to work. To say that they have a choice, especially
in the part of the country that I come from where the
unemployment rate is high and the opportunity for work is
minimal, is not so easy. To choose not to work is not so easy.
On the Atlantic coast, whether it is in fishing, mining,
forestry or farming, we have a history of that kind of dangerous
work. The first time I spoke to this bill I talked about what it
was like growing up in those communities. What we know from
growing up in Nova Scotia is the sound of the whistle when there
is a disaster in the mine. We know what it means for the men and
women on the fishing boats in the north Atlantic when we look out
at the horizon and the storm clouds gather. We know what it is
like in the steel mill when there is a catastrophe. We grew up
knowing these things.
Accidents can happen as a matter of chance, but when they happen
because a corporation has determined that the lives of its
workers are not a factor in determining the balance sheet, then
it is time for us to say that it is a crime. It is time for us
to say that when a corporation knowingly determines to send men
and women possibly to their deaths and it has the means to
prevent that and does not, it is time for us to say that it is a
crime.
I rise today on this motion because we said that in the justice
committee. We sent it to the minister and asked for a bill to be
brought back that would make it a crime for those directors and
corporations to kill their workers.
We know we will hear it again today in question period and there
will be some banter back and forth about when there will be an
election. The Prime Minister may say that we will be in our
seats on the 16th, 17th or 18th, but there may be an election
call after that. Everybody has his or her own reasons for an
election call. I am not afraid of it and am prepared to fight
it. However, when we have important pieces of legislation in the
making let us not put those pieces of legislation at risk.
I urge the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Labour to issue a public statement.
1030
They do not have to because they have a few days before they
have to report back to the justice committee. However, in the
name of decency, in the names of the members of the justice
committee who brought forward a unanimous report and of the
witnesses who testified, I ask them to indicate within the next
two days whether they will bring forward to the House legislation
giving life to the commitment made by the justice committee, by
the steelworkers and by the families of the miners who went
underground and lost their lives. Anything less is negligence
and arrogance on the part of the government.
We know this legislation is needed. That is not contested. We
know this legislation is important. That is not contested.
We know the legislation can be brought into effect. That is
not contested. Why wait? Let us do it. We will have other
legislation pushed through the House before an election call. The
government has no hesitation about pushing through its EI
changes. The government may have no hesitation to put through
its health accord. In the name of decency, let us bring forward
a bill that we can all agree needs to be enacted and give life to
the Westray legislation.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, again my hon. colleague from
Sydney—Victoria on the beautiful island of Cape Breton has given
one of the more eloquent speeches the House has ever heard in the
history of parliament.
The hon. member comes from the coal mining area of Cape Breton.
If people across the country, especially the government and the
official opposition, listen to what he said about decency and the
protection of workers, by the time 5 p.m. today there is a good
chance that three more Canadians will be killed on the job. That
is most unfortunate and is an alarming statistic.
Bill S-20 is coming from the Senate on tobacco legislation and
Imperial Tobacco seems to be 100% behind it. However, we have
not heard anything about what corporations or multinationals
think about this particular bill. Could the hon. member speak on
the multinationals who support the Liberal Party and the Canadian
Alliance? Does he suggest that they may be against the bill in
order to account for themselves when it comes to this type of
action?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question
and I am thankful for the compliment.
I have not heard a response from corporations or the
multinationals with regard to the Westray legislation nor do I
think any other member of the justice committee has heard one. If
they have, I have not been apprised of that.
They are silent because there is a recognition that this may
change the way corporations do business to some extent. I do not
want to use a broad brush to paint every corporation. There are
some corporations that take the safety of their employees very
seriously. They are to be applauded. They have nothing to fear
from this legislation. There are some employers and corporations
that work with the unions to negotiate collective agreements and
health and safety standards. They have nothing to fear from this
legislation and they should be congratulated for that.
It is corporations like the owners of the mine in Westray who,
if there were any question about the owners' culpability in this,
not only sent these men to their deaths but evaded the justice
system. They refused to testify at a public inquiry. They hid
behind jurisdictional questions of warrants to demand their
appearance. The managers of that mine did everything possible
not just to evade responsibility but to refuse to testify to help
shed light on how the tragedy happened.
1035
Those are the corporations, the managers and the directors who
have something to fear from this legislation, as well they
should. I think many of the corporations have been silent in
that regard because that may be the kind of management they want.
It would be most helpful, and I suppose it would help the
corporate image, if those companies that believe in workers'
safety came forward and said they were prepared to support the
legislation. However, we have not heard that yet. I issue the
challenge to every chamber of commerce in the country to read the
proposed Westray bill and indicate their support and their
citizen obligation.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I very much support and attach myself to the
comments made by the member for Sydney—Victoria. I know that he
has a very innate personal interest in this, as was apparent by
his remarks.
This is a matter which unfortunately could be put on the slate
as more unfinished business on the part of the government. We
have seen many indications that the coming days and weeks may
result in an election call. This is an election call that I
think a growing number of Canadians are looking at with a great
deal of cynicism. They are viewing this as merely opportunistic,
something that is being driven by polls rather than by public
commitment and a commitment to complete very important pieces of
legislation.
This is but one among many. We know that there is a health
accord which was ratified by the provinces and is supposed to in
some small measure address the crisis in our health care system.
That legislation is a postdated cheque which will never be cashed
if the House is dissolved for a general election.
There is important legislation pertaining to the criminal code,
the youth criminal justice act, which is badly in need of fixing
or replacing. We know the government gave a commitment over
seven years ago to do something about that legislation. However,
we are on the possible eve of an election and it has not been
done. That promise has not been kept or fulfilled.
There are numerous pieces of important legislation regarding the
environment, health care, justice and taxation. There are
important legislative initiatives which do receive support from
the opposition. They will simply die on the order paper.
Canadians need to understand that. The initiatives will go to
the Senate, if they pass through the House, and will be gassed.
They will not see the light of day. These are hollow promises.
If the government is to point to this legislation as something
which has been fulfilled, it is dead wrong.
This particular debate that was brought about by the hon. member
for Sydney—Victoria deals with Motion No. 79, which was moved by
the Progressive Conservative Party. It called upon the
government to respond to the recommendations of the Westray
report by Mr. Justice Peter Richard on the tragic event in
Plymouth, Nova Scotia when the Westray mine exploded killing 26
men.
That poignant moment resulted in the renewed discussion about
workplace safety, the renewed focus on how we could try to
prevent such disasters and how, through legislation, we could
bring about greater accountability and responsibility.
Not all disasters are preventable. Arguably and quite rightly,
this is one that most agree could have been avoided by taking
proper steps to ensure the safety of those workers who went down
into the mine was protected and that all the necessary steps had
been taken by the management and the province, which oversaw the
safety of the workplace environment. It could have been avoided
if those parties had taken real cautions to ensure that a
dangerous workplace environment did not exist. Sadly, that did
not happen.
There has already been much discussion on Motion No. 79 in this
place which was a carry-over from a previous parliament before
prorogation. It gave members of the House the opportunity to put
forward their positions and their party's position.
Initially, members of the government were very reluctant to
embrace even the idea of bringing this matter to the public
debate. They were very reluctant to discuss it. They did not
want this matter to go to the justice committee, where it
eventually did aspire. When it got there, as was alluded to by
the member for Sydney—Victoria, there was an incredible catharsis.
There was suddenly a change on the part of the government in its
willingness to discuss this issue. It was very heartening and
encouraging to see that happen because it washed away some of the
partisanship and politics involved in workplace safety and in
this type of issue.
1040
Let us make no mistake about this. This is a human issue. This
is an issue that touches lives and potentially takes lives if we
do not act. The indication that we heard from many of the
witnesses was that shocking numbers of people are
killed and injured in the workplace every day. Not all of that
is preventable and we would be naive to suggest otherwise.
However, the reality is that much of it is preventable. Much of
what has to change and evolve as a result of initiatives from
this place is the attitude and the thinking on the part of
corporations and people who have the final say over the setting
of rules and regulations within the workplace.
How do we do that? Part of the solution lies in changes to the
criminal code which will bring about a sense of accountability
and will in instances where there is neglect and obvious
situations being ignored, bring about some form of
accountability, deterrence and denunciation. All of this is in
the name of public protection and in the name of prevention.
This is a mother's milk type of issue and one that everyone can
agree on. Yet we do not seem to have the inner fortitude or the
ability to mobilize to get this matter moving in terms of
legislation. We had that unique opportunity at the justice
committee as was referred to. There was a very real significant
move in the room. I was in that justice committee and felt it as
well. There was a genuine intent that we would move forward.
Sadly, that seems to be lost. Like many of the other initiatives
we have seen, it stands there on the precipice ready to take that
leap yet, cynically, all of that is cast aside.
We have an opportunity to salvage that. We can ask for and
rightly so expect that the government will now take the
initiative and bring about legislation. The justice department
should have been clearly instructed. The intent was there. The
intent of parliament was what led this motion to get to the
justice committee. Then it continued, it snowballed and we did
hear testimony from the United Steelworkers.
We heard the testimony of Howard Sim and Vernon Theriault. Mr.
Theriault was part of the heroic effort by draggermen from Cape
Breton, Pictou county and surrounding areas who went down into
the mine with the hope that some life had survived the tragic and
massive explosion in Plymouth. That is the sort of human spirit
that should inspire us to keep the dream alive of somehow
bringing about improved laws and legislation. It is not the
total answer by any means but it certainly moves the yardsticks
and takes us forward in a futuristic way.
We hear the rhetoric. We hear constant references that we have
to do this and that this is the underpinning of parliamentary
democracy. We hear some party members, the Liberal Party members
in particular, very cynically indicating that they are the only
ones who speak out for Canadians. That is not the case. It is
completely cynical to suggest that this party, this natural
governing party as it likes to refer to itself, is the only one
speaking out for the interests of Canadians.
We are faced with an issue of complete moral duty when we talk
about protecting lives and workplace safety. It is something so
fundamental. When people get up in the morning and go out the
door to their workplace, whether it is into a factory or on a
trawler or in the woods or into a mine or an office building, it
is not too much for them to expect or hope that they will be able
to return to their homes safely that evening to be with their
loved ones.
Surely that is not something which should be too much for any
Canadian to expect. Yet we are tasked in this place with trying
to ensure that is just what happens.
1045
Obviously there are workplaces that are more dangerous than
others, but there are natural consequences that can flow from
putting oneself in harm's way. I think particularly of firemen
and police officers for whom it is implicit in their job
descriptions that they may find themselves in danger. We should
be looking constantly for ways to improve safety and protection
of human life. We can do that through legislation to a large
extent.
That is all. That is the simple, fundamental goal we are
seeking, all members of parliament across party lines, across the
floor, and we hope not too many more will cross the floor. This
is something that is most serious and most timely. The easy
thing to do would be to do nothing. The easy thing to do would
be to simply bump along.
It is an aberration when we see bold moves from the Liberal
government. It has inherited a healthy economy, or at least an
economy that has stabilized, much as a result of a prior
government's economic planning, plans and legislative
initiatives, bold and unpopular as they were. When I say
unpopular, members of the same Liberal government while in
opposition chastised and absolutely railed against those
initiatives. However, through the glass ceiling of hypocrisy we
have seen that attitude change. They have embraced and called
their own the same legislative initiatives they railed against.
Not to digress on that record, to look at this issue with
anything other than a humanistic, impartial eye is a derogation
of our responsibility. We must encourage the Minister of Justice
and her department. I would suggest it is broader than just
looking at criminal code amendments. The issue goes beyond
simply suggesting that changing one provision or one section of
the criminal code will provide the answers. We have to look at
labour laws. We have to look at occupational health and safety.
We have to include the provinces to ensure that there is the same
standard.
When I talk of standards I talk of the health care issue we will
be debating at some point in the very near future. Again, it is
spurred very much in its timing because of a looming election.
Health care is not fixed. Let us be clear about that. The
government is putting back a portion of the money removed since
it took office. It is putting back a small portion that in many
ways pales by comparison to what was removed. It reminds me of
Freddy Krueger offering a band-aid to one of his victims after he
slashed them.
Canadians are tired of that type of cynicism. They want to see
action. They want to see real action, not just the perception of
action and talk of action. The government has not lived up to
its commitment in that regard.
It has talked a great talk. It has given very much the
perception and feeling to Canadians that health care is fixed,
that the criminal code has been fixed and that taxation is under
control. That is not the case. One only has to visit a local
hospital, to talk to individuals who are struggling to get by, to
talk to a student who is saddled with a huge student loan and
debt and has to leave the country to find work, or to talk to
individuals who are doing their very best as single parents to
get by on seasonal employment and face horrendous cuts to
seasonal unemployment insurance.
With all this coming to fruition and with people struggling out
there, the government says that it will help. By the way, since
Canadians will be going to the polls very soon, the government
wants to remind them that it is helping them. It asks them to
forget about the fact that it is the one who put them in the
situation. It is now ready to throw a rope and pull them ashore.
It sees that they are drowning and it will now throw a rope. They
are only being pulled halfway ashore.
What Canadians want to ask themselves is whom do they trust to
be on the other end of the rope. Which national leader do they
want to be pulling them in as they are drowning? Do they trust
the person on the other end of that rope?
I would suggest there is only one leader in this place that
should earn and has deservedly earned the trust of Canadians, and that
is the Right Hon. Joe Clark. He has always done what he said he
would do. When we talk about trust in government—
1050
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough meant the right hon. member for
Kings—Hants. I know he would want to be sure to use the name of
his riding. Perhaps he has forgotten the right hon. member is
now a member of the House and must be referred to by his proper
title.
Mr. Peter MacKay: In my enthusiasm I may have misspoken.
When we say Joe who, we all know who now. The right hon. member
for Kings—Hants has a long record of public service and a long
record of honesty and integrity which I think is recognized and
acknowledged by all members in this place.
This issue is one that will not go away. Whether it dies in
this legislative attempt by members of the opposition, or whether
it is embraced and rallied forward by the government, it is not
an issue that will go away any time soon, nor will the problems
in health or the problems in our economy.
Canadians expect that members of parliament, and in particular
the Prime Minister, are here to lead. We heard a great deal
about leaders and leadership in the past number of days. To be a
leader one needs vision. That seems to be what is lacking in
this place and in this current government.
There is no vision. The government bumps along and reacts to
crisis. When the wheels are off it offers some support, some
comfort. To prevent future problems, to somehow lay out a plan
that will address problems before they happen, is the particular
issue we are focused on in this debate. In terms of workplace
safety, how do we put in place legislation that will save lives
and prevent injury?
Let us look at the full equation. When these types of things
happen there is a huge economic impact as well. Not to be
callous or take away from the human impact, but when companies
are forced to shut down, when persons are out of the workplace
and compensation is due and deserved, when lives are lost and
families are then faced with the horrible hardships that result
from that type of situation, there is economic impact, that is
something that is borne by all Canadians. We are lucky to have a
social system that reacts, sometimes inadequately, but it is there
to help.
If we can prevent these tragedies, if we can prevent this type
of lasting harm to humans, the human impact and the economic
impact that results, why would we not do that? We have lots of
time. We do not need to go headlong rushing into an election.
We have plenty of time to react. We have unfinished work,
unfinished business before the House. Let us take the time. Let
us sit on the weekend if we have to. Let us get legislation
done. Let us get the work done that people have entrusted us to
do.
The motion brought forward by the Progressive Conservative Party
did get to the justice committee. It did bring about a raised
awareness and a consciousness on the part of people in this place
and people across the country toward the issue. There was a
willingness to act at that point.
The only thing that is preventing that now, the only impediment,
is the government's timetable and, I would add to that, its
priorities which seem to be very much out of sync with the
priorities of others in the opposition and most Canadians.
The Westray mine sits silent. The assets are being liquidated.
Yet that memory is still very poignant in Pictou county, in the
province of Nova Scotia and around the country. The Westray mine
has become a symbol of the tragedy and the horror that can take
place when unsafe work conditions exist. It has become a symbol
for every type of work. Let us not let that tragedy repeat
itself.
Let us not let those lives that were lost be in vain. Let us not
let the heroic efforts that were made in the wake of the Westray
mine disaster go unnoticed and unsubstantiated by efforts to
prevent. We do have a chance to do that now.
1055
My friend spoke of the legal implications, the malice
aforethought, the callous approach and the grindings of the
justice system that resulted in the aftermath of Westray. Civil
implications were pursued. What was particularly striking, which
doubled and exacerbated and made worse the Westray disaster, was
the disaster which occurred in the legal system and the
wranglings that took place. We have to try to cut through that.
Why would we not try to streamline efforts in our justice system
to address issues quickly and in a timely fashion so that justice
is done, seen to be done and truly done? That was one of the
many lessons that came from Westray.
We have a chance now to act as my friend indicated. We urge the
government and the Minister of Justice and her department to
respond quickly. Let us not rush headlong into an election. Let
us do the important work we are elected to do. Westray will
always be a reminder. Let us learn from those mistakes and move
forward.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I found the hon. member's statement very interesting. I
read the motion in some detail as the member was speaking and I
would like him to clarify something for me.
The motion states that in the opinion of the House the criminal
code or other appropriate federal statutes should be amended.
That is a pretty broad request. It does not specify whether it
is the criminal code that is to be amended or whether it is to be
some other corporate legislation or some other justice
legislation.
I was particularly impressed by his reference that we must make
sure that justice is done. I could not agree more. Justice is
what we want in Canada, and in particular the liability of
directors. There is a provision today in legislation about the
liability of directors who do not do their job and things of this
sort.
Is it really amendments to the criminal code that should be
studied or other legislation? Could the hon. member give some
clarification as to exactly what he intends?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the member has made an
important point that deserves clarification. The criminal code
as indicated is but one aspect. It is about liability. It is
about the use of the civil code to pierce the corporate veil.
If the chain of evidence is unbroken and if there is clear
indication that safety provisions have been ignored and a person
has been placed in a situation where there is real danger that
was avoidable, directors and those in managerial positions should
face a degree of accountability. If a stream of evidence pointed
directly to knowledge that was ignored, if a dangerous situation
could have been remedied and a decision very often for financial
reasons led the person to inaction, there should definitely be a
degree of accountability. All these evidentiary matters would be
examined by a court with the benefit of the presumption of
innocence and all the protections that exist.
What other types of legislative initiatives can we look at? We
could look at coal mine regulations which are within federal
purview. Occupational health and safety is another area that we
could look at. Other federal labour codes that exist in the
country could be looked at. The difficulty with much of this is
provincial standards and the provincial approach to safety in the
workplace. It is very much in the hands of the provinces to
regulate.
We need federal statutes and legislation that encourage
accountability, that encourage liability, and that will bring
about a sense that there will be an accounting and deterrence and
denunciation of irresponsible behaviour by those who not only in the
practical sense may have created a dangerous situation but
those who knew of it.
1100
That is what I mean when I talk about attitudes changing. For
years it has been assumed that those in the upper echelon in the
business world, those who in many instances drive businesses to
move ahead at breakneck pace, will not be held accountable, that
they will somehow be able to step back and say “I just make
business decisions”. Business decisions affect lives, and
business decisions, if they are driven only by profit, certainly
create danger. That is what we learned at Westray, just as
political decisions can very much create danger.
If this is truly to be about accountability and justice, that
means many things to many people. Justice very much talks about
fairness. It talks about accountability. It talks about
openness. That is what we should all be striving for. That is
what we can do by changing things in the legislative scheme in
parliament.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to stand in this Chamber today and talk
about the motion put forward by my colleague from
Sydney—Victoria.
It is fitting that we are having this discussion today. Over
the last seven days, day after day, minute after minute,
Canadians have talked about what former Prime Minister Trudeau
left Canadians. They talked about his legacy. They talked about
his love for all Canadians and his belief in justice for all
Canadians.
What have we become as a country when we are unwilling to place
a value on human lives? That is what we are talking about. We
are talking about individuals day in and day out whose very lives
are put in jeopardy because of corporations' race to the bottom.
What are we asking for? We are asking for the recognition for
responsible corporations. But as I have heard the hon. member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough say, what is the rush? Is
there an election? This is about morality. This is about us as
parliamentarians and our responsibility. I believe we
have a responsibility to the workers in this country to recognize
the value of their lives. All we are asking is that corporations
be held accountable and responsible.
I come from a part of the country that has been known on a
number of occasions to have deaths occur specifically in the
coal mines. While some are workplace related, they are due to
the very essence of the job. When people sit and read the Westray
story as I have a number of times, it should send shivers through
the spine of every Canadian. Those 26 lives should have been
protected. Their deaths could have been prevented in the
wonderful race to the bottom.
We have become a society that looks upon its citizens as mere
vehicles and not human beings. As Canadians have clearly said
with respect to the legislation, we have a responsibility.
We as parliamentarians have a responsibility to say that we want
corporations to be accountable and we want them to be responsible
if they play a role in the deaths of their workers.
1105
That is exactly how simple this is. It is not complicated.
Contrary to what the government would like Canadians to believe,
that is exactly what this is about. It is about saying to
companies across the country that they have a responsibility to
ensure the health and safety of their workers.
As the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said, I
believe it is our responsibility as parliamentarians and
Canadians to make sure that the deaths of those 26 men were not
in vain, not only for us as Canadians but for their children. We
must show their children that their dads did not die in vain,
that we as parliamentarians and Canadians have learned a valuable
lesson because of those deaths, and that we remain committed to
doing everything we possibly can to make sure that deaths like
those are not repeated again. If they are, then those who are
responsible have to be held accountable. That is our job.
I go back to my first comment, for all of us in the House to
take a minute today and ask ourselves what are we really doing
here when we are not willing to stand and say as Canadians and as
a government that we value our workers. That is what this is
about. It is about values. Let us show some values as they
relate to Canadians. Let the government show how it values
workers.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
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 that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table in the House three new
petitions concerning employment insurance. In all, they bear
the signatures of 1,880 constituents in the riding of
Charlevoix.
Since the Minister of Human Resources Development is merely
deferring the problem of seasonal work by gradually implementing
the changes to the regional employment insurance boundaries over
the next three years, the people of Charlevoix continue to
pressure the government.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to maintain the
status quo, so that the counties of Manicouagan and Charlevoix
continue to be part of the old northern Quebec region or be
added to the new north western Quebec region, in order to
maintain the same calculation rate for employment insurance.
1110
[English]
IRAQ
Hon. Christine Stewart (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from several constituents who call
upon the Parliament of Canada to accept the recommendations of
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
for the lifting of sanctions with regard to Iraq. They demand
the immediate cessation of bombing and call for serious peace
negotiations. They urge that Canada and the United Nations
vastly increase efforts to provide food, medicine and funds for
infrastructure reconstruction in Iraq. Further they ask that the
compensation fund taken from the oil for food program be
suspended.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from hundreds of my constituents
who are shocked by the legal determination that the possession of
child pornography is not criminal. They ask that the House do
everything necessary to make sure that the possession of child
pornography remains a serious criminal offence.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition signed by
hundreds of constituents and residents from the city of Winnipeg
generally around the critical issue of health care. It is a very
timely petition given the debate upon which we are about to
embark in the Chamber today.
The petitioners call upon the government to address the crisis
in health care, to take decisive leadership not only with respect
to funding but with respect to the future of medicare and the
growing threat of privatization. Interestingly, for purposes of
the government's bill, they call upon the government to increase
the share of the federal government's funding for health care to
25% immediately and to implement a national home care and
pharmacare program.
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 a
petition signed by Canadian citizens from Edmonton, Leduc, Stony
Plain, Fredericton, New Brunswick, from my constituency of
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre and from other parts of the country.
This petition is being presented today in light of the fact that
the CBC has been gutted by the Liberal government. It has taken
over $400 million per year from the CBC and actually is helping
to destroy the national fabric of our country. The petitioners
ask parliament and the Liberal government to reconsider this
shortsightedness and to restore adequate funding to the CBC to
allow the maintenance and improvement of current local television
news while improving the network for all Canadians.
THE SENATE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present eight separate
petitions on behalf of the people of Dauphin—Swan River.
The first petition calls on the government when selecting a
candidate for the Senate to respect the democratic right of
Manitoba to elect its own senator.
SNOWBIRDS AIR SQUADRON
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon parliament to allow
the continuation of Canadian forces Snowbirds 431 air
demonstration squadron through both funding and legislation.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the next petition calls upon the government to
ensure emergency compensation be immediately delivered to farmers
who have not been served by AIDA and immediately launch an
international campaign against foreign subsidies.
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the next petition calls on parliament to repeal gun
control Bill C-68 and to redirect the hundreds of millions of
dollars to education and health care.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the next petition requests that parliament revisit
the issue of hepatitis C compensation and that the government
offer a fair, compassionate and humane compensation package to
all who received infected blood.
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the next petition calls on parliament to advise the
government to mandate the Canadian Wheat Board to deliver its
grain shipment to the port that offers the most advantageous cost
to producers.
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which requests that the government
amend the Canada pension plan to create a separate disability
plan to ensure the long term sustainability of the CPP and the
financial security of both seniors and disabled persons.
TAXATION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in the last petition the petitioners call upon
parliament to give Canadian taxpayers a break by instituting tax
relief of at least 25% in federal taxes over the next three years
starting with the next federal budget.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1115
[English]
CANADA HEALTH CARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER
SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
Bill C-45, an act respecting the provision of increased funding
for health care services, medical equipment, health information
and communications technologies, early childhood development and
other social services and to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is truly a great honour for me to
present for second reading Bill C-45, the Canada health care,
early childhood development and other social services funding
act.
The legislation stems directly from the historic landmark
agreement reached by Canada's first ministers on September 11 in
our nation's capital. I say landmark because the meeting
involved 14 governments of different political affiliations and
ideologies collectively agreeing on a plan to renew health care,
to improve the support system for early childhood development and
to strengthen our other social programs.
As its contribution to these agreements the federal government
is providing $23.4 billion in new federal investments. Most
important, the first ministers committed to the key goals of
Canada's health system for the future, namely to preserve,
protect and improve the health of Canadians, to ensure that
Canadians have timely access to health services anywhere in
Canada based on need, not on ability to pay, and to ensure the
long term sustainability of the health system so that care
services will be available to all Canadians in future years.
It is important to note that the first ministers gave Canadians
their commitment to strengthen and renew health care services
through partnership and collaboration, with the federal
government as an equal partner in this renewal.
[Translation]
An agreement was also reached in the area of early childhood
development. I should point out that while the premier of Quebec
has expressed some reservations about this agreement, he shares
the same concerns and principles as his counterparts regarding
early childhood development.
[English]
The bill implements four federal funding commitments in support
of the agreement. First, it increases the Canada health and
social transfer by an additional $21.1 billion to provide the
provinces and territories with stable, predictable and growing
funding over the next five years, funding for health,
post-secondary education, early childhood development and other
social programs. Of this $21.1 billion, $2.2 billion will be
invested in early childhood development.
Second, the accord provides that $1 billion will go to a new
medical equipment fund to enable provinces and territories to
purchase modern, much needed diagnostic and other medical
equipment. These funds will be available as soon as the bill is
passed.
Third, we are investing $500 million in an independent agency
mandated to accelerate the adoption of modern information and
communications technologies, including electronic patient records
to provide better health care to every one of us.
Fourth, $800 million will go to the health transition fund to
support innovation and reform in the area of primary health care.
[Translation]
As members know, the federal government, along with the
provinces and territories, plays a supportive role for the
health system and other social programs.
1120
The provinces and territories offer their own health care,
education and social services. Federal transfers bring a growing
financial contribution to these basic programs and the federal
government abides by the principles of the Canada Health Act, to
which all the premiers reiterated their support in that
historical agreement.
[English]
Prior to this accord on September 11 the transfers to the
provinces were at an all time high. For the CHST it was $30.8
billion. In addition, we have equalization to the provinces and
territories which totals $10 billion, for a total in transfers to
these other jurisdictions of over $40 billion. Since this accord,
in addition to this $40 billion we have the additional funds of
$23.4 billion over four years.
Looking at the CHST, which is the largest federal transfer, it
provides the provinces and territories with cash payments and tax
transfers in support of their social programs. The CHST also
gives them the flexibility to design and administer their own
programs provided, however, that the principles of the Canada
Health Act and the prohibition on residency requirements for
social assistance are upheld and respected.
Since 1995 the federal government has strengthened the CHST four
times. In the 1996 budget we established an annual CHST cash
floor of $11 billion. The 1998 budget raised the annual CHST
cash floor to $12.5 billion. The 1999 budget announced an
additional $11.5 billion investment over five years in funding
specifically for health care. The last budget provided an extra
$2.5 billion in cash over five years for health and
post-secondary education.
This $14 billion funding increase in the last two budgets raised
the cash component of the CHST by 25% over its 1998-99 level. It
helped the provinces and territories deal with the immediate
concerns of Canadians regarding health care, including the
problems of waiting lists, crowded emergency rooms and the lack
of diagnostic services.
I want to discuss the bill's specific measures in detail. The
new funding commitments for the CHST build on the previous
increases in the CHST transfers. The $21.1 billion of additional
cash that we bring forward for the CHST provides stable,
predictable and growing funding for the CHST over the next five
years. This is the largest investment ever made for health,
higher education and social services. The provinces and
territories can now give top priority to accelerating the changes
we need in order to give Canadians the high quality health care
they deserve, to provide new supports to early childhood
development and to strengthen our other important social
programs.
With this additional money, CHST cash transfers to the provinces
and territories will rise to $18.3 billion in 2001-02, to $19.1
billion in the next year and to $21 billion in 2005-06. By then
CHST cash will be fully 35% above its current level of $15.5
billion. Moreover the value of the CHST tax points will grow to
$18.8 billion over the next five years. Altogether the federal
transfers to the provinces and territories through the CHST for
health, post-secondary education and social services will grow to
$40 billion by the year 2005-06.
1125
The current CHST legislative framework will be extended to
provide a new five year funding plan and will be extended again
in three years to provide an ongoing five year plan. The new
funding commitment establishes an unprecedented planning
stability and certainty for the provinces, to allow them to go
forth and help renew our health care system.
[Translation]
This brings me to the federal government's sizeable investment
in early childhood development, which is the focus of this bill.
As members know, the early years are crucial to a child's
development. Governments realize that they need to invest in
the services that support children during their early years in
order to help them reach their full potential.
The federal government has already made a number of major
investments in early childhood development through initiatives
such as the national child benefit supplement, the Canada child
tax benefit, the child care expense deduction, the GST credit
and extended EI parental leave for working parents.
The federal, provincial and territorial governments are now
involved in an important initiative for early childhood
development which would get Canadian children off to a good
start in life at a critical stage in their development.
In support of this new initiative, the federal government will
contribute $2.2 billion over the next five years.
The governments of the provinces and territories have agreed to
use these credits to promote healthy pregnancy, birth and
infancy, improve parenting and family supports, strengthen early
childhood development, learning and care, and strengthen
community supports.
[English]
These new investments, together with the incremental investments
of the provinces, will provide families with better access to
services such as prenatal classes and screening, preschool
programs and child care, and parent information and family
support.
All governments have agreed to report publicly on what they are
doing so that their progress can be tracked by Canadians.
Canadians will know how much money is being spent, how well
services are being delivered and what this means to the health,
well-being and development of our children. Whether through
partnership with provincial governments and territories or
through federal initiatives, governments are working to ensure
that all Canadian children are given the best possible start in
life.
On the subject of health renewal, first ministers agreed on a
shared vision of health and stated in their final communique:
Canadians will have publicly funded health services that provide
quality health care, and that promote the health and well-being
of Canadians in a cost effective and fair manner.
The first ministers are committed to strengthening and renewing
Canada's health care services through partnership, through
collaboration. They agreed on an action plan that focuses on
access to care, health promotion and wellness, primary health
care, the supply of doctors, nurses and other health personnel,
home care and community care, pharmaceutical management, health
information and communications, and health equipment and
infrastructure.
Most important, they agreed that all governments must be
accountable to Canadians for their health care spending.
1130
As part of those accountability provisions of the agreement,
provincial and territorial governments will report on how they
have invested these funds in health renewal and medical
equipment.
To deal with immediate pressures, the government is providing
funds to upgrade medical equipment and invest in new technologies
to provide Canadians with more timely access to high quality
care. Through this bill the government is investing $1 billion
in a medical equipment fund with which the provinces and
territories can acquire and install much needed diagnostic
equipment and treatment equipment, such as MRIs and CAT scans,
over the next two years. Again governments will be expected to
report on how this money is spent. Provinces and territories
will be able to draw on these funds as soon as this bill is
passed.
The government will also provide $500 million through an
independent corporation which will be mandated to accelerate the
development and adoption of modern information communications
technology systems such as electronic patient records. This will
allow the sector to keep up with other sectors of our economy in
adopting the new information and communications technologies. It
is a key ingredient to building a health infrastructure in
Canada.
More specifically the development of electronic health records
will ensure our ability to guarantee Canadians that even with
these electronic records, which will do a great deal of good in
streamlining the system, there will be stringent measures in
place to protect the privacy, confidentiality and security of
health care information. Canadians can be assured that their
personal health information will be strictly guarded.
This co-ordinated approach has many benefits. Duplication will
be reduced. Efficiency in the exchange of information between
health care providers will be improved. There will be better
access to services and increased service delivery.
In conclusion, Canadians can now be assured of the unwavering
commitment of their governments to renewed health care, to
support for early childhood development and to support for other
social programs. This bill provides CHST funding for the
provinces and territories that is growing, stable and predictable
so that they can plan for their future. It provides provinces
with immediate funding for buying medical diagnostic and
treatment equipment. It provides all governments with the funding
growth and the stability to significantly step up their efforts
to renew and modernize Canada's health care services.
Above all, Canadians will have an accountability framework,
report cards, to better help them judge the results for
themselves of how money on health care, early childhood
development and medical equipment is being spent.
In this accord we see 14 governments with shared goals and
priorities, 14 governments which have given these measures their
blessing. They have made Canada truly work for the benefit of
all our citizens. I believe that when history is written it will
cite this landmark accord as among the truly great
accomplishments of our time.
I believe that history will cite the role of extraordinary
leadership provided by our Prime Minister. Without his
determination, wisdom and immense ability, this accord, this
shared vision of the future of health care for all Canadians with
all levels of government working together, would not have been
possible. In conclusion, I salute that role of extraordinary
leadership.
1135
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I ask leave to share my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan
de Fuca.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent for
the sharing of time between the hon. members as indicated?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island will
have 20 minutes.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter this
debate today because it is an issue of great importance to
Canadians. As we rush headlong into an unnecessary and
unwarranted election, we are being asked to quickly push the bill
through so the Liberals can look a little better than they do
right now.
Why is there such a notable health care crisis in this country?
Where did it come from? I have been sitting here thinking about
the different things that have happened over the last number of
years.
I remember way back in 1961, when most of the members in the
House were not even born, my brand new wife and I left
Saskatchewan, the home of medicare, and moved to Alberta. There
was no public health care in Alberta. It was a privately operated
system called MSI, Medical Services Incorporated. We paid a
small premium every month and received excellent medical care.
Those were the days before the technological on-off switches for
having babies, and soon after we were married, within the
mandatory 10 months, our first daughter was born. Our new
daughter and her mother received excellent care. I remember being
very pleased with the care they received. Later on my wife had
some complications and she had to go to Calgary where she
received prompt, efficient and excellent care.
I now think back about 20 years, and it is amazing that it is
already 20 years, when my dear wife again had a severe medical
challenge. It is called cancer. She had a biopsy on Wednesday, a
final diagnosis on Friday and surgery on the following Monday. It
was amazing, just like that; quick, quick, quick. It worked.
That was in 1980.
Now I am told that people with the same kind of medical
emergency are on waiting lists for up to four months for the same
operation. People with cancer cannot wait. That is deplorable.
I spoke to a young man in my riding not very long ago. Relative
to my age he is young but I guess he is old to some of the
youngsters in the group here. He has a medical challenge which
requires some diagnostics. While he is waiting anxiously, and I
must emphasize the word anxiously, the hospital is telling him
that he can get in some time near the end of October. It was a
couple of weeks ago when I was speaking with him.
There is a crisis in health care. Where did it come from? With
all this blowing that the Liberal government wants to do now,
where did the crisis come from? I can tell the House where it
came from.
I have in my hand here, and I will hold it so that it cannot be
seen as a prop, the budget 2000 document that was tabled in the
House by the Minister of Finance. It just so happens that in
this document the Liberals are bragging about improving the
quality of life of Canadians and their children.
I look at this document and I see the amount of cash transfers
for health from the federal government to the provinces. In 1993
it was $18.8 billion. In 1994 it was $18.7 billion. I will not
keep reading the years but the amounts are $18.8 billion, $18.7
billion, $18.5 billion and $14.7 billion. These figures are
right in the minister's own document.
The Liberal government administered cuts to health care and we
are surprised that there is a health care crisis. The Liberal
government took the money away and now it is giving some of it
back and it wants all of us to cheer. It is like the guy who
robs me of my wallet and asks me to thank him because he gives me
money for bus fare home. It is absurd.
1140
The Liberal government has literally cut billions of dollars out
of the health care budget for the provinces. It is administered
by the provinces. Now it is gingerly giving some of it back and
it wants a bunch of praise because we expect this unanticipated
election this fall.
By the way, just to digress a little, if the election is this
fall it will have been called even earlier than the early call in
1997, just a little over three and a half years into the mandate.
I do not know whether members are aware of it, but if there is
an election every three and a half years instead of every four
years, it increases the cost of the elections by over 12%. Why
would we not use that money for health care instead of having
needless elections? The only purpose of the election is that
the Liberals want to get re-elected.
As another aside, I cannot help but mention that this week our
party started running some ads. How did we finance them? I and
a whole bunch of Canadian Alliance members across the country
have donated money to the party in order to run the ads.
I noticed also this week the Liberal Party has started running
ads. Who has paid for them? The same guys. We have paid for
them because they are tax funded ads with the Government of
Canada name on them.
The government is talking about all this wonderful money that it
is putting back into health care. I have to be kind, so I will
simply say gently that it is a myth. The Liberals have taken so
much out and now they are gingerly putting some of it back and
they want everyone to cheer and vote for them again. I am
offended by that.
As far as I am concerned those ads are inaccurate. They do not
communicate truthfully to Canadians what has actually happened.
As far as I am concerned they are nothing but blatant election
advertising at taxpayers' expense prior to the writ being
dropped. I am very offended by that and so should every Canadian
be offended by that, because it is so wrong to do that.
I mentioned the numbers. Over the years the government
decreased the numbers and then it started adding to them. The
Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, who
gave the speech on behalf of the government, talked about the
$11.5 billion which the government put back in. Again that is
messaging. It is really gross messaging in terms of shading the
truth.
If the government says it is putting in $11.5 billion, almost
all Canadians assume, because we deal with annual budgets, that
it is $11.5 billion per year. Well, it ain't, if I can use that English
inaccuracy to make a point. It just ain't true. The fact
is $11.5 billion was projected. Most of it has not been paid
yet. It was projected over the next five years, so it is just a
little over $2.5 billion a year.
That is the same as a policeman who stops me for speeding and
asks how fast I was going. I could say I was going 400. The
purpose of my trip was to go 400 kilometres. If I said that I was
going 400 he would give me a whopper of a ticket but actually I
was going 100, planning on doing that for four hours and doing my
400 kilometre trip. The same thing is true here. We are talking
about rates of expenditure of public money for health care. It
is so much per year.
The government is doing the same thing again in Bill C-45, which
proposes to put all this extra money into health care. It did it
again by saying it is spending $21.1 billion on health. What a
wonderful number. What years are we talking about? It starts on
April 1, 2001. The Liberals are going to win an election on it,
but they are not even talking about putting any money into health
care. They are in other parts of the bill. In the part about
the $21.1 billion it begins April 1, 2001. The next payment is
April 1, 2002, the next April 1, 2003 and then it goes to 2004
and to 2005.
1145
From the years 2001 to 2005, the Liberals are going to put in a
total of $11.2 billion, around $2 billion to $2.5 billion a year
on average. It is way in the future but they are advertising it
on TV as if the money is here now. They are not stating that it
is way in the future. They want Canadians simply to be duped
into believing that they are doing wonderful things for health
care so they will vote for them again because they want power. I
find that offensive and we should put an end to it. It is very
disturbing to me that this has occurred.
I am not talking too much about the health care system per se
because I am primarily a finance critic. However, I would like
to talk a bit about the history of the Liberal government. I did
a little math. I love math. I get out my calculator and play
with numbers for recreation. Other people bore themselves to
death by doing things like golfing. I like solving little math
problems.
I have already described how since 1993 the funding for health
care went down and then went up again. After 2005 it actually
will be higher than it was in 1993. However, after 2001, with
the total amount of money that will be put into health care, it
will still be less than the amount that was being transferred in
1993. It went down so low that this bill will not even bring it
up to the 1993 levels.
What I did was take the numbers from 1993 all the way to the
projections for 2005, a total of 12 years. I will not read the
numbers, but members can check with me later if they want them. I
did a calculation to find out how much the amount had increased.
By the year 2005 the government will actually be putting in more
than in 1993, 12 years earlier.
That works out to an increase of 11.7% over 12 years. That is
an average increase, compounded annually, of 0.9%, less than 1%
per year. Our population has grown bigger than that. We are
falling behind per person. We are putting less and less into
health care per capita and the government wants to applaud
itself. I am sure that anyone who knows the facts will not
applaud. The government needs to applaud itself because that is
the only applause it will get, I am sure.
I cannot help but think about the government's concern for
children. It loves to talk about children but it is missing the
most important thing. I am very grateful that when our children
were young we could afford, with sacrifices, to live on one
income. In our family it happened to be that I was chosen to
earn the income and my wife was a full time mom. Now two of our
children who are married have children. We have four wonderful
grandchildren. I am very grateful that they each have a full
time mom. I assure members that is not without sacrifice.
The term Liberal government is an oxymoron. Liberal comes from
the same root word as liberation and freedom. Instead, the
Liberals tax us to death and control our lives. It is shameful.
The Liberal government thinks that it does best by taxing people
so heavily that both parents have to work, then it wants to be
kind and give money back for social services to look after
children who really do not have an effective home to live in.
Would it not be better if we so arranged our fiscal affairs that
families would be taxed at a level where they could actually
afford to make that choice? The operative word is choice.
We know that easily two-thirds of families, when given a free
choice, would choose to spend time at home with their young
children. That is not a choice under the contradictory term of
Liberal government. That choice is taken away.
I have to emphasize again that under the programs of the
Canadian Alliance, not only would we fund health care adequately,
working together with the provinces in harmony, giving them the
authority to operate the health care system efficiently, but we
would also reduce taxes for families so that those choices would
be real and viable.
1150
I could go on and on but I choose not to because I know we are
eager to hear what my colleague has to say in terms of the health
care system. He will talk more about that part of it.
I simply want to conclude by emphasizing that what the Liberals
say and what they do are two different stories. The ads on
television this week and what is actually happening is not the
same story. One is designed to win the next election. What they
are actually doing, by their policies and actual practices, is
putting health care at serious risk in this country. It is time
to replace these Liberals and put into power a government that
thinks clearly about these things, communicates clearly with the
Canadian people and will fix the problem.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elk Island
and the House for allowing me to speak on an issue that is very
close to all our hearts.
Bill C-45 is five years too late. Everybody in the House knows
and understands the problems we have, not only in our health care
system but in our education system and in the welfare programs
that we have today.
We have a situation today in health care where there is an
increasing disparity between the resources that we have to pay
for and what we ask for. As time passes, as we get older, as our
demographics change and as the demands on our health care system
increase, that gap between what we have to pay for and what we
demand of our health care system will increase and widen. The
result will be extraordinary pain and suffering for Canadians
from coast to coast.
While we support the addition of $5.5 billion into the system,
as my colleague from Elk Island so eloquently stated, this is but
a drop in the bucket. This will do nothing and it is little more
than an election ploy.
Sadly, the bill should have been put forth five years ago because
it will only get us back to 1995 levels. The public may not know
or understand this, but when the funding actually comes in it
will only get into the sharp edge of health care one and a half
years from now. What will happen to all the patients who sit and
suffer in quiet pain and suffering at home? People are
suffering and waiting for timely access to health care, the
timely access that the Minister of Health likes to stand up and
crow about. He says that all Canadians must have timely access
to essential health care services and that the government is
doing that. That is bunk. That is absolutely untrue.
Let us talk about the truth. Let us talk about what is going on
in health care in Canada today. For more than five years the
government has removed funding for health care on the one hand,
while on the other hand, it has restricted the provinces from
giving their patients, the sick people in their provinces, the
chance to get the care they require. The provinces have been
hamstrung. Their hands have been tied behind their backs and they
have been unable to be innovative because of the federal
government.
It is disingenuous of the government to say on the one hand that it
will uphold a system. We all want to ensure timely access to
essential health care services in a public system for all
Canadians. Canadians should not have to pay out of their own
pockets for health care or be refused health care as a result of
having no money in their pockets. No one in the House wants
that, least of all us, but for heaven's sake we should not use
politics and try to stand up and be the great white knight
defending people's health care when in reality we are actually
restricting the ability of people to get health care when they
need it.
All of us here have a common interest in ensuring that our
public health care system is strengthened. However, since the
Liberal government came to power it has been restricting the
provinces' ability to do this.
A lot of the words in the bill are good. The bill talks about
collaboration, about commitment and about the desire to have a
publicly funded, sustainable health care system where people have
timely access to health care services.
However, they have been talking about that for seven years. The
reality can best be illustrated by the story of Mrs. Marilyn
Slater, who lives on Vancouver Island. She is a 64 year old who
recently had her hip replaced.
1155
Mrs. Slater was paralyzed with pain because of her hip and
desperately needed an operation. About two years ago she went to
see her physician. He told her that she would get a hip
replacement within two years. She waited in pain for two years
to get her hip replaced. This was the health care system that
was supposed to give her timely access to essential health care
services. Was it timely? No. Was it essential? Yes. Did she
suffer? Yes. Is this what the Canada Health Act or the
government is supposed to uphold? No.
It is completely unfair to allow people like Marilyn Slater and
so many others across this country to suffer.
In the hospital where I sometimes work, a situation has occurred
over the last year. People are on waiting lists for a little
over two years before they can get in to see an orthopedic
surgeon. Because of a lack of money, the hospital told the
orthopedic surgeons, knowing they were working only one day a
week in the operating room, that, although the hospital was
sorry, it would have to cut the operating room time to a half day
a week. This pushed the waiting lists for a patient to be seen
in this community, which serves half of British Columbia, to
three and a half years. A three and a half year wait to see an
orthopedic surgeon for patients in severe pain has nothing to do
with health care and everything to do with being inhumane. It is
torture.
There are ways of dealing with this, but for heaven's sake,
putting forward a bill that will put money into the sharp edge of
health care, some of it a year and a half from now, and
ultimately put us back to where we should have been five years
ago, is not good health care.
When the bill goes through and the money goes to the health care
system, we will still have people suffering, like Marilyn Slater
and the people in northern British Columbia. This is happening
all over the country. Barrie and Peterborough hospitals
routinely close down their emergency departments because the
hallways are filled with people on gurneys and they cannot fit
any more in. Why are those people there? They are there
because they cannot get a bed in a hospital. The hospitals are
saying that they do not have enough money to pay for nurses and
open up beds. That is not good health care and it is happening
across the country.
If anybody says that we have timely access to health care, I
would like to know where, because it does not happen too often.
It happens to people who are acutely injured, to be sure. It is
only because of the bravery and courage of our medical health
care workers in the field that they are able to do this.
We need solutions. We have a manpower crisis. The government
gives vague concepts of how to relieve this but where are the
specifics? The specifics need to be talked about now because in
the next 10 years we will have a lack of 112,000 nurses in
Canada. The average age of the physician population right now is about 45
to 46. There is a crisis today in virtually every medical
specialty, whether it is in neuropathology, neurosurgery or
general surgery. The list goes on. We need an effective plan.
I want to propose one plan to the government, speaking
personally. The government should work with the provinces to
allow an expansion of the number of people not only in medical
schools but in nursing colleges and technology schools. Let us
not forget the medical technologists who are an integral part of
our health care team. Many of them are working one and a half
jobs just to fill in for the lack of personnel.
One option may be for the government to pay 10% to 15% toward a
student's tuition fees and in return the student would serve an
equal number of years in an underserviced area. That would
relieve the maldistribution problem that we have. We know that
if a medical worker goes into an urban setting during a period of
time it is very difficult to attract them to an underserviced
area; in fact it rarely happens. What we have to do is catch
them when they get out of school.
1200
Speaking personally, this plan would allow people to have their
tuition fees paid for the amount of time they are in school. In
return they would provide an equal number of years in a rural,
underserviced area. That is what is done in military training.
It can be done in health care. If that is done it will provide
some access to people who are desperately in need of care in
rural settings.
Another aspect I want to talk about is education. The situation
now is that post-secondary education has been completely gutted
for a number of years. Students are having a very difficult time
making ends meet and have had an onerous burden placed
upon them.
Certainly it is true they have to pay for their tuition, but
what is happening now is very interesting and actually violates a
sense of egalitarianism the government likes to profess to have.
Money has become a significant factor in preventing people from
gaining access to professional schools. In the faculty of
medicine at the University of Toronto it costs about $10,000 a
year to become a doctor. I could not have become a physician if
those had been the fees when I was going through.
That is a major restriction now to people of low to middle class
means. They cannot afford to send their children to professional
faculties any more. Now those faculties are becoming the purview
of the children of the rich. That is not right. No one in the
House would like to see that happen.
As our party and our former leader have in the past, let us talk
about an income contingent loan replacement scheme. Our scheme
would enable students to put back the money they have taken out
in loans. Those moneys would be put back in a way that is fair
to them and fair to taxpayers. We have encouraged and have tried
to put the government on notice in this regard for a number of
years. We have indicated that these students have suffered. Some
of them had to end their studies because they could not afford
them. The plan our party has put forth would enable them to
study and it would be fair to taxpayers.
On the issue of children, my colleague from Elk Island spoke
very eloquently about the need for strengthening the parent-child
bond. We cannot have an inequitable tax regime such as we have
today, which does not enable parents to spend more quality time
with their children. This has to change.
For years we have been asking the government to ensure that
there is tax fairness between parents who choose to go to work
and parents who stay home. It is not difficult. It could be
changed simply. Let us change it. We need to do that. The tax
system of today also restricts the ability of many parents to
stay at home. As a result parents are forced into the workplace.
We also need to consider, if we are to engage in a childhood
development scheme, something that will work well. The Minister
of Labour has been a leader, as has the minister responsible for
children, on how we can ensure the basic needs of kids are met.
As the Minister of Labour knows through her program in Moncton,
strengthening the parent-child bond very early on will have an
enormous, profound, positive effect on the development of a child
into adolescence and into adulthood.
In fact someone won the Nobel prize for showing that the
developing brain in a child is like a sponge. If we subject a
child to sexual abuse, violence, improper nutrition, a lack of
proper parenting or a lack of discipline, we find the child's
brain does not develop properly and his or her cognitive
abilities and emotional strength built early in life do not
necessarily happen. We need to look at the body of evidence that
actually works and to work with parents to ensure that takes
place. It has to start early on.
BC Reports contained a very good front page article, in the last
two weeks, on the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome, the leading
cause of preventable brain damage in the country today. Almost
half of all people in jail today have fetal alcohol syndrome or
fetal alcohol effects. It is an entirely preventable problem.
It is devastating problem for children. Their cognitive
abilities are destroyed. Their average IQ is 68. They have
difficulty with interpersonal relations. Unfortunately many of
them, as we have found, go into lives of crime. It is
preventable.
In order to prevent it we have to start before, in the prenatal
phase. An effective head start program that strengthens the
ability of parents to be good parents would work to prevent that.
1205
Let us imagine if we were able to do that not only from a
humanitarian basis but from a total cost basis. One of those
children costs the system almost a half million dollars a year up
to age 18, and it is preventable. Let us imagine the savings if
a child does not go to jail, which costs $100,000 a year in a
juvenile institution. As someone who has worked in jails for a
number of years, it is terrible to see. It is a waste. It is a
waste for the taxpayer. It is a waste for the human being. It
is a waste for society.
I could only encourage the government to follow along with the
lead of my colleague, to work with what it knows is effective to
strengthen the parent-child bond and to look at the tax regime.
If something is to be implemented, it should not be a national
day care centre but a program that strengthens the parent-child
bond so that the parents can be better parents to their children.
We know that is the most effective way. Also we must ensure that
children get proper nutrition and that parents have the means to
do that.
On the welfare system, another aspect of CHST, we know there are
two populations on welfare: those people who will never be able
to take care of themselves, but thankfully we have a system that
allows us to do that, and another population that would like to
work but for reasons cannot.
One of the biggest complaints we receive from people on welfare
is that they do not want a handout. They want a hand up. What
really aggravates them is that they want to get some skills, some
training, and they need a bit of help to enable them to do that.
However what they find is that they are penalized when they try.
They are penalized when they say they want to work a bit, to get
back into the workforce and to develop the skills that will
enable them to provide for their families.
In the way the current welfare system is structured it rewards
people for staying at home and not working. It actively
penalizes individuals who are trying to get the necessary skills
to stand on their own two feet.
I know that is not the objective of anyone in the House, but we
have not seen leadership on the part of the government to work
with the provinces, because it is a provincially managed program,
to reform our welfare system so that we can give people who want
to work the tools and the skills to enable them to stand on their
own two feet. They would be so grateful for that, that votes,
money and accolades would go to whomever does it. That is what
we need. We need leadership in these areas and we need reform of
the system.
The Minister of Health said on November 27, 1999, and this can
be ascribed to education and to welfare, that medicare would soon
be unable to provide Canadians with timely access to medical care
unless major reforms are undertaken.
I have not seen, and I do not know if anybody else has seen
them, those major reforms coming down the pipeline. We certainly
see nice words in the bill. There is a commitment to some funds
that will put it back to 1995 levels, but we do not see the major
structured reforms of leadership that will be required on the
part of the government to make those reforms relevant and
effective for the 21st century, be it health care, be it welfare,
be it education.
There rests on the shoulders of the government an extraordinary
opportunity in leadership. Why does it not call the first
ministers together again? They should be locked in a room along
with the relevant ministers and told that the problem has to be
fixed. At the end of the day they all have the same interests.
We need to have the interests of the public at heart. They
should put away the nonsense, the political drivel, and sit down
to fix the problem, given effective solutions that already exist
in the country today. They exist. Good solutions from not only
our country but from around the world exist.
We could look at the German model for health care. We could
take the best from Moncton, Michigan and Hawaii for children. We
could look at welfare programs in other parts of the world that
give people a handout to give them a hand up.
1210
We could look at manpower solutions that would address a problem
that if not dealt with today would result in the deaths of many
Canadians tomorrow. It is not something that we could deal with
tomorrow, because this problem affects us today. It takes four
to twelve years to train the people we need after high school.
I could only beg on the part of myself and my colleagues that
the government takes Bill C-45 and implements it but gets back to
the drawing board now to help people who are suffering in quiet
desperation and enduring years of pain unnecessarily. Let us get
together and do that. Let us implement the solution. Let us not
wait five years to make any changes. Let us do it this year.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank my colleagues here for unfailingly supporting my
actions.
First off, I want to say that we are extremely happy with the
agreement negotiated after a hard fought battle with the
provinces. I will have an opportunity to mention it again, but
I want to say to this House that, at a later stage of our work,
either in committee or here in committee of the whole, if that
is how our work is to be done, I will table two amendments,
which I will explain in the course of the debate.
My first amendment concerns the section of the bill dealing with
the acquisition of medical equipment for which a trust will be
set up with an injection of $1 billion in resources. It was
agreed in fairly detailed terms that the use of this amount for
the provinces would be broken down. We would like to introduce
an amendment that would clarify this even further by setting out
in clause 2 how the amounts of money will be distributed.
In the 40 minutes allotted me, I will explain it in greater
detail, but we will be introducing an amendment to clause 3 as
well, on funding for communications technologies. This refers
to the part of the agreement concerning the pooling of data
relating to health care, the whole health information network
the premiers have agreed to set up.
The Bloc Quebecois finds something particularly revealing in the
agreement before us.
Members will recall that at the first of the Minister of
Finance's budgets containing cuts to the transfer payments the
Bloc registered its objection. It warned the government
against—one of the means available to the government—making this
federalism dysfunctional. Furthermore, as of 1994, we felt the
federal government might destabilize the provinces' public
funds.
Today, although a draft agreement provides some relief by
injecting $23 billion over five years into transfer payments, we
cannot forget that between 1994 and the Minister of Finance's
latest budget the provinces have been deprived of a total of
$42 billion.
On the subject of Canadian federalism, when they say it is a
system with two levels of government, that each is supposed to
be autonomous, as constitutional law teaches—
Mr. Daniel Turp: Indeed.
Mr. Réal Ménard: My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry has even
taught this to his students. It is hard to imagine in a federal
system worthy of being called one that a government can
literally strangle the provinces with its policy, and this is
what has happened.
It is in fact so true—and I want to make this point in my
preliminary remarks, because I want to spend time on the
essential issue of health—that in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996,
governments, especially that of Quebec, witnessed a sort of
transfer of clientele.
In other words, all the cuts to health care or to employment
insurance have had the effect of preventing people from
qualifying for programs they had access to previously. They
ended up turning to the program of income security in increasing
numbers.
1215
This is so true that some authors, such as economist Pierre
Fortin, have estimated that the restrictions arising from
the various federal government cuts have cost the Quebec public
treasury additional millions. Clearly the agreement before us
provides reparation. We must not ever forget that.
It is no small matter, when we consider the years 1994, 1995,
1996, 1997 and up to today. What was needed was a common stand
by all the premiers, be they New Democrat, Conservative or
Liberal. Brian Tobin has, in recent years, added a strong voice
to this debate.
He called upon the federal government to re-establish the
transfer payments.
I repeat, we are going to subscribe to the agreement we have
before us. We are going to make amendments, but we want the
money to be made available to the provinces as promptly as
possible. We are dealing with the outcome of a mess that was
literally provoked by the federal government.
This is an example of why we on this side of the House are
sovereignists. It makes no sense for there to be two orders of
government, one of them with more financial means than the
other because of its taxation powers and the division of
powers.
Here is where the question lies. In modern life, as we are
living it in this month of October in the year 2000, the major
responsibilities our citizens expect us to meet fall under the
jurisdiction of the provincial governments.
Whether it be health or education, these are areas of
responsibility that are at the core of our fellow citizens'
lives, and ones on which the federal government has virtually no
say, despite the fact that it is better off financially, with
more financial resources than the provincial governments.
Nevertheless, without this common front, without the doggedness
of the Bloc Quebecois which has made this a guideline, a
baseline, a kind of leitmotif for all of its political action
since the Minister of Finance's budget, without this concerted
effort by the various actors putting pressure on the federal
government, I do not believe that this would have been
accomplished.
In my opinion, another explanatory factor for the agreement
reached by the first ministers at the September 11 conference,
in addition to all the ones that have come out of Winnipeg via
Ottawa, is the imminence of a federal election.
The Prime Minister, cabinet and the whole government caucus knew
full well that it would have been unthinkable to call an
election after impoverishing the provinces, after exerting very
real pressure on the health system, without doing something to
restore the sharing of fiscal responsibilities.
To make things clear, let us take a look at what this agreement
provides. The agreement is based on six major points. First, it
seeks, as I said, to restore transfer payments. A total of $23.4
billion will be invested over the next 5 years. Next year it
will be $18 billion, then $19 billion, $20 billion and $21
billion. Transfer payments will be increased to $21 billion and
about $2 billion will be kept for policies directly aimed at
young children.
In addition to that, a $1 billion trust will be set up for the
acquisition of medical equipment.
It is critical to realize how important this is for the health
system, because medical technologies change very rapidly.
Last winter, I met the administrators of the various hospitals
on the island of Montreal. I wanted to know how things were
done, what their major management challenges were and what it
meant, ultimately, for an administrator to provide health
services to a community.
1220
All the administrators told me about the importance of renewing
the technological equipment in the medical sector. Acquisition
costs for these technologies are extremely high and the life
expectancy of this equipment is about five, six or seven years
at best. So $1 billion will be earmarked for the acquisition of
medical equipment.
The bill is too vague and an amendment will be necessary,
because we want to correct that flaw.
We want it to be clearly stipulated that the proposed funding,
the $1 billion for the acquisition of medical technologies, will
be entirely consistent and in no way discretionary with what was
agreed at the meeting of first ministers in Ottawa.
I draw the attention of all parliamentarians to the fact that
the final press release for the Ottawa conference gives the
breakdown of this $1 billion for 2001-02. The totals are given
for each province. For 2000-01, Quebec will be receiving
$119.9 million; the amount for the following year will be
$119.2 million. We must not find ourselves in a situation where
we pass a bill that is not very clear about what the first
ministers agreed to.
This is an extremely important part of the agreement.
We attach very great importance to it and that is why we will be
tabling an amendment here in the House if we go into committee
of the whole for the subsequent stages.
In addition to the $1 billion fund for the acquisition of medical
equipment, the purchase and installation of modern diagnostic
tools and other medical equipment that is obviously urgently
needed, there is a $500 million fund for the installation of
health information technologies.
This is also an important feature of the agreement. We know that
each of the provinces has a database and computer networks,
information that may give a clearer picture not just of the
progression of diseases, but of various trends in the medical
community.
At the Ottawa conference this past September 11, the first
ministers agreed to exchange this information. The purpose of
the information exchange is to ensure compatibility among the
various information systems so that data may be exchanged at
high speed without any technological hitches.
This was made very clear in the communiqué. There was no
reference to Canada-wide information standards, as there is in
the bill. In order to make things very clear for those who are
listening to us, and in order for them to clearly understand the
reason for our amendment, I would like to read what the first
ministers had agreed to in their final communiqué at the end of
the September 11 conference.
Specifically in relation to health information and communication
technology, both Premier Bouchard and Minister Marois agreed that
it is important to have this exchange of information, and to
have it work both ways, so that the provinces may also benefit.
For example, the federal government has a health information
network.
It is important that this information circulate as freely as
possible.
We know that every time the government of Mr. Bouchard, and of
Mr. Parizeau before him, had the opportunity to serve the
superior interests of Quebec, it made a contribution.
As an aside, I would remind hon. members that any time there
was an opportunity to allow Quebecers to benefit from a change
for the better in the status quo as far as their day-to-day
services were concerned, the sovereignist governments, which are
as everyone knows extremely vigilant in defending the interests
of Quebec, whether in the time of René Lévesque, Jacques
Parizeau or Lucien Bouchard, have taken advantage of that
opportunity.
1225
I want to remind members that the manpower agreement was
negotiated by Louise Harel. It was not accomplished under the
Bourassa government. It was vitally important to have a single
window in Quebec in 1995 for those receiving income security and
those receiving employment insurance. Quebec had had enough of
making a distinction in connection with changes in the labour
market that for too long had resulted in a duplication of
programs that left the public confused. The result is that as
we speak, someone who is unemployed in Quebec can access all of
the Government of Quebec programs through a single window and
does not need to go through a multitude of intermediaries.
The sovereignist governments, because their allegiance is to
Quebec alone and to the people they represent, have, in very
current matters that are at the heart of our fellow citizens'
concerns, been able to come up with agreements where the
federalist governments could not.
I have just given the example of manpower, but I could have
given other examples. I would, however, like to get back to the
matter of health. On the subject of health information and
communication technology, it was agreed at article 7 of the
agreement, which I quote, that:
All governments have made major investments in health
information technologies in recent years to improve care and
health system management.
First Ministers agree to work together
to strengthen a Canada-wide health infostructure to improve
quality, access and timeliness of health care for Canadians.
First Ministers also commit to develop electronic health records
and to enhance technologies like telehealth—
Telehealth is remote health care. I will give you as an example
the case of a person who is x-rayed in Lotbinière riding but
needs further treatment in the Saint-Luc hospital.
It is then possible with telehealth to send the x-ray and the
information by means of an electronic and computerized process.
Telehealth will become extremely important in the coming years,
because we know that the treatment individuals are to receive may
not be available in their community. I will continue reading
from article 7:
Here I draw the attention of the members, because this is where we
will introduce an amendment.
Governments will continue to work collaboratively to develop
common data standards to ensure compatibility of health
information networks.
This will lead to more integrated delivery of health care
services. They will also ensure the stringent protection of
privacy, confidentiality and security of personal health
information.
It goes without saying that this information must be secure.
There are several causes for concern in the bill. I repeat,
Premier Bouchard and the health minister, Pauline Marois, have
agreed that in order to follow developments and understand
events in areas relating to health care it is important to have
information circulate. That is understandable.
I will give you an example. The Quebec public drug plan covers
certain drugs.
We want to know if the equivalent of the drugs covered by this
public program exists in other provinces. How much does AZT or a
new medication for hypertension cost in Quebec, and what is its
equivalent in other provinces? It would be helpful to provide
this kind of information through a network, and that information
should be accessible to all the stakeholders, but there is
absolutely nothing on national health standards.
1230
This morning, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the deputy
leader of the government and yours truly were very surprised—let
us not forget that we received the bill late yesterday
afternoon—to see that the legal wording of clause 3 reads as
follows:
3. The Minister of Finance may make a direct payment of $500
million for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2000 to a
corporation, to be named by order of the Governor in Council on
the recommendation of the Minister of Health, for the purpose of
developing and supporting the adoption of Canada-wide information
standards and compatible communications technologies for health
services in Canada.
As members can see, there is a difference between the text of
the final release approved at the first ministers' conference on
September 11 and the legal wording.
Perhaps the different wordings in the release and in the bill
are an accident because the legal officers did not accurately
reflect the will of the premiers and of the Prime Minister. That
is possible, but the Bloc Quebecois will have to propose
amendments, and I understand that the government will support
such amendments. This will ensure an adequate process for
everyone, and I gather that there will no obstruction from any
side.
These are the main points of the agreement.
I wanted to go over it again because I think it is vital to our
understanding. Had it not been for the vigilance of the Bloc
Quebecois, the common front presented by all the first ministers
and, I think we would have to agree, the impending election, we
would never have arrived at an agreement such as this.
I also wish to take this opportunity to remind the House that
one year ago all the health ministers had asked their officials
to try to determine the progression of health care costs. We
cannot say this often enough. It would have been unbelievable,
completely shameless of the federal government, and it
would have shown a complete lack of civility and political
good grace if the federal government had not made this gesture
of atonement. This is the atonement of a hegemonic government
that has repeatedly taken advantage of its financial position,
that has acted unilaterally to make the provinces poorer, often
creating additional costs for their respective treasuries.
All this was documented in a study, which I have summarized,
because it is 200 pages long. This was a study commissioned by
all health ministers. First, it looked at a well-known demand.
At the time, all the provinces were calling on the federal
government to restore transfer payments to 1994 levels
immediately. This is pretty much what is being proposed. In
this, the provinces have been successful.
It is worthwhile calling to mind that the study in question
indicated that total provincial and territorial health
expenditures were $11 billion in 1977. Why did they choose
1977? Because, hon. members will recall, that was the first
year the existing programs were reformulated and the first year
reference was made to established programs financing, the famous
EPF.
Let us recall that in 1977 the provinces were spending $11
billion on health, whereas this year they will be spending $56
billion. This gives us an idea of the effort the provinces have
had to expend in order to continue to provide health services to
their respective populations. In parallel with the stepped up
efforts of the province, the federal government has disengaged.
When I am asked to speak to people working in the health sector
or at conferences, I always remind my listeners that for the
year 2001-02, for example, if the government of Quebec wanted to
provide exactly the same services as this year's to its
population without adding any new services, its health budget
would have to go up 5%. Thus, the health budget of the
government of Quebec is rising more rapidly than the collective
wealth being generated by the people of Quebec.
1235
This is the dramatic situation that is going on. Once again, if
the federal government had not re-established the transfer
payments, it would have been extremely difficult for the
government of Quebec to manage without jeopardizing other
equally essential missions in the Quebec community. I think I
have explained this sufficiently, so I will go on to the
conclusion of the report.
I thank the hon. member for Québec for being here with me in the
House. I do not think I have ever made a significant speech
without her support. As far as politics is concerned, we are
just about joined at the hip.
The main thrust of the conclusion of the report by all the
ministers of health is extremely interesting.
Let me read that conclusion. It says:
A review of the block funding for health shows that the gap
between the current amount of the federal contribution, and the
amount at which that contribution could be if it had increased
significantly, has constantly grown bigger.
There is a big difference between the health care system of the
eighties and that of the year 2000-01. For one thing, new
diseases have surfaced. For example, AIDS was unknown before the
eighties. Still, we won the battle against AIDS which, during
the eighties and the early nineties, was a deadly disease. It is
now a chronic disease, because we can control it with triple
therapy.
The most important factor is, of course, the aging population.
The Quebec population ages faster than the population in other
countries. I have some figures here. Mr. Speaker, knowing your
intellectual curiosity, I will be pleased to share these figures
with you.
In 35 years, one quarter of Quebec's population will be over 55
years of age. In Germany or in France, it will take 65 years for
that same phenomenon to occur, but in Quebec it will only take
35 years. Imagine the pressure that this puts on the public
health system, but also the challenge that we will have to face
when restructuring our health services.
Our generation is not the same as the generation of our parents
or grandparents. People will not necessarily accept to live
outside their homes when they get old. They will want to stay
longer and longer, as long as possible, I would say, in their
natural community.
This is one item of the budget that will be increasing, I am
happy to tell the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, because
he is our oldest member, although he is still very alert. He
may even be the oldest member of the House. No, I think that
distinction is reserved for the member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
In any event, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is the
Bloc Quebecois critic for seniors' issues. We know that one of
the budget items that will be growing in both absolute and
relative terms is home care.
Governments are going to have to devote considerable effort to
keeping people in their home setting. This means that the focus
of service will have to shift from institutions to the
community. This is called primary care.
This is why the agreement provides for $800 million over five
years to study how to keep people in their home setting as long
as possible.
I was asked to speak for 30 minutes and I think I have done
that. I will sum up with three points.
1240
The Bloc Quebecois is delighted that the federal government has
finally loosened the purse strings and is about to invest
$23.4 billion over the next five years. We will of course make
sure that Quebec gets its fair share.
On examining the bill, we noticed discrepancies between what the
first ministers wanted and the wording of the bill. The Bloc
Quebecois is going to move an amendment to clause 2 in order to
ensure that the established population-based shares do indeed go
to the provinces as agreed.
As for the compatibility of the various information networks and
databases, which everyone agrees is important for a
comprehensive overview, we will ensure that we do go the way of
national standards, because this is not necessary and because it
was not what the first ministers agreed to.
In conclusion, I assure the House of our desire to help see that
the bill is passed quickly. I understand that in any event the
government is going to agree to the amendments moved by the Bloc
Quebecois.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, needless to say we welcome the opportunity to finally
debate in a meaningful way the health care crisis in Canada
today.
It is interesting to note that this is the first time in the
last three years and four months since we were elected to this
place in June 1997 that we have before us a bill from the
government pertaining to the number one issue of Canadians. For
three years and four months we have known full well that the
country and its health care system is going deeper and deeper
into crisis, but it has taken three years and four months for the
government to finally bring the matter to the House and to allow
for a thorough debate on this very critical issue.
The bill, whatever it is called, whatever number it has and
whichever minister presents it, is clearly the government's
supposed solution to its mismanagement of the health care
situation in Canada today. Let us be under no illusions about
what the bill is. It is the result of pressure, pushing,
cajoling and prodding from Canadians everywhere in the country.
It is a reluctant step in response to that outcry, that
outpouring of concern.
Obviously we in the New Democratic Party welcome this
opportunity. We have been raising the issue tirelessly in the
House for the last number of years.
Members in the New Democratic Party caucus feel a tremendous
responsibility to ensure that the work of our forefathers and
foremothers in the CCF and the NDP in pioneering medicare is
carried on. The House will appreciate that we feel the
pioneering work, that innovative contribution to Canadian public
policy, has in fact been jeopardized by the inaction, passivity
and lack of leadership by the federal Liberal government.
There is clearly a need for the House to debate the health care
issue. There is clearly a need for the House to ensure adequate
and thorough review of the bill before us. I hope we have that
opportunity. One gets the impression that the government is in
fact attempting to push the bill through in short order. One can
imagine our concern after reading news reports today quoting the
Minister of Health's suggestion that the House would deal with
the bill in one day.
1245
Imagine our shock and concern when we read, as is mentioned in
the Charlottetown Guardian, that the Minister of Health
suggested at the federal-provincial health ministers meeting that
the provinces bend the ear of opposition members of parliament if
they want to ensure the bill passes before a possible fall
election. I hope this is not accurate. I hope that members in
the government are not trying to manipulate parliament or trying
to use this place as a rubber stamp.
Before this parliament is one of the most important issues in
the history of this country and the government wants to shove it
through. It wants to cut off debate. It wants to deny the
opportunity for thoughtful analysis, scrutiny and reflection. As
some of my colleagues in the House have said, is this just
another cynical election ploy to create the illusion, the false
pretence to the Canadian public that the government is actually
doing something on health care after neglecting this field and
doing nothing for seven years? Surely not.
Surely this place is not about satisfying a particular party's
agenda to advance its election timetable. Surely this place is
not about satisfying the political agenda of one party.
We must ensure that we have some opportunity to debate this very
important issue. We hope we will have that opportunity. We will
certainly do our part to thoroughly review the bill and to offer
our careful analysis.
Let us not forget, and let us be mindful of the fact that the
bill was delivered to us yesterday at 3 p.m. Let us not forget
or ignore the fact that this is a substantial piece of
legislation. Let us not forget that we have a responsibility to
ensure that this opportunity in the history of Canada is not
forsaken for the whim of a political electoral agenda.
It is interesting that the House has never had a debate
initiated by the government on the state of health care in the
entire last three years and four months. We have also never had
the opportunity to discuss this matter in the Standing Committee
on Health, the parliamentary committee that is supposed to be the
body, the avenue, for thorough review and study of the issues of
the day.
Health care is the number one issue of the day. The health care
system is in crisis. The government is clearly under pressure to
listen to the voices of Canadians and we have not even had the
opportunity to discuss this matter in the health committee. It
has not been for lack of trying. In fact we have had motions
before the health committee to convince the Liberal members on
that committee that the committee should be reviewing the state
of health care and should be providing important input and advice
to the government. Of course the trained seals across the way
rallied around the Minister of Health, who gives the directions.
They cut off debate and denied the opportunity and assured us we
would never have an opportunity as parliamentarians to thoroughly
discuss this issue.
Here we are with our backs against the wall, I guess the
Liberals would probably say. Here we are being told we have a
limited opportunity to discuss the number one issue facing
Canadians. I say shame on the Liberals. Shame on the government
for not allowing this place, this democratic institution that
speaks on behalf of all Canadians, to have a say in the future of
health care in this country.
1250
If we thought we were being manipulated by what we are hearing
in the media and what the ministers are purported to have said at
the health ministers meeting, it certainly has been confirmed by
the full coverage of the government's advertising campaign. As we
speak, $8 million of ads are happening to espouse the virtues of
the deal and presumably of the legislation before us.
How is it that we are supposed to be offering a thorough
analysis and ensuring proper parliamentary procedure around Bill
C-45 when ads are already running saying it is a done deal? The
ads are already saying it is over. Are we nothing but a rubber
stamp? Is that all we are today? Let us hope not and let us hope
we have a bit of time to discuss these issues.
While we are talking about the whole process and the clear sense
we have that the government wants to push this bill through, let
us look at the fact that the health committee has yet to
reconvene. The health committee has yet to meet, elect a chair
and plan an agenda. That says it all about how much the
government cares about the democratic process and parliamentary
procedures and respect for the institution. It has bypassed,
ignored and violated every process available to parliamentarians.
It has denied us the opportunity to speak on behalf of Canadians
who care deeply about the issue.
What is the rush? Why is the government rushing the bill
through if that is the case? Clearly the bill implements the
September 11 deal of between the first ministers. That deal causes
grave concern to all of us and does not even ensure that the
increased transfer payments kick in until 2001. After reading
this bill it will be clear that the Liberals want to rush through
a bill that is not really meant to be operational until the
spring of 2001.
Obviously we wonder what is the rush. The Liberals may argue
that they need the bill to implement the special funds that first
ministers agreed to pertaining to equipment, information
technology and transition funds. If that is the case, then
surely they would agree to split the bill. Give us an option to
deal with what is urgent and pressing and allow for a much more
thorough and comprehensive debate in terms of the whole issue of
transfer payments and the future of medicare.
One also has to wonder, if it is so important to rush this bill
through to make those special funds operational, why is it that
only the funds pertaining to equipment and to information
technology are mentioned in the bill? If, as the minister of
revenue said earlier, the idea of transition funds to reform our
primary health care system is so important, why is that not
mentioned in the bill? Does the government have other ways to do
that? If so, why is that other means not used to deploy the funds
for the equipment and information technology parts of the
agreement? It just does not make sense, unless this is simply a
cynical ploy to present a facade, an illusion, to the people in an
election soon to be called.
Let us not forget there have been seven years of neglect. Let
us not forget that the government is now trying to compensate for
incompetence, mismanagement, neglect and lack of leadership over
the last seven years. Let us not forget that it was in 1995 that
the bunch across the way took the biggest single bite out of
health care funding in the history of the country.
Let us not forget that the government had an opportunity to act
on a blueprint presented to parliament, the government and the
Canadian people from the national forum on health. It suggested
exactly what needed to be done for the future of medicare and the
government sat on it and let it gather dust.
Let us not forget that in 1997 the government in its most
cynical move ever, but maybe not as cynical as the one we are
about to see, decided to campaign on the ideas of national
pharmacare and home care.
Three years and four months have passed since that time and not a
step has been taken to move toward the implementation of those
ideas. We have nothing but broken promises and empty rhetoric
when it comes to the most fundamental issues of health care
today.
1255
Let us not forget that the government had an opportunity in the
last budget to do what Canadians said it should do, to do what
every provincial and territorial government said it should do, to
do what every health care organization in the country said it
should do. That was to increase financing and transfer payments
for health care in a way that was significant, sufficient and
predictable to meet the growing needs and demands on our system.
What did the government do? I am sure it knew it had a pretty
significant surplus back then, given the projections we are
hearing today of $33 billion for the present fiscal year. The
government probably knew it had a pretty good surplus back in
February 2000. What did it choose to do? It gave two cents for
health care for every dollar in tax cuts. That was it, the two
cents for health care budget.
We spent six months clamouring, pushing, prodding and cajoling
the government to do something. We asked that it address the
needs and the crisis in the health care system. We asked that it
ensure that at this time of opportunity funds be put into health
care at least to get us back in line with a 25% federal share of
health care financing and ideally a 50:50 partnership.
Here we are today and finally it has chosen to act, to take a
small step, a tiny step. With the September 11 deal, as outlined
in this legislation, the government has put back most of the
funds that it itself cut out of health care in 1995, but not
quite. It is not even the full amount. We are still about $900
million short, if I am not mistaken. It still will not kick in
until next year. There is still no long term predictability and
sustainability in the system. Of course, we have to keep in mind
that it has a limited timeframe. There is a five year period and
nothing beyond that.
Even on the issue of money, which is only part of the picture
and part of the work required, the government did a half job. It
took a partial step. It could not even complete the task at hand
when it came to the transfer payments it slashed back in its
first term of office in 1995.
Let us not be under any illusions that this is a historic deal.
Let us not try to paint this for something it is not. My
goodness, the Canadian people are smarter than that. They know
what this deal is all about. They are prepared, as we are, to
acknowledge it is a small step, but it certainly is not a plan
and a vision for the future.
My goodness, no wonder Canadians are asking if there really is
any difference between the Liberals and the Alliance. Are the
Liberals not just doing what the Alliance is saying? The
Alliance leader has said that national standards are not needed.
Obviously we totally disagree with that approach but the
Liberals, who had an opportunity to move on national standards,
let it drop off the agenda.
The Alliance has said that we do not need to have any
enforcement of the Canada Health Act by way of financial
penalties. The Liberals let it happen. They just do not enforce
the Canada Health Act. They had an opportunity with bill 11 to
do something, but they stood back and let that bill on private
for profit hospitals make its way through the legislative route.
Today we are facing this black moment in our history, this dark
period in our time, where bill 11, the first bill in the country
for private for profit hospitals, has become law.
The government had a golden opportunity not just to stabilize
the system, but to move forward. I dare say it had the will and
the support of many around the table at the first ministers'
meeting on September 11, but it chose to go with the bare minimal
approach. It chose to do the least possible. It chose risk
management over dreaming big dreams and planning for the future.
What is missing in this deal is a plan for the future. Despite
what the Prime Minister has tried to suggest in the House and
despite what other members are saying today, there is nothing in
this deal to advance the country toward a national pharmacare and
home care plan. There is nothing.
1300
Alliance members are clapping about that. Alliance members
obviously do not support any kind of strengthening of the
medicare system. The Alliance has actively advocated private,
for profit health care. We do not expect much support from
members on that side of the House for our position today, but we
hold out a tiny bit of hope that maybe somehow we can get through
to the government today to tell it clearly not to miss the
opportunity to go back to the drawing board and come up with a
plan that can be implemented now to renew and strengthen
medicare.
We are at a crossroads. We said that last spring. We can go
forward in terms of building a universal public health care
system, or we can let it lapse into a two tier American style
health care system. We are still at that crossroads today
despite the bill. We are still here because of the lack of
courage, the lack of dreaming, the lack of vision, the lack of
decision making and the lack of leadership from the government.
I conclude my remarks by saying let us have a chance to debate
this issue, to talk about the future and build a strong medicare
system. Our fight, from our point of view, is far from over. It
is clear to us that we cannot fix health care without a plan to
control drug prices, without a national home care plan and
without the courage to fight privatization.
We will keep speaking out in parliament and everywhere across
the land so that we can continue to take steps toward restoring
and renewing medicare. We will be even louder in our demands, in
pushing for a national plan and a national vision, because the
very future of medicare is at stake.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what takes place in the House from
time to time is very unfortunate. Different parties, the
opposition, and even, heaven forbid, sometimes people on the
government side, actually come up with some good ideas.
Unfortunately they couch them among much rhetoric and dogma. We
lose the good part of what these members have to say when there
is so much nonsense tied in with it.
I would like to question the member who just spoke about a
specific aspect that was raised in my riding by an NDP cabinet
minister who is running for the Liberal Party nomination. It is
an interesting situation. He raised the matter of Alberta's bill
11, which is legislation that authorizes the provincial
government to contract with the private sector to provide
services that the government is not able to provide in a timely
manner.
That is what the NDP is so adamantly opposed to, but in my
province of British Columbia, which has an NDP government,
exactly the same thing is done. The Workers' Compensation Board
and the NDP provincial government contract with the private
sector and hire doctors to queue jump, to bypass the system. Both
the WCB and the NDP government frequently send patients to the
United States health care system. The only difference is that it
has not been legitimized through legislation. That government
tries to pretend it is not doing that while in fact it has been
doing that for far longer than Alberta has.
What is the hon. member opposed to in Alberta when her own
provincial wing in British Columbia has been doing exactly the
same thing?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have
this question because it is very important for the people of the
country to know exactly where the political parties stand when it
comes to something as fundamental as our universal public health
care system.
I tell the member who expressed an opinion here today that he is
wrong, that what Alberta is doing through bill 11 is endorsing
and legitimizing private, for profit hospitals for the first time
in the history of the country. We happen to believe that there
is no room for profit in our health care system.
Obviously members of the Alliance Party have backing from
private market forces and multinational corporations that want a
piece of the pie.
They see the health care system solely in terms of the potential
for making money. They see it as an $82 billion golden egg.
1305
We do not. We happen to think that the only way to run our
health care system is to continue on the path of non-profit
public administration, ensuring universal access to everyone in
the country regardless of the money they make and regardless of
where they live.
We are obviously having to deal with an incredible barrage from
the forces of darkness in the country who believe that the only
way to save our health care system is to allow for a private
parallel health care system. That does not work. It is not more
effective. It does not save money. It does not deal with
waiting lists.
For a party that talks all the time about the most effective and
efficient way to go, why does it not support us in our efforts to
ensure that the medicare model, which as we know is fundamentally
sound, is allowed to take us into the millennium to be the basis
upon which we build a system that is truly responsive to the
needs of Canadians?
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for her passionate and
informed remarks on this very timely and important matter.
We in this party very much embrace the same concept that much of
what is wrong with health care now is more than just money. The
money that has been proposed here is inadequate. The premier of
her province, the premier of my province and others gathered with
the Prime Minister with the genuine intent that they were looking
for some indication the government was sincere in its approach
and sincere in its intent to try to repair what is happening, to
try to repair the undermining and the tearing of the fabric of
health care.
What the Progressive Party of Canada and our leader have been
proposing as one part of the remedy, not the be-all and end-all
but one part, is to inject some stability and some long term
commitment to the funding for health care.
We all know that the system is in need of nurses, doctors,
equipment and beds, the fundamentals, but they also need to know
there will be a plan that will allow them to plan for the future,
that will allow them to address the ever increasing complexities
and changing atmosphere in health care.
Does the hon. member also agree that this addition of a sixth
principle to health care is what is needed as a starting point
and that this is what should also have been included in this
accord?
The hon. member referred to the current government as the forces
of darkness. I would go one step further. The Prime Minister
has become the Darth Vader of what has happened to health care.
He is aided by the storm trooper Minister of Health and the
faceless ewoks on the backbench who are ready to just let this
happen. This is the quick fix: throwing a little money at it.
My colleague from New Brunswick Southwest has indicated that in
the province of New Brunswick this influx of cash will result in
nine days of funding. That is how quickly the money will be used
up.
An hon. member: It is only six days.
Mr. Peter MacKay: That new influx of cash will last
between six and nine days. That is an indication of what is
really happening. This is very much money that is promised at
some point in the future.
With the deathbed reprieve that has been offered by this accord,
is it stability of funding? Is it a commitment that the money is
to be there not only in the short term but in the long term? Is
there also an agreement, a willingness and an openness on the
part of the government to work with provincial health ministers
to look at the big scheme? Is it a mechanism which will allow for
fundamental approaches that will keep doctors, nurses and
hospitals open and working together on a non-partisan level to
ensure that health care will be there for Canadians in the
future?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question. What is at stake here is how we build a system that is
sustainable for the future. That is where I believe the
government missed the boat. It missed a golden opportunity.
I believe there was a will among many of the
provincial premiers around that table to look at a broader
vision of health care. I know that from Manitoba there was a
real desire for and an interest in having leadership from the
government around a national pharmacare plan.
1310
Instead of any kind of commitment to pursue a mechanism for
advancing and renewing medicare, instead of sending a clear
signal about where medicare has to go in the future, we got
nothing but more task forces, working groups and studies on all
the key issues.
On the critical human resource question and the crisis we are
soon to face in terms of a nursing shortfall we got a committee.
On the matter of drug prices skyrocketing out of reach we got a
committee. On the question of home care we got a committee. On
the questions of basic accountability and national standards,
so-called report cards, and I hate to even use those words, we
got a task force.
I hardly think that this was taking advantage of the
opportunity. At a time when there seemed to be the will and
spirit to move forward together, the government dropped the ball,
backed away, did the bare minimum and refused to show any kind of
leadership in bringing different forces together and going
forward. Canadians will pay the price for that.
In very short order people will realize that this so-called
historic deal is hardly what it is cooked up to be. In short
order Canadians will realize that the money is by and large
already spent since there was such a need in the system and
provincial governments were facing such a pinch because of rising
health care costs and declining federal funds. Canadians will
know very soon that the government let them down and that we
missed a wonderful opportunity in our history.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
bill can most aptly be titled the postdated cheque bill because
it promises a restoration of funds to provinces, to patients and
to medical professions across the country which simply will not
come on time.
The last dramatic action the government took with respect to
Canada's health care system was that it made a deliberate choice
to put the heaviest burden of its restraint measures upon
Canada's health care and social systems. That was a deliberate
choice. That was a clear demonstration of what it is now
customary to call Liberal values. The Liberals picked first on
the sick. They picked first on people who are in need in
society. That is where the burden of the cuts came.
The last dramatic action was a series of unilateral cuts that
were made without warning. They were devastating cuts that have
done more to damage the health care system than any other single
set of circumstances faced by the country in the last several
years.
After five years of pain the government today suddenly calls for
debate on Bill C-45, which would have cash transfers for health,
post-secondary education and social services returned to 1994
levels, not by this year but by the year 2002-03.
Why did the government finally repent? This was not the
government's will. It was pushed to this agreement by the
provinces of Canada and by the virtual certainty that sooner or
later it would have to stop hiding and face the people of Canada
in a federal general election. Left to its own devices, the
government would have continued to let the health care system
drift into the disarray that has caused such hardship across the
country.
Before these payments are made another 18 months will pass. Full
restoration of the cuts will only occur eight years after the
cuts were so brutally made. I repeat, those cuts were the single
biggest factor in the erosion of the health care system in the
country.
The change today is not driven by the erosion of the health care
system. The change today is driven by a cynical political
calculation of fear of an election in which the Liberals would be
held to account for the damage they have done in hospital after
hospital, home after home, family after family, right across
Canada.
They had every opportunity to change this policy earlier and they
did not do that.
1315
As I look at the legislative agenda of this parliament, I am
struck by one thing. Whether the issue is employment insurance
or whether the issue is health care funding, every initiative by
the Liberal government is being driven by an attempt to repair
the damage done by earlier Liberal Party initiatives. This is
simply a damage control government. This is not a government
that is seeking to serve the interests of the people of Canada.
The government claims this is full restoration of funding. It
is not. The bill cheats the provinces, the patients and the
health care professionals of Canada by at least $3 billion. Had
it been passed and effective this week and had moneys been
committed this year, nearly $3 billion more would be in the
system than is in the system under the bill before us.
Canadians will not see any of the restored funds this winter.
The first instalment only occurs next April 1. That is quite
clear in Bill C-45. It is also clear with this cynical
government that the Liberal Party ads are running but the money
is not moving. That is the height of cynicism in a system like
this.
The most important failure of this accord, apart from the fact
that it is a postdated cheque that cheats the recipients, is that
the government still has not assured the provinces of stable
funding in the future. That means provinces, health care
professionals and people who are ill or fear being ill are
subject once again and still to the threat of massive unilateral
cuts in health care funding by the federal government.
The funding for the next four years does not recognize actual
health costs or other factors contributing to rising health
costs.
[Translation]
The federal government has yet to guarantee the provinces stable
funding in the future. The votes for the coming four years do
not take into account the present costs of health care nor the
other factors affecting these costs. Despite the reinstatement
of the transfers, we have no assurance that the federal
government will not unilaterally cut transfers once again in the
event of an economic recession.
The arrogance of this government is beyond all. With an
election on the horizon, it is now telling the provinces to push
the opposition to pass the bill in a day. Why did the government
not listen to the provinces and the opposition in recent years,
when we were saying that unilateral cuts to health care had hurt
Canadians considerably?
In January 1997, the provincial and territorial ministers of
health informed the federal government that:
The cuts in federal transfer payments have resulted in a
critical loss of revenues for the provinces and the territories,
forcing them to make rapid changes to the system and seriously
threatening their ability to maintain existing services. The
reductions in federal funding accelerated the movement to reform
a system that lacks the ability to absorb and sustain the
adjustments that that requires.
Did we hear an announcement of funding for health care? No. How
did the Prime Minister react? In response to the demand put to
him by the premiers at the annual Saskatoon conference, the Prime
Minister apparently expressed doubts about the unconditional
payment of votes to the provinces. He wanted to impose
conditions in order to prevent the provinces from funding income
tax reductions with this money.
[English]
What is clear is that the Liberal Party's political agenda has
held back health care in Canada. The federal government's
interest is not in standards. That is the flag it flies behind.
It is not interested in standards. It is interested in control.
It does not matter what happens in hospitals across the country.
It does not matter what happens to people who are sick or fear
being sick.
The government wants to control every single penny and if
Canadians suffer that is just too bad. That is unacceptable in
any civilized system.
1320
At the same time the government removed its contribution and
increased its demand for control. This is happening at the worst
possible time in the evolution of the health care system because
of the insistence on rigidity, the insistence on control and the
absolute refusal to work with the other partners in the health
care system to give us a better system.
We are living through a period now in which our health care
system is assaulted by several fronts. There have been dramatic
changes in technology. There are dramatic impacts upon the
system by an aging population who will be able to stay alive and
active much longer than before. There are profound changes
brought by the possibilities of medication and by pharmaceutical
and other developments.
This is a time of immense change. This is a time of great
opportunities for leadership. This is the time when a Pierre
Elliott Trudeau or a Lester Pearson would have risen to the
occasion, but not this government. What the government has done
is turn tail and run and let the health care system in Canada
fall into tatters. That is absolutely unacceptable to any kind
of Canadian.
Today we have a deal before us to restore the funding cuts which
were made unilaterally. The agreement is overdue. It pays less
than is owed but it is welcome because the system cannot stand
to be starved any further. However, in all of this talk about
putting some of the money back, in all of the focus on the
postdated cheque, the clear reality is that we have not taken a
single step closer to having a modern and contemporary health
care plan based upon the principles of the Canada Health Act to
ensure the health and security of Canadians into the next
century.
There is money in the system now, or there will be in a couple
of years, but there is no plan because this is a government which
congenitally does not plan. It is a government of drift rather
than a government of seizing the initiative and assuring the
leadership of Canada.
The three day meeting of the health ministers this week came up
with a nursing strategy that will establish committees to
investigate the chronic shortage, to measure resources and to
examine changing trends. Nurses have been saying for years that
there were chronic shortages in the health care system. We hope
we have nurses left in our system by the time the Liberal
government finishes studying what is wrong. The ratio of
practising registered nurses to the Canadian population in 1999
was one nurse for every 133 persons. In 1989 the ratio was
1:120. The average age of an RN employed in nursing in 1999 was
43, up from 41 in 1994.
The bill is silent on how it plans primary care reform. We know
from the first ministers' conference that $800 million will be
invested over four years to support innovation and reform in
primary care. We do not know from the bill how that funding will
be distributed.
Elizabeth Witmer, the minister of health for Ontario, is quoted
as saying that with the primary care funding, 70% will go to
provinces and territories and 30% will go into a fund that will
have some Canada-wide applications, but that money is not going
to be made available until next April.
Ontario will have to put more money in to meet expectations
until the federal cash arrives. Ontario can do that.
Unfortunately, not all the provinces in the country have that
ability. This is an issue that is seriously missing in the
government's health care deal.
The government claims that it is interested in the same quality
of health care system across the country. However, it has forced
this upon the provinces, giving them no alternative but to accept
this or nothing, which leaves the poorer provinces with a lower
standard of health care than the others. What kind of Liberal
values does that represent? Where is the health plan for
palliative care and hospital infrastructure? All of them are
important aspects of primary health care reform.
Under Bill C-45 the provinces will know their funding for health
care up to April 2005. That is five years. It takes 10 years to
train a doctor. Doctors are integral to the reform of primary
care. The Canadian Medical Association has just sent me, and I
am sure other leaders, a copy of a letter in which says:
In the CMA's estimation the total cumulative funding commitments
contained in the First Minister's agreement are more than $17
billion less than what we forecasted as needed to ensure the
sustainability of the health care system.
1325
That is $17 billion less. Not only is it less, it is late.
There is far less here than meets the eye. The government is
spending more money this month on health care ads than it is on
health care. That is simply unacceptable in a nation like this.
Pharmaceutical management is an important part of our health
care system. At the first ministers' meeting there was discussion
about developing strategies for assessing the cost effectiveness
of prescription drugs and means of drug purchasing costs. There
is no concurrent commitment by the federal government to improve
the timeliness of drug approval. Some pharmaceutical companies
offer evidence that drug therapies reduce institutional care. The
government has direct input in approving new drugs that help
Canadians avoid lengthy institutional stays.
The Canadian Medical Association has stated that an
unnecessarily long approval process delays access to new
medications that may improve patients health status. However,
the median time for regulatory approval of new drugs in Canada
has been significantly longer than in countries such as the
United Kingdom, Sweden. Our country has been criticized in
several independent reviews on this issue.
The most important retreat that we evidenced today has not been
the cut in funding, brutal and deadly though that has been in
some cases. The most serious retreat has been the retreat from
leadership by this federal government. The Liberals came to
office at a time when the economy of Canada was growing sharply,
largely because of initiatives which they opposed in opposition.
The OECD acknowledges that Canada's economic strength was won by
the initiatives of a decade ago on trade, on the GST and on
deregulation. The government did little to earn the surplus
tabled last week and has done nothing at all to ensure those
funds would be wisely invested in the future of Canada.
Despite the most favourable possible economic circumstances, the
government has let the Canadian health care system fall into
disarray. Was that inevitable? Did other governments of the
world do that? Of course they did not. Other governments cared
more about the health of their citizens than this Liberal
government. That has shown up in the comparisons that have been
made by independent agencies around the world.
This Canadian government sat back and let Canada's health system
decline so sharply that even the World Health Organization ranked
Canada behind most of the comparable world in the quality of our
health care. Imagine that in the system of the Canada Health Act
and in the system of medicare Canada is ranked by the World
Health Organization behind most of the comparable world. Why is
that? It is that we have a government in office that will not
show the leadership that earlier Liberal governments showed. It
lets things drift in the dust. It insists on jurisdiction but
shows no leadership at all.
Canada has the resources and the tradition to be first in the
world, but the government has brought us to 30th instead of
first. If I may say so, it is not only the health care system
that it has damaged.
I spent a good amount of time this summer talking to people in
Kings county and Hants county in Nova Scotia who are very much
involved in the health care system. Some are nurses, some are
doctors, some are administrators and many more are people who are
trying to get a doctor for a remote community or trying to ensure
that it is possible for older people to travel easily to get
their supply of drugs.
When I speak to people in the medical profession I hear over and
over again that the problem is not just that the money is not
there but there is a sense that there is no movement in the
system, there is no plan and there is no hope. On a question
like medical care where we have been in front of the world for so
long, there is no hope.
Why is that? Is that the fault of Canada, the Canada that
created the Canada Health Act, the Canada that created medicare?
Of course not.
That is the fault of the federal government in office today which
has backed away time and time again from exercising the
leadership that would have let Canada continue to be a leader in
providing the highest quality health care to its citizens. The
government has failed and Canadians are paying the price for that
failure.
1330
More is at stake here than the health care system, because what
it has done on health care it is doing on other aspects of the
Canadian community. It is not drawing together people who want
to be together. It looks for polarization. That is its new
theme. It looks for ways to divide Canadians instead of heeding
the hopes of parliament. Instead of heeding, it is responding to
the requests of provinces. It ignores them until it is time
finally with an election looming to bring them together and to
offer a deal they cannot resist, a postdated cheque. That is not
leadership.
A system of co-operation in Canada, of co-operation among
governments with professionals, with concerned citizens, is what
we need to restore the country. As in so many issues there has
been no leadership by the federal government. Even now its
action has been forced by the combination of provincial pressure
and the impending election. There is not even the slightest hint
of federal leadership in developing a new health plan for Canada.
As I listened to the debate, as I watch what this minister and
this government are doing, it seems to me they are moving closer
and closer to where the leader of Her Majesty's official
opposition says he wants his government to be. The federal
government is drawing back from leadership in health care.
I know I am reaching the end of my time, so let me conclude on
this note. There is one level of government in Canada able to
speak for all of Canada. It is not just a question of money. It
is not just a question of jurisdiction. It is a question of
authority. If the national government will not lead, the system
will not succeed.
The government does not lead. Our system is in trouble because
there has not been the leadership that is needed. The bill is a
long overdue step in the right direction, but it is a faltering
step. It is a step under duress. It is a step that promises
more than it delivers. Unless there is a plan to go with the
money then the Canadian health care system will continue in that
long decline that began with the election of this careless,
drifting government.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the right hon. member. I would
like to remind him that in 1993 the government inherited a fiscal
framework and a $42 billion deficit.
Further, in the 1995 budget there was a non-confidence motion on
the floor of the House by the then opposition Reform Party. The
then leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Saint John,
voted that the cuts the government made to try and put the fiscal
framework back together were not deep enough. That is where the
Conservative Party stood in 1995.
Another point we have to make is that there is not a member of
parliament in the House that does not want a good health care
system for the country. The notion that the member and his party
are the only ones that care about a proper health care system is
not factually correct.
When a Prime Minister of Canada can pull 10 premiers together,
including a separatist premier, and unanimously agree on a pact,
I think that is something that Canadians respect.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, I learned some time
ago that when a member like the hon. member dwells so much in the
past it is because he has a great fear of the future.
We are here talking about what needs to be done now because the
system has suffered grievously over the last seven years, not
only from the cuts but from the absolute absence of leadership.
He talks to me about bringing together different provinces and
different groups. I know it can be done. I know it could have
been done by any minister of health or any Prime Minister on that
side who wanted to do it, but there was no will there to do it.
1335
Finally on September 11, when the provinces forced the federal
government to come to the table, it gave the provinces a take it
or leave it deal, a postdated cheque that was better than nothing
at all.
Do not talk to us about leadership. There has been no
leadership on health care, no leadership by the government on
making the federal and provincial government work together. This
is a government that cuts and runs, a government adrift. It is
the Canadian people who pay the price.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will make this very brief. The only
thing that is worse than the cuts and the policies of the federal
government over there is the hypocrisy of the member who just
spoke.
He talks about the cuts of the Liberal government. What about
the fact that funding went down to 27% from 50% during his watch
when he was a minister of the previous Conservative government?
That is a cut of 46% of federal funding. Now he wants to point
the finger at the people across the way who are no more to blame
than the Conservatives are. They are all in it together:
Liberal, Tory, same old story. Nothing has changed.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a
better poet when he quotes someone else than he is a contributor
to reasonable debate in the House. We know the position of his
party on health care. The position of his party is that the
federal government should continue to withdraw. The quite
startling position of his leader is that the role of the federal
government in a system like that of Canada should be as a
mediator.
Does the hon. member think there would ever have been a Canada
Health Act had the Prime Minister of Canada acted only as a
mediator? Does anybody in the House believe that there would
have been a Canada at all if the leaders of the federation had
acted only as mediators?
There is a prominent role for the Government of Canada to be
played in the health care system. The Canadian alliance reform
party is running away from that role. Unhappily what it does by
ideology the Liberal Party does by drift, running away from the
leadership that the health care system needs.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate the leader of
the Conservative Party on his election.
I also make reference to the fact that the member for
Kings—Hants talked about the Liberal legacy. I would like to
ask a question of the leader of the Conservative Party about the
Conservative legacy. In particular, under the Conservative
government Bill C-91 was passed, the drug patent legislation,
which provided 20 year monopoly pricing authority for
pharmaceuticals with regard to prescription drugs.
The Liberals promised to repeal that if they got elected in
1993. In fact they did not repeal it. They enhanced it and we
have therefore seen the cost of health care increase
substantially due to the fact that prescription drugs costs have
increased substantially.
Will the leader of the Conservative Party now stand in the House
and refute the legacy of the Conservative government when it
passed Bill C-91 and support the repealing of Bill C-91?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, that
initiative was an initiative which has not only brought
significant innovation to the development and discovery of new
drugs in the country but consequently helped to address and cure
diseases that would otherwise not have been addressed and cured.
It also provided tremendous economic momentum to many parts of
the country. It helped Canada move into an era in which we could
move, if we chose, to the frontlines in the new economy in
research and development. It was precisely the kind of
initiative that a government of a modern country has to take if
it is to stay in the leadership of a rapidly changing world.
One of the things members of the New Democratic Party will have
to learn some day is that we cannot run away from the world.
There is no place to hide out. If we are to become leaders in
the world then we have to engage the modern world on its terms.
That is what that bill did. That is what this party intends to
continue to do.
1340
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, one thing that concerns me about the health debate is
that the Leader of the Opposition is now saying there should not
be any national standards in which the federal government
participates in setting, that the standards should be determined
by the provinces.
If that kind of system were created, and he has said the
standards should be determined by the provinces, we would end up
with an end to national medical care. We would have a patchwork
system that differs from province to province. We would have a
system that is much better in wealthier provinces and poor in
poorer provinces.
Would the leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party
disagree with the leader of the very conservative reform Canadian
Alliance?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, I certainly disagree
with the position of the leader of reform alliance party which
would have the Government of Canada withdraw, not only in the
field of health but in many other fields that are important to
the Canadian public interest, from the role of leadership that
has helped make us a country. This is not simply a division over
policy. This is a division over views of the country. Are we a
country or are we not?
The position of the reform alliance party has Canada becoming
less and less important to its parts and to its people. I reject
that absolutely. I believe that in the establishment of national
standards there has to be a very active role by the provinces,
but also there has to be a very active presence by the national
government, which is the only government of all people of Canada.
That is the way in which we would intend to proceed as a
government of this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, the bill on
fiscal arrangements for the health sector. Earlier, my
colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, presented
the Bloc Quebecois' views on this bill.
First, it is important to stress that the Bloc Quebecois
endorses the criticisms that were just made by the leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with a number of criticisms addressed
to the government in view of the fact that this bill is being
introduced on the eve of a general election, and in view of the
incredible harm caused to the health system across the country,
including in Quebec, by the government's cuts to transfer
payments to the provinces.
It is surely because of the fight led by opposition parties in
the House, including the Bloc Quebecois, that the federal
government has finally heard the voice of reason. The Liberal
Party finally realized what terrible consequences its cuts have
had, not only on the health program, but on its users, on sick
people in hospitals and other health care facilities. Indeed,
their situation got worse because of the drastic cuts made by
the Liberal government.
It is easy to show what impact these cuts have had on Quebec's
health program. As members know, between 1994 and 2000, the
government made cuts of $1 billion each year, that is, six years
of cuts of $1 billion, $500 million of which could have been
allocated to our health programs.
These cuts resulted in the
elimination of more than one quarter of the budgets of
Montreal's hospitals, more than one half of the budget of all
the CLSCs in Quebec, almost the whole budget earmarked for home
support, four times the annual budget of Ste-Justine hospital
for children, more than three times the budget of the Royal
Victoria Hospital, or over one quarter of the cost of the
prescription drug insurance plan.
1345
This is the real impact of the federal cuts to health, the cuts
it had to re-examine. That re-examination was possible only
because of an agreement and a coalition of the provincial
premiers, and Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard played a pivotal
role. He supported until the end the desire of the provinces to
assume their responsibilities.
Unlike the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the
Bloc Quebecois and the government of Quebec have always insisted
that the lead role in the health field be given back to the
provinces, and thus to Quebec.
The present constitution of Canada requires Quebec's
jurisdiction over health to be respected.
Faced with this common front, these objections and this
effective opposition from the parties in the House, the Bloc
Quebecois in particular, the government was forced to enter into
an agreement at the last minute. This would not have been the
case, if there had not been a federal election looming. That
same federal election also appears to have prompted the
government to table a last-minute bill aimed at implementing that
commitment.
We have examined the bill.
We have studied it, although we did not have much time to do so,
but the Bloc Quebecois finds that, even if its intention is to
implement the agreement and the commitments arising out of the
press releases issued in the aftermath of this agreement and the
first ministers' meeting, there appear to have been a few little
slips, a few little problems that the government ought to
resolve itself by making some amendments. We are going to
propose some amendments ourselves, if it does not listen to
reason on this.
Two of the provisions in the bill present a serious problem and
need to be brought to the attention of all hon. members, because
they do not appear to properly implement the agreement reached
between the first ministers a few weeks ago.
First, there is the very basic question of the amount of the
funds that will be paid to each province under the commitment
made by the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial premiers.
Subclause 2(2) of this bill indicates that the amounts will be
determined in accordance with the terms of the trust indenture
establishing the trust into which will be deposited the amount of
$1 billion for medical equipment.
This is not very clear for a government that calls for clarity
in other matters. This provision is silent on the amounts that
were agreed upon during the first ministers' meeting. We have
cause to be concerned about the fact that the government could
use the establishment of the trust and use the discretion given
it by this bill to change the amounts if that were its intention.
This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois will insist that the bill
mention the amounts agreed upon by the first ministers and that
they be clearly established within the text of the bill.
There is a limit to the trust that may be put in the Liberal
Party of Canada in these matters. It cut its health care
transfers without consulting the provinces. It might want to use
this bill and its subclause 2(2) in order to change the rules of
the game as set by the first ministers.
There is one serious objection the government absolutely must
take into account if it wants our party's support: if it
introduces no amendments, we ourselves will move, at the
appropriate stage, an amendment to correct a very significant
failing of this bill.
1350
Our party is also very concerned about certain words used in the
bill, which are not at all consistent with the agreement reached
by the first ministers. I am referring to clause 3 of the bill
in which the Minister of Finance is invited to make a payment for
health information and communications technologies and to
allocate, as agreed by the first ministers, the sum of $500
million. But this amount will go to a corporation to be named by
order of the governor in council for the purpose of developing
and supporting the adoption of Canada-wide standards.
We had thought that this idea of Canada-wide or national
standards had been sorted out during the discussions at the first
ministers meeting. Participants had said that the bill should
talk about common standards, which was much less at odds with
federal principles. Once again, we must remind the government
that health is a provincial jurisdiction. It is the provinces
who must assume leadership and jurisdiction in the matter of
health care.
Here again, we see the federal government's intention to
interfere in this jurisdiction by pushing for Canada-wide
standards. Perhaps it is just a translation error, and if so, we
would hope that the government would make the necessary
correction. Canada-wide information standards has been
rendered in French by normes pancanadiennes. If this is not
an error of translation and the intention is that national
Canada-wide standards must be adopted, we cannot agree.
The Bloc Quebecois has always fought the idea that there ought to
be national standards across Canada in an area that falls
exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.
If this wording is maintained, it will be in violation of the
agreement to which Premier Bouchard gave his approval at the
first minister's meeting. Let them not try to do in an
underhanded way what they did not succeed in doing openly. The
provinces managed at the conference to impose the point that
health is a provincial jurisdiction in which the federal
government ought not to interfere, as it always seems to have the
intention of doing.
The Bloc Quebecois position is that this bill needs corrections
to two of its fundamental provisions, because these are
incompatible with the agreement on which a consensus was reached,
an agreement between the provincial premiers and the Prime
Minister of Canada.
If these amendments are not adopted, the Bloc Quebecois reserves
its position, when the time comes to vote on this bill. It will
always be mistrustful of a government which has shamelessly
slashed transfer programs in the health field. The government
has caused suffering to Quebecers and to many other Canadians,
and sought to stifle the provinces at the very time that health
care costs were increasing exponentially.
With these remarks I shall conclude my speech, trusting that the
government will understand that this bill needs amending before
it can earn Bloc Quebecois approval or assent.
1355
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been consultations and I believe you would find
consent to revert to routine proceedings for the purpose of
tabling reports from the Standing Committee on National Defence
and Veterans Affairs and the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts.
The Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have
permission to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth
report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs on Bill C-41, an act to amend the statute law in relation
to veterans benefits.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages
the 15th, 16th and 17th reports of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts.
The 15th report deals with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and
the Department of Finance handling tax credit claims for
scientific research and experimental development. The 16th report
deals with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the economic
component of the Canadian immigration program. The 17th report
deals with Royal Canadian Mounted Police services for Canada's
law enforcement agencies. All of these reports come from the
April 2000 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH AND FARM MACHINERY SHOW
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Wellington
county on hosting the International Plowing Match and Farm
Machinery Show 2000. People from around the world attend this
annual event which this year was held in my riding of
Waterloo—Wellington.
It is important to note that the annual International Plowing
Match and Farm Machinery Show is Canada's largest outdoor farm
machinery show and the premier showcase for plowing in our
country. The famous tent city on over 100 acres featured
lifestyles exhibits and vendors from across Canada. Held every
year in a different county or region within Ontario, the match of
2000 was proudly scheduled for historic Wellington county. This
year over 150 competitors from across Canada competed in this
event with $35,000 in prize money.
Plowing matches give us an opportunity to celebrate Canada's
agricultural heritage and educate Canadians, both urban and
rural, on the history and the future of agriculture. This year's
event was a great success.
A big thank you to George Robinson and all his committee members
and volunteers for a great job well done. Congratulations.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health likes to talk
about supporting Canadians' access to timely, high quality health
care. Let us talk about what is really going on in the trenches.
In Prince George the waiting time to see an orthopedic surgeon
is three years. In Victoria the waiting time this year has
doubled. Why? No beds, no money, no nurses. The result
is that people are going down to the United States to get
essential health care. The government's response is to bring
back the funding to the 1993 level. In the words of Dr. Ralph
Lapp, an orthopedic surgeon in Victoria, “Things are getting
worse at a time when people are thinking that they are getting
better”.
The Minister of Health said that the status quo is not an
option, that medicare will soon be unable to provide Canadians
with timely access to health care until major reforms are taken.
The Minister of Health said that one year ago. Where are those
reforms?
* * *
THE LATE RIGHT HON. PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Tuesday Canadians bid farewell to the Right Hon.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau. “Before we go our separate ways,” said
Cardinal Turcotte, “let us reflect on what he means to us”.
From the lips of Justin, his dad reflects tolerance and respect,
kindness and sharing, sanctity of the individual and pride in
country. Never have I felt so proud as a Canadian.
As new immigrants, my wife and I were not eligible to vote when
Mr. Trudeau first became prime minister in 1968, but our minds
and hearts voted for him. He opened Canada's doors to immigrants
from all over the world, championed diversity through our
multiculturalism policy and enshrined in the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms the balance of rights between citizenry and
state.
He lived the noble purpose of politics: serve the people and
challenge them to greater heights. In life he inspired a nation.
In death he inspires us to keep on. To him, a true scholar of
humanity and social justice, Canada says thank you.
* * *
1400
BREAST FEEDING
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the healthy outcomes of children is an important priority for all
Canadians and Health Canada advises that breast feeding plays a
very important part in that regard.
For the growing child breast feeding reduces infectious diseases
during childhood, promotes optimal brain development and provides
protection for premature infants against life threatening
illnesses.
For the mother breast feeding reduces the risk of breast cancer
and ovarian cancer and enhances the bonding process and decreases
the risk of osteoporosis.
For the family and community breast feeding reduces the cost to
families, protects the environment, improves the health of our
population and decreases our health care costs.
Clearly, the benefits of breast feeding are very substantial.
Therefore, I am very pleased that effective January 1, 2001
maternity and parental leave benefits will be extended to one
full year so that more mothers will have the opportunity to
breast feed their children during infancy.
* * *
STRATFORD FESTIVAL
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to announce
that the Stratford Festival Theatre has been a recent beneficiary
of a $5 million donation to its For All Time Endowment Campaign
from Senator Michael Meighen and his wife Kelly. This donation
was not only the largest ever received by a festival but also the
largest ever made to a not for profit theatrical organization in
Canada.
The Meighen family's donation will help the festival enrich two
of its major programs, one being the Stratford Festival
Conservatory for Classical Theatre Training and the other to
support the commissioning and development of new Canadian plays.
At this time I would like to thank Senator Meighen and Kelly for
their truly wonderful gift. They have been heavily involved with
the festival for well over 15 years. This gesture illustrates
again the level of effort they have made to improve and promote
Canada's theatrical arts.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD MARCH OF WOMEN
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on October 17, the efforts of the Comité des femmes en Abitibi
pour la marche mondiale des femmes will focus on the world rally
converging on the United Nations building, in New York City, as
part of solidarity events taking place all over the world.
“It's Time for Change” is the policy statement of the Canadian
and Abitibi committee, which seeks a comprehensive reform of the
fundamental laws by eliminating poverty and violence against
women in Canada and in Quebec;
increasing by 1% the portion of the global budget earmarked for
social housing; improving old age security benefits to allow
older women to have a decent standard of living; and supporting
women who organize themselves so as to achieve equity in a
democratic society.
I strongly support the 13 pressing claims that require a
positive response from the governments, including the Quebec
government.
* * *
[English]
CANCER AWARENESS
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last April our three year old son was diagnosed with
cancer and I just wanted to take a moment to thank my colleagues,
my staff and my constituents for all their warm thoughts and
prayers. It has been a great encouragement to all of us at home.
I want to say that as our son is battling leukemia there are
many others that have battled cancer in this place.
I want to give a special thank you to the doctors, nurses and
staff at the Children's Hospital in B.C., especially to Dr. Jeff
Davis, Jenny Parkes and also to Dr. Finch in Mission. We know
that at times like this it is family that means the most. I want
to thank all my colleagues for their support during this really
rough time.
I also want to encourage all of us to pull together. We
celebrated the Terry Fox Run and the Run for the Cure which are
very important things and we know that by working together cancer
can be beaten.
The Speaker: Our prayers are with you.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE RIGHT HON. PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the constituents of Mount Royal, for whom Pierre Elliott Trudeau
will always be the most distinguished and esteemed MP, may I
express my condolences to the Trudeau family at this moment of
private and public mourning.
[English]
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whom I knew for some 40 years as
colleague, confrere and friend, was a unique combination of
intellect, integrity, passion, wit and commitment. But the
thing I remember most, and what I believe touched Canadians the
most, was his personal courage and his moral courage inspired by
a vision not only of who we were but what we might aspire to be.
1405
It was this vision and the courageous pursuit of this vision
that found expression in an enduring legacy of a more just
society whose centrepiece is the charter of rights and freedoms
and the values that underpin it.
While we mourn the passing of Canada's greatest statesman and
citizen of the world, let us celebrate and be inspired by the
heroic life he lived.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD TEACHERS' DAY
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this, World
Teachers' Day, I wish to pay tribute to those professionals who
play a fundamental role in the development of any society.
By transmitting knowledge and values to our young people, they
are helping to shape the Quebec of the future and, by providing
upgrading for an increasingly large adult clientele, they are
contributing to the vigour of our economy.
Because teachers guide and motivate student learning, their
commitment and passion for knowledge have marked many of us.
I wish to underscore the government of Quebec's current campaign
to promote education, the teaching profession and occupational
and technical training. “The spark that lights a lifetime of
learning” is the theme of this televised campaign, which was
launched on September 21 and will last three years.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to express its gratitude to teachers,
who are on the front lines battling against ignorance and
complacency.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have now endured seven years of Liberal waste and
mismanagement. However, I have good news. The Canadian Alliance
has a plan to pay down our national debt and to lower taxes for
everyone. We will end tax discrimination against single income
families and replace the current Liberal tax system which
penalizes hard work and overtime.
Under the Canadian Alliance plan, everyone will receive a basic
personal deduction of $10,000 including a $3,000 deduction per
child. A family of four under the current regressive Liberal tax
plan starts paying tax at an income of only $16,000. Under the
Canadian Alliance plan, a family of four would not start paying
income tax until its income exceeded $26,000, and then only at
the single rate of 17%.
In light of this very simplified and fair tax plan, Mr. Speaker,
perhaps you yourself will join with millions of other Canadians
in the next election and vote for the Canadian Alliance.
* * *
WORLD TEACHERS' DAY
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to Canadian teachers on this World
Teachers' Day, the 300,000 teachers who work hard to expand the
horizons of their students to ensure they are equipped to succeed
in a changing world. Thanks to teachers, Canada prides itself on
having one of the best public education systems in the world.
To acknowledge the invaluable contribution teachers make, Canada
has initiated the Prime Minister's Awards for Teaching Excellence
and is proud to be partnering with the Canadian Teachers'
Federation in the new sharing teaching excellence pilot program,
which also includes recipients of the former CTF Roy C. Hill awards
program.
We are honoured to have with us today in Ottawa the president of
the Canadian Teachers' Federation, Marilies Rettig and six award
recipients: Linda Dickson, Doreen Casserly, Dalia Naujokaitis,
Trudy Bradley, Ralph Carney, and Erica McCarthy.
I am certain that members of the House know a teacher who has
made a difference in their lives. I invite the members to join
me in thanking all of them on this World Teachers' Day.
* * *
WORLD WOMEN'S MARCH
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, October 15 is the World Women's March. This is an
opportunity for women all over the world to gather together and
continue to struggle for equality in society.
It is very unfortunate that we still have to struggle for
equality. Violence against women is still a reality today. Women
are still being attacked, abused, beaten, and even murdered.
Just last night an advocate on the issue of violence against
women herself became a victim. Sally McIntyre, an Ontario
representative for the National Action Committee on the Status of
Women, was attacked by her husband.
This leads me to ask just how this can happen in this country.
We have a government that flaunts Canada as being the best
country in which to live. But for whom? Certainly not women.
The government says that it is committed to the rights of women.
The Prime Minister loves to remind us of how many women he has
appointed to cabinet and the Senate. Does this help women who
are continually being beaten? The answer is simple. It does
not.
Canadian women call upon the government to begin working with us
and not against us.
* * *
[Translation]
STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all women
in Quebec and in Canada know that the Liberal government is
centralizing and arrogant.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has no trouble coming up with
$12 million to promote Canadian unity, but the Secretary of State
for the Status of Women prefers defending her government to
defending women.
1410
Even though everyone knows that one woman in five in Canada is
poor, we did not see her defending pay equity or calling for the
changes to EI that women wanted.
The Minister of Human Resources Development may remain oblivious
to female workers' concerns, but the Prime Minister does not
hesitate to impose his parental leave on the families and women
of Quebec and thus dismiss their demands.
This government's track record is not one that favours women.
The World March of Women should give members opposite a chance
to understand what it means to live in the real world.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN ALLIANCE
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tonight
the reform alliance releases its election platform and early
reports show that one thing is clear. It plans to stick it to
Atlantic Canada.
The Alliance is committed to ending all funding for ACOA,
privatizing CBC television, privatizing VIA Rail, slashing the
budget of HRDC, eliminating Technology Partnerships Canada,
gutting the employment insurance system, removing mechanisms for
the federal government to enforce the principles of the Canada
Health Act and eliminating subsidies for farmers and fishers. All
of this is expected to be in the Alliance's platform to be
unveiled tonight.
Who wrote the Atlantic Canada section of this brutal platform?
John Mykytyshyn. With this kind of platform, the Alliance will
get exactly what it got in the last election in Atlantic Canada;
zip.
* * *
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Justice does not get it. Her long gun registry is nothing but
a colossal failure. Rather than admit her government's mistake,
she is spending millions trying to convince Canadians that this
new registry will somehow reduce crime.
Is it not ironic that the Minister of Justice televised ads
portraying two hunters sitting at a bar discussing the long gun
registry? I am sure her intent was not to encourage drinking and
hunting, however, one cannot help but notice the irony.
Once a strong advocate for the new long gun registry, the
Canadian Police Association is now withholding its support until
it sees indications that the registry will not siphon away the
much needed resources from enforcement agencies.
Let us face it. This registry will not have any impact on
reducing crime in the country. Those intent on committing crime
will not register their firearms. Therefore, what purpose is
this long gun registry serving? At present it is only serving to
save face for a government that is totally out of touch with
millions of law-abiding Canadian gun owners.
Our party is committed to cancelling—
The Speaker: The hon. member for York West.
* * *
TAXATION
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Alliance proposes a flat tax which would have exactly
the opposite effect of a fair and progressive tax system.
Under this plan, the higher the income, the bigger the tax
break. For example, a taxpayer earning $30,000 would receive a
tax reduction of about $600, while another taxpayer earning
$200,000 would receive a break of over $22,000. That is not
fair.
The Liberal government believes tax cuts must benefit all
Canadians, but first they must benefit those who need it the
most: low and middle income Canadians and families. Our five
year plan will reduce personal income taxes by an average of 15%.
Combined with cuts in the last three budgets, annual personal
income tax reductions total 22%, and for families with children,
at least 30%. That is a fair and equitable approach to income
tax reform.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, four
years ago the auditor general warned that contamination at
abandoned mines is a serious problem. There are 25,000 abandoned
mines exposed to air and water. The waste rock is washed into
the ground and eventually reaches groundwater.
The environment minister began addressing this problem at
abandoned mine sites by committing $38 million to help clean up
the Sydney tar ponds. The estimated cost of cleaning up
contaminated sites on federal lands alone is $2 billion. This is
a bill the mining industry should pay, but it is left to the
government to find funds to deal with the pollution at abandoned
mines.
I urge the Minister of Finance to allocate in the next budget
funds for cleanup and also to propose a plan so that from now on
mining companies will be responsible for the environmentally
sound closing of mines.
* * *
1415
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of the
constituents of Calgary East to give my thanks to the countless
volunteers who give their time and energy to make their
communities a better place to live.
Last weekend I attended a volunteer appreciation night in the
community of Dover. It was my pleasure to spend an evening with
these dedicated volunteers whose commitment and efforts help to
make Dover a better community for everyone.
I cannot stress strongly enough that these volunteers are a
sense of pride for all Canadians.
I therefore today take great pride in acknowledging all
volunteers who contribute to the following community associations
in my riding: Abbeydale, Albert Park/Radisson Heights, Applewood
Park, Marlborough, Marlborough Park, Crossroads, Dover, Erin
Woods, Forest Heights, Forest Lawn, Inglewood, Millican Ogden,
Lynnwood, Penbrooke Meadows and Southview.
My heartfelt thanks go to all these community association
volunteers. We are proud of them.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are gripped today by the latest turn of events
in Yugoslavia. Protesters have taken over the Yugoslav
parliament. Apparently some people have been injured and some
have been killed and there is real potential for even further
violence.
Can the government give us an update on the situation in
Yugoslavia? Can it assure us that Canadian nationals in
Yugoslavia are safe and that there is a plan in place to ensure
their safety during this period of unrest?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada applauds the courage of the Yugoslav people who
have taken to the streets over the past 10 days to defend their
victory by peaceful means. We are concerned by the violence
which erupted at today's demonstration but we understand it is as
a result of deep frustration on the part of those who are
protesting the denial of their democratic rights.
We urge Mr. Milosevic to accept the clearly expressed will of
the Yugoslav people and step down now.
I will get more information for my hon. friend with respect to
the other part of his question, which is—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are concerned with the possibility that the
fledgling democracy in Yugoslavia could degenerate into even
further violence if things do not progress properly.
Has the government been in touch with our allies to ensure that
we have a common approach and a common front to assist that
stable transition to what we hope will be a stable democracy?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that the very questions the hon. member has
raised are being discussed today at a meeting of the OSCE, the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and Canada
has a representative at those meetings.
I will endeavour to keep my hon. friend informed as to the
progress of these discussions, again on the points my hon. friend
has raised.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on another more specific front, has the Canadian
government been in touch with our Russian counterparts to ask the
Russian government to exert all possible influence that it has on
Mr. Milosevic to get him to recognize the democratically elected
government in Yugoslavia? Has he been in contact specifically
with the Russians and asked them to do their job as well?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have that specific information but I am
confident that we are in contact with all the relevant players so
we can collectively play a constructive role in this very
difficult situation.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to know from the government if it has had
any contact with the coalition in Yugoslavia which won the
elections, headed up by Mr. Kostunica. I would also like to know
if there have been any specific requests of Canada from the
coalition and, if so, what has been the response. I wonder if
the Deputy Prime Minister might have some kind of a specific
answer to some pretty important questions.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will continue to
follow events in the federal republic of Yugoslavia very closely.
Our embassy in Belgrade is monitoring the situation in
co-ordination with democratic NGOs and like-minded countries. As
the Deputy Prime Minister said, we are also in close contact with
international partners, including Russia.
1420
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, our thoughts are with all Canadians who have relatives
who might be affected by the unrest in Yugoslavia.
I have a question about two Canadians in particular, Shawn Going
and Liam Hall, who have unfairly been held prisoners in a jail in
Belgrade since August.
Has the government been in touch with Mr. Hall or Mr. Going
since the protest began? If so, what is their status, what is
their condition and what steps have been taken to ensure their
safety during this period of unrest?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decision to extend
the remand period is unacceptable for those prisoners. Canada
believes that there is no legitimate reason for their continued
detention, which is clearly motivated by political purposes.
We appreciate the efforts of the OSCE, the United Nations and
our bilateral partners to help secure the release of the four
men. We will continue to press the FRY authorities to secure
their quick release.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Yugoslav people have risen up following the decision by the
constitutional court to annul the elections. Former president
and tyrant Milosevic has apparently fled, and President Clinton
has asked Russia to recognize the former leader of the
opposition, Mr. Kostunica, as president.
I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the Government of
Canada also intends to recognize Mr. Kostunica as the winner of
the elections and the rightful president of the Yugoslav
federation.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is clear that opposition candidate Kostunica won a
majority in the first round of presidential elections on
September 24.
We do not accept the validity of yesterday's ruling by the
constitutional court which tried to overturn the September 24th
elections and called for new ones next summer. This is clearly a
political move on the part of Mr. Milosevic to retain power.
Therefore we urge Mr. Milosevic to accept the clearly expressed
will of the Yugoslav people and, as I said before, to step down
now.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the latest news, President Milosevic has left
Yugoslavia. President Clinton is asking Russia, a key player on
the issue, to recognize Mr. Kostunica as the president of the
Yugoslav federation, because he was duly elected, as the Deputy
Prime Minister has just acknowledged.
I therefore ask the Canadian government a second time if it will
recognize that Mr. Kostunica is indeed the president elect of
the Yugoslav federation.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think I have stated the government's position quite
clearly. The situation in Yugoslavia is certainly in a state of
great flux. I do not think it would be appropriate to add
anything to my answer for the time being.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have just
learned with great delight that Milosevic has left the capital,
but we do not know yet what the army will do.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister make a commitment on behalf of
the government that Canada would not tolerate any violence
perpetrated by the army against the people's movement?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we hold, as we indicated in
the latest throne speech, certain values in this country, and
personal safety is one of them. This is something we advance in
the world. We are obviously opposed to violence and we
congratulate the Yugoslav people on their courage in very trying
circumstances.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Milosevic,
who is responsible for so many deaths and so many crimes against
humanity, has fled.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that Canada will remain
firm in its desire to have Milosevic brought before the
international criminal court at The Hague?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our position on this matter remains the same as it
always has been. I will add something to the answer given to her
previous question. It is the international practice to recognize
states rather than individual governments of those states, but we
are demanding that Mr. Milosevic step down now.
* * *
1425
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
launch of an $8 million federal ad campaign on health takes
self-serving, cynical politics to an all time low in this
country.
Unbelievably, the political ads brag about the so-called Liberal
plan. Would that be the plan for pharmacare, the plan for home
care or the plan to halt the privatization of our entire health
care system?
Is the Liberal government so arrogant that it feels free to
spend Canadians' own hard earned money to engage in this false
advertising?
The Speaker: We are getting a little bit close. The hon.
Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the NDP claims it wants an open, transparent approach to
government. If NDP members are serious about this they would
applaud our advertising which aims to give solid information to
Canadians about a great achievement in improving health care in
many different areas all across the country, a program supported
by NDP provincial governments which obviously reject the hon.
member's narrow and closed minded approach to government
information.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, people
are prepared to have their government spend money on
disseminating information, accurate information, but they are not
prepared to have government spend money on propagating political
propaganda. There is a difference, even if the government does
not recognize it.
It is absolutely clear and transparent, all right, that the
Liberal ads are designed to blend right into the federal Liberal
election campaign. If there is no violation of the law, there is
certainly a violation of trust.
Will the government announce an immediate suspension—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject the premise and the innuendo of the hon.
member's questions. They are both wrong.
Speaking of taxpayers' money, taxpayers seem to be willing to
pay for the nonsense the member expresses in her questions by
paying her salary. Why does she not withdraw that position?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The right hon. leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
they had better bring the boss back.
I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister about a sorry
and sordid chapter in Canadian history: the abuse of aboriginal
children in residential schools.
The federal government has been the object of legal action
brought against the government, which of course has the legal
resources to defend itself, but the government has now named as
co-defendants several churches which do not have the legal means
to defend themselves.
I am not asking a question about the details of litigation. I am
asking a question about public policy. What is the public policy
reason of the government—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from my knowledge of the matter, the premise of the hon.
leader's question is not accurate.
I have been told that in at least 70% or more of the cases, the
claimants are suing not just the federal government but they are
also suing various churches directly.
I must say that the government policy is to attempt to work out
mutually satisfactory solutions if possible outside of
litigation. For that purpose, I have been asked, on behalf of
the government, to initiate a new dialogue directly with
churches, which is already underway.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this is a serious matter. I will certainly check the premise of
my question, as I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will check the
premise of his answer.
1430
Let me ask him a question about those churches that are a part
of this action only because the Government of Canada has joined
them to the action. However many those churches specifically
are, will the Government of Canada assist those churches in
meeting the legal costs that flow from the fact that they have
been joined to this action by the public policy decision of the
Government of Canada?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all the hon. member should look at the specific
circumstances of each case. I do not think it is right for him
to say there is a general public policy approach on the
particular point he has raised.
With respect to what he asked about costs of litigation, this is
one of the areas among many that I am starting to explore with
church organizations in the dialogue with them that I have
undertaken and which will be continuing as early as next week.
* * *
MAMQUAM BLIND CHANNEL
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
has announced millions of dollars in contracts for dredging sandbars
in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. I have been requesting that
the ministry dredge the Mamquam blind channel in Squamish, B.C.
for over two years. The previous minister turned me down, and I
quote from his letter, which said that dredging “should be funded
by the private sector” and he would no longer be providing
dredging in commercial channels.
Apart from the impending election, what has changed?
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
certainly take the information and the question under advisement.
We will report to the hon. member at a future date.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia have
been waiting for over two years to have this very unsafe channel
dredged but were told there was no more money for dredging from
the government and that it has to be done by the private sector.
What is the difference between an unsafe harbour in British
Columbia and an unsafe one in Ontario and Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, safety of all
harbours and all ports is a very fundamental and important issue.
I can say that the fundamental issue is safety. The Department
of Fisheries and Oceans will look at all aspects and we will
report to the member at a later date.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government is up to its ears in the greatest of
contradictions.
This morning, the Liberal MPs passed my bill on shipbuilding
clause by clause. On the opposite side of the coin, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance objected with
every ounce of his energy to that bill being passed on third
reading.
Can the Minister of Industry tell us on whose behalf the
representative of the Minister of Finance is objecting to the
prompt passage of my bill?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat debatable whether
this matter has anything to do with government policy.
All I can say is that the procedure for handling a private
member's bill in parliamentary committee, the stage for the
report to the House of Commons, the stage for adoption of the
report, and then the third reading stage, are all well known and
are all covered by the standing orders of the House of Commons.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have sufficient experience in this House, after seven years,
to know that if the government wanted to get this bill through
quickly, it had only to use the proposal by my colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot this morning, but it refused.
Why does it refuse to pass this bill promptly when it is so
important and so urgent for shipbuilding in Canada?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are scores of private
members' bills, all of them on the order paper, dealing with
such matters as increased benefits for firefighters, electoral
democracy and the criminal code, just to mention the debates
scheduled for the next few days. Why should the hon. member's
bill bypass all the other members' bills? That is the question.
* * *
[English]
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, according to the public accounts, Canadian taxpayers are
the big losers again in this year's $80 million write-off of bad
loans by the government's regional development agencies.
It does not matter how it is dressed up, whether it be grants,
loans or repayable contributions, the bottom line is that these
programs waste millions of dollars every year.
1435
With this kind of record, why is the government still in the
business of handing out Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars in
corporate welfare and other vote buying schemes?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance has already
announced that it wants to do away with all assistance to the
high unemployment areas of Canada, to end all of the regional
development agencies. To Alliance members it is a case of
survival of the fittest here in Canada. This is one big game of
Survivor with them. The next thing they will be announcing
Richard Hatch as their policy director.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, no matter what the minister says, he cannot hide the
fact that over $80 million of taxpayers' money was wasted which
could have gone to purchase dozens of MRIs to help ease Canada's
health care crisis.
The fact is, regional development agencies are chronic losers and
the minister knows it. Since 1995 the government has written off
over $280 million in bad loans. Now it wants to expand this
program with money from the discredited TJF.
Given this record of mismanagement, why does the minister not
scrap this program altogether?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in that a
certain amount of these write-offs, these grants, $4 million, $5
million had to be written off, not forgiven but written off
by the public accounts the other day. We agree with them. That
is why we changed the system to loans and no more grants.
In fact, over half of the grants that the hon. member is talking
about were given while his bosom pals, the Tories, were in power.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the transfer of the Rosemont grant to
Saint-Maurice, the government is still refusing to answer our
questions, using the fact that the matter is under police
investigation as an excuse.
Will the President of the Treasury Board tell us why the amount
of the $165,984 grant appears in the public accounts of 2000 under
the heading “Losses of public money due to an offence or illegal
act”, when the Minister of Human Resources Development said
yesterday that the police investigation was ongoing?
[English]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
suggest that the opposition members should stop playing games.
They should know that the crown reimburses—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. René Laurin: It is easier in French.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I will say it in French so
that the members opposite get it.
I hoped that the opposition would stop playing games, because
they are well aware that this was an unintentional error. The
Deputy Minister of Human Resources Development has been in touch
today with the secretary of the treasury board about this and has
also asked her to inform the chair of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts.
I can table this communication in the House, if members wish.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it may not have been intentional, but it is
now under a criminal investigation.
Here is another example of a company, Contact Group Solution,
which is not under investigation. On March 29, 1999, that
company, established in the riding of the President of the
Treasury Board, received a $1 million grant from Human Resources
Canada to create 552 jobs by October 1999. However, only 347
jobs were created. On February 2000, a handwritten note
confirmed that the objectives of the project had not been met.
Could the minister tell us whether or not she recovered the
excess money received by the company, that is, the money for the
205 jobs that were not created?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member is referring
to very specific cases.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Don Boudria: Of course, he got a very satisfactory answer
to the previous question.
Some hon. members: Yes, yes.
Hon. Don Boudria: He knows very well that the information was
false. We will look into his latest allegation.
* * *
1440
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, for the past seven years the government has mismanaged
and played politics with the military procurement process, with
the taxpayer paying half a billion dollars in 1993 when the
Cormorant or EH-101 contract was scrapped. Now on the eve of
delivery we have received access to information documents that
reveal serious deficiencies in the Cormorant.
Will the minister tell the House when the first Cormorant search
and rescue helicopter will be available and how much it will
cost?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it will cost a lot less than what it
would have cost had we gone along with the Tory proposal which
the Alliance now appears to be going along with. We will not
take delivery of any helicopter unless it is in fit condition,
good to fly and meets our operational requirements.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been waiting a long time for the
delivery of the search and rescue helicopters and so has the
military. Now we have learned from the government's own
documents that the helicopters will possibly be delayed for
another 30 months at an additional cost of $18.5 million. The
government has meddled in this process for far too long and that
is why we are running into these problems.
Will the Minister of National Defence accept the blame for this
fiasco?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): There is no fiasco, Mr. Speaker. The only fiasco is
over there on the opposition benches. Those members cannot seem
to read documents very well, as I have found in the past.
The operational requirements of the military have always been
first and foremost for the government. We want to make sure that
we get the right kind of helicopter that meets military needs and
is the best value for the taxpayer dollar. We will continue to
operate on that basis.
* * *
[Translation]
COLLÈGE MILITAIRE DE SAINT-JEAN
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the budget of
the collège militaire de Saint-Jean went from $37 million in 1994
to $5 million in 1999 and to zero now, as indicated in the new
lease signed in August 2000.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. What is the
government waiting for to be true to its word and to announce
the return of officers to the college, so as to ensure stable
funding for it? Is he waiting to announce it during the upcoming
election campaign?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a good news agreement in respect
to Saint-Jean. Not only is the old military college property
going to be maintained, enhanced and improved, but there will be
new jobs and new economic development as a result of our
agreement with le Conseil économique du Richelieu. As a result
of our new requirements for the military, we will have an
expanded military operation there. It is good news for the city.
* * *
[Translation]
FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today we are all aware of the presence here on the Hill
of firefighters from a number of municipalities, who are here to
mark Fire Prevention Week.
I would like to know whether the Minister of Labour could tell
us what the Government of Canada is doing to mark this week.
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I had the pleasure today of launching Fire Prevention Week right
here on Parliament Hill.
The Department of Labour has an
obligation to support public awareness campaigns such as Fire
Prevention Canada. One of its very important programs is “Learn
Not to Burn”, and this morning a young girl from New Brunswick,
a six-year-old, was awarded its medal for bravery, for saving her
family from a fire in their home.
I would like to congratulate all the schools and all the
firefighters for their work with our young people about fire
prevention.
* * *
1445
[English]
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the legal fight between Karla Homolka and
Correctional Service Canada gets more ridiculous every day.
Homolka is a convicted killer. She is using taxpayer money
through legal aid to fight her transfer to Saskatoon for
psychiatric assessment. Even worse, we now find that the latest
move is to seek an injunction to block the transfer through the
Federal Court of Canada.
Why does the solicitor general agree in the first place that
prisoners should have the right to refuse a transfer from one
prison to another, much less use legal aid through taxpayer money
to enforce it?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this has been a difficult and troubling
situation for all Canadians, and in particular for the families
of the victims, but I can assure my hon. colleague that I have
been advised by Correctional Service Canada that the final
decision has been made. This offender will be transferred.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is interesting because unless the assessment is
completed by January 6, Homolka will be out of prison having
served just two-thirds of her sentence. This fight, at taxpayer
expense, I might add, will ensure a delay in the assessment and
she will walk.
Why did the solicitor general get into this mess in the first
place, with just three months to go before January 6? Why is it
that we could not have had this done six months ago or even three
months ago? Why are we in this situation right now?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague would not
want to give Canadians any incorrect information. I am sure he
would not want to indicate something is to happen that will not
happen.
I have indicated quite clearly to my hon. colleague and to all
members of the House that Correctional Service Canada has
indicated that the policies will be followed.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the HRDC minister told the House that the majority of
debt in her department was related to the Canada student loan
program.
Is the minister satisfied to just write off the debt, or will
she face the music and own up to the fact that her own
government, after seven years of neglect, has caused a staggering
increase in tuition fees which is related to the student debt
load?
There is a very clear choice. Is it tax breaks for the big
banks and big businesses? Or, will she help students by pulling
together her provincial counterparts to roll back tuition, to
give students—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all,
may I say that a number of people in the field have told us that
the government's programs for students were more than acceptable
and that they were very satisfied with them.
I would add, however, that the program to which the hon. member
refers is a provincial government program and she ought to
address her comments to provincial representatives.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Earlier this year the minister was with me when he met first
nations veterans, led by Grand Chief Howard Anderson. He knows
that those veterans were discriminated against after the first
world war, the second world war and the Korean war, in comparison
to non-first nations veterans. I also have a private member's
bill, as the minister is aware, advocating their cause in the
House of Commons.
Is the minister ready to announce now that he will right this
historical wrong and compensate these people who fought and died
for our country?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did have representation concerning this
matter from the hon. member and from my colleague, the hon.
member for Churchill River, who is in the House today.
We are in the process of setting up a national round table,
chaired by first nations veterans, to investigate exactly what
happened during and after the wars. If it is found that these
veterans were treated unfairly, the Government of Canada will
resolve this issue.
* * *
1450
SHIPBUILDING
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, for the
past seven years I have been asking the Minister of Industry for
a national shipbuilding policy. We always get the same rhetoric.
The rhetoric from the minister is that there is an overcapacity.
There would be no overcapacity, if we had a national
shipbuilding policy that made us competitive with all the other
countries around the world that build ships.
Will the minister bring forth a national shipbuilding policy
immediately, based on the recommendations from the shipbuilding
industry—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Industry.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, would the member explain to me immediately how it could
be that a Canadian domestic policy would resolve an international
overcapacity?
I just do not understand what she is talking about. What she
wants is for us to take taxpayer money, scoop it out of their
pockets and pour it into an industry to compete with subsidies
that are too high internationally.
* * *
SHIPYARDS
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, we will
try to bring some reason to this debate. The government's
inaction in modernizing financial instruments for Canada's
shipyards has devastated Canada's shipyards and their coastal
communities.
My question is for the industry minister. Will the Government
of Canada be making any formal announcement through legislation
within the finance minister's economic statement, or in a stand
alone statement on its own, on enhancing financial instruments
for Canada's shipyards within the next 21 days?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not happen to have a calendar on me at the moment,
but I might note that what the hon. member and his colleagues
have been asking for is that Canada essentially disregard the
obligations we have undertaken in the context of the OECD.
I find it striking strange that party would suggest that we
ignore our international obligations with respect to commitments
not to subsidize an industry.
* * *
WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister
responsible for western economic diversification. As he well
knows, the St. Boniface General Hospital Research Centre is a
leading research facility in Winnipeg. In fact it is in his
riding.
Recently it identified a gap between its research and the
delivery of care at the hospital. Could the minister explain
what might be done to assist the research centre in closing that
gap?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification)(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
has invested $2.3 billion in western Canada since 1987. This is
another $5 million investment in leading edge research.
This $5 million will trigger 45 million other dollars and $35
million from the private sector. This permits clinical trials.
It permits the bridge between research and practice. It is one
of three facilities in Canada—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has time.
1455
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: It will create 250 new jobs in
research. They do not understand that. They do not want to
invest in Canadians. They do not understand how it works. They
do not like good news. Look at the contortions. Frankly I am
embarrassed by their reaction.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the public accounts of Canada tabled last week contain
an amount of $200 billion for aboriginal claims of various kinds.
While the Minister of Finance can boast about his $12 billion
surplus, we are talking about $200 billion here. We want to know
how the government will squeeze that money out of the taxpayers
to come up with that kind of cash.
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows
because he asked this question last year, I think, that is the
total amount projected if every claim is looked after at its
uppermost limit. Those are the raw numbers. Obviously those
claims will not be dealt with in that fashion.
Our numbers are closer to $11 billion. The member was told that
last year. He continues to flog the $200 billion. I think that
kind of rhetoric is not helpful to negotiations with first
nations. It is not helpful to our relationship with first
nations, and he should desist from doing those stupid things.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the hon. minister to
withdraw the word stupid.
Hon. Robert D. Nault: I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in the report she tabled this morning, the
Commissioner of Official Languages wrote:
It is unacceptable, after three decades and despite numerous
interventions by successive Commissioners, that, year after year,
we have to call attention to so many recurring deficiencies in
federal offices designated to provide service in both official
languages and have to decry the persistent inertia of federal
institutions and of this government.
My question is simple. What specific measures does the
government intend to take in response to this unprecedented
condemnation of its action in this area?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government's commitment to official languages is really
unshakeable.
We pay more attention to official languages than does the Bloc
Quebecois, which waited 45 minutes before putting this question.
I must say that we welcomed the report of the Commissioner of
Official Languages. She set out her findings clearly, and that
will enable us to reaffirm our renewed leadership in the area of
official languages.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister for International Trade will know that the Canadian
firm Methanex has launched a $1 billion lawsuit against the U.S.
under chapter 11 of NAFTA.
Until now these lawsuits have been conducted behind closed doors
with no input from the public. The International Institute for
Sustainable Development in Winnipeg has made a request to be
involved in the hearing, along with other NGOs, so that their
concerns can be made known. The panel has reserved judgment on
this and has given Canada until next Friday to make its position
known.
I would like to know from the minister what is the position of
the Canadian government on this. Will it be supporting the right
of NGOs to intervene in these hearings and make their concerns
known in the name of transparency and all the other rhetoric
the minister talks about?
1500
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of meeting with that
NGO which does remarkable work in the field of environment. I
commended that organization and read the brief it would like to
table.
Our officials are in discussions with people at justice. We
also have to see, along with the government of Mexico and the
government of the United States, what sort of precedent it would
create. I certainly commend the contribution IISD has been
making on that file. We will advise the House on what our
government will decide after consultations with our trade
partners.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of a former president of Botswana,
Mr. Masire.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have the regular Thursday question for the House
leader on the government side. I understand that some changes
may be happening, but could he give us the business of the House
for the rest of the day, for the rest of the week and for the
following week?
In particular, could he tell us the status of the veterans
allowance changes which I think all of us in the House would like
to make sure pass as quickly as possible?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we will consider Bill
C-44, the employment insurance amendments.
If we complete that by the end of the day, which I hope we do, at
least to second reading, we would then resume consideration of
Bill C-45, the health bill. Needless to say, I would like us to
advance with that one as well.
1505
I thank hon. members for agreeing to tabling the report of the
standing committee in reference to Bill C-41 earlier this day.
Tomorrow, pursuant to an informal agreement between House
leaders, I would propose to do report stage and third reading of
Bill C-41 in succession, pursuant to this agreement.
The backup bills, and I intend to discuss this matter further
with House leaders, would then be Bill S-17 regarding marine
liability and possibly Bill C-28 respecting motor vehicles, but I
will discuss it with House leaders a little later on.
Monday after the Thanksgiving break will be a Bloc opposition
day. Later in the week we will attempt to clear some of the
unfinished business from last week and this week, including Bill
C-45 and Bill C-44 at whatever stage they are then and to advance
them as much as possible; Bill C-17 which I described before;
Bill S-17; and a very short but important bill, Bill S-26, the
B.C. Telus bill, which I understand there is some urgency to
adopt.
Needless to say, we are still committed to moving to the extent
we can on Bill C-3, the youth justice bill, if we can have a
successful negotiation, and then on to Bill S-25, the defence
production bill, if received from the other place.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question
period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development announced that she was tabling a letter,
but the letter never made it to the table.
I just want to ensure that the letter will be tabled as soon as
possible, since we need it for the follow-up to question
period. We expected it to be tabled during question period.
The Speaker: First of all, my dear colleague, things would be
different if documents were tabled during question period, but
that is not the case.
The parliamentary secretary is here now
and if she wants to table a letter, she would first have to ask
for the consent of the House. She now has the floor.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do ask the
House for consent to table the letter I referred to during
question period. It is in fact a letter sent to the treasury
board secretary.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of
the House to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
BILL C-247
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as I advised the clerk, I rise on a point of order.
Last June 14 the House leader of the official opposition raised a
point of order regarding his Motion No. 425 on the order paper,
which reads as follows:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours
that this House wishes to convey its dismay regarding the undue
delay in the Senate's progress on Bill C-247, an Act to amend the
Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Members of the House of Commons have expressed their distress at
the unnecessary delay in dealing with this legislation and in the
interest of co-operation between the two chambers, and,
ultimately service to the Canadian public, the House feels
compelled to express its serious concerns regarding the handling
of Bill C-247 by the Senate.
I believe he intended the motion to be placed on the order paper
so as to be moved at routine proceedings under the rubric
motions.
I have concerns of my own about the fate of Bill C-247 and I
will just read one aspect of it. It provides that a sentence
imposed for the offence of sexual assault under section 271 of
the criminal code shall be served consecutively to any other
sentence for an offence under that section.
1510
I was awaiting your ruling, Mr. Speaker, before taking any
further action of my own on this matter. The hon. member's point
of order is well taken. I wait for the day he moves the motion
so I can participate in the debate and vote in favour of his
motion.
This is important because Bill C-247 was gutted at committee by
the government leadership. Thankfully it was restored by the
power of the backbench and opposition members when it was
reported back to the House. Since the government backbenchers
are feeling a little taken of advantage of and abused lately,
this would be a perfect time in my opinion for them to flex their
muscles again on the issue. Speaker Fraser ruled, and I quote:
The rubric motions usually encompasses matters related to the
management of the business of the House and its committees, but
it is not the exclusive purview of the government, despite the
government's unquestioned prerogative to determine the agenda of
business before the House.
There is speculation that the Prime Minister will call an
election. In that event Bill C-247 would die on the Senate order
paper. I suspect we know that the government did not want the
bill to come into law and there it sits in the Senate some 15
months. I believe we have an obligation to the House to go back
to the Senate and ask where that bill is and when it is coming
forward.
What I ask of the Chair is that the Chair communicate to the
Senate its concern about the fate of Bill C-247. I am sure we do
not want that bill to die in the Senate after going through all
this hard work and difficult time in debate to make sure it got
out of here as best we can after third reading.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his
intervention on Bill C-247, which as he says is an act to amend
the criminal code and the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act.
The House will recall that this is already the subject of
private member's Motion No. 425 standing in the name of the hon.
member for Fraser Valley. On June 14 he also raised a point of
order concerning the motion and its progress in the Senate.
Since the issues raised by the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford and Fraser Valley are the same, it is my
intention to return a ruling to the House in the next few days.
It will be returned.
It is not the purview of the Chair to wonder or question when or
if there will be an election. We will carry out our duties as if
we have five years to serve here. I will get back to the House
with my ruling in the next few days.
The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona came to see me about a
question of privilege and I have a direct question for him. I
said he could raise it. I presumed it was a question of
privilege arising out of today's oral question period.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: It is not out of question period today.
The Speaker: If it is not out of question period, I will
wait until tomorrow to hear the question from the hon. member so
that we follow the procedures.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
The House resumed from October 4 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-44, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, this is certainly a very important issue for not only me
but certainly for the people of my riding of
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac and all of Atlantic Canada. More than
that, this is not only an Atlantic Canada issue—
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
believe we are still speaking to Bill C-45, is that not correct?
Some hon. members: No.
1515
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The government, as
is its right, had the House move to Bill C-44. We are now in
rotation on Bill C-44.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Yesterday a member had just finished his remarks when we
finished with Bill C-44 and we did not get a chance to ask any
questions. I wonder if we could do that now before going to
another speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Speaker, in
rising to ask for debate on Bill C-44, asked for questions and
comments of the last speaker. If the member who was on his feet
for questions and comments were here, I am sure we could put forward
an appropriate motion to see whether the House would agree to
revert to questions and comments and then go forward.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on a very serious issue that is a concern for many
people, not only in my riding, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, but also
right across the Atlantic region and the country.
Workers who depend on seasonal industry are found not only in
the riding of Beauséjour-Petitcodiac but anywhere in Canada where
the main industry is seasonal.
In 1996, the Liberal government decided to make changes to
employment insurance plan, while knowing that HRDC had a
document showing that, just as an example, 75% of seasonal
workers in New Brunswick lived on less than $10,000 a year.
Still, the government attacked these workers, even though they
had been saying day in and day out that they opposed the
changes. When I led the coalition against the cuts to
employment insurance in New Brunswick, we told the government
what impacts the cuts would have.
I came to meet with the former human resources development
minister and present her with a petition containing 17,000
names. These people were saying that the cuts were going to hurt
them badly, that they represented discrimination against
seasonal workers and were therefore unacceptable, and that the
poorest of the poor would be the ones paying for the deficit.
But the Prime Minister, who came to get elected in the riding of
Beauséjour, turned around and said “I visited the area and
people there are all drunk in taverns, while collecting UI
benefits”. The people of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac responded to that
comment on June 2, 1997.
People from my area have had enough of being laughed at,
denigrated and called lazy. The Prime Minister of Canada said it
and the Canadian Alliance said it again just now, everyone in
the Atlantic provinces is lazy and does not want to work.
1520
I have one thing to say to the members of the Liberal Party and
the Canadian Alliance: people from my area are hardworking, they
are educated and they work very hard. When there is work, they
work. They have no problem with working, except that work in our
area is seasonal. Nobody wakes up in the morning saying “I want
to be a seasonal worker”. It is the nature of the industry to be
seasonal.
Canada must understand that, Ontario must understand that,
Alberta must understand that, the government must understand
that. The members of the Canadian Alliance must absolutely
understand that people in my area are not lazy.
I myself worked in the seasonal industry, and I can assure the
House that nobody can call me lazy, far from it. I am tired of
hearing this sort of thing. I am tired of hearing that the
people in my community are all lazy.
Who are known as hardworking people in western Canada? Who are
considered relentless workers, people who work seven days a
week? The people from Atlantic Canada who have to leave their
communities to find work. Our young university graduates who
have to leave their communities and their families to go and
work in western Canada.
That is not what Canada is about. That is not what our party
wants. Our priority is to ensure that everybody has equal
opportunity to be gainfully employed all year round. As people
in my region would say “We would easily trade our EI benefits
for a full time job. Any time. No problem”.
[English]
The problem is, we have a government that is attacking the
worker instead of the problem, and that is not right.
A couple of weeks before a federal election and the Prime
Minister comes in and says “Oops”. The Minister of HRDC said
herself that it was a punitive measure. Ça punissait les
travailleurs. If it does punish the workers why did it take the
Liberals four years—two weeks before an election call—to say
that they made a mistake? Can they fix all the problems they
have caused in those communities over the last four years? How
many family break-ups have there been? How many kids have been
forced into the school breakfast program because their parents
can no longer feed them because of the cuts to EI? How many
parents have been forced to go to food banks because of the cuts
to EI?
Can anyone imagine being a single parent making $10,000 a year
and having the Liberal government take part of that money away?
According to a member of the reform alliance party, $10,000 is a
comfortable salary. I would like to see that member try to live
on $10,000 a year. I think she would change her mind. Perhaps
what she needs is to end up living on $10,000 a year. Then she
would understand what it means.
The Alliance members are saying that they are going to govern
this country. I doubt it. I doubt very much if Canadians will
accept the kinds of comments made in the House by the reform
alliance members.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Lazy maritimers, they called them.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Yes, lazy maritimers.
A report was released last week stating that 40% more children
are living in poverty today than we had 10 years ago. It keeps
increasing on a daily basis. The Liberals are wondering why we
have more poor children. If the parents are poor the children
are poor. That is how it works.
I have eight food banks in my riding and I have 82,000 people
living in the riding. Every one of those eight food banks told
me last week that they have seen an increase in people using the
food banks directly because of the cuts to EI. They are not
saying maybe. They are saying directly. Who made the
cuts?
I collected EI when the Progressive Conservative Party was in
power. I was able to feed my son and myself and pay my rent with
that EI cheque. We cannot do that any more with this Liberal
Party in power. We need to change. Not only do we need to
change the EI program, we need to change the government. We need
to sit on that side and fix what the Liberals have broken, which
is exactly what we intend to do after the next federal election.
1525
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that
members of that party do not seem to be clear on the concept of
who is against who in the House.
The government is over there but during her speech she spent a
great deal of time attacking, of all people, the reform
conservative alliance. This is a bill on which all opposition
members should be united in opposition to the government.
Does the member really think it is more fun to bite the ankles
of the Alliance and lick the hands of the government than it is
to act as a member of parliament in opposition?
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, the member should not
make statements about seasonal workers having a comfortable
annual income and that they do not need any help. On top of
that, the government is going to cut all regional development for
the same regions that need development to solve the problem.
The employment insurance program is not the problem in our rural
communities. The problem is that we do not have jobs. The party
that the member represents is saying that it does not agree with
regional development. I have no problem saying that the Liberal
government has made mistakes and has caused a lot of hardship,
but I can also say that the Reform Party would do the same, if
not worse.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on a number of occasions we have sat here listening to
members of the opposition talk about what the government is doing
wrong and especially how it has affected those of us in Atlantic
Canada.
One of the hardships that has been caused with respect to what
the government has done to EI is the government's clear ability
to take the money off the backs of Canadian workers and apply it
to the debt. This has caused tremendous hardship in my part of
the country. There is a little piece of reality in this.
The process of taking money off the backs of Canadian workers
and the unemployed and applying it to the debt was started by the
Progressive Conservative Party. That is how the Liberal
government was able to get away with it. I would like the member
to comment on her party's role in what the Liberal government has
done to Atlantic Canadians and seasonal workers.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the
member might have her facts a bit wrong.
I was a seasonal worker at the time the PC Party was in power
and I was able to feed my kids. When the PC Party was in power
there was a $6 billion deficit in the UI fund. Today there is a
$30 billion surplus. We cannot look at the difference. I never
had a problem feeding my son when I was on UI. There was enough
money available for me to do it.
With the Liberal Party in power, single parents do not have
enough income to feed their kids or provide them with shelter.
The member should put her politics aside and look at who the
culprits are here. The culprits are the Liberals. The PC
government did not have a $30 billion surplus. We had a $6
billion deficit. That was the reality.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the speaker from the
PC Party and the speaker who preceded her were somewhat indignant
over a remark that I was purported to have made, that all
seasonal workers earn comfortable incomes. I want to take this
opportunity to set the record straight.
What I talked about were seasonal workers who earn comfortable
incomes being given additional moneys by the government. The
comfortable income is the nearly $50,000 that seasonal workers
will now be able to earn before any of the EI is clawed back.
This member and the member who spoke before made the ridiculous
assumption that I would consider $10,000 to be a reasonable
income.
1530
Obviously, that was a clear misinterpretation and distortion of
what I said. I would like to set the record straight. I would
like to ask the hon. member whether she believes that seasonal
workers who earn nearly $50,000 should have no clawback on their
EI.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to quote
her words from the French Hansard.
[Translation]
She said “Now that he is about to call an election, the Prime
Minister has decided to increase EI payments to seasonal workers
who already earn a very comfortable annual income”.
[English]
What I am saying is I would rather concentrate on the majority
of seasonal workers, like I see in New Brunswick, who are living
on less than $10,000 a year. The member would rather look at the
small percentage of some seasonal workers somewhere in Canada. I
do not know where she is finding them but she is saying there are
some. I know that in Hansard she specified a comfortable
annual income in Atlantic Canada.
She would rather concentrate on that small percentage—
An hon. member: Regional prejudice.
Ms. Angela Vautour: That is regional prejudice. She is
dividing them. She should be concentrating on the majority of
seasonal workers who are in trouble today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for questions and comments has expired, but I already indicated
to the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane that he could ask a
short question.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I hope you
will show some tolerance because I have a brief comment to make
and a brief question to ask.
My comment is that the government opposite is heartless. I said
before that the Prime Minister was a son of darkness and I am
still saying that.
Here is my question. Does the hon. member think it is reasonable
to require 910 hours for young people? Personally, I think it is
inhuman and totally unrealistic. I would like my colleague to
comment on that.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. It is certainly impossible for our young people to
work 910 hours. That is the problem. Our young people end up
leaving our communities. Instead of coming back to contribute to
the economy of our region after finishing their postsecondary
education, they have to leave. It is a problem and I agree with
the hon. member on that.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to
indicate that I will be dividing my time.
Bill C-44, commonly known as the Liberal vote enhancement bill,
has been touted as an initiative to make life easier for low
income workers or needy EI recipients. However its promise, like
most Liberal promises, is fraudulent. On the eve of an election,
the government, with a lot of huffing and puffing, proposes to
tinker with a system which desperately needs a complete overhaul.
A few decades ago we had a UI system that worked. It was based
on true insurance principles. Over the years its original
function as an employer-employee funded program to provide
temporary income in the event of unexpected job loss has been
perverted, complicated and made grossly unfair by mostly Liberal
governments. The result is a mishmash of ill-conceived social
programs, excessively high premiums and a massive surplus which
is largely inaccessible to those most in need of benefits.
It long ago ceased to be an insurance program by any definition.
Instead, it has become a political cash cow for the government.
The government is now collecting about $10 billion per year more
in premiums than it pays out in benefits. The piddling changes
proposed in the bill will decrease that overcharge by about 12%
but most of the rip-off will continue. I would dare say that if
a legitimate insurance company tried to operate in that fashion
charges would be laid.
The surplus is not even protected in a separate fund for high
unemployment emergencies. Excess collections are bled into
general revenue and may be used to pay for any goofy scheme that
the government comes up with.
1535
To refer to the money collected as insurance premiums is, as I
said, fraudulent. It is a payroll tax, nothing more, nothing
less. Think how much more economically beneficial it would be if
the government desisted from ripping off workers and employers
and left that $10 billion a year in their pockets. Employers
would be able to have money to hire more people on their actual
payroll—job creation—and workers would have more money to spend
on goods and services, thus creating even more jobs. It would be
a win-win situation even for the government.
There is no consistency in the system, nor will there be with
the proposed changes. On one hand, even well paid seasonal
workers, fallers, heavy equipment operators and people like that
will be able to draw EI benefits with the clawback threshold now
raised to $48,750.
A few yappers on both sides of the House have attacked the
member for Calgary—Nose Hill for describing some part time
workers as earning a comfortable living. I would say that
anybody earning $48,000 a year is earning a comfortable living,
and there are millions of Canadian workers, most of them employed
full time, who would dearly love to have incomes of more than
$48,750.
On the other hand, we MPs regularly receive complaints from low
income people who have been denied benefits, in spite of having
contributed to the system for many years but who are unable to
surmount the obstacles placed in front of them by an inflexible
and obdurate bureaucracy. To qualify for EI people need more
hours of work if they have never made a claim than if they have
been in and out of the workforce like a fiddler's elbow.
I have documented cases of workers who worked 500 to 600 hours
in the previous year, who had premiums extorted from them under
false pretences for many, many years and who found themselves
ineligible for benefits or training because they had never
previously touched the system. They needed a minimum of 910
hours before they could take their first bite of pogey. They are
penalized for their own self-sufficiency. That is perverse and
it is cruel.
In a sane system operating under the same principles as other
types of insurance, individuals with clean claims records would
be given favourable treatment, but under Liberal EI they are
penalized.
Letters which I received from successive HRD ministers regarding
this anomaly have been mostly regurgitations of EI regulations
which I and my staff are quite capable of extracting from
departmental bumph. We get the stock bureaucratic slop such as,
“please be assured that I will continue to closely monitor the
situation” or “multiple job holders and part time workers have
all of their hours of work insured”. Like hell they do.
When I informed the previous minister of a worker who after 20
years in the labour force was unable to access an upgrading
program, his reply said in part:
The rationale behind this entry requirement for new entrants and
re-entrants was to discourage a cycle of reliance on Employment
Insurance by ensuring that workers, especially young people,
establish a significant attachment to the labour force before
collecting Employment Insurance benefits. The intent was also to
strengthen the relationship between work effort and entitlement
to benefits by requesting claimants to have a reasonable labour
force attachment before collecting benefits.
That was his rationale for denying benefits to a middle-aged man
who had worked and paid his premiums for 20 years. What an
insult, not only to my constituent, but to me.
1540
One of the problems is that very few people in the cabinet over
there have ever had any real world work experience. They think
sweat is something that they get in the racketball court. They
have never had to worry about when to make a rental payment.
They have certainly never had to worry about accessing UI. It is
the elite rule and we are paying a price for that. Canadian
workers pay a price for that.
Another constituent was laid off after working full time for 10
years. She innocently accepted part time work for more than a
year rather than apply for EI. When she lost the part time job
as well, her efforts to remain independent had cost her any
chance of benefits because of the 910 hour rule.
This mess that has been created in EI, largely through the
efforts of the people sitting on the other side of the aisle, has
to be addressed as a whole, not with this little bit of piecemeal
“tinker here, fix there and fiddle there”. This will not repair
the system.
I hope that people on the other side, maybe from self-interest,
would try to fix it because if what is going on now goes to its
culmination, and we have an election soon, there may be a lot of
folks over there who would like to be able to access the EI
system. They would not be able to because of the 910 rule. They
are stuck.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his
eloquent and pointed comments on this bill. For many years we
have been trying to reform the EI system which has been a cash
cow system for the government and in effect a tax on the people.
My hon. colleague has fought for many years to improve the
situation for many of his people, particularly those who are most
impoverished. What does he suggest be done to make the EI system
more effective to enable those people who cannot help themselves
to get back into the workforce for a longer period of time?
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, there are two things.
First, bring the premiums into line with the need so that they
are not building up this huge surplus which as I said, if it was
out there in the general economy would help to create jobs in
some small way and therefore decrease the need for EI.
Second, do away with the convoluted rules which now exist and
which are becoming more convoluted by the day, certainly with the
new amendments to the act. We need to simplify regulations so
that people who have religiously paid into the system for years
will be eligible to tap into the funds if they do have sudden and
expected unemployment.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to use the few minutes available
to me under questions and comments to ask the previous speaker
why his party has such a narrow-minded attitude towards seasonal
workers who are in particular economic situations.
These people work in industries where full time jobs are not
necessarily available. I think these kinds of jobs exist across
Canada.
1545
We are talking about people who work in the forestry, tourism,
agricultural and fishing industries. The members opposite seem to
believe that many of these workers are already earning a lot of
money and would get even richer with the elimination of the
intensity rule and the changes to the clawback provisions. But
this is not the case. Seasonal workers, at least most of them in
my region, often earn $20,000, $25,000 or $30,000 a year when
they have the opportunity to work for several months in a row.
Quite often, they have to make do with the minimum wage.
Would it not be possible for the member to urge the other
members of his party to reconsider their position on this issue?
We are not asking them to approve the government; that is
something we have not done ourselves. We believe that the current
bill does not go nearly far enough to reinstate a fair EI
program.
Would it not be possible for members of the Canadian Alliance to
reconsider their position in order to treat these workers more
fairly? A good way for them to do so would be to go into the
field and see how these people really live so that we can put a
stop to all the misconceptions that the government has been
circulating for so many years.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I was a seasonal worker in
mineral exploration for many years so I do know a little about
the subject. It was by choice. I could have taken a nine to
five job year round, but I made good money like a lot of seasonal
workers do. I simply did not have to work the full year. Not
every seasonal worker earns minimum wage.
If the hon. member had been listening to my reply to the member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, he would have heard me say that one
of the solutions which we as a party would propose for the
problems with EI would be to do away with all the convoluted
rules which have developed over the years for tapping into it. He
was not listening.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill
C-44. I hope to dispel some of the myths around the issue.
For a long time the EI system has been in disarray. Rather than
helping or improving the situation of those who are unemployed,
it has actually retarded their ability to get a job. That might
seem on first blush to be counterintuitive but we will go through
it and describe how the government's support of the current EI
system has prevented Canadians from gaining long term employment.
The government had an enormous opportunity with Bill C-44 to
truly reform the EI system to help those who cannot find a job
and to help with income support during periods when people are
unemployed through no fault of their own. Unfortunately it is
actually damaging their ability to gain long term employment.
The bill increases the minimum amount which a person can earn
before receiving a clawback of the EI money from $39,000 to over
$48,000. Prior to earning $48,000 a person can receive EI
payments and there would be no clawback whatsoever. A clawback
would be a maximum of 30% of moneys over that.
Why would someone making $60,000 or $70,000 a year be receiving
EI payments from the government? There are enough poor people in
Canada today. In fact over four million people in Canada are
labelled as having some degree of poverty. Why is it that with
the limited amount of money we have, people who make a fairly
high amount of money have access to EI?
We would like to make EI a true insurance. The limited amount
of moneys should actually go not only to help people who are
unemployed through no fault of their own but also to give them
the skills and training they need to be employed for a long
period of time. That is what should be done rather than catering
to the lowest common denominator of people who go through the
cycle of working a minimum number of hours and then receiving EI
payments.
1550
It is a form of institutionalized welfare that we are pandering
to with the current system. We should not allow that to happen.
It is not fair for the employers who pay into the EI fund. It is
not fair for the unemployed people who need the money.
Interestingly enough the high level of premiums that the
government supports and which employers have to pay is retarding
the individual's ability to work. The artificially high premiums
which provide over $10 billion a year for the government purse
are actually a tax. It is money that has been taken away from
the private sector and put into the government's hands to
redistribute as it sees fit.
In effect those moneys are pulled away. That money is taken out
of the private sector from employers who could have used it for
skills training, to enhance their business, to become more
competitive and to have lower taxes so that they could expand their
business and hire more people.
The high EI premiums are a tax on the private sector. They have
impeded the ability of the private sector to employ people, which
has caused an artificially high level of unemployment and
unfortunately has contributed to our lack of competitiveness.
As my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands mentioned, we
have asked to put the EI system on true insurance principles. Let
us bring down substantially the payments the private sector makes
so that companies have more money in their pockets to hire
people. People would not be taken off the rolls serially. People
would not be working as seasonal workers and would not work only
910 hours a year or 470 hours a year depending on who they are.
We do not have to cater to the lowest common denominator. We
provided an excellent solution. By reducing the amount of money
companies would say thank you because they could hire a number of
people, put them back to work and those people would not be on
the EI rolls.
It is not rocket science but it needs to be done. It is common
sense. It should have been done a long time ago because, yes, it
is hurting employers, but it is also hurting the employees that
we profess to wish to help. The government should listen to what
we are saying on this side. It would go a long way to improving
the EI system.
Looking at this issue in the larger context, it goes back to the
mid-1960s and the government's war on poverty. The idea was to
engage in a process of handouts and a process of what it called
economic redistribution. Is that really the best way to go about
it?
We on this side strongly support efforts to help those who
cannot help themselves. We certainly want to give people a
handout while they are in need. What most people want is a hand
up, not a handout. Most people on the welfare and EI rolls want
to go back to work. Why not invest some of that money in skills
training? Why not give people the skills so they are not
seasonal workers for chunks of their lives? I am sure they would
want to work most of the year, not part of it. By doing that we
would have a vigorous and competitive economy.
Unfortunately the bill is indicative of the over-arching Liberal
philosophy that has poisoned the economy of our country for
decades. It is an example of a move toward mediocrity. It is a
move toward catering to a lower common denominator. It does not
empower the individual. It empowers the government to take money
from companies to redistribute as it sees fit. Why? A cynic may
think that it was to buy votes. Historically that is what has
happened. The government is taking money out of the pockets of
individuals and doling it out in other parts of the country.
1555
We have seen reports just in the last 24 hours where moneys have
gone into the maritimes at the rate of 10 times what they were
one year ago. People in the maritimes see through this. They
are saying “Do not take us for fools. We know what you are
doing. You are trying to buy us off”. The people in the
maritimes do not want this. They want the maritimes to be a
competitive, vigorous centre, an economic tiger.
They are looking at models such as Ireland. They wish the
government would show the leadership that the Irish government
has demonstrated to its people. Ireland was an economic
backwater for many years and the people of that country finally
said they would not take it any more. What did the Irish
government do? It lowered taxes. It relaxed its labour laws. It
invested in education. It removed the egregious rules and
regulations that were choking the private sector. Ireland is now
receiving 50% of all investment that goes into the European
Union. It is an economic tiger.
People in the maritimes like that vision. They are looking at
leadership from the Canadian Alliance to see how they can do it.
They know they are not getting leadership from the government.
The government doles out money, but the people in the maritimes
do not want handouts. They want an environment in which they can
thrive.
The proof is in the pudding. The Canadian Federation of
Independent Business and the Canadian Labour Congress do not
approve of the bill. They are against it. The Canadian Labour
Congress is against the bill because it crushes people's ability
to work.
We want people to work. We want to take care of those people
who cannot take care of themselves and who are unemployed through
no fault of their own. It is that balance that we are
championing. It is that balance that the government would be wise
to listen to.
The proof of the pudding will be in the next election. We are
confident our side will win.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to my colleague's speech. As members know,
the Bloc Quebecois is calling for more substantial changes in
the bill introduced by the Liberals.
We all know that this whole issue concerns seasonal workers. I
am a little bit surprised to see that my colleague from the
Canadian Alliance is not aware of the problems that all the
seasonal workers from western Canada face.
Why should we penalize the seasonal workers from eastern and
western parts of Canada by adopting a policy that does not seem
to meet their needs, wherever they are in Canada? I would like
some explanations on this.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for the question, but I think the larger question at hand here is
why we would want to cater to enforcing seasonal work. Why do we
not look to full employment with people working all year long?
Seasonal workers do not want to work part of the year. The
people in my neck of the woods do not want to work part of the
year. They want to work all year long. They want to make a lot
more money. They do not want to be on employment insurance.
The government has taken money away from the private sector and
it is inhibiting the private sector's ability to employ people
all year long. That is what is going on.
We should take out the regional differences, which is what we
have been saying for a long time. For political reasons this
bill and its predecessor, the rules governing EI, have allowed
the government to gerrymander situations and to ensure that there
are regional differences. Why should there be regional
differences? People should be treated equally across the
country. An unemployed person on the west coast, an unemployed
person in Quebec and an unemployed person in the maritimes are
unemployed people and they should be treated equally.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
some people will know, of course, my parents emigrated from
Ireland, so I have a great number of aunts and uncles who live
there.
Earlier this year I had occasion to talk to one of my uncles. He
had had occasion to watch the House of Commons, since he was
interested in his young niece, and he asked me to convey to
members of the party opposite at the earliest possible
opportunity their complete misrepresentation of what drove the
economy of Ireland.
1600
He is quite concerned, as I am sure most people in Ireland would
be concerned, that it was not about lowering tax levels alone. It
was about investing in people, about investing in post-secondary
education, about the very programs that the hon. member and his
party condemn every day in the House. If he had studied the full
aspect of what in fact was the success in Ireland I wonder what
he would say to his colleagues who get up and condemn the
minister of HRDC for her initiatives to ensure that people do get
a chance to get a hand up and a chance to get full employment.
The reality is that he is comparing a very tiny country with a
country that has great regional differences.
He is misrepresenting the fact that my province of Ontario and
my workers who work in the construction industry have asked for
this change. It is this caucus that has asked for changes to the
current EI system.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member was
not speaking disparagingly about the NDP, the Bloc or the
Conservative Party. That would be a shame.
Having said that, what I said before is that in the Irish
situation they did reduce taxes. They did make investments. They
did relax labour laws. They did remove the rules and regulations
that choked the private sector.
They did not make an investment in handouts to the private
sector. The large numbers of international companies that have
gone into Ireland, high tech companies such as IBM, Xerox and
many others, have gone there to set up shop because the tax
structure, the labour laws and the educational standards are
excellent.
We have been asking for a long time that we look at those
pillars of an economy that make it strong, like the lower taxes,
the removal of egregious rules and regulations and the strong
educational system, and ensure that the country has them.
Handouts from HRDC that go to friends of the government in power
are not what they do in Ireland. That would crush the private
sector and prevent people from getting employed. The hon. member
just needs to look to the auditor general to know what is really
going on at HRDC.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to be able to talk to Bill C-44, which changes some of the
rules of the employment insurance program.
As far as I am concerned, Bill C-44 on employment insurance makes
very minor adjustments and can be considered an electoral
goody. The Liberal government had no choice but to amend the
Employment Insurance Act.
It is but a short-sighted revision and not a comprehensive reform
of the Employment Insurance Act.
It is a bill without substance and clearly inadequate for the
large numbers of workers without jobs. It is a cosmetic bill,
which will cost the government a mere $500 million when all is
said and done. That is not much, compared to the $32 billion
accumulated in the government's coffers. We know that this year
alone $7 billion went directly to paying down the debt.
Many of those excluded will not qualify for EI benefits. That
means that two people out of three will continue to be excluded,
in spite of the fact that a few major changes were made.
Before I begin my short speech on the Employment Insurance Act,
I wish to inform the Chair that I would like to share my time
with my colleague from Charlevoix.
Bill C-44 consists of three meagre measures. Some might find them
interesting since much needed to be done with respect to the
employment insurance program. Let us begin with the intensity
rule.
1605
That rule will not apply any more. That is good for those who
were penalized because they were considered frequent claimants.
They will no longer have to lose 1% on their salary. There will
no longer be any penalty. The unemployed will no longer have
benefits reduced to 50% or 55% of their salary. It is a step in
the right direction, but it is too little.
The maximum insurable earning threshold will be raised from
$39,000 to $48,000 for the purpose of the clawback on EI
benefits. The government is giving a little break to those who
earn up to $48,000.
For a new parent who leaves the work force, it will be possible
to go back four years, instead of one year, to calculate the
number of eligible hours for employment insurance.
I repeat that this is a step in the right direction, but Bill
C-44 does not respond to many inequities facing several workers.
First, young people will still have to work 910 hours to qualify.
We know very well that it is difficult for a young person to
accumulate 910 hours. The work force no longer provides stable
jobs. Instead, it provides insecure and part time jobs.
Consequently, it is too much to require 910 hours for a young
person to qualify.
The whole issue of independent workers has not been dealt with.
We know that, in Quebec, they represent 16% of the population. In
this bill, the issue of independent workers is not being dealt
with.
The Bloc Quebecois had made several proposals for refunding
premiums for people who earn up to $5,000. We know that, today, a
person who earns $2,000 pays premiums, but that above that
amount, premiums are never refunded. We would have liked that cap
set at $5,000. Students work in the summer, pay employment
insurance premiums and do not get a refund of premiums paid on
income over $2,000.
There are special benefits that include maternal benefits.
Again, there will be some irritants for pregnant women. They will
have to work 600 hours, contrary to workers in some regions who
will receive benefits after working for 420 hours. This is a
double standard. If we want to encourage women to have children,
they will not find adequate measures to deal with their
situation.
We are well aware that the government's proposal to double the
maternity leave is clearly inadequate. We know that many women
do not use the maternity leave—I think the ratio is about
52%—because they cannot afford to stay home for any length of
time with benefits that represent only 55% of their salary.
Very often, women who do stay home with their children do not use
the whole maternity leave. It does not make sense to give a one
year maternity leave to women who cannot afford it, who cannot
afford to stay away from work for a year.
The government did not seriously address the Employment
Insurance Act and all its ramifications. It did not address the
status of seasonal workers either.
In Baie-Comeau, Trois-Pistoles or Rouyn-Noranda, there are
inequities in the treatment of seasonal workers. The government
has not dealt with their problem. Discrimination will continue.
The proposed measures are meagre compared to the huge surplus
piling up in the EI fund.
The Prime Minister is quite pleased with the accumulated
surplus. As he said so clearly in the House “Let me enjoy this,
if it is the only problem I have”. He thinks this is a minor
problem. When workers are excluded from the EI benefits, or have
their meagre benefits reduced under the intensity rule, the
Prime Minister is not, as we know, the one who is faced with the
problem of being jobless.
1610
Also, the government has not really dealt with reduced benefits
for seasonal workers. This category of workers is only entitled
to reduced benefits. For instance, the government refused to
increase the benefits to 60% of the wages of the workers to take
the increase in the cost of living into account. It could have
indexed EI benefits.
The EI program has been and continues to be totally out of touch
with reality, even if the government wants us to believe that the
program is in sync with the labour market. It is not; it is
totally out of whack.
The figures speak for themselves. When the reform was
implemented in 1997, there was a decrease of 16.4% in the number
of EI claimants, compared to a 4% drop in the unemployment rate.
It was the same for several years. But those figures only apply
for 1997. Between 1993 and 1999, the number of regular claimants
decreased by 52.4% and the unemployment rate was at 28%. As
members can see, the number of claimants dropped twice as much as
the number of the unemployed. In percentage, the number of
unemployed workers is decreasing more slowly than the number of
claimants.
That is why we believe that this reform is far from suited to
the realities of the labour market.
We can say it is a small victory, a half-victory for the Bloc
Quebecois, as the numerous demands made by my party for a
comprehensive reform of the new employment insurance legislation
have led to three small measures taken by the government in Bill
C-44. This will bring some comfort to certain workers who have
lost their jobs. However, a lot of people have been forgotten,
including women, young people and seasonal workers. The
government should have made other changes to allow more people to
qualify.
The premium rate was reduced; it is all fine and well to lower
it to $2.25, but if the majority of unemployed people are not
covered, I think we are missing what the main purpose of such
legislation should be, that is, helping those who find themselves
without a job.
In closing, I would like to repeat a word used by the person who
was responsible for this issue before, who said he was “shocked”
when I was putting questions to him and telling him that this
reform would be devastating for thousands and thousands of
unemployed people. We certainly cannot give the government high
marks for these three very small measures.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
am going to respond briefly to the comments of the Bloc
Quebecois member.
I find the tone of her comments very surprising. She is a
little condescending, I must say with her remarks about these
three very small measures. To say these three very small measures
is misleading to start with; there are more than three measures,
regardless of their size. It should also be pointed out that
the Bloc Quebecois does not seem to be united in its response to
Bill C-44, since the Bloc Quebecois member who just spoke has
described, in detail, all the aspects she thought were
particularly negative.
1615
But on September 18 in Chicoutimi, her boss, the Bloc Quebecois
house leader, said—and unfortunately I do not have the text
before me, so I will have to rely on my memory—that he welcomed
this bill, because it would create jobs for seasonal workers and
women. So I would ask the hon. member across the way to start
singing from the same song sheet as the other members of her
party.
As for women and young people, let us not forget that women in
particular will be affected by this new legislation, because in
most cases they are the ones who stay at home.
They are the ones who will be able to continue to receive 80% of
their salary from the time they stay home with their children.
So I do not think that there is really anything to criticize
about this bill as far as women are concerned.
As for young people, let us remember the context in which the
bill was drafted. It is part of a large number of measures
being proposed by the Department of Human Resources Development,
that is, that—
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Is there a question?
Ms. Raymonde Folco: It is a comment, and I think I am allowed a
comment.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I apologize. I
remembered the name of the member, but I was struggling for the
circonscription.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
commenting on my remarks. We will see how these measures are
applied. The people will pass judgment on the reform of
employment insurance as compared to the old unemployment
insurance legislation.
We have seen how frustrated people are and we will see that
sectors have been forgotten in this reform. The government
should have made an in-depth reform, for example, with an
examination of the real problem of seasonal work.
I can say that time has proven us right. We forced the
government to make changes and we were the mobilizing force with
respect to the impact of the measures contained in the Employment
Insurance Act.
I am not saying that we are not happy with the measures
proposed, but I think they do not go far enough with regard to
the scope of the problem of lost jobs and the people who will
continue to be denied employment insurance.
Mention should be made—and the member opposite did not refer to
this—of the size of the surplus the government took from the
employment insurance fund. The contributors to it are the
workers and the employers and not the government. All of this
money that went to reduce the deficit disappeared into the
government's consolidated fund.
The government will accumulate more surplus, perhaps to a lesser
degree, but it could perhaps have been a lot more generous to
those who are without a job and receiving a mere 50% or 55% of
their salary and who have to work a certain number of hours
before they are entitled to benefits.
We will be following this matter closely, and, despite the
member's enthusiasm, I am sure that the public will support us
once more. The Bloc Quebecois has been here since 1993, and we
have done studies on the impact of the Employment Insurance Act,
and the people sided with us.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, not so much on account of
its content, but to speak up for seasonal workers in the
Charlevoix riding, as well as those in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean,
lower St. Lawrence and north shore regions.
1620
The bill before us today is mere window dressing. On the eve of
an election, the government introduced a bill it wants to push
through the House in an attempt to save a few seats and deal
with problems in the regions.
Since the employment insurance reform in 1996, the minister has
been mandated by the government, the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Finance to squeeze $5 billion a year out of the EI
fund.
How does the Department of Human Resources Development manage to
collect a yearly surplus of $5 billion? It is a hidden tax on
employment, collected mainly on the backs of seasonal workers.
The current minister and her predecessors have always acquiesced
to the request, producing $5 billion a year to be put toward
reducing the deficit.
Last week the Bloc Quebecois asked the Prime Minister whether
the bill the minister was going to introduce in the House would
provide more money for workers and remove the criteria which
have penalized seasonal workers year after year? The Prime
Minister's answer went somewhat like this: the government has
wiped out the deficit and there is a $31.2 billion surplus in the EI
fund. The government intends to remove the rules that had been
introduced to reduce benefits by 1% every year for five years.
Since 1996, the Bloc Quebecois has been decrying the EI reform
in the House. Thousands upon thousands of petitions have been
tabled.
Thousands and thousands of them, mayors, aboriginal communities,
regional municipalities—in short, all manner of socio-economic
stakeholders—have expressed their disagreement so far.
This summer, a problem was experienced in Charlevoix and the
north shore, the result of zone redistribution. The reform
includes a draft regulation permitting the minister to readjust
his or her employment insurance zones every five years.
There was a problem in the Gaspé. There was much sympathy for
the Gaspé because of the plant and mine closures. There was
also a problem with the seasonal workers in the Gaspé and the
Magdalen Islands.
At that time, the minister was really attentive to the people of
the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands.
She decided to create a special zone to include the Gaspé, of
course, the Magdalen Islands and the riding of Matapédia—Matane,
the riding of my colleague.
When the minister said that she had consulted with MPs on this
infamous geographical redistribution, the member for côte nord
and the member for Charlevoix were never consulted. At the last
minute, the minister noticed that the zone was far too small, so
she decided to add the lower north shore to it. This had a
devastating effect on the unemployment rate in Charlevoix and on
the north shore.
Having created this zone, she ought to have created a pilot
project for the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands.
This way, once the economic situation improved and employability
gradually got better, the pilot project would have ended. But
no, that is not what she did. She gave something to the workers
in the Gaspé, at the expense of those in the north shore and
Charlevoix regions.
Because she needed an additional $5 million, $6 million or
$10 million to pay for the 420 worked hours for 32 weeks of
benefits, the minister offloaded the problem squarely onto the
other side of the river. As a result, the Charlevoix region is
now in the same situation as the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands,
the lower north shore having been removed from our zone.
Charlevoix, the north Shore, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the Lower
St. Lawrence and the Montmagny—L'Islet regions ended up in a single
zone.
1625
What we are asking and what the petitioners are asking is for
the government to leave us in the zone in which we were, in
northern Quebec, or at least to include us under the new
rezoning in Quebec's northwest region.
All this commotion since July 9 has resulted in people
mobilizing and organizing protests, and coalitions have sprung
up. We have consulted with the municipalities and people have
made representations.
Following that, the minister came to propose transitional
measures. Under these transitional measures, after July 9, the
new requirements would be 525 hours of work for 21 weeks of
benefits. This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the people
of Charlevoix.
Between July 9 and September 17, the people who have worked 525
hours will be entitled to 21 weeks of benefits during the
winter. Then the revenue minister came to Charlevoix to tell us
that the minister had come up with transitional measures to help
seasonal workers, and these measures were to come into effect on
September 17. They had come up with a transitional measure, Mr.
Speaker, and I am sure that you would agree with me and that the
revenue minister could stand up and confirm what I have just
said.
With all the pressure we exerted, the protests, the
demonstrations, the coalitions and the meetings with the
minister, we were able to sway the government. A Liberal member
would not have been so lucky, because the minister would have
told him “Be quiet, do not embarrass me, do not bother me with
your problems”.
The problem was solved thanks to the insight of the people of
Charlevoix and the north shore. If you ever come to the north
shore, you will see that as friendly as the people are over
there, they are also real fighters. In 2000 and 2001, workers
will need 420 working hours to get 32 weeks of benefits. In
2001, the minister comes back with 420 working hours for 28
weeks of benefits. In 2002-03, it will be 450 working hours
for 24 weeks of benefits, and in 2003-04, 525 working hours for
21 weeks of benefits.
The minister told us we will have to get used to it. Used to
what? To living on welfare?
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: To tightening our belts.
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Is it, as the hon. member for Jonquière put
it, to get used to tightening our belts and getting poorer and
poorer?
People who work 15 weeks a year cannot contribute to RRSPs at
the end of the year to save on income tax.
The minister said people would have to get used to working for
longer periods. I checked. In the tourism industry, is it
possible to make the seasons last longer?
I went to the massif near Petite-Rivière-Saint-François. Is it
possible to ski between June 24 and September 15? Apparently not.
It would appear that the skiing season ends on April 1.
I checked to see if it was possible to extend the fishing season. It would
appear that it is impossible, at 30 degrees below zero, to go out
for lobster, crab or groundfish on the St. Lawrence.
I also looked at the forestry industry. Is it possible to cut
timber in the winter in four feet of snow? It would appear that
it is impossible to travel in the forest with machines. If
workers use snowshoes to get there and cut down the trees in four
feet of snow, in the spring the stumps will be four feet high.
It does not make sense. There would be too much waste.
I also looked at peat bogs. Would it be possible to install a
dome over peat bogs to warm up the atmosphere to make the season
last longer for these workers? Again, that does not appear to be
logical.
All that to say that the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of
this bill because, even though it is cosmetic and has a definite
pre-election flavour to it, it is a step in the right direction.
1630
These are some of things that the Bloc Quebecois has been asking
for in the House of Commons since the 1996 reform, and we hope
the government, after the election, will continue to listen to us
and grant special status to seasonal workers in Charlevoix,
north shore, lower St. Lawrence and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have a few comments and a question for the hon. member.
When the idea for this reform came up last June, there was a
so-called consultation. I referred to HRDC officials in my
riding, who suggested to the minister that she maintain the
status quo, since the economic indicators showed that was
the best course.
At the time this reform just mentioned by the hon. member was
introduced in my riding, the minimum number of hours had jumped
from 420 to 490, which is absolutely shocking. Our first
questions were these. What will be the impact? What percentage of
workers will be affected? What will be the shortfall
economically? It seems to me that these were perfectly
reasonable figures to want to know.
I therefore invited the HRDC economist to come and share his
figures with us. To my great surprise, it was the chief actuary
who came all the way from Ottawa to meet with groups in my
riding interested in the issue. He ended up telling us he did
not have these figures.
Does this mean that the government has produced a reform without
knowing the economic impact on families, without knowing how
many people were going to be without benefits in the month of
February? I am speaking today on behalf of these families.
This is ridiculous.
What is more, this complete sham of a bill has the potential to
restore balance and a certain justice, but instead of that, what
we have is window dressing. I admit that the bill is headed in
the right direction, such as with the idea of eliminating the
intensity rule.
As for the rest, however, it is wrong to think that this is
progress. What it is, is electioneering, which is completely
unacceptable.
Does the member think it right that
the chief actuary—who is supposed to know the figures, who is
preparing a reform, does not know the figures, the impact, the
percentage of workers who will be affected and the economic
shortfall for the region?
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague
from Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, a big meeting was held at
Baie-Comeau, and all the senior people from Human Resources
Development Canada were brought in. The departmental official
who made the recommendation to the minister never took the human
aspect into consideration. He had allocated so many millions to
compensate the Gaspé that he had to get them back from the north
shore and in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
The departmental official told us that in Sept-Îles,
Baie-Comeau, Mont-Joli, Rimouski or Rivière-du-Loup, there is a
very low rate of unemployment. The problem, as in
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, is not in the major centres. Between
Baie-Comeau and Quebec City, there is the upper north shore and
Charlevoix, where there is a lot of seasonal employment. I would
say that 70% of people employed in tourism cannot qualify for
employment insurance, along with people new to the work force,
and many seasonal workers just barely qualify.
An extremely negative reaction was forthcoming from the Human
Resources Development Canada offices in Sept-Îles, Quebec City
and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. The three or four directors of
these centres, including the one in the lower St. Lawrence,
expressed total disagreement with this regulation, recommending
the status quo instead.
The problem, as I have said, is that instead of having a pilot
project to temporarily solve the problems in the Gaspé, the
departmental officials turned everything upside down in their
reform. From a desk here in Ottawa, it is hard to see what is
going on in the regions. A person has to be an MP to know what
is going on there.
1635
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.
[English]
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-44,
an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.
The bill does a number of things. It extends the period for the
application of certain provisions of the Employment Insurance
Act. It changes the method of calculating the maximum yearly
insurable earnings. It exempts persons who receive certain
special benefits from being considered as new entrants or
re-entrants to the labour force. It removes the reduction of the
rate of weekly benefits. It changes the premium rate applicable
to insurable earnings. It reduces the number of cases in which
benefits have to be repaid and it makes various other
consequential amendments.
While I rise to indicate that the NDP supports the bill, the
word support almost gets caught in my throat, because we do have
some grave reservations around the legislation and what it
attempts to do.
While it does take a step toward addressing the critical
conditions of Canadian workers, especially those who are working
in seasonal industries such as forestry, fishing, tourism,
transportation, the auto industry, construction and various other
trades, it does not go far enough, and I emphasize this, for the
many workers who need help but cannot get any because some
provisions of the Employment Insurance Act make them ineligible
for EI benefits. While it is a step in the right direction, we
feel a lot more has to be done.
The changes that are spelled out in the bill are changes that
are important for people living in the Atlantic provinces. I
should state right at the outset that people in the Atlantic
provinces are not lazy, as the Canadian Alliance would like the
public to believe. We are not lazy. We are not unwilling to go
where the jobs are. We are not indifferent to the opportunities
available to us.
In the Atlantic provinces we are very industrious. People in
the Atlantic provinces are hardworking. They are more than
willing to go to where the jobs are if the opportunities do not
exist in the Atlantic provinces. Unfortunately over the years,
because of the treatment of the Atlantic provinces by the
Conservative and Liberal regimes, we have not had the
opportunities to succeed on our home turf in the same manner that
others have had.
However, I am pleased to say that I have travelled to many parts
of Canada. Everywhere I go I always run into Nova Scotians,
Newfoundlanders and New Brunswickers, people who have gone to
where the jobs are because they are determined to care for and
look after their families, so much so that they will pull up
roots from the Atlantic provinces and move elsewhere to provide a
living for their families.
We will dispel the myth being put out there by the Alliance. It
indicates that people in Atlantic Canada are looking to the
Alliance for guidance and support. That is far from the truth.
To turn to the government, the reason we have concerns about the
bill is that we feel the government has not had the desire to
make any real substantive changes. It is quite interesting to
note that the changes being made are coming on the eve of an
election.
The government has not learned yet that people in Atlantic
Canada are not naive enough to accept handouts at the time of an
election. While it is important to make changes, and these
changes are important, let us not delude ourselves as to the
timing. The government has had seven years during which it could
have paid some very serious attention to unemployment in the
Atlantic provinces and to making the situation much better for
people who are unemployed.
While there are changes in the legislation that will have a
positive effect on the lives of those who are unemployed, we
still feel that major changes are required if one is to deal
adequately with the problem of unemployment.
It is important when we are talking about unemployment not to
treat unemployment after the fact, not to be coming in when there
is a problem and saying that we will fix this and patch it up by
doing this, this and this. There is an important connection
between unemployment and the attitude that we in society take to
preventing unemployment. We should adopt a preventive approach.
There is a connection.
In that regard we should be looking at the kinds of training we
are providing and the kinds of jobs we are putting forward for
our youth. It is very important to invest in the young people of
our country in a meaningful way. Yet look at what is happening
to a lot of our young people. They are attending university and
struggling to obtain an education so that they can become
productive members of society, and they find themselves faced
with huge tuition fees.
1640
In Nova Scotia I believe we pay the highest tuition fees per
capita in the country. Yet we expect our young people to be able
to eke out a living for themselves under those conditions. What
happens is that they come out of university with high debt loads
before they even have an opportunity to have a job. In terms of
student debt, they owe anywhere from $25,000 and up. That is one
measure the government should be looking at very closely if it is
concerned about this cycle of unemployment and this cycle of
dependency that comes from unemployment.
We should also be investing in our women, in looking at the
kinds of opportunities that should be made available to our
women. Regardless of what people may say about how far we have
come in terms of gender equality, it is still pretty much a man's
world out there when we look at business, industry and various
professions. I had the opportunity not too long ago to speak to
the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering. The first thing that
struck me when I looked around the room was that there was a
whole roomful of men with one or two women in that profession.
Yet we know that when it comes to designing infrastructure and
looking at what is important for our society, women, who
constitute at least 50% of our society, have a very important
role to play. Quite often they bring a much different
perspective to what the needs are than men do. We must have that
balance in our approach.
The government should be looking at the kinds of things that
support women in the jobs they are doing, in the professions they
are seeking. We had a good example of how that was not done
until the government was forced to the wall when we look at the
pay equity issue and how hard we had to fight to have it dealt
with by the government. All of this ties in with the question of
unemployment.
We can look at investing in our minority groups and in the
aboriginal people of our country. When we look at the conditions
on reserves and in the aboriginal communities we see that the
poverty rate is much higher than elsewhere, as are the death
rate, the incidence of diabetes and all kinds of things. Also
the unemployment level is much higher.
Yet when opportunities come up whereby aboriginal people are
desirous of making a living for themselves, when they want to
enter into sharing resources and make a living in a very
productive way, we see the government taking a hard line rather
than sitting down and starting negotiations before a crisis
arises, a crisis where we can look out on the water and see small
fishing boats being rammed by huge government boats. These
things are not right.
This is not right. This all ties in with the attitude that we
have when we approach problems and start devising legislation. Is
obtaining votes the only motive for devising change in
legislation? Do we devise change only at a time when we feel it
will be popular to do so?
I suggest that we talk about the high degree of unemployment in
our aboriginal communities and that we look at the lack of
opportunity that quite often exists for people of minority
status. I look at people who have come here from other parts of
the world and are driving taxis. All they can do is drive taxis
because we have some kind of magic formula which determines that
only people born in Canada who have degrees in engineering can be
engineers, or that only people born in Canada who have degrees in
trades can perform those trades. We have to change our attitudes
if we want to make the country work, if we want to produce a
society that is fair and just.
I will conclude on that note. We have to be serious about the
underlying root causes of the problem and not just tinker around
with the symptoms of the disease. Let us deal with the disease
itself, bring about a cure for that disease, and work hard to
make the country the kind of country of which we all can be
proud.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, Gun Registry; the hon. member
for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Employment Insurance.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like my
New Democratic colleague, I have a hard time supporting Bill
C-44.
In my region, hundreds of thousands of workers have taken to the
streets in recent weeks to oppose this bill, which does not go
far enough as far as seasonal workers are concerned.
1645
They also oppose the fact that Bill C-44 offers nothing to older
workers. In the riding of Jonquière, in a few weeks, 250 older
workers will lose their job. They have been unable to put enough
into the pension plan to enjoy an honourable retirement. They
hoped that the government would include passive measures in Bill
C-44 to help older workers.
I do not know whether my colleague in the New Democratic Party
has this problem in his riding, but I think that everywhere in
Canada at the moment, beyond what the government is saying about
the employment insurance fund, it could have established passive
measures enabling workers who have contributed for years, who
have worked hard to earn decent salaries, to have a decent
retirement so they could step aside to make room for younger
people to take their place.
I would like to hear my colleague from the New Democratic Party
speak on this problem, which the government is ignoring.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for
her question. She is right. It is a real problem because the
government is not listening to the people.
[English]
It is becoming more apparent, when we see the large number of
demonstrations in our streets today, that governments are not
listening to the people, and they should be. It is disturbing to
see women marching in order to put forward to the government
their need to be treated fairly. We have aboriginal people
blockading roads and so forth to get the government to seriously
consider their treaty rights. We have older people taking
measures to get their rights.
The hon. member is quite right. This is a problem, not only in
Quebec, but right across the country. It is time we had a
government that is sensitive to and responds and listens to
the people so that we will have a society that is fair,
appropriate and just.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a
supplementary question.
The government is taking money out of the EI fund. This money
belongs to the workers and the employers. Does my colleague not
find it outrageous that the government is using money that
belongs to the workers?
The Prime Minister says that we must be compassionate and that
this is the difference between his government and the Alliance.
Does my colleague not think that the government is speaking out
of both sides of its mouth? There is a hidden tax in the EI
fund, which does nothing to help workers.
Only about 40% of all workers currently have access to EI. I
would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about the
government helping itself to the workers' money.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Again, the hon. member is right, Mr. Speaker.
Our employment insurance critic, the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst, addressed this issue on many occasions. He even
used unparliamentary language—“to steal”—but he was right.
[English]
The government has in fact taken money, which we know belongs to
the unemployed workers and the employers who have paid into this
fund, and used it to augment its budget and build a huge surplus.
It is now tossing that money back in little dribs and drabs to
the people of Atlantic Canada and telling them they should be
grateful for getting a little back.
Again the member is quite right. It comes down to attitude and
sensitivity on the part of government. It should be listening to
the people. It should do what is right and do it by the
standards which Canadians pride themselves in, which demand
respect for each other and our government. In turn, the
government should have respect for its citizens.
1650
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-44, an act to amend the
Employment Insurance Act.
It is almost ironic that we are here tonight talking about the
Liberals tinkering with the unemployment insurance, given that
over the course of the last seven days, day after day, minute
after minute, all of us have heard Canadians talking about our
former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the legacy he
left them.
Although at times not all Canadians agreed with the former prime
minister, I think there is a sense across the country that he did
believe in justice for all Canadians. What he also taught
Canadians was to reach for the unreachable, to touch the
untouchable and to dream the impossible dream. In order to do
that he taught us to believe in ourselves and that it was the
responsibility of the government to empower its citizens, and
that it was also the responsibility of the federal government to play an
active role in that empowerment.
Now I stand here in the Chamber and ask myself what kind of
legacy the Liberal government will leave Canadians. What
kind of legacy is the Prime Minister going to leave children,
like my 11 year old daughter and my two year old son? Today in
the discussions we had some sense of what that legacy is going to
be. It is going to be about long waiting lines for health care
and people who cannot access critical surgeries they need.
When we talk about the unemployed, what legacy has the
government left? Being from Atlantic Canada I have to say
it has been very clear that since 1993 the Liberal government has
clearly made a frontal assault on not only seasonal workers but
on Atlantic Canadians.
As my colleague from Halifax West noted, we have to ask
ourselves, why now? Why at this point in time? We know there
are a number of members on the opposite side of the House who have
urged the government to recognize the problems its changes to EI
have made and to effect some change. I guess the question is can
we deny that in this bill there is no change? No we cannot say
that. There has been some tinkering with the legislation.
The Minister of HRDC stood time and time again in the House and
told us that her department was monitoring the changes to the
employment insurance. Up until approximately two months ago she
continued to tell us that Canadians thought it was working fine.
We know that is not a reality.
In my part of the country people are not seasonal workers
because they want to be. There is no such thing in the country
as a seasonal worker. It is the work that is seasonal. People
in my riding want nothing more than to work 365 days a year with
holidays and vacations. However, at the hands of the Liberal
government they have had difficulty doing that.
Some people on the opposite side of the House talk about the
dependency on the government in Atlantic Canada. In my part of
the country the dependency was created by the same Liberal
government. We had walls which cost Canadian taxpayers over a
million dollars. We heard about projects like Scotia Rainbow.
Cape Breton Island is full of those kinds of projects. Were
those projects initiated to assist people in gaining employment?
No, they were not.
1655
The reason for those projects and others was to make sure that
the Liberal government could continue to funnel money to its
friends and do it on the backs of poor individuals in Cape Breton
who wanted nothing more than to get up every morning, go to work,
come home and feel good about their ability to feed and clothe
their kids.
When we talk about dependency, it has been created by the
government. In 1997 less than 20% of young people between the
ages of 15 and 24 qualified for unemployment insurance. We heard
the government stand up time and time again to talk about how
good it had been and how much it had done for youth. Today that
figure is only 15%. That is the good job the government has
done.
Thirty-two per cent of women who are unemployed receive
employment insurance benefits. I even have a problem referring
to it as the government employment insurance. As we know, it
originated as a safety net, as unemployment insurance. We paid
into it in the event there was a possibility that some day we
might have to take out of that. However, when the name changed
the government abandoned the unemployed of this country.
Why change it now? Are we on the eve of an election? Mr.
Speaker, you might have more of an inside track than I do, but it
sure sounds like it.
In 1995 the finance minister's own words were that any economic
recovery would bypass Cape Breton. This is about buying votes.
Everyone knows it. Backbenchers on the government side know that
is what it is about. This is not about helping the unemployed.
This is not about helping seasonal workers. This is about taking
money from an individual's cheque for a specific purpose and then
using it for another purpose.
I think that is the definition of fraud, when we take something
meant for something specific and use it for something entirely
different. We have a finance minister who sits in the House and
who goes across the country and boasts about his $33 billion
surplus. What does this legislation mean in terms of putting
anything back? It means 1.5% of that $33 billion.
Do Atlantic Canadians buy this? No way. Do Canadians buy this?
No way. We have a Liberal government that talks about values and
talks about its commitment to social programs, but Canadians have
suffered from the actions of the Liberal government.
I have no doubt that the government should never under estimate
Atlantic Canadians. Atlantic Canadians sent them a clear message
in 1997 and said “No more. You are not going to use us any
more”. Atlantic Canadians will say that again.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for my colleague. I have here an OECD document entitled
“The OECD Jobs Strategy”. It makes several recommendations. Some
of these recommendations are to make work schedules more
flexible, and to review unemployment packages and related
benefits.
1700
The report says further:
In order to bring more flexibility to the labour market in a
number of countries, it was essential to make unemployment
packages and other social benefits less generous, to tighten up
eligibility rules.
The following quote can be found further in the report:
Canada is the only country which appears to have implemented the
recommendations regarding the reduction of the level and length
of benefits made as a result of the first set of studies.
Does this mean that the government is implementing international
strategies dictated by the OECD in the belief that if benefits
are too generous, workers will become lazy and will no longer
want to work? People do not want handouts; they want work. That
is abundantly clear.
We have seen the government make indiscriminate cuts without a
care about their impact on families. I have people coming to my
office who in February will experience the spring gap. They will
not qualify for social assistance and their unemployment
benefits will run out. What are they going to live on? Thin air?
I believe the government is completely out of touch with the
harsh economic realities in certain regions. It makes no sense
whatsoever.
I ask the government to go further with this bill, it can do it.
All summer long, we heard it say it could not do anything
without introducing a bill. Here is that bill, but it does
nothing. It is totally absurd. I am looking forward to my
colleague's remarks on this.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there
is a doubt in anybody's mind how much more difficult the
government has made it for Canadians, whether it is people trying
to access health care, whether it is people trying to access
unemployment insurance or whether it is our youth who are trying
to access a quality education, one they can afford.
Tonight there will be 1.5 million Canadian children going to bed
hungry. The reality is very clear, especially to the people in
my part of the country. This is about an election, not about the
unemployed. What a legacy for this Prime Minister to leave
Canada: 1.5 million Canadian children who will be going to bed
hungry tonight. Children are not poor. They come from poor
families.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in the debate this
evening. Before I get into the substance of my speech, I want to
say that I will be splitting my time with the member for
Cumberland—Colchester.
Atlantic Canada has a big seasonal economy. We have a lot of
seasonal workers in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As
we are all very well aware, the first set of changes brought in by
the Liberal government a few years ago had the effect of making
life totally and completely miserable for seasonal workers in
Atlantic Canada.
We should be under no illusions. The changes that the Liberals
are bringing in today in Bill C-44 will not make life any better
for seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada. As a matter of fact,
they will make very little change at all because most of the
changes coming forth under Bill C-44 are really only cosmetic
changes.
There are a a couple of changes to the clawback provision and
the intensity rule.
It also makes it a little bit easier on folks who are on
maternity leave to get back into the system again. We fully intend to
support these kinds of changes but we have to make it perfectly
clear what Bill C-44 does not do. Bill C-44 will be looked at
for what it does not do more than for what it does.
1705
We have to stress that the new rules will not change, in any way,
shape or form, the qualifying time for a seasonal worker. It
will not change the number of hours that a seasonal worker will
need to qualify for employment insurance.
The new rules will not change the duration of time that an
individual can draw employment insurance for.
The new rules, believe it or not, will not do a single thing
with respect to the devisor rule, which is a millstone around the
neck of a seasonal worker because it lowers the benefits of
seasonal workers by as much as $100 or $120 a week.
For the last two and a half to three years we have been
screaming for those kinds of changes and we have not been able to
effect these changes. However, the Liberals have brought in a
couple of cosmetic changes that they feel will get them through
an election campaign over the next couple of months.
The net result of all the various cutbacks the government has
made over the last three and a half year period to employment
insurance has been that only 35% of people who get laid off
actually qualify for benefits. Because women happen to be in a
different work pattern than men, maybe it is because of family—
* * *
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. I
apologize for interrupting the hon. member's remarks.
There have been consultations among political parties and I
think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion
in order to permit consideration of the veterans bill tomorrow,
which only came through committee today. I move:
That notwithstanding Standing Order 76.1(1), the House
authorizes the consideration of Bill C-41 on Friday, October 6,
2000.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion as presented by the government House leader. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, an
act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a moment
ago, only 30% of the women who get laid off in this nation will
qualify for benefits. That is absolutely horrendous for seasonal
workers in Atlantic Canada.
I do not know if all members of the House fully realize and
respect what seasonal workers go through in Atlantic Canada. We
have a big seasonal economy in Atlantic Canada. We have a lot of
fishermen, loggers and construction workers, people who make a
very valuable contribution to this country, and that contribution
is not recognized.
I was appalled a few days ago when I heard the member for
Calgary—Nose Hill make the statement that the government is
changing the unemployment insurance rules when seasonal workers
are already making a comfortable living.
She is saying this to the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, who
a couple of days ago informed the House that 75% of the seasonal
workers in New Brunswick make less than $10,000 a year. I would
imagine that these numbers also apply everywhere in the
Atlantic region, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and Prince Edward Island: 75% of seasonal workers
make less than $10,000 a year.
1710
I cannot understand how the member for Calgary—Nose Hill could
say that fishermen make a comfortable living. Sure we have some
fishermen who make a comfortable living but, for the most part,
most of them do not. What about the loggers in—
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member knows that the member for Calgary—Nose Hill
clarified what her remarks were. He is deliberately
misrepresenting—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order. That is debate.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, we know what the reform
alliance said about Atlantic Canadians and what its attitude is
toward employment insurance. It has been documented. It has
been in the press a great deal. I know those members are very
sensitive about that but they will have to live with it.
The member for Calgary—Nose Hill feels that the fishermen, the
loggers and the construction workers in Atlantic Canada are
making a comfortable living and says that we should not be giving
them employment insurance. I was astounded to hear those kinds
of remarks. It shows the blatant ignorance that the Alliance
Party has of Atlantic Canadians.
I do not see any changes in this bill with regard to easing the
qualifying requirements for regular benefits or anything that
increases the time that an individual can draw benefits. Seasonal
workers often refer to that time as the black hole, the time when
they run out of employment insurance benefits and the time when
they will be starting their seasonal job. They often find that
employment insurance runs out about half-way through. They may
have to go to welfare or to savings that they have accumulated
over a number of years in order to get by until the seasonal job
starts again.
It is terrible the way government has treated seasonal workers.
It has not recognized the kind of valuable contribution that
seasonal workers make to the economy.
Can we do without fishermen? No. Can we do without loggers?
No. Can we do without construction workers? No. We in this
House have to recognize the kind of contribution that seasonal
workers make not only to Atlantic Canada, but to Quebec, to
northern Ontario and to Alberta. Virtually all of Canada has, to
some extent, seasonal employment in certain parts of various
provinces.
It is no wonder the government has a $32 billion surplus.
I went to a briefing a couple of days ago over at HRDC and I
asked the question “How much money do you have in surplus in the
EI account?” They gave me the official numbers, “$32
billion”. I said “How much are you going to spend on these
changes?” They said “$500 million”.
What we find is that the federal government is giving back 1.5%
to the seasonal workers of Canada, who depend so much on a decent
employment insurance system to see them through.
I am terribly disappointed that the cabinet representative for
Newfoundland has not spoken to the bill and has not spoken about
employment insurance in the House over the last three and a half
years that I have been here. Virtually none of the Liberal
members from Newfoundland have had anything to say about seasonal
workers in Atlantic Canada or in Newfoundland and what changes
should be made to the Employment Insurance Act to make it a
little bit better for these people.
1715
I am terribly disappointed the Liberals have decided to abandon
the seasonal workers in Newfoundland and the rest of Atlantic
Canada. The growing reality is the pending federal election and
it has finally gotten to the Liberals to make these few cosmetic
changes. They could have easily made these changes three months
ago, or three and a half years ago when they were elected.
These changes could have been made but now with the pending
federal election they want to give the impression to the seasonal
workers in Atlantic Canada that they are doing something
substantive to help them. They are doing absolutely nothing. The
Liberal Party has not yet found its social conscience. It did
not rediscover its social conscience.
I have a few words to say on EI as it pertains to women in the
workforce. I said earlier that only 30% of unemployed Canadian
women actually qualify for benefits these days.
In the spring budget the Liberals made much of the fact that EI
maternity benefits would be extended from six months to a full
year. Given the fact that 30% of women qualified for benefits
and given that it is harder to qualify for maternity benefits in
this day and age, much more difficult than for regular benefits,
only a political party with the gall of the Liberal Party would
boast about the improvement it has made to the maternity
benefits. However, I cannot pursue this subject because my time
has expired.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the speech made by my colleague from the
Progressive Conservative Party.
In a few days, we will have the march of women. Women have a lot
of demands with regard to poverty. The majority of self-employed
and part time workers are women. These jobs pay less for women.
We would have thought that, on the eve of the march of women,
the government would have been more open to the demands of women
in Bill C-44. Unfortunately, it chose to turn a deaf ear. The
Prime Minister also refused to meet with them.
Can the member from the Progressive Conservative Party tell us
what the government should have done in this bill to counter
rising poverty for women in modern society?
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, I am very well aware of
the problem the member raises with respect to women looking for
that meeting with the Prime Minister. Only yesterday I contacted
the Prime Minister's office on behalf of women to request that he
meet with them when they come to Ottawa.
The government has done very little for women with the
employment insurance changes. We are all very much aware of what
the statistics are. Thirty-five per cent of people nationally
qualify for employment insurance when they are unemployed but the
figures are a whole lot worse for women. Thirty per cent—and I
think a member a moment ago said 32%—of women qualify for
employment insurance.
With a $32 billion surplus the government could have made it a
little better on everyone, including women, great numbers of whom
are in the seasonal workforce, especially in the tourism industry
and what have you. The Liberals have neglected women and
Canadians generally. I think they will find that people will not
treat them kindly when the election is called.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will read for my hon. colleague a little comment that
comes from my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst on the human face of
unemployment insurance.
It is from a mother and says “It shows the complete lack of
compassion on the part of the government when a mother is not
given an opportunity to support her children and when instead her
money is used to balance the budget”. This clearly shows the
direct correlation between the hungry Canadian children that
there are as we sit in the Chamber tonight, and the government's
devastation of unemployment insurance.
1720
Would the member like to comment on whether the government could
have gone further with the EI legislation and in effect made some
good strides toward eliminating poverty in the country?
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, the member made very good
comments.
I was on a poverty committee that travelled to every single
province in Canada speaking to people about their problems. The
main point so many people made when they came before us to
present their briefs was that with respect to poverty and
children, the children come from poor parents, from mothers and
fathers who cannot find work, mothers and fathers who have been
denied benefits through employment insurance. The employment
insurance scheme and the government cutbacks over the last couple
of years have played a very big part in the poverty in families.
The government could have done a whole lot more. Some $32 billion
is a massive amount of money to accumulate on the backs of
parents and workers who are struggling to make ends meet on a
daily basis. The government could have done a whole lot more.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me to discuss this issue today because it
has been on my mind for a long time.
The government proceeds to do things that the private sector
cannot do. It would be fraudulent and dishonest and it would be
subject to fines if in private life or in business in the private
sector I did what the government does every single payday. Every
single payday every single employee in the country gets a
paycheque and on the stub there is a little column marked EI,
employment insurance premiums. It is not employment insurance
premiums. That is false labelling. It would not comply
according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, consumer
affairs or anything else because it is not accurate. It is not
true and it is not honest.
Every single person in Canada who gets paid tomorrow will get a
cheque and a certain amount will have been taken off their pay
for an employment insurance premium. That is not what it is. It
is false labelling. It is a surcharge for working.
Already the government has a $32 billion dollar surplus gathered
together in its unemployment insurance fund. It does not need
any more money as far as that goes. Certainly it should not be
marked as an employment insurance premium when it is not. At the
very least there should be two columns. One should be marked
employment insurance premiums and one should be marked surcharge
for working or work tax because that is exactly what it is. It
goes into general revenues. It has nothing to do with
unemployment insurance premiums. It happens every single payday
to every single person. Even government paycheques are marked
the same way.
If in business I sold a garment that was said to be 100% cotton
and it was not 100% cotton, I would be charged with false
labelling. If I sold a car that had 40,000 kilometres on it but
I said it only had 20,000 kilometres on it, I could be put in
jail. I have to say what I am charging money for but the
government does not have to do that. It is false labelling. It
is misleading, it is dishonest and it is unfair. It is a tax on
working and it should be labelled as such.
One would not get away with that in the private sector. Recently
there was a case where a grocery store mislabelled a chicken. The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency came down on that grocery store
because it had mislabelled the chicken and the person who was
paying a certain amount of money thought that he was getting a
certain product and he was not.
That is what happens every single day on every single paycheque
in Canada. People think they are buying unemployment insurance
when in fact it is just a surcharge, a tax that goes into general
revenues. I could not get away with that in the private sector
and I do not know how the government can get away with it either.
That is one thing I wanted to talk about.
1725
The other thing I wanted to talk about is the seasonal worker
issue which comes up so often. People who are fortunate enough
to live in areas where there are low unemployment rates do not
understand what it is like to live in an area where there are
seasonal workers and employment is difficult to find.
I recently went to Calgary, Alberta. What impressed me the most
was not the buildings, the fancy cars or the people, but
the signs in the windows everywhere which read now hiring and
help wanted. They were everywhere. If a person were to put
up help wanted signs in my town, he or she would need police
protection because there would be so many people trying to get
the job. People who make comments about the lazy Atlantic
Canadians who do not want to work and about the people who live high on
unemployment insurance just do not have a clue what they are
talking about.
I was in the house manufacturing business before I went into
politics. We had 125 employees and we tried our best to maintain
a 12 month a year operation but, come October or November, there
was just no market and nobody to buy the houses. It was too cold
to place them, set them up and establish them so we had to have
layoffs. The management and the employees worked together to try
to get through as long as they could, but when there was no other
choice, a layoff was required. They were seasonal workers.
There was no choice. There was no alternative. That is all that
could happen. Everybody tried to avoid it. Nobody wanted to go
on unemployment insurance. Nobody wanted to receive half pay or
55% of their pay. Who can live on 55%?
That is what happens in certain areas of the country. Certain
areas do not have the opportunities and the resources or what
have you to provide full time employment. Those people who are
on unemployment should not be punished just because next year the
same thing is going to happen. It is not their choice. They do
not have any opportunities or alternatives. It just happens.
Everybody tries to work around it. Everybody tries to find
alternatives for work, but in some cases there just is not any.
In that case there is unemployment insurance.
To fine people, to punish them because they are forced onto
unemployment is not fair. This bill removes that condition and
at least that is an improvement. It is amazing that a Liberal
government would bring it in in the first place when the Liberals
claim to have a social conscience and have the interests of
Canadians at heart, especially those Canadians who need help.
For them to devise such a scheme and punish people because they
cannot find year round work is unbelievable.
It is incredible that only 35% of the applicants for
unemployment insurance will be paid. Only 35% of the unemployed
are able to qualify for benefits but 100% of the working people
pay in. It does not seem fair. Again it is mislabelling. For
100% of the people to pay in and only 35% or fewer, especially in
the case of unemployed women who get less, to be paid is
completely unacceptable. It indicates how out of touch the
Liberals are with the areas that have unemployment. It is a
policy that punishes people. To change it now with these token
election changes is almost offensive and insulting because it
would be done just because an election is on the horizon.
For years we have been complaining about this, groups have
been lobbying to get a change and there has not even been an
acknowledgement of the problem. Now that there is an election on
the horizon, all of a sudden we are going to make these changes
and ram them through real fast. The Liberals are going to repeal
these offensive changes which they were so delighted at putting
in. Certainly we welcome the changes but the timing is
offensive.
The focus should be on job creation. Instead of focusing on
unemployment insurance, the whole focus should be on job
creation. There should be a program to develop jobs and to
provide the incentives for employers to hire more people. There
should be incentives to reduce trade barriers among the
provinces and among countries. There should be ways to
overcome all the barriers to trade for industry and small
business in areas of high unemployment. Are there any? No.
In fact we had a program called the Canada jobs fund. It was
abused and neglected and because of that we have lost that fund.
That was a good fund. In my own area it was a good fund. It was
delivered by people in my own community and now it has been taken
away and given to a regional office of ACOA. I am afraid we are
going to lose the benefits of that program.
I can see, Mr. Speaker, that you are going to shut me down any
minute so I will end my speech. Those are my main issues on this
bill. I will be delighted to answer any questions members may
have.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have received
notice from the hon. member for Repentigny that he is unable to
move his motion during private members' hour on Friday, October
6. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions
in the order of precedence.
Accordingly I am directing the table officers to drop that item
of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private
members' hour will thus be cancelled and the House will continue
with the business before it prior to private members' hour.
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.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada
should immediately double the “basic personal deduction” for
Canadian taxpayers over the age of 69.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce the motion
which would double the basic personal exemption for people over
the age of 69.
Before I enter into an explanation of the rationale behind the
motion, I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to
deem it votable since the subcommittee deemed it non-votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
for Saskatoon—Humboldt have unanimous consent of the House to
present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I sought unanimous consent
with the full expectation that it would be denied by Liberal
members.
It is noteworthy to draw to the attention of the House and all
Canadians the undemocratic manner in which the Liberals are
intent on governing the nation. Therefore, before I move into a
discussion of the actual motion before the House, in an attempt
to illustrate the importance of that, I would like to highlight
the degree to which members of the House and all Canadians are
deprived of great ideas put forward by members on their behalf.
I will summarize some of the bills I have before parliament
which will never have the opportunity to be voted on because
Liberal members are unwilling to have them come forward for a
vote.
I have a bill to protect the legal definition of marriage as the
union of one man and one woman. I have a bill which would
require fixed election dates so that the Prime Minister can no
longer play games with Canadians on the timing of an election. I
have a bill which would provide longer jail sentences for those
who use a firearm in the commission of a criminal offence.
I have a bill to provide for a referendum to determine whether
Canadians wish medically unnecessary abortions to be covered
under the Canada Health Act. I have a bill to amend the Canada
Labour Code to make trade union membership in the federal public
service optional. I have a bill protecting persons accused of a
crime from undue public speculation before guilt has been
established.
I also have a bill which would amend the Parliament of Canada
Act regarding recognized political parties, requiring an official
party to have at least 10% of the seats in the House, which seems
to me to be a very reasonable level and would prevent the type of
fringe parties we have, for example, the fifth party in the House.
I have a bill which would require that companies no longer to be
forced to make payroll deductions on behalf of the federal
government and a bill requiring transparency in pricing of goods
for sale in Canada. In other words, a listing of taxes could no
longer be contained in the price of a product but would have to
be specifically listed.
I also have a bill which would require federal transfers for
welfare under the Canada health and social transfer to be
contingent upon whether that province has a workfare program. I
also have a bill to eliminate official bilingualism.
Some of my motions include repealing the Employment Equity Act,
entrenching property rights in the constitution, criminal code
punishment for persons wilfully disrupting electronic commerce,
and the motion I have currently before the House today.
On the eve of a federal election I have to wonder how the
Liberal members would handle questions from their constituents as
to why they were unwilling to vote and have a public record of
whether or not they supported these types of motions and bills. I
hope their constituents are fully aware of this undemocratic
inclination and will replace them with a Canadian Alliance
government.
1735
My motion would double the basic personal exemption for people
over the age of 69. The rationale behind it is that seniors who
have accumulated registered retirement savings plans are required
at that age to liquidate them into a registered retirement income
fund.
The retirement savings that have been accumulated over a
lifetime up to that point may have to sustain a person's
well-being, for decades to come in some cases. The timing and use
of the retirement fund should be at the discretion of the
individual as opposed to being a legislated statutory requirement
of a percentage that must be removed and liquidated from the
sheltered savings plan. Notwithstanding that and more to the point,
my motion would help to reduce the tax burden incurred as a
result of the law that requires liquidation of the savings.
Doubling the basic personal exemption for seniors over the age
of 69 would affect not only those who have accumulated savings
but seniors who have no savings. My motion would place their tax
exempt level at a much higher rate and would enable them to earn
more income from whatever source of income they may have, to avoid
the taxman to a level that is a bit more reasonable than the
current level of only $7,231.
It is worthwhile to examine the Liberal record with respect to
taxation and the tax savings that seniors would gain from my
measure as opposed to what the government is doing with their
money.
If my motion were law seniors would retain more money in their
pockets at the end of each tax year. The government has seen fit
to use that money for such things as fountains and golf courses
in the Prime Minister's riding. That is offensive to seniors,
especially low income seniors who do not have a retirement nest
egg and are forced to work to subsidize their living, with the
taxman taking a bite out of their earnings at such a low level.
The Liberal record does not just include wasteful spending. In
the seven years of Liberal government we have seen our national
debt increase by almost $100 billion. This represents a drain on
our social programs because such a large part of the annual tax
collected by the government each year must be used to service the
debt instead of paying for useful social programs that we all
care about, such as health care and education.
As a result of not only the waste but the fiscal mismanagement
by the Liberal government, Canadians are seeing a declining
standard of living as compared to the United States. We have the
highest level of personal income tax of any country in the
industrialized world.
Last year the government had a $12 billion surplus. It has
promoted this fact quite widely and quite proudly. For the
benefit of the House and all Canadians, although the word surplus
is a sexy word, sounds good and is appealing, the truth is that
it represents an overtaxation. Part of the overtaxation was
incurred by seniors who were forced by law to liquidate their
savings. My motion would minimize the tax grab on those seniors.
The Liberals have increased taxes 63 times since they came to
power. I contrast that with the Canadian Alliance because since
we are heading into a federal election it is worthwhile to explain
the difference in the two approaches.
While the Liberals engage in wasteful spending on frivolous
programs, the Canadian Alliance believes that the federal
government should be focused and streamlined, that we should end
wasteful spending and that patronage should not exist. Grants
and giveaways by the federal government should not exist and
should certainly not be based on who are the friends of the
Liberal government.
1740
Our plan, to a large extent, would make my motion not necessary.
The basic personal deduction I am proposing should be doubled for
seniors over the age of 69. A Canadian Alliance government
would peg the deduction at $10,000 for every Canadian, including the
spousal exemption, which would end tax discrimination against
single income families. We would also provide a $3,000 deduction
for every child.
For example, a husband and wife with two children earning
$26,000 a year would pay zero tax. Our tax applied to income
above that level would be a single rate of 17%. If a family of
four was making $30,000 the total percentage of income tax they
would pay would be approximately 2% because they would pay the
17% only on the amount above their exemptions, which would be
$26,000. In other words, they would be taxed 17% of $4,000 or
about 2% of their overall income.
A further example is that the same family earning $100,000 would
pay 17% of $74,000, which would be the balance between their
exemption level and the $100,000 income level. That would come
to approximately 13% of their income.
Although it is a single rate of tax it is actually a graduated
scale. In the case of a family of four earning $26,000 or
$30,000 or $100,000, they would go from a rate of 0% to 2% to 13%
and so on as the income climbs.
It is a very fair and progressive system. It would deviate from
the regressive nature of the current tax system of the Liberals
which penalizes people for working overtime, working hard,
applying themselves and earning more money by bumping them into
higher rates of income tax.
Mr. Paul Szabo: It is called progressivity, not
regressivity.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: One of the rules of debate in the House
of Commons is not to be taken in by the heckling from the other
side, but I cannot let the comment go. I heard the hon. member
on the other side. Actually he has it backward. It is
regressive to start increasing the percentage of tax paid because
people are working harder.
I can tell a personal story. In the last federal election
campaign I visited the town of Humboldt. A few residents of that
town work in the potash mines, not that far away. An individual
told me he never works any more than one overtime shift per pay
period because it does not pay. That is exactly because of the
regressive nature of the tax system of the Liberal government.
The regressive approach is not restricted solely to the marginal
increased tax rates the government has in place but also applies to many
other rules, excise taxes, surtaxes and surcharges that the
Canadian Alliance would completely eliminate. It also applies to
the tax grab the government places on the retirement nest eggs of
seniors, which my motion would alleviate on behalf of Canada's
seniors.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to respond to the motion of the member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt asking that consideration be given by the
government to doubling the basic personal deduction for taxpayers
over age 69.
I checked the notice paper to get the wording and the member's
motion in fact says basic personal deduction. There is no such
thing in the Income Tax Act as a basic personal deduction. It is
called basic personal amount and it is a non-refundable tax
credit. On the basis of simply the wording of the motion and
with the words basic personal deduction in quotations in the
motion, it actually is out of order.
However, had the member had a look at the Income Tax Act, I
assume he would have got it correct. I will respond to the
member's motion as if he had referred to doubling the
non-refundable tax credit called the basic personal amount.
The purpose of Motion No. 305 is to provide additional tax
assistance to taxpayers over age 69 by doubling the basic
personal amount. I appreciate the hon. member's recommendation.
However I would point out that the government already provides special
tax recognition for seniors.
Furthermore, the government has reduced taxes substantially in
recent years for all Canadians, including seniors, and will
continue to do so as resources permit.
1745
Let me explain to the House why we should not support Motion No.
305. I would like to clarify to my colleagues that the purpose
of the basic personal credit, a non-refundable tax credit, is to
contribute to tax fairness by ensuring that Canadians earning
less than a basic amount do not pay tax. In addition, it is
important to note that the basic personal amount has been increased
each year since 1998.
As hon. members know, the 2000 budget proposed a five year tax
reduction plan. This plan provides real and lasting tax
reductions for Canadians to ensure that all taxpayers, including
seniors, will see their taxes reduced and an improvement in their
standard of living.
In particular, the five year tax reduction plan will increase
the amount that can be earned tax free by at least $8,000 by the
year 2004. The basic personal credit for the year 2000 is equal
to 17% of $7,231, which reduces federal taxes payable by $1,229.
Other measures outlined in this plan will benefit seniors. They
include: first, the reduction of the middle income tax rate to
23% from 26%, starting with a 2% reduction to 24% in July 2000,
which has already happened; second, increasing the amounts at
which the middle and top rates apply to at least $35,000 and
$70,000 respectively; and eliminating as of July 1, 2000 the 5%
deficit reduction surtax on middle income Canadians and
completely eliminating that surtax by 2004.
In addition, the five year tax reduction plan also restored full
indexation of the personal income tax system. In particular, the
tax reduction plan put an end to bracket creep by restoring full
indexation to the income tax system at the beginning of this
year. Of particular significance to Canadian seniors is the
indexation of the age credit, another non-refundable tax credit
available to seniors.
The five year tax reduction plan is the most significant tax cut
in 25 years. Let me make it clear that, while substantial, the tax
relief outlined in the five year tax reduction plan represents the
least, not the most, the government will do. Indeed, as
indicated by the hon. finance minister to the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Finance on June 8, 2000, the measures
outlined in the five year plan will be accelerated. Furthermore,
the government will explore new options for tax relief for all
Canadians, including seniors.
As I stated earlier, the personal Canadian income tax system
already has measures in place that provide special tax assistance
for seniors. There is the age credit, which was introduced to
reduce the tax burden supported by elderly Canadians. This is
the measure used to recognize the special circumstances of
seniors as it affects their ability to pay personal income taxes.
For the year 2000 the age credit provides a federal tax benefit
for those aged 65 and over equal to 17% of $3,531, which reduces
their federal taxes payable by up to $600. In order to target
the age credit to those seniors who are most in need, the credit
is reduced by 15% of individual net income in excess of $26,284
and is fully phased out once income reaches $49,824.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the House the
pension income credit. This is a 17% credit on up to $1,000 of
pension income, which provides additional protection against
inflation for the retirement income of elderly Canadians. The
government also provides significant tax assistance to help
people save for their retirement through registered retirement
savings plans, commonly referred to as RRSPs, and registered
pension plans, commonly referred to as RPPs. For these plans, the
tax owing on the contribution and investment income is deferred
until income is received out of those plans. In other words,
contributions are tax deductible and investment income is not
taxed as it accrues.
Federal revenue costs of tax assistance for savings, pension
plans and RRSPs were about $17.5 billion in 1998. This means
that if tax assistance for retirement savings did not exist,
taxpayers would have paid approximately $17.5 billion more in
taxes for that one year.
1750
Clearly the system of retirement savings represents a
significant benefit for individuals and helps to ensure that
seniors have adequate incomes in their retirement.
It is also important to recognize that in addition to tax
assistance, seniors have the opportunity to benefit from other
federal programs such as the old age security, the guaranteed
income supplement, and the Canada and Quebec pension plans. I
would emphasize that Canada's public pension system has
significantly improved the income position of seniors relative to
the working age population over the past several decades. From
1951 to 1997 the average incomes of seniors rose from 55% of that
of the working age population to over 81% of that of the working
age population. It is very significant.
A number of international organizations such as the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank have
concluded that Canada has one of the best retirement income
systems in the world.
There is no doubt that the government provides tax assistance in
recognition of the ability of seniors to pay income tax. In
addition, the recent tax reduction plan significantly reduces
taxes for all Canadians, including seniors. Combined with other
federal programs, the government directs significant resources to
help meet the needs of our seniors. The government is committed
to continuing to reduce the tax burden to all Canadians,
including seniors.
I will make reference to a couple of the member's comments about
the fact that our tax system is regressive. He said it a couple
of times. I noted for him that it was progressive. He
disagreed, saying that I had it totally reversed.
The member will know that progressivity in an income tax system
is something that is in every industrialized country in the
world. Progressivity means that the higher the income, the
higher the effective rate of taxation one pays and the more one
pays.
I asked the finance critic of the Canadian Alliance about
progressivity and why the flat tax proposal it announced today
would go to a single rate of x per cent. It will be the
same regardless of how much income one makes.
That to me is not progressivity. It means that we are to shift
the burden from high income earners to the rest of taxpayers.
Even though they would say we are to increase the basic personal
amount for some and reduce the number of taxpayers, all of a
sudden what it means, if they are to collect the same amount of
taxes and if high income earners get a big tax break, is that the
only place to make it up is to tax more heavily those in the
middle income categories.
If the member does not agree with that, he would also have to
admit that if about $17.5 billion of income tax revenue is to be
lost, the only way to make it up is to slash services and
programs that are assisting Canadians, including seniors. That
will be a big issue in the next election.
In fact, our current system is a progressive system. To reduce
it and to lower the burden for high income earners at the expense
of the low and middle income earners is in fact regressive. That
is the regressivity.
The member has it wrong. I would suggest to the member that not
only should he check the wording in his motion to make sure he
brings accurate information to the House, he should also look at
the reality of a single tax system which would take the income
tax revenue that the government gets from the highest income
earners in Canada and recover that either through income taxes or
through service fees charged to all Canadians at low and middle
income levels.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to take part in this debate on Motion No. 305, brought
forward by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, asking the
Government of Canada to immediately double the basic personal
deduction for taxpayers over the age of 69.
It certainly is an interesting and well intentioned suggestion,
since it is aimed at helping seniors maintain a good standard of
living in their old age. However, I think such a measure cannot
apply to all people over the age of 69 regardless of their
income.
1755
For the sake of social fairness, it is crucial that we set an
income limit over which this deduction would be pointless. We
could also think about a decreasing scale above the fixed
ceiling.
In a report entitled A Portrait of Seniors in Canada, Statistics
Canada indicates that the average income of single seniors
decreases somewhat in the older age groups. In 1997, the average
income from all sources for single seniors between age 65 and 69
was $21,400, compared to $19,500 for seniors 70 years of age and
older.
Seniors currently have access to three taxable public programs:
old age security, the Canada pension plan and régime des rentes
du Québec, and the guaranteed income supplement.
As in the overall population, single senior men have a
significantly higher income than single senior women. In 1997,
single men 65 years of age and older had an average income of
$24,300, almost $6,000 more than single senior women.
Also, the income of seniors varies from province to province. In
Ontario and western Canada, the income of seniors is higher than
in Quebec and especially in Atlantic Canada.
To double the basic personal deduction of taxpayers 65 years of
age and older would be very beneficial.
However, some seniors start cashing in their RRSPs at age 70.
What would this extra money do for our seniors? Not only on a
moral level would it be a sign of the state's gratefulness for
its aging population, but also on a financial level it would
provide a support seniors rightly deserve.
What about our senior citizens' expenses? In some cases they
have medical and related expenses. At long last we would live
in a society that would no longer be ungrateful to the senior
citizens who have greatly contributed to the system.
Let us not forget inflation. Senior citizens' incomes do not
keep up with price increases. It is wrong to believe that we
have fewer needs when we grow old. It is often said that senior
citizens spend less on food, clothing and entertainment.
This is wrong, since like the rest of the population, senior
citizens spend a significant part of their total budget on basic
necessities such as food, housing, clothing and transportation.
Speaking of housing, housing costs account for a sizeable
portion of the total expenses of senior citizens living on their
own. In 1997, they spent over one out of every four dollars on
housing. If we stay healthy, it is not our age but the lack of
money that will slow us down. This extra money could make life a
lot nicer for a number of our fellow citizens getting on in
age.
Senior citizens make a significant contribution to society
through their volunteer activities. A more generous basic
personal deduction could be seen as a reimbursement for the
indirect expenses incurred by elderly volunteers.
I am in favour of this motion, but the government should listen
to the representations the Bloc Quebecois has been making since
1993, namely, that the tax system should be entirely overhauled.
Such a reform should take those making less than $30,000 a year
off the tax roll. This proposal would help not only senior
citizens, but a whole category of our fellow citizens who cannot
make ends meet.
1800
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I could not help but listen to the member from the
Alliance when he talked about his motion. The first thing that
came to my mind was, will the real Alliance Party stand up?
The member talked about the initiative as helping seniors across
the country. I do not think we will find anybody in the Chamber
who is not committed to initiatives that will help seniors.
However, when I listened to the member I could not help but
wonder why his party did not want to help the largest portion of
seniors in terms of a national pharmacare program.
We have read study after study that talk about our aging
population and the fact that, as we all know, when we get older
unfortunately we have the need to access the health care system.
He talked about putting money back into the pockets of seniors. I
know that the seniors in my riding would really appreciate having
some assistance in paying for their drugs. In my part of the
country I have seniors who literally play Russian roulette in
choosing between taking medication or buying groceries. This
winter it will be about putting fuel in their tanks to heat their
homes.
The hon. member talked about spending on frivolous programs. Is
the Alliance saying that medicare is a frivolous program or that
the Canada pension program is a frivolous program? It is
interesting to listen to the Alliance day after day. When we
look at some of the initiatives that have been put forth by the
Alliance over the last three years, there is one key thread that
continues to run through all of them and that is the divisiveness
which its initiatives cause in this country.
The member talks about seniors. Why not, as I said, support an
initiative that would help all seniors, not just some seniors?
Why not have an initiative to provide that anybody who makes
$15,000 or less does not have to pay income tax? That would
surely help an awful lot of seniors in my part of the country.
What we have is the Alliance again bringing forward initiatives
that will create division among various groups of our
population. We know all too well that once it creates division
the Alliance is very good at fueling that division.
It was interesting to note that the hon. member who spoke prior
to me said that men over 65 living alone actually make $6,000
more than women over 65 who live alone. Is the member for the
Alliance targeting men with his initiatives? If the member truly
believes that it is the responsibility of the Alliance to create
initiatives that help all seniors, why does his party not support
a national pharmacare program? Seniors across the country have
clearly indicated that they need it and they need it now. That
is clearly what would assist seniors to put money back into their
pockets.
I talked a number of times today about the legacy that the
government is leaving Canadians. We have 1.4 million children
living in poverty. We have a majority of seniors who worked hard
all of their lives with the hope that they could sit down, enjoy
life and smell the roses. However, seniors are being gouged
because they have to pay exorbitant prices for drugs which they
need to maintain breath in their bodies.
1805
What we have seen from the member from the Alliance Party is an
initiative that clearly will cause division within the groups in
our society. If the member is really committed to helping
seniors put money back into their pockets, then I ask the member
and his party to support a national pharmacare program that will
do exactly what the member says he would like to do.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want
the hon. member from the NDP party to know that there is no
question that we would certainly support a pharmacare program.
When I was a councillor back in 1977, the mayor of the day was
Samuel Davis. He was the first and only Jewish gentleman to be
mayor in Saint John. Samuel said to me “Elsie, I want you to go
out to east Saint John. There's a meeting out there. They're
calling it the seniors' club”. He said he did not know what it
meant but he wanted me to go. I was not a senior then but off I
went.
When I walked into the meeting I was really impressed with the
seniors who were there. They said they wanted to get seniors
involved. They wanted to get seniors who were lonely and living
alone involved as well. They started their first club and today
there are 34 seniors' clubs in my riding of Saint John, New
Brunswick. We have brought the seniors out. A lot of them do
not need medication now because they have friends, they get
involved and they are busy. However, there is no question that
they some need help.
This motion calls on the federal government to double the basic
personal deduction for Canadian taxpayers over the age of 69. All
of us in the House recognize that with a rapidly ageing
population, Canada is faced with the challenge of ensuring that
our senior citizens are able to live out their retirement years
in dignity. The word dignity means an awful lot.
Studies show that approximately 70% of elderly Canadians are
dependent on public pension plans. It should also be noted that
in 1997, 662,000 Canadians aged 65 and over had incomes below
Statistics Canada's low income cut-offs. In the same year, 45%
of seniors aged 65 and over and living alone were considered
to have low incomes compared with only 7% of seniors who lived
with their families.
According to Statistics Canada, the average income of seniors across
Canada is just a little over $20,000. I want everyone
here tonight to think about that. Could we live on $20,000?
How would we manage? How would we make out? No, members
certainly could not do it, and seniors have a most difficult time
with it.
The OAS, the old age security program, accounts for the largest
part of seniors' incomes at 29%. This is followed by CPP, 21%;
retirement pensions, 20%; non-RRSP investment, 11.6%; and
employment income, 7.6%. Meanwhile, 60% of the after tax income
of seniors goes toward the basic necessities such as food,
shelter, clothing and transportation. There is very little left
for someone who is renting an apartment. They do not live in
luxury.
The bottom line here is seniors. Like other segments of the
population they pay too much tax. Something must be done, not
only for our seniors but for all Canadian taxpayers regardless of
their age.
1810
Canada continues to have the highest personal income tax rates
in the G-7. Federal budgetary revenues are at record levels in
Canada: $155.6 billion in fiscal year 1998-99, up 34% since
1993-94. Meanwhile personal income tax revenues were $72.5
billion in 1998-99, up from $51.4 billion in 1993-94. That is a
41% increase since the Liberals took power in 1993 despite the
fact that Canada's real GDP grew by just 15% over the same period
of time, so we know that it was increased taxes.
Although the Liberal government claims to be reducing taxes, it
continues to increase CPP contributions. In the past year alone
CPP premiums have increased by 40 cents.
We can and should do more for Canadians, including our seniors.
However, the current government has difficulty in organizing its
priorities. It chooses to carry out an agenda of wasteful
government spending. We need only to ask the Auditor General of
Canada about that. The people of Canada should look at his
reports.
With respect to the motion before us today, the PC Party
believes that the basic personal exemption, the BPE, can and
should be increased, not only for those over 69 but for all
Canadians. We have proposed that the BPE should be increased
from its current level of $7,131 to $12,000. This can be done
over a five year period and will remove 2.5 million Canadians
from the tax rolls. Many of them are seniors and a lot of them
are families in need.
I have to say I will never ever forget what Mr.
Mykytyshyn said about our people back home. I come from Canada's
first city incorporated by royal charter, a city that built the country.
Those people moved from Saint John right across the country and
built it. I have to say that a lot of those people from the maritime
provinces who are in Alberta were really hurt when Mr. Mykytyshyn
made his statements. They said “We are out here building
Alberta for heaven's sake, but we are from the maritimes”. These
are the Canadians who can least afford to pay income tax yet are
currently forced to do so.
This would result in taxpayers saving as much as $1,200
annually. Furthermore we have also suggested in our task force
report on poverty that the value of the age credit be initially
increased by $170 by raising the amount on which it is based to
$4,482, providing much needed relief for our aging population.
The task force on poverty went out west.
It went into central Canada. It went into Quebec. It went right
across the nation from Newfoundland right through to B.C. There
is poverty in all of the provinces.
Canadians deserve tax fairness. The reform alliance party needs
to take some time to understand that concept. Its 17% flat tax
proposal really is not a flat tax. It would give millionaires a
$135,000 tax break while people, such as the seniors we are
talking about today, making $20,000 would get an $895 tax break.
It is not exactly tax fairness. Perhaps the member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt should tell his constituents what his party's
plan would really offer.
That being said, the PC Party does not support the motion as it
is written. We believe that all members of society, not just
a little select group, deserve a tax break.
The reality is that the current annual cost to provide benefits
to the elderly is $24 billion for the federal government alone
and it is expected to triple over the next three decades.
1815
I have raised my personal concerns on more than one occasion in
the House about the ability of senior citizens to pay the ever
increasing cost of heating their homes. Those seniors who live
in residence or in apartments will likely have to move because there
will be an increase in their rents. Those seniors who continue
to live in their own little houses will certainly see an increase
in their heating costs unless the government does something to
assist them.
Senior citizens on tightly fixed incomes do not have the
flexibility to cope with soaring oil prices. I do not believe
that anyone in the House will deny the potential for an extremely
cold winter this year. I do not feel that the way to treat
grandparents and veterans—and our veterans are all seniors in
this nation—is to leave them out in the cold.
As I have stated here tonight, Canadians of all ages are in need
of tax relief.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As is the custom,
the mover of the motion will have the last five minutes of the
debate. After he has spoken the debate will be terminated.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, first, I must say that the Liberal member who
followed my speech delivered his speech in a very patronizing and
arrogant manner. I know he referred to the basic personal amount
which I referred to as a deduction. However, everybody knows we
have casual discussions in coffee shops and along hallways. In
fact one of the members of another party referred to it as the
basic personal exemption or the basic personal amount. He was
just playing word games and semantics and avoiding the issue. Not
only was he avoiding the issue, he completely missed my point and
referred to the Canadian Alliance plan for a single rate tax as a
flat tax.
The member was sitting there when I gave my speech. I do not
know whether he was daydreaming but I gave a clear example of a
family of four. I explained that under the Canadian Alliance
plan, a family of four earning $26,000 a year would pay an
effective rate of zero per cent. If they earned $30,000 they
would pay 2%. If they earned $100,000 they would pay 13%. That
of course would continue to escalate up to 17% the higher their
income went.
The member talked about progressivity versus regressivity and
which is which. It is really interesting to note that the
Liberals have a tax system in place that penalizes hard work and
overtime. The more money a worker makes the more tax he or she
pays, not on a graduated scale, as the Canadian Alliance is
proposing, but on a percentage basis. That is regressive but the
Liberals say that is progressive. Talk about word games.
Another thing the member said was that in order to do what we
are proposing we would be shifting the tax burden from high
income earners and putting it on middle income earners. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Our plan would remove 1.4
million low income Canadians right off the tax rolls and would
lower taxes for everybody.
The hon. member hypothesizes that it would not be possible to
provide tax cuts to one income bracket group without burdening
another, but the fact of the matter is that we will do this by
simply cutting government waste and ending wasteful programs.
I could sit here all day and give examples of those programs:
the regional economic development program, the job creation
program, the grants and giveaways, the subsidization of crown
corporations, and the list goes on. Perhaps the most prominent
example is the fiasco and scandalous loss of a billion dollars by
the human resources development minister.
Nonetheless, the point of my motion was to draw attention to the
fact that the tax system as it exists is very convoluted and
unfair. It is regressive.
The Canadian Alliance plan would not only make the tax system
progressive, it would make the tax system much more simple and
much more fair.
1820
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of private members' business has now
expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable
item, the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on June 13, I asked the justice
minister a question which she refused to answer.
On behalf of my constituents, I sincerely hope that after almost
four months she has been able to find the courage to tell
Canadians the truth about her badly bungled gun registry and how
much it has cost taxpayers. For the benefit of the minister, I
will repeat my original question.
In 1995 the justice minister tabled a document entitled
“Financial Framework for Bill C-68” that projected a deficit of
$2.2 million over five years for implementation of the gun
registration scheme. It is now five years later and the minister
has collected less than $17 million in user fees and the deficit
is more than $300 million. That is 150 times larger than the
deficit first projected.
Who is responsible for this huge waste of money, the previous
minister's ridiculous estimate or the current minister's
mismanagement of the scheme?
In my supplementary question I asked the minister about the cost
of her latest advertising blitz and the firearms outreach
program. She ducked that question too, spouting statistics about
refused and revoked licences and blocked sales of legally owned
guns, all this while the minister knows full well that taxpayers
did not need a half a billion dollar gun registry to achieve
these results. All that was really needed was better
administration of the 20 year old FAC program. As if we needed
more proof, in 1999 the United States blocked 160,000 gun sales
and it does not even have a gun registry.
Will the minister please provide us with a cost benefit analysis
of her gun registry program? Will the minister please explain
how requiring the registration of grampa's shotgun helps to
generate these bogus blocked gun sales statistics? Will the
minister please explain how she is preventing these now
potentially dangerous gun owners from acquiring firearms
illegally from the nearest Indian reserve?
Just last week I received a response to an access to information
request from the minister's department. Her bureaucrats failed
to provide any information about the costs of her firearms
outreach program as I had requested. The minister's bureaucrats
did provide enough statistics, however, to prove her firearms
outreach program was another fantastic flop in a five year series
of firearms flops.
Documents show that the justice minister's plan was to process
1.4 million licence applications this summer. In fact the
department's own website reveals it received less than 300,000
applications and processed only 102,000 firearms licence
applications.
Will the minister tell Canadians how much her outreach program
and ad campaign cost taxpayers and explain why the program was
such a dismal failure?
The minister's departmental website also reveals a bigger
problem than the waste of half a billion dollars of public money.
As of September 2, 2000, her bureaucrats had issued only 286,000
firearms licences in the last 21 months, an average of 13,630 per
month, and 339,000 licence applications were in processing
or in backlog.
At its current rate of production, it will take the Department
of Justice more than two years to get rid of this backlog and 12
more years to process the licences from the remaining two million
gun owners. The government's very low estimates still have not
even been applied. The minister's impossible deadline is now
less than three months away.
Finally, the Minister of Justice still refuses to provide this
year's budget for the Canadian firearms program operated by her
department. The minister's minions are even stonewalling
investigations from the Information Commissioner of Canada.
Sources close to the minister tell us that the gun registry has
already cost taxpayers $260 million this year and will exceed
$300 million by the end of March 2001. Will the justice minister
tell Canadians what she is trying to hide?
1825
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has not been shirking any of its responsibility
concerning this major public safety initiative.
Canadians overwhelmingly share our vision and support this
important program. We now have more than 1.1 million Canadians
who hold or who have applied for licences under the legislation.
More than 1.6 million firearms are registered. Since December 1,
1998, more than 929 licence applications have been refused for
public safety concerns. As well, 1,182 licences have been
revoked from individuals deemed not to be eligible to hold a
licence because they pose a safety risk. The number of
revocations is over 20 times higher than the total of the
previous five years.
We cannot talk about the costs of this program without talking
about the benefits. The benefits of this program represent an
investment of $2 per Canadian for the past five years.
The costs of the firearms program are subject to the same kinds
of review and scrutiny as any other government program. The
government is accepting its responsibilities, including its
financial accountability. It would be refreshing if the members
opposite opposing this valuable legislation would accept their
responsibility for playing a positive role respecting the public
safety of all Canadians.
We have an aggressive program in place to deal with providing
enhanced service to Canadian firearms owners. Elements of this
include the following services. We have been providing face to
face assistance to help people complete their applications for
licensing. We have dramatically simplified our forms. We have
implemented processing and system efficiencies throughout to
provide better service to Canadians more quickly. We have
enhanced our call centre services to provide better and faster
individualized assistance.
At the same time as we are providing better service to firearms
owners we are providing better public safety to all Canadians. We
are now able to do background checks before any legitimate
firearms sale can proceed.
As of the end of September, over 7,770 potentially dangerous gun
sales were the subject of additional scrutiny. In these cases
people with histories of violence, break and enter, theft or drug
involvement or people who were trying to acquire guns that they
were not licensed to purchase were the subject of additional
checks.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I spoke today on the EI bill, Bill C-44, which is quite
clearly a vote buying piece of legislation when we look at what
the government is really doing, which is practically nothing
compared to the suffering of people who have been affected by the
Liberal government's 1996 cuts to unemployment insurance.
I know I only have four minutes so I will never get to
everything that I want to say, but before I go into that it is
important to look back at why I am a member of parliament in the
House of Commons today and to look at what really happened.
In 1993 the Liberal government campaigned that it would be
helping workers in rural Canada, that it would be helping to
develop those regions and would make life easier for those
people, like the Prime Minister said when he campaigned in
Beauséjour and told seasonal workers that they were not being
treated fairly in those days. Surprise, surprise. I wonder what
happened once he got elected.
Once the Prime Minister was elected he introduced all kinds of
legislation in the House. The bill that was absolutely
unacceptable was the one regarding the unemployment insurance
program. I am sure there are Liberal members on the other side
who do not agree with what took place in 1996, but they were
silent then. At the time in Atlantic Canada 31 out of 32 MPs
were Liberal MPs. With 31 MPs on the government side, the
government was able to pass a piece of legislation that out of
the whole country most affected Atlantic Canadians. The 31 MPs
were totally silent. They closed their eyes and supported their
government. They did not care about the people of Atlantic
Canada.
I started to listen to what was happening. I thought, there is
something wrong here. We have an elected member of parliament on
the government side. He is there. He has been an elected member
for a long time. He actually stepped down and gave his place to
the Prime Minister. The riding voted for him and gave him a one
way ticket to Ottawa. I thought, why are those same people being
punished for electing the Prime Minister and giving him his one
way ticket to Ottawa.
I started questioning the MP. I asked him if he were not
concerned. He indicated that they were abusing the system and
that the system would have to be changed because there was too
much abuse.
He was saying this about the same people who were voting for him.
I walked out of his office and I thought, my God, I have been
voting for the wrong man all this time. He has no interest in
defending my interests and the interests of the riding.
1830
That is when I got involved and started to have public meetings.
I organized coalitions. I told people that we had a problem,
that we had elected a member of parliament whose sole interest in
government was self-interest and that was it. I am not saying
every member of the government is bad, because I know there are
very nice people on that side, but he was our member of
parliament and he should have been defending our interests and
that did not happen.
What happened on June 2, 1999? The people asked me to run
because actually I had been representing them for the last three
years. Too many people were suffering and they asked me to run.
I was a seasonal worker and I was going to run in an election. I
could not imagine it would happen.
I am sure my time is almost over, but what I want to say is that
people in Atlantic Canada are tired. They are not for sale. The
bill will not buy their votes. They voiced their opinion on June
2, 1999. I will make sure that Atlantic Canadians, people from
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, be they from Albert county, Kent county
or Westmorland, remember what the Liberals did to them in 1996.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure
there is a question in the comment made by the member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, but there are a few things I can clarify.
First of all, Bill C-44, which was introduced by the Minister of
Human Resources Development, is designed to help people. This
bill is the result of the program evaluation process that took
place in the maritime provinces and across Canada.
This process made us realize that we had to make some
adjustments to help workers across Canada.
Bill C-44 brings necessary changes to the employment insurance
program, changes that will benefit seasonal workers and millions
more in Canada.
For example, the bill proposes the elimination of the intensity
rule because it has not been effective and because, according to
many, it is just a punitive measure. That is the first answer I
can give the member.
Communities that depend on seasonal work will benefit from this
new measure as they will benefit from other measures proposed in
the bill.
I would like to add one basic element, namely, long term
solutions. The government is looking for long term solutions.
Solutions to the problems of seasonal workers call for more than
what the employment insurance program can provide.
It is hard to say this, but it is the truth, because the
solutions will require better co-operation among governments,
businesses, community leaders and individuals so that we can
improve job opportunities.
We know life is not easy in several regions of Canada, but that
is something we have to really work on.
Gilbert Dumont is the chairman of the local committee on
employment insurance in Charlevoix, a region in Quebec that
relies a lot on seasonal work. On September 13, he said “We must
look for lasting solutions to the unemployment problem in our
region, instead of relying on employment insurance”.
He is right, and as I said earlier, in partnership with
communities and businesses, we can solve this problem, which is
a concern not only for the hon. member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac but also for the government.
[English]
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
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.)